Opinions of the United
1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-18-1997
Suber v. Chrysler Corporation
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 95-5735
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997
Recommended Citation
"Suber v. Chrysler Corporation" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 41.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/41
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
95-5735
JAMES SUBER,
Appellant
v.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
v.
KONTINENTAL KOACHES,INC., a/k/a and d/b/a
KONTINENTAL KONVERSIONS,
Third-party defendant
CHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Third-party plaintiff
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
D.C. Civ. No. 94-cv-00467
Argued: July 25, 1996
Before: BECKER, STAPLETON, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges*
(Opinion Filed: January 16, 1997)
(Order Filed: February 18, 1997)
ROBERT M. SILVERMAN, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)
*
The Honorable Paul R. Michel, United States Circuit Judge
for the Federal Judicial Circuit, sitting by designation.
Cynthia M. Certo, Esquire
Kimmel & Silverman
630 Sentry Park
Suite 310
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Counsel for Appellant
KEVIN M. MCKEON, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin
Three Greentree Center
Suite 304
Marlton, NJ 08053-3405
Counsel for Appellee
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
The opinion in the above-captioned case is hereby amended as
follows:
1. Insert a footnote on page 10, at the end of the second
full paragraph ending with:
See N.J.S.A. 56:12-42 (“In any action by a consumer against
a manufacturer brought in Superior Court or in the
division pursuant to the provisions of this act, a
prevailing consumer shall be awarded reasonable
attorney’s fees, fees for expert witnesses and
costs.”).
that reads:
N.J.S.A. 56:12-42 on its face authorizes attorneys’
fees and costs only in actions brought in the New
Jersey Superior Court or in the Division of Consumer
Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety, and
thus does not explicitly provide for payment of
attorneys’ fees and costs in an action brought in
federal court. But Chrysler has not contended that
attorneys’ fees would not be available in this action,
and we have not located any cases that so hold. The
district court must also consider this question on
remand.
2. Insert a footnote on page 10 of the slip opinion, third
full paragraph, after sentence stating:
“Because we have concluded that it is conceivable that
Suber’s van is a ‘total lemon,’ we agree that Suber is
entitled to include the entire sticker price of the van
in the amount in controversy.”
that reads:
Under N.J.S.A. 56:12-32, the plaintiff must return the
vehicle to the manufacturer in order to receive payment
of any damages awarded. The parties have not briefed
the question whether the amount in controversy should,
accordingly, be reduced to account for the value of the
vehicle when it is returned, nor have they presented
any record evidence regarding the value of Suber’s van,
and so we leave this question to the district court
upon remand.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward R. Becker
Edward R. Becker
Circuit Judge
Suber v. Chrysler Corporation
Combined Opinion