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1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-18-1997 Suber v. Chrysler Corporation Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 95-5735 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997 Recommended Citation "Suber v. Chrysler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