Gregory Bohus v. Restaurant.Com Inc

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 14-3316

_____________

GREGORY BOHUS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES

AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED;

LARISSA SHELTON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES

AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

v.

RESTAURANT.COM, INC.

Gregory Bohus; Larissa Shelton

Appellants

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 3-10-cv-00824)

District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano

_______________

Argued on February 12, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and VANASKIE,

Circuit Judges.

(Filed: April 30, 2015)

_______________

Katrina Carroll, Esq.

Lite, DePalma, Greenberg

211 West Wacker Dr.

Chicago, IL 60606

Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. [ARGUED]

Lite, DePalma, Greenberg

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, NJ 07102

Christopher J. McGinn, Esq.

79 Paterson St.

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.

Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.

The Wolf Law Firm

1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101

North Brunswick, NJ 08902

Counsel for Appellants

Michael R. McDonald, Esq. [ARGUED]

Caroline E. Oks, Esq.

Damian V. Santomauro, Esq.

Jennifer M. Thibodaux, Esq.

Gibbons

One Gateway Center

Newark, NJ 07102

Counsel for Appellee

2

_______________

OPINION

_______________

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

Larissa Shelton and Gregory Bohus (the “Plaintiffs”)

appeal from an order of the United States District Court for

the District of New Jersey dismissing their putative class

action suit against Restaurant.com. A total of five prior

opinions have been issued in this case by, variously, the

District Court, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and our

Court. See Shelton v. Restaurant.com (Shelton V), No.

CIV.A. 10-824 JAP, 2014 WL 3396505 (D.N.J. July 10,

2014); Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc. (Shelton IV), 543 F.

App’x 168 (3d Cir. 2013); Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc.

(Shelton III), 70 A.3d 544 (N.J. 2013); Shelton v.

Restaurant.com, Inc. (Shelton II), No. 10-2980, 2011 WL

10844972 (3d Cir. May 17, 2011); Shelton v. Restaurant.com,

Inc. (Shelton I), No. CIV. A 10-0824 (JAP), 2010 WL

2384923 (D.N.J. June 15, 2010). But the end, one may hope,

is finally near. We will reverse and remand for entry of

judgment solely in favor of the named plaintiffs.

3

I. Background1

The Plaintiffs purchased gift certificates from

Restaurant.com that allegedly violated several New Jersey

statutes. Restaurant.com sells gift certificates online that

“provide a credit for the holder for purchases of food and

beverages at the restaurant named on the certificate.” Shelton

IV, 543 F. App’x at 169. “[T]he amount paid does not always

coincide with the face amount of the certificate.” Id. at 169

n.2. The gift certificate may contain conditions imposed by

the restaurant, “such as prohibiting the use of a certificate on

weekends or for the purchase of alcoholic beverages.”

Shelton III, 70 A.3d at 547. Substantially all gift certificates

issued by Restaurant.com since April 4, 2006 – including the

gift certificates purchased by the Plaintiffs – share the

following characteristics:

Each certificate displayed on its face various

restaurant-specific conditions in addition to

standard terms and conditions imposed by

Restaurant.com. Two standard terms and

conditions on the … certificates were the

following: 1) the certificate “[e]xpires one (1)

year from date of issue, except in California and

where otherwise provided by law[,]” and 2) the

1

Because we are reviewing the District Court’s ruling

on a motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we accept all well-pleaded

allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable

inferences in favor of the non-moving parties, the Plaintiffs.

Pearson v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 775 F.3d 598, 604 (3d Cir.

2015).

4

certificate is “[v]oid to the extent prohibited by

law.”

Id. at 547-48 (alterations in original).

The Plaintiffs filed a purported class action against

Restaurant.com in New Jersey state court, and the case was

later removed to federal court on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. Id. at 548. The class has not been certified. The

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges two claims: in Count I, violations

of the New Jersey Gift Certificate Statute, N.J. Stat. Ann.

§ 56:8-110, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.

Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1 et seq.; and, in Count II, violations of the

Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act

(“TCCWNA”), id. §§ 56:12-14 to 12-18. The New Jersey

Gift Certificate Statue prohibits gift certificates from expiring

within 24 months of the date of sale, id. § 56:8-110(a)(1), and

the Consumer Fraud Act provides a cause of action for

violations of the Gift Certificate Statute, id. §§ 56:8-11, 8-

112. The TCCWNA prohibits giving notice to a consumer or

offering or entering into any written consumer contract that

violates any clearly established consumer right or seller

responsibility. Id. § 56:12-15. The TCCWNA also provides

that any notice or consumer contract that states that any of its

provisions are or may be void, unenforceable, or inapplicable

in some jurisdictions must also specify “which provisions are

or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State

of New Jersey.” Id. § 56:12-16. The TCCWNA authorizes

“the aggrieved consumer” to recover “a civil penalty of not

less than $100.00 or … actual damages, or both at the election

of the consumer, together with reasonable attorney’s fees and

court costs.” Id. § 56:12-17.

5

The District Court initially granted a motion to dismiss

for failure to state a claim. As to the first count, the Court

concluded that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege any

ascertainable loss, as is required under relevant state law.

Shelton I, 2010 WL 2384923, at *4. As to the second count,

the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs were not consumers

within the meaning of the TCCWNA because the gift

certificates they purchased were not “money, property or

service[s],” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:12-15, but provided only “a

contingent right to a discount.” Shelton I, 2010 WL 2384923,

at *5. We ultimately affirmed the dismissal of the first count,

Shelton IV, 543 F. App’x at 169-70, but before resolving

Plaintiffs’ challenge to the dismissal of the second count, we

certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of

New Jersey:

1. Does the TCCWNA apply to both tangible

and intangible property, or is its scope limited

to only tangible property?

2. Does the purchase of a gift certificate, which

is issued by a third-party internet vendor, and is

contingent, i.e., subject to particular conditions

that must be satisfied in order to obtain its face

value, qualify as a transaction for “property ...

which is primarily for personal, family or

household purposes” so as to come within the

definition of a “consumer contract” under

section 15 of the TCCWNA?

Shelton II, 2011 WL 10844972, at *4. The Supreme Court of

New Jersey accepted the certification but reformulated the

questions as follows:

6

1. Whether Restaurant.com’s coupons, which

were issued to plaintiffs and redeemable at

particular restaurants, constitute “property”

under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer

Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, N.J.S.A.

56:12-14 to -18;

2. If the coupons constitute “property,” whether

they are “primarily for personal, family or

household purposes,” N.J.S.A. 56:12-15; [and]

3. Whether the sale of the coupons by

Restaurant.com to plaintiffs constituted a

“written consumer contract,” or whether the

coupons “gave or displayed any written

consumer warranty, notice, or sign,” under

N.J.S.A. 56:12-15.

Shelton III, 70 A.3d at 549 (alteration in original).

The New Jersey Supreme Court then determined in a

thorough and carefully crafted opinion – Shelton III – that the

term “property” as used in the TCCWNA encompasses

intangible property such as the gift certificates issued by

Restaurant.com, id. at 554, 558-59, that the gift certificates

were primarily for personal, family, or household purposes,

id. at 555, 558-59, that the sale of the gift certificates

constituted a written consumer contract, id. at 556, 559, and

that the terms listed on the gift certificates constituted notice,

id. at 558-59. In sum, the court concluded, “The statute as

drafted … covers the certificates in question.” Id. at 559.

7

Next, we vacated the District Court’s dismissal of the

TCCWNA count and remanded for further proceedings

consistent with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s explication

of the law in Shelton III. Shelton IV, 543 F. App’x at 171.

Upon remand, Restaurant.com again filed a motion to

dismiss, arguing that Shelton III should apply only

prospectively. The District Court agreed. It acknowledged

that decisions are ordinarily applied retroactively under New

Jersey law. But it concluded that retroactive application was

inappropriate here because Shelton III established a new rule

of law by resolving an issue of first impression, and

retroactive application would yield substantial inequitable

results. The District Court acknowledged the fact-sensitive

nature of its analysis of the equities, but it rejected the

Plaintiffs’ argument that an evidentiary record was needed to

reach a decision. It instead decided that, because the

Plaintiffs “have not suffered any actual, non-theoretical

damages” (App. at 12) – in fact, there was “no allegation that

Plaintiffs were unable to enjoy the bargained-for discounts at

the third-party restaurants that they selected” – they should

not be entitled to “windfall statutory damages and attorneys’

fees.” (Id. at 13.) In the District Court’s view, “common

sense” dictated that the many “unsuspecting companies” that

would be subject to the new law should be given a chance to

change their conduct before being exposed to “extraordinary

statutory penalties.” (Id. at 11.) In such a situation, the

District Court concluded, even limited retroactive application

to the plaintiffs in this case would be inequitable.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed the District Court’s

order.

8

II. Discussion2

The Plaintiffs raise three main arguments challenging

the District Court’s retroactivity ruling. First, as a

preliminary matter, they argue that the Supreme Court of

New Jersey has already conducted a retroactivity analysis and

determined that its decision was to apply to the parties in this

case, and hence we need not revisit the issue. Alternatively,

they suggest that we certify the question of retroactivity to the

Supreme Court of New Jersey. Second, they argue that the

question of retroactivity need not even arise because the rule

announced in Shelton III is not new. Finally, they argue that

even if the rule announced in Shelton III is new, the District

Court should have applied the general rule that litigants who

bring about a change or clarification in the law are entitled to

the benefit of that new rule. We consider each of those

arguments in turn.

A. Whether Shelton III Addressed Retroactivity

As just noted, the Plaintiffs contend that Shelton III

already determined the retroactive effect to be accorded that

decision, and that, if not, we should certify the issue of

2

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(d)(2)(A); we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We exercise plenary review over a dismissal under

Rule 12(b)(6). Pearson, 775 F.3d at 601. When a district

court dismisses on the basis of an affirmative defense, as is

the case here, we will affirm only when the defense is

“apparent on the face of the complaint” and documents relied

on in the complaint. Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d

Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

9

retroactivity to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The

Plaintiffs correctly observe that Shelton III contains several

passages that suggest the Supreme Court of New Jersey was

applying its ruling to the parties before it. For example, when

it reformulated the questions of law that we certified, it

phrased each new question in terms of whether

“Restaurant.com’s coupons” fell within the relevant statutory

terms. Shelton III, 70 A.3d at 549. Similarly, it stated that its

“task [was] to define ‘property’ in order to determine whether

the certificates offered by Restaurant.com are within the

scope of the TCCWNA,” id. at 550, “whether the certificates

offered by Restaurant.com qualify as property ‘which is

primarily for personal, family or household purposes,’” id. at

554, and “whether the coupons or certificates issued by

Restaurant.com to plaintiffs are ‘written consumer

contract[s]’ or whether the coupons ‘gave or displayed any

written consumer warranty, notice or sign,’” id. at 555.

Although the court concluded its opinion with a generic

summary of its legal rulings, id. at 558-59, it followed that

summary with the following case-specific language:

Thus, plaintiffs can properly be considered

“consumers” within the scope of the TCCWNA

because the certificates acquired by them

through the Restaurant.com website are

property primarily for personal, family, or

household purposes. Further, in construing the

plain language of the terms of the TCCWNA

and the Act’s relationship to the Plain Language

Act, we conclude the certificates purchased

from Restaurant.com can be considered

“consumer contracts[,]” and the standard terms

10

provided on the certificates can be considered

“notices” subject to the TCCWNA.

Id. at 559. In other words, the court stated, “The statute as

drafted … covers the certificates in question.” Id.

While Shelton III spoke in terms of the TCCWNA’s

application to Restaurant.com, nothing in that opinion

expressly addresses the issue of retroactivity. None of New

Jersey’s cases on retroactivity are cited, nor is the test for

departing from the general rule of retroactivity mentioned.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs argue that, to the extent Shelton

III is silent as to its retroactive effect, its intent is clear and we

should presume that the Supreme Court of New Jersey meant

for its interpretation of the TCCWNA to be retroactive.

New Jersey law suggests that any appellate opinion

that considers remedial issues in the course of its analysis, or

remands for consideration of such issues, ordinarily

contemplates retroactive application to the parties in that case.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey adopted that approach

when it addressed one of its cases that had been reviewed by

the United States Supreme Court:

Although the [United States] Supreme Court’s

opinion is silent on the issue of retrospective

application, the remand to this Court to

determine severability and “for further

proceedings” carries with it the implicit

direction that we determine the relief

appropriate to the holding that the [legislation at

issue] is partially pre-empted. If the Court

conceived that its decision might apply only

11

prospectively, which would significantly affect

the remedy we must fashion, it is reasonable to

assume that the opinion would at least have

adverted to that possibility.

Exxon Corp. v. Hunt, 534 A.2d 1, 7 (N.J. 1987).

In the Plaintiffs’ view, that reasoning should guide us

here. But it cannot. That reasoning is sound when

applicable, but it is plainly not applicable in the context of an

opinion given on certification. The Supreme Court of New

Jersey was not called upon to directly fashion a remedy or

resolve the Plaintiffs’ case. Nor did it sit as an appellate

tribunal reviewing a decision of the federal courts and

remanding for a determination of the appropriate remedy.

See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 101 (1807)

(Marshall, C.J.) (defining appellate jurisdiction as “the

revision of a decision of an inferior court”); Marbury v.

Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 175 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.)

(“It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it

revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already

instituted … .”). As the New Jersey Supreme Court itself put

it in Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, “[t]he purpose of the

certification process is to answer the question of law

submitted pursuant to [New Jersey Rule of Court] 2:12A, not

to resolve … factual differences.” 912 A.2d 104, 108 (N.J.

2006). In Delta Funding, the court addressed how the facts of

that case interacted with the legal principles governing

arbitration agreements, id. at 111-12, but it clarified that it did

so in furtherance of its effort to “identify general principles of

New Jersey contract law that the Third Circuit and the

arbitrator can then apply to the agreement.” Id. at 110.

12

Certified questions should be such as to “control the

outcome of a case pending in the federal court.” L.A.R.

110.1; see also N.J. R. 2:12A-1 (providing that the Supreme

Court of New Jersey has authority to accept a certified

question from our court “if the answer may be determinative

of an issue in litigation pending in the Third Circuit”). But

there is a distinction between deciding a controlling legal

issue and resolving a dispute. In answering the certified

question, the Supreme Court of New Jersey was not applying

the law to the facts of this case in the sense that it was

resolving a dispute among litigants. That can only be done by

a court with jurisdiction over the dispute itself, and

jurisdiction, coupled with the mutual respect inherent in the

seeking and granting of certification of a controlling question

of law, circumscribes the opinion rendered. The Supreme

Court of Utah has insightfully provided a state-court

perspective on the process:

We routinely refer to surrounding facts and

circumstances not just to set the stage for our

resolution of questions certified by federal

courts, but also to illustrate the application of

our answer in the context of the case.

That is not to say that our opinion on

certification will itself resolve the underlying

federal case. The resolution of the parties’

competing claims and arguments will be up to

the federal courts, which of course retain

jurisdiction to decide this case under the law as

they see it. … Those courts retain the

independent authority to decide whether and to

13

what extent to apply our law or to recognize

limitations on or caveats to it.

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

v. Horne, 289 P.3d 502, 505-06 (Utah 2012) (Lee, J.)

(footnote and paragraph numbering omitted)); cf. Nemours

Found. v. Manganaro Corp., 878 F.2d 98, 101 (3d Cir. 1989)

(stating that an order of the district court certifying a question

to the Delaware Supreme Court “does not mean the effective

end of the federal litigation. Further proceedings, including

possibly a trial on the merits, will be held in the district court

after the Delaware Supreme Court either answers the certified

questions or declines to accept them.”). Thus, despite the

Plaintiffs’ insistence to the contrary, Shelton III could not and

did not adjudicate the question of retroactivity, and we doubt

that the New Jersey Supreme Court intended any such thing.

We also doubt the wisdom of returning to that court

with the question of retroactivity. We have already imposed

upon it once in this case, and it graciously answered our call

for help in clarifying the scope of the TCCWNA. We are no

longer faced with a “[n]ovel, unsettled question[] of state

law,” which is a prerequisite for certification. Arizonans for

Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 79 (1997).

Certification would be inappropriate here – indeed, it would

serve no purpose – because the requirements of New Jersey

law on the issue of retroactivity are clear. All that remains is

to apply them to the acknowledged facts. It appears that, in

essence, the Plaintiffs are attempting to escape the effect of

the removal of their case to federal court and would like to

have the Supreme Court of New Jersey adjudicate the matter.

They chose a state forum in the first instance, so their efforts

14

are perhaps understandable, but we are not free to shirk our

responsibility to decide what is properly before us.

B. New Rule

The Plaintiffs next challenge the District Court’s

determination that Shelton III established a new rule of law.

They argue that there was no old rule from which the court

could have departed; rather, the law was silent on the issue,

which, they say, prevents Shelton III from constituting a

“new” rule.

There is a ringing lack of logic in that assertion.

Things are commonly understood as “new” not only when

contrasted with something “old” but when they are, in

themselves, without precedent. Thus, while it is true that,

“[u]nless a new rule of law is at issue, the Court need not

engage in retroactivity analysis,” US Bank Nat’l Ass’n v.

Guillaume, 38 A.3d 570, 585 n.3 (N.J. 2012), it is not true

that a “new rule” only arises when it supplants an old one.

An opinion establishes a “new” rule “‘either by overruling

clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, … or

by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was

not clearly foreshadowed.’” Coons v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

(“Coons II”),3 476 A.2d 763, 768 (N.J. 1984) (omission in

original; emphasis added) (quoting Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson,

3

Coons II involved a rehearing of Coons v. American

Honda Motor Co. (“Coons I”), 463 A.2d 921 (N.J. 1983), to

revisit the retroactivity ruling of that earlier opinion. Because

New Jersey case law consistently uses the appellation “Coons

II” to refer to the later opinion, regardless of whether Coons I

has been discussed, we do the same.

15

404 U.S. 97, 106 (1971)); accord In re Contest of Nov. 8,

2011 Gen. Election of Office of N.J. Gen. Assembly, 40 A.3d

684, 707 (N.J. 2012). “Generally, an issue of statutory

construction that implicates an established practice and that

courts have not yet addressed presents an issue of first

impression.” Henderson v. Camden Cnty. Mun. Util. Auth.,

826 A.2d 615, 620 (N.J. 2003).

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Shelton

III was not foreshadowed by an unambiguous reading of the

text of the statute or by other state court decisions. As we

stated in our certification order, “The panel has examined the

decisions of the courts of the State of New Jersey and found

no decision that addresses the question of how the term

‘property’ is defined in the TCCWNA.” Shelton II, 2011 WL

10844972, at *1. We explained that only one case “addressed

the question of whether gift certificates were considered

property, and that case did not involve the TCCWNA,” nor

was there anything in that case from which we could “infer

what the Supreme Court of New Jersey would say regarding

the question of tangible and intangible property in the context

of the TCCWNA.” Shelton II, 2011 WL 10844972, at *3.

Furthermore, we noted that “the Legislature did not expressly

omit gift certificates from the types of property covered by

the TCCWNA,” and determining the import of that silence

was complicated by the fact that a separate act, the Gift

Certificate Act, “specifically addresses restrictions on gift

certificates.” Id. at *4. Nothing in Shelton III contradicts our

earlier assessment. Because the rule announced in Shelton III

was not foreshadowed by the case law or an unambiguous

16

statute, it qualifies as new.4 We must therefore determine

whether the District Court properly limited the rule to purely

prospective application.

C. Equitable Analysis

Under New Jersey law, judicial decisions that adopt

new rules are generally given retroactive effect. Coons II,

476 A.2d at 767. Courts may, however, depart from that

general rule when they determine that “retroactive application

could produce substantial inequitable results.” Selective Ins.

Co. of Am. v. Rothman, 34 A.3d 769, 773 (N.J. 2012). To

determine “what is just and consonant with public policy in

the particular situation presented,” courts generally consider

three factors: “(1) justifiable reliance by the parties and the

community as a whole on prior decisions, (2) a determination

4

One case may be read as implying that an issue of

first impression is not involved when a court “merely

applie[s] existing rules to a new factual variant.” See

Malinowski v. Jacobs, 915 A.2d 513, 515 (N.J. 2007)

(referring to the opinion of the dissenting judge of the

intermediate appellate court, and, after discussing that

dissenting opinion at length, stating that the court was

reversing “substantially for the reasons given by” that

dissenting judge). Taken to an extreme, such a reading might

undermine the principle that an unprecedented circumstance

can produce an application of law so novel as to be “new” for

purposes of retroactivity. Even under that formulation of the

test, however, our conclusion is the same: given our

statements in Shelton II and the analysis in Shelton III, the

Supreme Court of New Jersey was not simply applying

settled law to a new factual variant.

17

that the purpose of the new rule will not be advanced by

retroactive application, and (3) a potentially adverse effect

retrospectivity may have on the administration of justice.”

Coons II, 476 A.2d at 767; see also In re Contest of Nov. 8,

2011 Gen. Election, 40 A.3d at 707 (focusing on the purpose

and impact of the new rule); Selective Ins., 34 A.3d at 773

(focusing on reasonable reliance). “Depending upon the facts

of a case, one of the factors may be pivotal.” Rutherford

Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Rutherford, Bergen

Cnty., 489 A.2d 1148, 1156 (N.J. 1985). Once those factors

are taken into account, there are four ways to proceed:

“(1) make the new rule of law purely

prospective, applying it only to cases whose

operative facts arise after the new rule is

announced; (2) apply the new rule to future

cases and to the parties in the case announcing

the new rule, while applying the old rule to all

other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the

new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to

cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases

where the parties have not yet exhausted all

avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give

the new rule complete retroactive effect,

applying it to all cases, even those where final

judgments have been entered and all avenues of

direct review exhausted.”

Coons II, 476 A.2d at 767 (quoting State v. Burstein, 427

A.2d 525, 529 (N.J. 1981)).

The Plaintiffs of course challenge the District Court’s

ruling that Shelton III should be given purely prospective

18

application. They first argue that Restaurant.com did not

carry its burden to demonstrate actual, reasonable reliance on

an earlier interpretation of the law. On a related note, they

say that, because there was no record developed to support

the conclusion that it would be inequitable to apply the new

rule retroactively, it was error for the District Court to refuse

retroactive effect. The Plaintiffs next contend that the District

Court erred by not applying the general rule that parties who

successfully push for a clarification of the law are entitled to

application of the new law to their case, even when full

retroactivity is inappropriate. They argue that the District

Court’s reasoning for departing from the general rule –

namely, that application to the Plaintiffs would result in a

“windfall” because Restaurant.com may have to pay statutory

damages and attorney fees when there were no actual

damages – was insufficient as a matter of law. While the first

of those arguments – the one focused on reasonable reliance –

is not persuasive, the second – concerning the propriety of

statutory damages – is.

1. Reasonable Reliance

New Jersey precedent calls on courts to consider the

impact that retroactive application of a new rule would have

on those who have reasonably relied on a contrary

interpretation of the law. See SASCO 1997 NI, LLC v.

Zudkewich, 767 A.2d 469, 477 (N.J. 2001) (considering the

financial impact of a new rule on “the entire commercial

lending industry” when the new rule invalidated “a practice

apparently dominant throughout the industry”); Rutherford

Educ. Ass’n, 489 A.2d at 1159 (noting that retroactive

application “may have serious consequences on the tax

structure of many communities and other community

19

services”). Reliance on a contrary interpretation of the law is

reasonable “when a court renders a first-instance or clarifying

decision in a murky or uncertain area of the law.” Montells,

627 A.2d at 662 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]

party seeking to avoid retrospective application of a decision

must show actual reliance on a contrary principle of law.”

New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Comm’n v. Citizens to

Make Mayor-Council Gov’t Work, 526 A.2d 1069, 1074 (N.J.

1987) (emphasis omitted).

The quantum of evidence required to show actual

reliance depends on the nature of the inquiry in each case.

Compare Selective Ins., 34 A.3d at 773-74 (noting that the

record was “largely devoid of evidence” that “might imply

that there was general reliance on the interpretation of the

statute and regulations that we have found wanting” or that

“anyone other than this defendant found the law in this regard

to be ‘murky’ or so uncertain that a retroactive application of

our judgment would be manifestly unjust”), with Rutherford

Educ. Ass’n, 489 A.2d at 1159 (noting that the court had

examined the record, and that there was “no question that in

this case the school boards acted properly and in good faith in

relying on prior law,” but also assuming that boards of

education in general acted similarly). In appropriate cases,

“[s]ome level of generality” may be required, and common

sense inferences may be drawn to determine whether a

practice is widespread or whether defendants relied on a

contrary interpretation of the law. Coons II, 476 A.2d at 772.

For example, in a case involving a statute of limitations

tolling provision that had been struck down, the Supreme

Court of New Jersey noted that, “given the nature of th[e]

statute” in question, one would be “justified in presuming”

that many plaintiffs had not brought challenges under the

20

belief that the pertinent statute of limitations had been tolled.

Id.

The District Court in this case did not err by

presuming that businesses similarly situated to

Restaurant.com had been operating with the understanding

that the TCCWNA did not apply to intangible property.

Under Shelton III’s interpretation of the TCCWNA,

businesses may not sell gift certificates and other intangible

property intended for household use if they indicate that

certain provisions – such as expiration dates – “may be void,

unenforceable, or inapplicable in some jurisdictions without

specifying which provisions are or are not void,

unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New

Jersey.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:12-16; Shelton III, 70 A.3d at

558-59. The District Court determined that reliance on

competing interpretations of the TCCWNA was reasonable.

It had initially ruled that, because the gift certificates in

question were simply “a contingent right to a discount,”

Shelton I, 2010 WL 2384923, at *5, the Plaintiffs were not

consumers within the meaning of the TCCWNA. Although

ultimately incorrect, that interpretation was reasonable. It is

safe to assume, without more specific proof, that many

internet retailers selling intangible property intended for

household use would likewise have considered the

requirements of the TCCWNA and concluded that gift

certificates and other intangible property qualify as contingent

rights rather than “property” under that statute.

Furthermore, the District Court correctly determined

that the impact of a fully retroactive application of Shelton III

would be widespread. Shelton III has the potential to affect

not only Restaurant.com, but also any business – including

21

internet retailers located in any part of the world – that

markets intangible property to consumers in New Jersey.

Specific proof of the extent of Shelton III’s impact was not

necessary here, since common sense reveals that its impact

will be truly far-reaching. The District Court thus correctly

refused to apply the general rule of full retroactivity.

2. Propriety of Statutory Damages for the

Named Plaintiffs

Even though full retroactivity is not appropriate here, it

does not follow that the new rule should be applied purely

prospectively. Instead, New Jersey courts generally apply a

new rule at least to the litigants whose efforts helped produce

it. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has explained that,

[b]alanced against [the factors of reasonable

reliance, the purpose of the rule, and the rule’s

impact] is our belief that those responsible for

effecting a change in the law should benefit

from their efforts. Accordingly, we have

recognized that purely prospective rulings fail

to reward litigants for their efforts and fail to

further the broader goal of providing an

inducement to challenge existing interpretations

of the law. It has long been our position that

fundamental fairness generally requires that

champions of the cause should be rewarded for

their effort and expense in challenging existing

law.

Rutherford Educ. Ass’n, 489 A.2d at 1158; accord James v.

Bd. of Trustees of Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 753 A.2d 1061, 1072

22

(N.J. 2000); Kibble v. Weeks Dredging & Const. Co., 735

A.2d 1142, 1150-51 (N.J. 1999). For example, in Henderson

v. Camden County Municipal Utility Authority, the court

determined in a putative class action that a new rule

prohibiting utilities from charging compound interest should

not be given full retroactive effect because charging

compound interest was a widespread, long-standing,

established practice. 826 A.2d at 620. Nevertheless, the

court decided that, even though the class would not receive

the benefit of the new rule, the named plaintiff would,

“because of her efforts in litigating [the] appeal.” Id. at 621.

Here, the District Court rejected that approach. It

decided that, because the Plaintiffs had suffered no

“ascertainable loss” and there had been reasonable reliance on

a contrary interpretation of the law, it would be unjust for

Restaurant.com to have to pay “windfall statutory damages

and attorneys’ fees.” (App. at 13.) The Court quite rightly

was concerned with whether the purpose of the new rule

would be best served by something less than full retroactive

effect. Coons II, 476 A.2d at 767. But the Court’s emphasis

on what it deemed the “windfall” nature of the Plaintiffs’

recovery was misplaced. As explained in Shelton III, “the

TCCWNA is a remedial statute, entitled to a broad

interpretation to facilitate its stated purpose,” 70 A.3d at 558,

and the New Jersey legislature decided to impose a civil

penalty as a “deterrent,” id., to effectuate that purpose – “to

prevent deceptive practices in consumer contracts by

prohibiting the use of illegal terms or warranties in consumer

contracts,” id. at 549 (quoting Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v.

Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 25 A.3d 1027, 1044 (N.J. 2011)).

We cannot disregard the legislature’s choice to award

statutory damages in the absence of actual damages. See

23

Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 148 (1940) (“How to

effectuate policy – the adaptation of means to legitimately

sought ends – is one of the most intractable of legislative

problems. Whether proscribed conduct is to be deterred by

qui tam action or triple damages or injunction, or by criminal

prosecution, or merely by defense to actions in contract, or by

some, or all, of these remedies in combination, is a matter

within the legislature’s range of choice.”). If it is a windfall,

it is one purposefully and lawfully provided. It is true that

New Jersey law indicates there may be cases where a

defendant’s reliance interests and other equities are such that

a new rule should be applied purely prospectively. See Tax

Auth., Inc. v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., 898 A.2d 512, 522-23

(N.J. 2006) (applying new rule prospectively, with the result

that a settlement agreement that plaintiff was trying to void

was enforced). But whatever those circumstances may be,

this is not such a case.

That does not mean, however, that the District Court

could not limit the extent of the windfall. The approach taken

by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Henderson is

instructive. Retroactive application was limited to the named

plaintiffs, and that option is available here. By following that

approach, the otherwise significant financial impact on

Restaurant.com and other potential defendants would be more

limited and change the calculus of the equities.

III. Conclusion

Although the District Court correctly determined that

the new rule announced in Shelton III is not fully retroactive,

it erred by failing to apply that new rule to the Plaintiffs,

Shelton and Bohus. We will therefore reverse the judgment

24

and remand the case for entry of an order giving the two

named plaintiffs the benefit of the new rule of law that their

efforts helped to create.

25