V 1 - Schall v. Breeders Club, Et Als. FILED Complaint 9-19-18

SSX-L-000430-18 09/19/2018 1:28:30 PM Pg 1 of 36 Trans ID: LCV20181627019
JASON KISLIN (ID No. 033332003)

AARON VAN NOSTRAND (ID No. 027472002)
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
500 Campus Dr. Ste. 400
Florham Park, NJ 07932
973 443 3557
Kislinj@gtlaw.com
Vannostranda@gtlaw.com
JENNIFER H. CHIN (pro hac vice to be filed)

JAIME K. OLIN (pro hac vice to be filed)
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
520 Eighth Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: 212-876-7700
jennifer.chin@aspca.org
jaime.olin@aspca.org
BRUCE WAGMAN (pro hac vice to be filed)

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415.901.8700
Bwagman@schiffhardin.com
) Superior Court of New Jersey

Allison Schall and Heather Schall, ) Law Division: Sussex County
) Docket No.:
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) Civil Action
Breeders Club of America, Inc.; My Pet, )
Funding, LLC; Monterey Financial Services ) COMPLAINT AND JURY
LLC; and Doe Defendants 1-5, ) DEMAND
)
Defendants. )
)
Plaintiffs Allison and Heather Schall (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, state
as follows:
1
NJ 231003219v1
INTRODUCTION
1. Using superior bargaining power and coercive practices, Defendants convinced
Plaintiffs to enter into agreements that Plaintiffs believed were for the purchase of a puppy
named Cooper. Instead, based on Defendants’ misrepresentations, Plaintiffs signed a “lease”
agreement for Cooper. As a result, Plaintiffs do not actually own Cooper, and they owe far more
money than Cooper’s listed price.
2. The unconscionable agreement that Defendants misled Plaintiffs into signing
disguised an extreme rate of interest as a “lease” payment, in violation of New Jersey law.
3. Defendants regularly entice innocent consumers into long-term, oppressive lease
agreements for puppies, preying on consumers’ emotional connections with the dogs who are the
subject of the contracts.
4. Reasonable consumers like Plaintiffs, convinced they are purchasing a dog, then
face the impossible decision of whether to pay the inflated amounts required by the agreements,
or potentially lose the dogs to whom they have become so attached.
5. Defendants’ practices are unfair, unconscionable, and violate multiple public
policies, including fairness in consumer representation, protection of animal welfare, protection
against predatory lending, and protection of fairness in contracting.
6. This type of fraudulent scheme has been prohibited by legislatures in Nevada and
California because of its harmful and wrongful nature. The New Jersey Legislature is also
considering passing a law banning these types of contracts. Whether the practice is banned as a
matter of statute or not, Defendants’ conduct represents actionable misrepresentations and
fraudulent consumer practices under existing New Jersey law.
2
NJ 231003219v1
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Allison Schall is, and at all times relevant to the Complaint was, a
resident of Sussex County, New Jersey.
8. Plaintiff Heather Schall is, and at all times relevant to the Complaint was, a
resident of Sussex County, New Jersey.
9. Defendant Breeders Club of America, Inc. (“Breeders Club”) is a New Jersey
corporation. It is located at 1839 Highway 35, Middletown, New Jersey 07748.
10. Defendant My Pet Funding, LLC (“My Pet Funding”) is a Wyoming limited
liability company, with a principal office at 45999 Center Oak Plaza, Suite 100, Sterling,
Virginia 20166.
11. Defendant Monterey Financial Services LLC (“Monterey Financial Services”) is a
California limited liability corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 4095 Avenida
De La Plata, Oceanside, California 92056.
12. Doe Defendants 1 through 5 are fictitious names for any entities or persons that
have been assigned contractual rights under Plaintiffs’ agreements with Defendants Breeders
Club, My Pet Funding, or Monterey Financial Services, but who are not known to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs consequently sue these Defendants by their fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave
to amend this complaint to state the true names and capacities of the fictitiously-named
Defendants when they have been ascertained.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Rule 4:3-2 because Plaintiffs are
residents of Sussex County.
3
NJ 231003219v1
14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. The Court has specific
jurisdiction over My Pet Funding and Monterey Financial Services because they have
purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in the State of New Jersey, by
respectively originating and servicing Plaintiffs’ pet lease in New Jersey. This Court has general
personal jurisdiction over Breeders Club because it is a New Jersey resident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Initial Contact with Breeders Club
15. In late summer of 2017, Plaintiffs decided to buy a puppy for their mother, Ann
Schall. Having owned Golden Retrievers in the past, Plaintiffs decided to focus their search on
Golden Retriever puppies.
16. Plaintiffs searched online for puppies, and soon found a local pet store advertising
Golden Retriever puppies for sale. That pet store was Breeders Club.
17. On September 11, 2017, Plaintiffs called Breeders Club and inquired about the
advertised puppies. A Breeders Club employee said the store had received several Golden
Retriever puppies the previous day that were available for purchase. The employee said the
puppies would cost approximately between $100 and $500 total, but provided no further details.
18. On or about September 12, 2017, Plaintiffs visited Breeders Club’s store in
Middletown, New Jersey. On arrival, a Breeders Club employee told Plaintiffs the store had
only received two Golden Retriever puppies, both of which were approximately two months old.
The employee also told Plaintiffs that one of the puppies was already sold, so they had to decide
whether they wanted to take the only remaining puppy. They were told that there was no way to
predict when Breeders Club would be getting more Golden Retriever puppies.
4
NJ 231003219v1
19. Plaintiffs asked how much the puppy cost. The Breeders Club employee indicated
that the puppy cost $3700, but that Breeders Club could contact the breeder on Plaintiffs’ behalf
and attempt to negotiate that price. The Breeders Club employee then left Plaintiffs in a play
area with the puppy, stating that she would call the breeder.
20. Plaintiffs were left in the play area with the puppy for approximately one hour.
When the Breeders Club employee returned, she informed Plaintiffs that the puppy’s purchase
price could not be reduced because, according to the breeder, his breeding line was “top shelf.”
21. Plaintiffs asked which breeder the puppy had come from. The Breeders Club
employee responded that the puppy was from a “reputable breeder,” but Breeders Club’s policy
was not to provide breeder information due to privacy concerns. The Breeders Club employee
also stated that Breeders Club only purchased from the “best breeders” and Plaintiffs should not
have any concerns because the puppy would be “perfect.”
Contract Terms
22. Plaintiffs indicated that they could not afford the puppy’s price. At that point, the
Breeders Club employee offered Plaintiffs what she called a “payment plan.” When Plaintiffs
asked how the payment plan worked, the Breeders Club employee stated that Plaintiffs would
first have to determine how much money they could spend that day and how much money they
could afford to pay monthly. The Breeders Club employee explained that Plaintiffs would have
two years to pay the full purchase price.
23. The Breeders Club employee also noted that if the purchase price was not paid in
full by the end of that two-year period, Plaintiffs would have to pay an extra fee. When Plaintiffs
asked if the extra fee meant interest, the Breeders Club employee responded that the extra fee
5
NJ 231003219v1
was “kind of like” interest, and that it was a one-time fee that was standard and customary for
puppy purchases.
24. The Breeders Club employee made several other verbal representations to
Plaintiffs. These included:
(a) The puppy was “top shelf” and “perfectly healthy”;
(b) Plaintiffs would be reimbursed by Breeders Club for any veterinary expenses
for ailments based on preexisting conditions;
(c) If the puppy died, for any reason, Breeders Club would replace him with a
new puppy free of charge;
(d) It was in the puppy’s best interest to continue eating the food sold by Breeders
Club; and
(e) The store would provide training services for the puppy free of charge.
25. Plaintiff Allison Schall filled out what was presented to her as an application for a
payment plan on the employee’s iPad. After that application was approved, Plaintiffs decided to
move forward with purchasing the puppy, who they named Cooper, believing they were
purchasing the puppy and that their family would own Cooper as soon as they left the store.
Their decision was also based on the Breeders Club employee’s prior representation that they
would easily qualify for the payment plan, and because they had spent significant time with
Cooper and bonded with him.
26. Plaintiffs believed that they would be making payments directly to Breeders Club
for their puppy.
6
NJ 231003219v1
27. Plaintiffs also went ahead with the purchase in part because of the employee’s
representation that Golden Retriever puppies were rare, there was no telling when the store might
get another, and any additional puppies Breeders Club might acquire could be more expensive.
28. The Breeders Club employee took Plaintiffs’ Social Security numbers, and
eventually presented Plaintiffs with documents that they understood to comprise a purchase
contract.
29. Plaintiffs were not able to review the documents because the Breeders Club
employee kept the documents in her possession at all times, except when she indicated where
Plaintiffs should sign.
30. The purchase contract consisted of two documents: the first, on Breeders Club
letterhead, was titled “Puppy Contract” (“Breeders Club Puppy Contract”). See Exhibit A. The
second, on My Pet Funding letterhead, was titled “Consumer Pet Lease Agreement” (“My Pet
Funding Lease Agreement”). See Exhibit B.
31. All the papers constituting both the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement and the
Breeders Club Puppy Contract were stapled together into one document and presented to
Plaintiffs as if they were a single document.
32. The Breeders Club Puppy Contract consists of (1) an initial page with handwritten
specifications about the puppy and the purchase terms; (2) a sales receipt; (3) a two-page
document entitled “Arbitration Contract”; (4) a one-page document entitled “Know Your Rights,
A Statement of New Jersey Law Governing The Sale of Dogs and Cats”; (5) a one-page
document entitled “Training Agreement”; (6) a three-page document entitled “Pet Shop
Notification Form”; (7) a one-page document entitled “Breeders Club of America, Inc.
Guarantee”; (8) a one-page document explaining that Breeders Club was under the jurisdiction of
7
NJ 231003219v1
the Middletown Health Department; (9) a one-page document with contact information for
certain area veterinarians; and (10) a one-page document relating to puppy care. See Exhibit A.
33. The My Pet Funding Lease Agreement consists of (1) a one-page document
entitled “Pet Acknowledgement Form”; (2) a one-page document entitled “Important
Information Concerning Your Lease”; (3) a six-page document entitled “Consumer Pet Lease
Agreement”; (4) a one-page document entitled “Puppy Health Warranty Contract”; and (5) a
one-page document entitled “ACH Authorization Agreement.” See Exhibit B.
34. Although the Breeders Club employee broadly explained the payment terms,
Plaintiffs did not have a meaningful opportunity to read and review the documents prior to
signing. The Breeders Club employee rushed Plaintiffs through signing the documents, and
claimed they needed to sign the paperwork in the play area (with Cooper present) because
someone else was using the sales counter at that time.
35. Both Plaintiffs initialed and signed all relevant portions of the Breeders Club
Puppy Contract.
36. Plaintiff Allison Schall is listed as “Lessee” in the My Pet Funding Lease
Agreement.
37. Plaintiffs were informed and believe that the Breeders Club employee who
convinced Plaintiffs to sign the Breeders Club and My Pet Funding Lease Agreements was
working as an agent for both Breeders Club and My Pet Funding.
38. The Breeders Club employee told Plaintiffs that the puppy had a base price of
$3,700, with a $265 down payment, but that the total payment would be around $4000.
39. Under the Breeders Club Puppy Contract, Plaintiffs agreed to a total cost of
$3717. See Exhibit A at 1.
8
NJ 231003219v1
40. The My Pet Funding Lease Agreement indicated the total “lease obligation” cost
would be $4509.33, with an initial payment of $265.00 and 27 monthly payments of $161.05.
See Exhibit B at 3.
41. The Breeders Club employee did not explain why there was a difference in price
between the two agreements, and rushed Plaintiffs through the signing and contracting part of the
exchange.
42. The Breeders Club employee flipped quickly through the documents, focusing
mainly on the amount to be paid and the pages indicating how to care for Cooper.
43. In addition to the monthly payments and the $265 down payment Plaintiffs made
while at Breeders Club, the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement lists a “Purchase Option at End of
Lease Term” of $552.40. The Breeders Club employee never told Plaintiffs that this payment
that would be due at the end of the monthly payments was, in effect, a “balloon payment”
required for them to assume ownership of Cooper.
44. The My Pet Funding Lease Agreement also lists “Official Fees and Taxes” over
the lease term, which total $239.11.
45. Under the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, the total cost to purchase (the “lease
obligation” plus the mandatory final payment) Cooper would be over $5000. See Exhibit B at 2.
46. Plaintiffs made the $265 down payment while at Breeders Club. That payment
included the first monthly payment to My Pet Funding ($161.05), along with an item billed as a
“My Pet Funding Warranty” for $69.56. Plaintiffs also put an additional $34.39 down in cash.
See Exhibit A at 2.
9
NJ 231003219v1
47. Plaintiffs were left alone in the play area with the puppy for the majority of the
time they were at Breeders Club. During the discussions between Plaintiffs and the Breeders
Club employee, the Breeders Club employee discussed only the “purchase” of Cooper.
48. The Breeders Club employee never used the words “lease” or “rent” or mentioned
that Plaintiffs would not own Cooper outright. By failing to disclose this information, Breeders
Club misrepresented the nature of the contract and omitted material elements of the contract.
49. The Breeders Club website (http://puppies.breedersclubofamerica.com/) claims to
offer financing, and includes a link to ‘Payment Plans’ through My Pet Funding. The website
nowhere uses the word “lease” or “rental” in relation to payment plans.
50. If the Breeders Club employee had told Plaintiffs they were not buying Cooper
that day, they never would have signed the documents that were hastily placed in front of them
for signature.
51. If the Breeders Club employee had told Plaintiffs that they were leasing, and not
actually purchasing, Cooper, they never would have signed the documents or agreed to the terms
of the agreement.
52. The Breeders Club employee never let Plaintiffs hold onto or review the
documents that constituted the agreements, except when she had them sign the last pages.
53. The Breeders Club employee never informed Plaintiffs that the contracts would
be assigned to other companies to handle the payment plans.
Defendants’ Post-Contractual Refusal to Honor Contract
54. Plaintiffs brought Cooper home that day (September 12, 2017).
55. Approximately two months after bringing Cooper home, and in an effort to pay
the full balance off early, Plaintiff Heather Schall called My Pet Funding to find out whether
10
NJ 231003219v1
they could pay more than the minimum monthly payments and expedite the completion of the
payments due. A My Pet Funding representative informed her that she could either pay off the
purchase price in full or make the agreed-upon monthly payments, but that she could not make
monthly payments in excess of the contracted monthly rate.
56. On or about January 2018, after Plaintiffs had made the first four or five monthly
payments, Plaintiffs contacted My Pet Funding to determine the total payoff amount remaining
for Cooper. A My Pet Funding representative indicated that Cooper’s payoff amount still totaled
approximately $3700.
57. Concerned that the price was still the same as when they first visited the store
months earlier, Plaintiffs reviewed the documents provided to them at the time of purchase and
discovered, for the first time, language in the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement referencing a
“lease” and a “renting fee.” As stated above, all of the papers comprising both agreements had
been stapled together as a single document and represented to Plaintiffs as a single contract..
58. Around the same time, Plaintiffs were becoming suspicious of the amounts My
Pet Funding was removing from their bank accounts and the finance charges being assessed.
Plaintiffs asked their older sister, Brenda Lando, to help them clarify the issue with My Pet
Funding.
59. When Ms. Lando contacted My Pet Funding, she was informed that My Pet
Funding was no longer handling the transaction, even though Plaintiffs had never been informed
of that fact. The My Pet Funding representative informed her that Defendant Monterey was
servicing the “lease” and she should contact Monterey instead.
60. This was the first time that Plaintiffs were told that Monterey, and not Breeders
Club or My Pet Funding, was in charge of the contract they had signed.
11
NJ 231003219v1
61. On or about March 17, 2018, upon contacting Monterey, Ms. Lando was told that
she could pay $3700 to purchase Cooper outright. She was also told she could not access
information about the contract online, and that Monterey was unfamiliar with the particular terms
of the contract.
62. Plaintiffs then called Breeders Club to inquire about the specifics of the
agreements, and the amounts they were being charged by My Pet Funding/Monterey. A
Breeders Club employee stated she did not know anything about the details and instructed
Plaintiffs to contact My Pet Funding.
63. Plaintiffs then contacted My Pet Funding to inquire about the fees being charged.
64. A My Pet Funding representative confirmed it was My Pet Funding’s position that
Cooper had been leased to Plaintiffs.
65. To date, Plaintiffs have made all monthly payments according to the terms of the
agreements with My Pet Funding and Breeders Club.
Cooper’s Medical Problems Existing at the Time of Purchase
66. Within the first two weeks after bringing Cooper home, Plaintiffs had to bring
Cooper to the veterinarian twice due to serious health problems, including:
(a) Kennel cough (canine infectious respiratory disease complex), an upper
respiratory condition often caused by the Bordetella virus and commonly
associated with high-density housing situations;
(b) Infections caused by two different types of intestinal worms; and
(c) An area of missing fur of the type that can be associated with stress and
substandard housing conditions.
12
NJ 231003219v1
67. Plaintiff Heather Schall called Breeders Club to discuss reimbursement for
Cooper’s treatment costs. Despite Breeders Club’s initial representations that it would cover
these types of veterinary costs, Ms. Schall was told by a Breeders Club employee that Cooper’s
medical expenses would not be covered by the store.
68. Shortly after Plaintiffs brought Cooper home, Plaintiffs sent Breeders Club proof
of the veterinary expenses they incurred for conditions Cooper had when they purchased him.
69. Breeders Club never responded to Plaintiffs’ correspondence regarding Cooper’s
medical conditions and treatment.
70. In May 2018, Plaintiffs brought Cooper to the veterinarian to be neutered. The
veterinarian discovered that Cooper had a congenital defect known as cryptorchidism, so that one
of Cooper’s testicles had never descended.
71. The veterinarian who performed Cooper’s neutering surgery informed Plaintiffs
that cryptorchidism is a hereditary condition, and that Cooper’s breeder and Breeders Club
should have known this and disclosed it to Plaintiffs.
72. Cryptorchidism can be identified and presumptively diagnosed in puppies as early
as two months old. Dogs with cryptorchidism have a higher incidence of testicular cancer in the
retained testicle or testes, and may also exhibit the unwanted behavioral traits of unneutered male
dogs due to higher testosterone levels.
73. Because surgery on cryptorchid dogs requires additional and more complex
procedures as compared to standard castration, Cooper’s sterilization surgery cost Plaintiffs
about $500 more than it otherwise would have if he did not have the condition.
13
NJ 231003219v1
74. Because of the dangers associated with cryptorchidism, as well as the increased
expense of neutering a cryptorchid dog, Breeders Club should have informed Plaintiffs of
Cooper’s condition before purchase.
75. In performing preparatory tests for the neuter surgery, the veterinarian discovered
that Cooper also had cardiomegaly (an enlarged heart), a condition that he certainly had when he
was purchased by Plaintiffs, and that is indicative of multiple potentially life-threatening
conditions.
76. Because the veterinarian informed Plaintiffs that performing surgery on a dog
with an enlarged heart poses a heightened risk of heart failure due to the anesthesia, Plaintiffs
initially chose not to move forward with the surgery.
77. An enlarged heart is also a hereditary condition. Cooper’s breeder knew or should
have known that the trait could have been passed on to Cooper, and thus should have disclosed
that to Breeders Club.
78. Because of the dangers associated with an enlarged heart, including abrupt death,
as well as the increased expense of caring for a dog with an enlarged heart if he lives a long life,
including lifetime monitoring, potential medications, and treatment for the condition, Breeders
Club should have informed Plaintiffs of Cooper’s heart condition before purchase.
79. In response to the news about Cooper’s enlarged heart, and based on their
veterinarian’s recommendation, on or about June 11, 2018, Plaintiffs spent roughly $450 on an
ultrasound examination to further diagnose and evaluate the nature of Cooper’s enlarged heart.
80. Based on this examination, the veterinarian determined that, despite his heart
condition, Cooper could proceed with the neuter surgery.
14
NJ 231003219v1
81. Despite Breeders Club’s initial refusal to disclose the name of the breeder from
whom Breeders Club obtained Cooper, Plaintiffs found his name in the documents from
Breeders Club.
82. Plaintiffs discovered the breeder who sold Cooper to Breeders Club was Bob
Mehmert, and that Breeders Club had falsely represented that Mr. Mehmert was a “reputable
breeder.” In fact, from 2010 through at least 2016, Mr. Mehmert was cited by the USDA for
multiple violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act, including failure to provide the dogs in
his control with (1) adequate veterinary care, (2) a safe environment, (3) sanitary living areas, (4)
protection from injury, and (5) proper animal husbandry.
83. On information and belief, Mr. Mehmert has been cited by the United States
Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) with numerous additional violations through at least 2016.
USDA also sent Mr. Mehmert at least one warning letter based on those violations.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 1: Unconscionability of Sales Contract

N.J.S.A. § 12A:2-302(1)
84. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint.
85. Under the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code, if the Court finds a contract or
any clause of a contract for the sale of goods to have been unconscionable at the time it was
made, the Court may (1) refuse to enforce the contract; (2) enforce the remainder of the contract
without the unconscionable clause; or (3) so limit the application of the unconscionable clause as
to avoid any unconscionable result. See N.J.S.A. § 12A:2-302(1).
86. Both the Breeders Club Puppy Contract and the My Pet Funding Lease
Agreement were unconscionable at the time they were made.
15
NJ 231003219v1
87. Defendants’ conduct was unconscionable pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 12A:2A-108
because:
a. The contracts at issue are contracts of adhesion which Plaintiffs had no right
or opportunity to modify;
b. Defendants held an extremely superior bargaining power over Plaintiffs in the
transaction and intentionally utilized that power to Plaintiffs’ detriment;
c. Plaintiffs were given a “take it or leave” it option once Defendants knew that
Plaintiffs had become emotionally attached to Cooper;
d. Defendants refused to negotiate the terms of the contract;
e. Defendants preyed on Plaintiffs’ emotions, knowing that Plaintiffs felt
compelled to purchase Cooper before Defendants imposed their
unconscionable terms;
f. The price ultimately paid for Cooper by Plaintiffs far exceeded his actual
purchase price, and Defendants relied on Plaintiffs’ inability to pay for Cooper
when they first got him;
g. The terms of the contracts are unfair and oppressive;
h. The “My Pet Funding Warranty” provided benefits, such as the opportunity
for the Plaintiffs to return or exchange Cooper, or receive reimbursement for
his veterinary care, that were wholly duplicative of statutory benefits under
the New Jersey Pet Protection Act (see N.J.S.A. § 56:8-95(g)-(i)), but charged
$60 for these statutorily mandated benefits that Plaintiffs were already entitled
to for free;
16
NJ 231003219v1
i. The final payment clause after all the monthly payments have been made is
unfair and oppressive;
j. Plaintiffs were misled into thinking they were buying Cooper for a reasonable
price;
k. The “payment plan” under which Plaintiffs were required to pay Defendants
amounts to the imposition of an unfair interest rate;
l. Unlike other common forms of financing, the company has structured the
financing so that there are no restrictions on the fees or interest that are
charged;
m. Defendants took advantage of Plaintiffs, relying on the emotional nature of
purchasing Cooper and recognizing that Plaintiffs were not given the
opportunity to review and fully understand the financial implications of the
transaction;
n. The contracts violate public policy because in the event of a default or
cancellation, Cooper’s future health would be put into question, given that the
lending company has no interest in maintaining the pet;
o. In violation of public policy, such so-called “pet leasing” businesses involve
unscrupulous lending practices and, given that these agreements typically
restrict consumers from rehoming pets, raise the potential that pets will be
relinquished to shelters or otherwise endangered;
p. Contracts for ownership of a dog or cat whereby ownership is contingent on
the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to transfer of
possession of the animal are against public policies protecting consumers from
17
NJ 231003219v1
misleading and/or unconscionable contracts, and safeguarding pets by
ensuring their guardians can make important decisions regarding their health
and welfare;
q. Contracts that provide for or offer the option of transferring ownership of a
dog or cat at the end of a “lease” term violate public policies protecting
consumers from misleading and/or unconscionable contracts, and
safeguarding pets by ensuring their guardians can make important decisions
regarding their health and welfare;
r. The contracts at issue include onerous and unfair payment terms;
s. The contracts at issue took advantage of Plaintiffs’ inferior bargaining power
to charge Plaintiffs more than they were promised by Breeders Club
representatives;
t. The contracts limit Plaintiffs’ rights of ownership in Cooper, in violation of
public policies regarding consumer protection and animal welfare;
u. The contracts contain unreasonable additional charges and fees;
v. Under the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, Plaintiffs cannot travel with
Cooper outside of the contiguous United States without permission from My
Pet Funding, restricting their right to travel in violation of public policies
regarding consumer protection and animal welfare;
w. Under the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, My Pet Funding retains the
right to inspect Cooper at any time, in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy
and control of Cooper, in violation of public policies regarding consumer
protection and animal welfare; and
18
NJ 231003219v1
x. Plaintiffs are restrained from transferring Cooper to another caregiver or
owner, in violation of their rights and in violation of public policies regarding
consumer protection and animal welfare.
88. According to the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, if Plaintiffs do not meet their
obligations under the lease, My Pet Funding may reclaim Cooper. This violates public policies
in favor of protection of animals and maintaining the bond between humans and their companion
animals.
89. It is unclear whether the reclamation provision in the My Pet Funding Lease
Agreement means that if Plaintiffs miss even one monthly payment, or are a few days late with a
payment, Cooper could be taken away from his owners and placed in an undetermined location,
resold, or euthanized, and Plaintiffs would have no recourse to get him back. This is a violation
of Plaintiffs’ rights and of the public policies of protecting animals and keeping pets together
with their families.
90. Further, according to Defendant My Pet Funding, the My Pet Funding Lease
Agreement is now being serviced by Defendant Monterey. Defendant Monterey is continuing to
collect the same unconscionable fees as Defendant My Pet Funding, and has stepped into
Defendant My Pet Funding’s shoes with respect to this continued conduct.
91. Based on Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Count 2: Unconscionability of Lease Contract

N.J.S.A. § 12A:2A-108
93. Defendants’ conduct described herein violated the New Jersey Uniform
Commercial Code – Leases. See N.J.S.A. § 12A:2A-108.
19
NJ 231003219v1
94. If Defendants’ agreements with Plaintiffs constitute leases, they are consumer
leases because Plaintiffs are natural persons who took the lease for the family purpose of gifting
Cooper to their mother.
95. If a Court finds that a lease contract or any clause of a lease contract is
unconscionable, the Court may (1) refuse to enforce the lease contract; (2) enforce the remainder
of the lease contract without the unconscionable clause; or (3) so limit the application of any
unconscionable clause so as to avoid any unconscionable result.
96. If a Court finds that a consumer lease was induced by unconscionable conduct,
the Court may grant any appropriate relief.
Agreement were induced by unconscionable conduct, including:
a. Breeders Club’s purposely creating an emotional attachment between Plaintiffs
and Cooper before revealing material terms such as price and financing cost;
b. The Breeders Club employee’s misrepresentations;
c. The conflicting and confusing language in the Breeders Club Puppy Contract and
My Pet Funding Lease Agreement; and
d. The Breeders Club employee’s control of the Breeders Club Puppy Contract and
My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, which prevented Plaintiffs from reviewing
their substance.
Agreement were unconscionable at the time they were made.
99. Defendants’ conduct was unconscionable pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 12A:2A-108
because:
20
NJ 231003219v1
a. The contracts at issue are contracts of adhesion which Plaintiffs had no right
or opportunity to modify;
b. Defendants held an extremely superior bargaining power over Plaintiffs in the
transaction and intentionally utilized that power to Plaintiffs’ detriment;
c. Plaintiffs were given a “take it or leave it” option once Defendants knew that
Plaintiffs had become enamored with Cooper;
d. Defendants refused to negotiate the terms of the contract;
e. Defendants preyed on Plaintiffs’ emotions, knowing that Plaintiffs felt
compelled to purchase Cooper before Defendants imposed their
unconscionable terms;
f. Defendants relied on Plaintiffs’ inability to pay for Cooper in full;
g. The price Plaintiffs will ultimately pay for Cooper is in great excess of his
actual purchase price;
h. The terms of the contracts are unfair and oppressive;
i. The “My Pet Funding Warranty” provided benefits, such as the opportunity
for the Plaintiffs to return or exchange Cooper, or receive reimbursement for
his veterinary care, that were wholly duplicative of statutory benefits under
the New Jersey Pet Protection Act (see N.J.S.A. § 56:8-95(g)-(i)), but charged
$60 for these statutorily mandated benefits that Plaintiffs were already entitled
to for free;
j. The final payment clause after all the monthly payments have been made is
unfair and oppressive;
21
NJ 231003219v1
k. Plaintiffs were misled into thinking they were buying Cooper for a reasonable
price;
l. The “payment plan” under which Plaintiffs are required to pay Defendants
amounts to the imposition of an unfair interest rate;
m. Unlike other common forms of financing, the company has structured the
financing so that there are no restrictions on the fees or interest that are
charged;
n. Defendants took advantage of Plaintiffs, relying on the emotional nature of
purchasing Cooper and recognizing that Plaintiffs were not given the
opportunity to review and fully understand the financial implications of the
transaction;
o. The contracts violate public policy because in the event of a default or
cancellation, Cooper’s future health would be put into question given that the
lending company has no interest in maintaining the pet;
p. In violation of public policy, such so-called “pet leasing” businesses involve
unscrupulous lending practices and, given that these agreements typically
restrict consumers from rehoming pets, raise the potential that pets will be
relinquished to shelters or otherwise endangered;;
q. Contracts for ownership of a dog or cat whereby ownership is contingent on
the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to transfer of
possession of the animal are against public policies protecting consumers from
22
NJ 231003219v1
and welfare;
r. Contracts that provide for or offer the option of transferring ownership of a
dog or cat at the end of a “lease” term violate public policies protecting
consumers from misleading and/or unconscionable contracts, and
safeguarding pets by ensuring their guardians can make important decisions
regarding their health and welfare;
s. The contracts at issue include onerous and unfair payment terms;
t. The contracts at issue take advantage of Plaintiffs’ inferior bargaining power
to charge Plaintiffs more than they were promised by Breeders Club
representatives;
u. The contracts limit Plaintiffs’ rights of ownership in Cooper, in violation of
public policies regarding public policies protecting consumers from
and welfare;
v. The contracts contain unreasonable additional charges and fees;
w. Under the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, Plaintiffs cannot travel outside
of the contiguous United States with Cooper without permission from My Pet
Funding, restricting their right to travel in violation of public policies
regarding consumer protection and animal welfare;
x. Under the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, My Pet Funding retains the
right to inspect Cooper at any time, in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy
23
NJ 231003219v1
and control of Cooper, and in violation of public policies regarding consumer
protection and animal welfare; and
y. Plaintiffs are restrained from transferring Cooper to another caregiver or
owner, in violation of their rights and in violation of public policies regarding
consumer protection and animal welfare.
100. According to the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, if Plaintiffs do not meet their
obligations under the lease, My Pet Funding may reclaim Cooper. This violates public policy in
favor of protection of animals and maintaining the bond between humans and their companion
animals.
101. It is unclear whether the reclamation provision in the My Pet Funding Lease
Agreement means that if Plaintiffs miss even one monthly payment, or are a few days late with a
payment, Cooper would be subject to being taken away from his owners and placed in an
undetermined location, resold, or euthanized, and Plaintiffs would have no recourse to get him
back. This is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and of the public policy of protecting animals and
keeping pets together with their families.
102. Further, according to Defendant My Pet Funding, the My Pet Funding Lease
Agreement is now being serviced by Defendant Monterey. Defendant Monterey is continuing to
collect the same unconscionable fees as Defendant My Pet Funding, and has stepped into
Defendant My Pet Funding’s shoes with respect to this continued conduct.
103. Plaintiffs have suffered injury and damages directly caused by Defendants’
violation of N.J.S.A. § 12A:2A-108.
24
NJ 231003219v1
Count 3: Violation of New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
(Unfair Trade Practices)
N.J.S.A. § § 56-121 et seq.
105. The New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
(“TCCWNA”) defines “consumer contract” as a written agreement in which an individual
“leases or licenses real or personal property” or “purchases real or personal property” for cash or
on credit, and the property is obtained for personal, family, or household purposes. See N.J.S.A.
§ 56-12:1.
106. The documentation underlying Plaintiffs’ acquisition of Cooper, including both
the Breeders Club Puppy Contract and the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, is in writing.
107. The documentation underlying Plaintiffs’ acquisition of Cooper is referenced as a
“Pet Purchase Contract” in the Breeders Club Puppy Contract.
108. The documentation with respect to Plaintiffs’ acquisition of Cooper is referenced
as a “Consumer Pet Lease Agreement” in the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement.
109. Dogs are considered personal property under New Jersey law.
110. Cooper was acquired to be a family pet in Plaintiffs’ home.
111. The documentation underlying Plaintiffs’ acquisition of Cooper, including the
Breeders Club Puppy Contract and the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement, constitute consumer
contracts under New Jersey law.
112. The Act, commonly known as the “plain language law,” requires a consumer
contract to be written in a simple, clear, understandable, and easily readable way. See N.J.S.A. §
56-12:2.
25
NJ 231003219v1
113. A creditor, seller, or lessor who fails to comply with this provision is liable to the
consumer who is a party to the consumer contract for actual damages sustained, along with
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. See N.J.S.A. § 56-12:3.
114. Defendants have breached their obligations under the contract by:
a. Refusing to acknowledge their sale of Cooper to Plaintiffs, insisting that Cooper
was in fact leased, despite describing the transaction as a “purchase” and “sale”
within the Breeders Club Puppy Contract;
b. Failing to comply with their obligations under the Breeders Club Puppy Contract
to pay veterinary fees; and
c. Failing to answer lease or billing questions at the phone number (1-800-239-
9423) named in the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement.
115. If a material provision of the contract violates the Act, the court may reform or
limit a provision in the contract to avoid an unfair result. See N.J.S.A. § 56-12-4.1.
116. The contract for Cooper was not written in “a simple, clear, understandable and
easily readable way,” and thus, violates the Act because:
a. The total purchase price noted on the Breeders Club Puppy Contract is $3717.
(Exh. A at 1). Instead, Plaintiffs are scheduled by the My Pet Funding Lease
Agreement to pay over $5000 for Cooper (Exh. B at 2);
b. The My Pet Funding Lease Agreement states that “You are leasing the Pet and
have no ownership rights in it unless you exercise your purchase option.”
(Exh. B at 3);
26
NJ 231003219v1
c. The My Pet Funding Lease Agreement states that it is a “Closed End
Consumer Product Lease” (Exh. B at 2) but never defines this term nor
explains what it means to “lease” a pet;
d. The My Pet Funding Lease Agreement makes reference to an undefined
process for determining the amount owed on a terminated lease (Exh. B at 4-
5);
e. The Breeders Club Puppy Contract lists My Pet Funding as a source of
“financing” and not “leasing,” suggesting a purchase of Cooper had occurred
(Exh. A at 1);
f. The Breeders Club Puppy Contract identifies Plaintiffs as the “Purchaser” and
“Buyer” (Exh. A at 1, 3-11);
g. Breeders Club implied to Plaintiffs that upon signing the Agreements, they
would own Cooper outright, even though they would continue to make
monthly payments toward the purchase price;
h. Breeders Club provided Plaintiffs with the Breeders Club Puppy Contract,
which consistently identified Plaintiffs as purchasers: for example, the
Breeders Club agreement included a “Sales Receipt” (Exh. A at 2), the
warranty provision identified Plaintiff Heather Schall as the “purchaser” (Exh.
A at 4), the arbitration contract identified Plaintiffs as the “purchaser” (Exh. A
at 3), and the Breeders Club Puppy Contract included consumer disclosures
regarding the “purchase” of a pet (Exh. A at 6);
i. Sections of both the Breeders Club Puppy Contract and the My Pet Funding
Lease Agreement are not logically arranged, divided, or captioned;
27
NJ 231003219v1
j. Both the Breeders Club and My Pet Funding Lease Agreements are over 3000
words long, but do not contain tables of contents;
k. Both the Breeders Club and My Pet Funding Lease Agreements contain
confusing cross-references;
l. Paragraph 8 of the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement makes confusing and
circular references to amounts owed, relies on an undefined “constant yield
method” (Exh. B at 4-5), an undefined “fair market wholesale value” of
Cooper (id.), and an undefined “disposition at wholesale” to determine
amounts owed (id.);
m. Paragraph 17 of the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement allows for unlimited
and confusing assignment and reassignment of the My Pet Funding Lease
Agreement by My Pet Funding at My Pet Funding’s or any assignee’s sole
discretion, but requires My Pet Funding’s approval regarding any assignment
by Plaintiffs (Exh. B at 6);
n. Paragraph 19 of the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement imposes an unfair and
illusory “notice” provision by requiring actual receipt by My Pet Funding of
any notice mailed to My Pet Funding, but allowing My Pet Funding to mail
“notice” to Plaintiffs at the address originally recorded by My Pet Funding,
regardless of any actual receipt by Plaintiffs (Exh. B at 6); and
o. The My Pet Funding Lease Agreement refers to Plaintiffs as the “purchaser”
of Cooper (Exh. B at 8), while also referring to Plaintiffs as the “lessee.” (Exh.
B at 3).
28
NJ 231003219v1
117. Based on Defendants’ violation of the Act, Plaintiffs have suffered actual
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Count 4: Violation of New Jersey Pet Purchase Protection Act

N.J.S.A. § 56.8.92 et seq.
119. At all relevant times, Defendant Breeders Club was a place of business wherein
animals were kept and displayed chiefly for the purpose of sale to individuals for personal
appreciation and companionship.
120. Defendant Breeders Club offered pets for sale.
121. Plaintiffs exchanged money for the puppy they obtained from Defendant Breeders
Club.
122. Defendant Breeders Club failed to display the notices required by N.J.S.A. § 56:8-
94(c) in its store.
123. Defendant Breeders Club failed to provide Plaintiffs with the notification forms
required by N.J.S.A. § 56:8-94(f).
124. To the extent some language from the required N.J.S.A. § 56:8-94(f) disclosures
was included, it was incomplete, confusing, and contained misleading and inconsistent
references. For example, the portion of the Breeders Club Puppy Contract labeled “Pet Shop
Notification Form” references “the recourse described in subsection i. of this section” (Exh. A at
8-10), but the only subsection i. in the Pet Shop Notification Form states in its entirety that “[t]he
Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs may investigate and pursue enforcement action
against any pet shop reported by a consumer pursuant to subsection b of this section” (Id.). It
does not contain remedies for the sickness or death of any animal.
29
NJ 231003219v1
125. To the extent that any contractual provision constituted a waiver of rights under
the Pet Purchase Protection Act, Defendant Breeders Club failed to provide Plaintiffs with the
waiver forms established by the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department
of Law and Public Safety in violation of N.J.S.A. § 56:8-94(g) and NJ ADC 13:45A-12.3.
126. Had Plaintiffs been given the disclosures required by law, they would have been
aware of their rights, could have pursued a certification by a veterinarian that Cooper was unfit
for sale, and could have pursued appropriate remedies under the Pet Purchase Protection Act.
127. Because Plaintiffs were unaware of their rights under the Pet Purchase Protection
Act, they suffered harm by paying for Cooper’s veterinary fees out of pocket.
Count 5: Violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

N.J. Rev. Stat. § 56:8-2
129. Defendants made knowingly false statements and knowing omissions to Plaintiffs.
130. Defendants’ false statements and knowing omissions – including but not limited
to describing the transaction as a “sale” to Plaintiffs while knowing that the transaction was
described as a “lease” in the underlying documents; stating that Plaintiffs could not make pre-
payments; misstating the total purchase price; stating the Cooper’s breeder was reputable; failing
to disclose Cooper’s breeders’ repeated administrative violations; failing to disclose Cooper’s
health problems; and representing to Plaintiffs that they would own Cooper outright – were
material to the purchase of Cooper.
131. Defendants also engaged in unconscionable commercial practices, including but
not limited to charging an ultimate price for Cooper in great excess of the actual purchase price
of Cooper; presenting a contract that was unfair and oppressive; charging for the “My Pet
Funding Warranty” that provided benefits that are wholly duplicative of statutory benefits under
30
NJ 231003219v1
the New Jersey Pet Protection Act; charging an unfair interest rate; taking advantage of Plaintiffs
by relying on the emotional nature of purchasing Cooper and recognizing that Plaintiffs were not
given the opportunity to review and fully understand the financial implications of the transaction;
presenting contracts that violated public policy because in the event of a default or cancellation,
Cooper’s future health would be put into question given that the lending company has no interest
in maintaining the pet; engaging in the “pet leasing” business that involves unscrupulous lending
practices and raises the potential that pets that are repossessed will be relinquished to a shelter or
even be euthanized; presenting contracts for ownership of a dog or cat whereby ownership is
contingent on the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to transfer of possession
of the animal, thereby creating uncertainty as to who has decision-making authority for the
animal’s health and welfare; presenting a contract that provides for or offers the option of
transferring ownership of a dog or cat at the end of a “lease” term, thereby creating uncertainty
as to who has decision-making authority for the animal’s health and welfare; presenting contracts
that include onerous and unfair payment terms; presenting contracts that take advantage of
Plaintiffs’ inferior bargaining power to charge Plaintiffs more than they were promised by
Breeders Club representatives; presenting contracts that limit Plaintiffs’ rights of ownership in
Cooper; and charging Plaintiffs unreasonable additional charges and fees.
132. Defendants’ false statements, knowing omissions and unconscionable commercial
practices caused Plaintiffs ascertainable loss.
Count 6: Legal Fraud
134. Defendants made material and intentional misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the transaction including, but not limited to describing the transaction as a “sale” to
31
NJ 231003219v1
Plaintiffs while knowing that the transaction was described as a “lease” in the underlying
documents; stating that Plaintiffs could not make pre-payments; misstating the total purchase
price; stating the Cooper’s breeder was reputable; failing to disclose Cooper’s breeders repeated
administrative violations; failing to disclose Cooper’s health problems; and representing to
Plaintiffs that they would own Cooper outright.
135. Defendants knew that their representations and omissions were false.
136. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and omissions
regarding the transaction.
137. Plaintiffs suffered economic damages by entering into the Breeders Club Puppy
Contract and the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement.
Count 7: Negligent Misrepresentation
139. Defendants intentionally, recklessly, or negligently made false statements and
omissions regarding the transaction including, but not limited to describing the transaction as a
“sale” to Plaintiffs while knowing that the transaction was described as a “lease” in the
underlying documents; stating that Plaintiffs could not make pre-payments; misstating the total
purchase price; stating that Cooper’s breeder was reputable; failing to disclose Cooper’s
breeders’ repeated administrative violations; failing to disclose Cooper’s health problems; and
representing to Plaintiffs that they would own Cooper outright.
140. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on Defendants’ false statements and omissions by
entering into the Breeders Club Puppy Contract and My Pet Funding Lease Agreement.
141. Plaintiffs’ justifiable reliance on Defendants’ false statements and omissions
resulted in economic loss and injury proximately caused by that reliance.
32
NJ 231003219v1
142. Based on Defendants’ false statements and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered
actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Count 8: Violation of Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (Contract

Violated Clearly Established Legal Rights)
N.J.S.A. § 56:12-14 et seq.
144. Defendants are each a “seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee or assignee of any
of the aforesaid” under N.J.S.A. § 56:12-17.
145. Defendants entered into written consumer contracts with Plaintiffs, specifically
the Breeders Club Puppy Contract and My Pet Funding Lease Agreement.
146. The Breeders Club Puppy Contract and My Pet Funding Lease Agreement contain
provisions that violate the clearly established legal rights of Plaintiffs, including:
a. Provisions that defraud Plaintiffs by misrepresenting the nature of the transaction
or otherwise conflicting with the oral assurances from the Breeders Club
employee;
b. Provisions in the Breeders Club Puppy Contract that fail to include or otherwise
misstate the rights granted under the New Jersey Pet Purchase Protection Act;
c. Failing to include disclosures mandated by the New Jersey Pet Purchase
Protection Act;
d. Provisions in the “Puppy Health Warranty Contract” that charged $60 to duplicate
statutory rights under the New Jersey Pet Purchase Protection Act;
e. Failing to make disclosures required by the federal Truth In Lending Act;
f. Inserting confusing and misleading language that violates New Jersey’s “Plain
Language” law; and
g. Inserting unconscionable terms.

33
NJ 231003219v1
147. Plaintiffs are “aggrieved consumers” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. § 56:12-17,
because they have suffered harm by entering into the unconscionable Breeders Club Puppy
Contract and My Pet Funding Lease Agreement; not receiving Federal Truth In Lending Act
disclosures that could have prevented their entry into the My Pet Funding Lease Agreement;
being rendered unable to enforce their rights under the Pet Purchase Protection Act; and having
paid for Cooper’s veterinary costs out of pocket.
148. Based on Defendants’ violation of the Act, Plaintiffs have a right to a civil penalty
of at least $100, their actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and court costs.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants for actual, statutory, treble
and punitive damages, together with attorneys’ fees, if applicable, costs of suit, and any other
relief as the court may deem proper.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
/s/ Aaron Van Nostrand________

Aaron Van Nostrand
N.J. Attorney ID: 027472002
500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
(973) 360-7900
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DATED: September 18, 2018
34
NJ 231003219v1
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:25-4, Aaron Van Nostrand is hereby designated as
trial counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs Allison Schall and Heather Schall.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all of the triable issues of this Complaint, pursuant to
Rules 1:8-2(b) and 4:35-1(a).

Aaron Van Nostrand
(973) 360-7900
35
NJ 231003219v1
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:5-1 that this matter is not, to the best
of my knowledge, the subject of any other action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration
proceeding, nor is any other action or arbitration proceeding contemplated. I further certify that I
am unaware of any non-party who should be joined in this action pursuant to R. 4:28 or who is
subject to joinder pursuant to R. 4:29-1(b) because of potential liability to any party based on the
same transactional facts.

Aaron Van Nostrand
(973) 360-7900
36
NJ 231003219v1
Exhibit A
Exhibit A - pg. 004

Exhibit A - pg. 005

Exhibit A - pg. 006

Exhibit A - pg. 007

Exhibit A - pg. 008

Exhibit A - pg. 009

Exhibit A - pg. 010

Exhibit A - pg. 011

Exhibit A - pg. 012

Exhibit A - pg. 013

Exhibit B
Exhibit B - pg. 001

Exhibit B - pg. 002

Exhibit B - pg. 003

Exhibit B - pg. 004

Exhibit B - pg. 005

Exhibit B - pg. 006

Exhibit B - pg. 007

Exhibit B - pg. 008

Exhibit B - pg. 009

Civil Case Information Statement

Case Details: SUSSEX | Civil Part Docket# L-000430-18
Case Caption: SCHALL ALLISON VS BREEDERS CLUB Case Type: CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION
OF AME RICA, INC Document Type: Complaint with Jury Demand
Case Initiation Date: 09/19/2018 Jury Demand: YES - 12 JURORS
Attorney Name: AARON VAN NOSTRAND Hurricane Sandy related? NO
Firm Name: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP Is this a professional malpractice case? NO
Address: 500 CAMPUS DRIVE, STE 400 Related cases pending: NO
FLORHAM PARK NJ 079320000 If yes, list docket numbers:
Phone: Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same
Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : Schall, Allison transaction or occurrence)? NO
Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company
(if known): Unknown
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE

CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION
Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? YES

If yes, is that relationship: Business
Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? NO
Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual
management or accelerated disposition:
Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO

If yes, please identify the requested accommodation:
Will an interpreter be needed? NO

If yes, for what language:
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the
court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)
09/19/2018 /s/ AARON VAN NOSTRAND

Dated Signed

V 1 - Schall v. Breeders Club, Et Als. FILED Complaint 9-19-18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

V 1 - Schall v. Breeders Club, Et Als. FILED Complaint 9-19-18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSX-L-000430-18 09/19/2018 1:28:30 PM Pg 1 of 36 Trans ID: LCV20181627019

JASON KISLIN (ID No. 033332003)

JENNIFER H. CHIN (pro hac vice to be filed)

BRUCE WAGMAN (pro hac vice to be filed)

) Superior Court of New Jersey

1. Using superior bargaining power and coercive practices, Defendants convinced

named Cooper. Instead, based on Defendants’ misrepresentations, Plaintiffs signed a “lease”

money than Cooper’s listed price.

2. The unconscionable agreement that Defendants misled Plaintiffs into signing

3. Defendants regularly entice innocent consumers into long-term, oppressive lease

subject of the contracts.

or potentially lose the dogs to whom they have become so attached.

5. Defendants’ practices are unfair, unconscionable, and violate multiple public

policies, including fairness in consumer representation, protection of animal welfare, protection

against predatory lending, and protection of fairness in contracting.

matter of statute or not, Defendants’ conduct represents actionable misrepresentations and

fraudulent consumer practices under existing New Jersey law.

resident of Sussex County, New Jersey.

resident of Sussex County, New Jersey.

9. Defendant Breeders Club of America, Inc. (“Breeders Club”) is a New Jersey

corporation. It is located at 1839 Highway 35, Middletown, New Jersey 07748.

11. Defendant Monterey Financial Services LLC (“Monterey Financial Services”) is a

De La Plata, Oceanside, California 92056.

Defendants when they have been ascertained.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

residents of Sussex County.

personal jurisdiction over Breeders Club because it is a New Jersey resident.

Initial Contact with Breeders Club

Golden Retriever puppies.

have any concerns because the puppy would be “perfect.”

two years to pay the full purchase price.

Plaintiffs. These included:

(a) The puppy was “top shelf” and “perfectly healthy”;

for ailments based on preexisting conditions;

new puppy free of charge;

Cooper and bonded with him.

for their puppy.

Plaintiffs should sign.

Funding Lease Agreement”). See Exhibit B.

Plaintiffs as if they were a single document.

entitled “Pet Acknowledgement Form”; (2) a one-page document entitled “Important

one-page document entitled “ACH Authorization Agreement.” See Exhibit B.

someone else was using the sales counter at that time.

working as an agent for both Breeders Club and My Pet Funding.

$3717. See Exhibit A at 1.

required for them to assume ownership of Cooper.

the lease term, which total $239.11.

49. The Breeders Club website (http://puppies.breedersclubofamerica.com/) claims to

nowhere uses the word “lease” or “rental” in relation to payment plans.

be assigned to other companies to handle the payment plans.

Defendants’ Post-Contractual Refusal to Honor Contract

monthly payments in excess of the contracted monthly rate.

servicing the “lease” and she should contact Monterey instead.

Plaintiffs to contact My Pet Funding.

Cooper had been leased to Plaintiffs.

agreements with My Pet Funding and Breeders Club.

Cooper’s Medical Problems Existing at the Time of Purchase

Cooper to the veterinarian twice due to serious health problems, including:

(a) Kennel cough (canine infectious respiratory disease complex), an upper

respiratory condition often caused by the Bordetella virus and commonly

associated with high-density housing situations;

(b) Infections caused by two different types of intestinal worms; and

substandard housing conditions.