Kevin Dang v. bestbuy.com

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: November 15, 2024
• Docket: A-2023-22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2023-22

KEVIN DANG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BESTBUY.COM, FEDEX CARGO CLAIMS, AND SYNCHRONY BANK,

Defendants-Respondents. __________________________

Submitted October 9, 2024 – Decided November 15, 2024

Before Judges Paganelli and Torregrossa-O'Connor.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. SC-000057-23.

Kevin Dang, appellant pro se.

Callahan & Fusco, LLC, attorneys for respondent FedEx Cargo Claims (David P. Cerqueira, on the brief).

Reed Smith LLP, attorneys for respondent Synchrony Bank (Owen Gonzalez, of counsel and on the brief). Resnick and Louis, PC, attorneys for respondent BestBuy.com (Scott H. Goldstein, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Kevin Dang, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his

complaint, following a bench trial, for failure to establish his cause of action.

Because the trial court's findings of fact were adequately supported in the record

and the judge correctly applied the law, we affirm.

We glean the basically undisputed facts from the trial record. On March

5, 2022, Dang executed an online purchase of a DJI Mavic 3 drone from

defendant, BestBuy.com (Best Buy). Dang used a credit card issued by

defendant, Synchrony Bank (Synchrony) for the purchase. Dang testified the

drone was "delivered on March 9, 2022," to his single-family home by

defendant, FedEx Cargo Claims (FedEx). Dang claimed his signature was

required for the delivery of the drone. Dang acknowledged that the "delivery

confirmation" disclosed he signed for the drone; however, he denied signing for

or ever receiving the drone. He suggested perhaps the FedEx delivery person

signed the confirmation.

Dang filed a "missing package" report with Best Buy. Initially, Best Buy

indicated it would send a replacement package. However, relying on the "proof

of delivery with signature," Best Buy canceled the replacement. Dang

A-2023-22 2 contended that Best Buy was required to send him a replacement drone. He also

argued that Best Buy was required to insure the drone because its value exceeded

two-thousand dollars.

Dang filed a dispute regarding the transaction with Synchrony. He

testified that Synchrony did not resolve the dispute with Best Buy. He

contended that Synchrony was required to "stand on [his] side" and "work with

Best Buy" to get his money back.

The trial court considered the testimony of the parties, as well as the trial

exhibits. The judge stated the "FedEx delivery slip . . . has the package delivered

to the correct address." He noted there was a signed receipt, and therefore, he

found "proof of delivery." In addition, the judge found there was "no proof[]

that FedEx did anything improper, [or] failed to do anything [in]consistent with

their obligations." Therefore, the judge concluded there was "nothing at all [to

establish] that FedEx did something or failed to do something that caused this

loss." In addition, the trial court considered Dang's assertion that the FedEx

delivery person signed for the package, but stated there was "no proof of that."

As to Synchrony, the trial court concluded there was "no proof[ of] . . .

any action or inaction on the part of . . . Synchrony . . . that establishe[d] . . .

any liability for this package." The judge concluded there was no proof

A-2023-22 3 Synchrony was "some sort of guarantor of the package delivery" and that

Synchrony merely "extended credit." Thus, the judge found "no liability on the

part of Synchrony."

As to Best Buy, the trial court found that Best Buy "sent [out the drone]

. . . via their carrier, FedEx" and "there [was no] proof[] at all that tend[ed] to

establish that Best Buy did anything wrong."

Therefore, noting it was Dang's burden to establish "that any one of the[]

three defendants [we]re the cause" of his loss, the judge found no cause of action

and dismissed the complaint.

Here, Dang argues: (1) the FedEx delivery person should appear in court;

(2) the signature was not his; (3) FedEx provided false information; (4) Best

Buy should consider purchasing insurance; (5) there are federal consumer laws;

and (6) Synchrony should provide a refund.

In conducting our appellate review, we apply a deferential standard to a

"trial court's determinations, premised on the testimony of witnesses and written

evidence at a bench trial." D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 182 (2013).

"Findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported

by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v.

Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Therefore, "our appellate function is a

A-2023-22 4 limited one: we do not disturb the factual findings . . . of the trial judge unless

we are convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with

the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the

interests of justice." Ibid. (quoting Fagliarone v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 78 N.J.

Super. 154, 155 (App. Div. 1963)).

However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal

consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special

deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J.

366, 378 (1995).

"Appellate review is not limitless." State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 19

(2009). "The jurisdiction of appellate courts rightly is bounded by the proofs

and objections critically explored on the record before the trial court by the

parties themselves." Ibid. It is well established that we will not consider an

argument which was not raised before the trial court. See Selective Ins. Co. of

Am. v. Rothman, 208 N.J. 580, 586 (2012). Thus, we "decline to consider

questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity

for such a presentation is available 'unless the questions so raised on appeal go

to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest.'"

A-2023-22 5 Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (quoting Reynolds

Offset Co. v. Summer, 58 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (App. Div. 1959)).

Here, applying these well-established principles, we find no merit in

Dang's arguments. The trial court's factual findings were sufficiently supported

in the record and are entitled to our deference. In addition, the trial court's legal

conclusion that Dang failed to satisfy his burden of persuasion—to establish one

of the defendants caused his loss—is unassailable.

Dang's bald assertion that federal consumer laws may apply or that the

FedEx delivery person should appear in court, are issues raised for the first time

on appeal. Because Dang had the opportunity to present those issues to the trial

court and since neither issue "go[es] to the jurisdiction of the trial court or

concern matters of great public interest," we decline to consider them here.

Reynolds, 58 N.J. Super. at 548.

To the extent we have not considered any of Dang's remaining arguments,

we deem them to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-2023-22 6