Unpublished Opinions for the Week of September 26, 2016

11-3-1362 Prestige Petroleum Corp. v. Ramsey Auto. Serv., (Law Div.) (Bergen Cnty.) (Polifroni, P.J. Cv.) (11 pp.) In this breach of contract action, plaintiff alleged that it entered into a binding dealer agreement and an extension agreement for the sale of petroleum products with defendant Greenwood, wherein Greenwood agreed to purchase a minimum quantity of petroleum products each month/year from plaintiff, and that Greenwood signed a “personal guarantee” to guarantee his individual performance. However, Greenwood then sold his business to defendants United and Kumar, who ceased purchasing petroleum products from plaintiff when they sold the gas station. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was granted in part. Defendants then moved for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The court granted defendants’ motion, holding that no reasonable juror could find that Greenwood, United and Kumar were liable for breach of the agreements or that they were liable for plaintiff’s purported lost profits as a result of the alleged breach. The court found, among other things, that the court had already rejected plaintiff’s contention that Greenwood was obligated to comply with the contracts after the sale of the station because he never obtained a release of his obligations from plaintiff by dismissing plaintiff’s claim of liability pursuant to the guarantee allegedly signed by Greenwood. Also, United and Kumar complied with the agreements until they sold the station, and no reasonable jury could find that they were obligated to continue purchasing petroleum products pursuant to the agreements after the station was sold. As to plaintiff’s claim that defendants were liable for failing to purchase the minimum amount specified in the agreements, the court found that plaintiff had never sought to enforce that provision, its enforcement was prohibited by New Jersey’s Uniform Commercial Code under the circumstances, and, moreover, the parties had struck from the agreements the provision entitling plaintiff to seek monetary damages, and to permit plaintiff to claim default and seek damages pursuant to a paragraph that was stricken from the contract would be inequitable and against controlling law. [Filed Sept. 2, 2016]

03-2-1375 Bowman v. Raymours Furniture Co. Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Pursuant to defendant’s employment arbitration program, plaintiff, a customer-care coordinator, filed a demand for arbitration with JAMS, alleging that she was subjected to unlawful discrimination and retaliation. JAMS declined to arbitrate because the 180-day limitations period for claims in defendant’s program was inconsistent with its minimum standards. Defendant then filed a demand for arbitration with AAA, which agreed to administer the case. Plaintiff filed suit alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Law Against Discrimination. The court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration before AAA and plaintiff appealed. The panel affirmed, finding that whether defendant violated the agreement and waived its right to arbitration was a claim that should be decided by the arbitrator. The Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture, 225 N.J. 343 (2016), which held that the 180-day period to file claims in defendant’s program was unenforceable as applied to the LAD claims. On the remand, the panel affirmed. It found that the unenforceable 180-day provision should be severed from the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and that the action that defendant previously took to enforce that provision did not constitute a waiver of its right to arbitrate nor were its actions inconsistent with that right.