36-3-3298 New Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. IC Sys. Sol., Inc., Law. Div. (Wilson, J.) (40 pp.) (Feb. 18, 2014) Defendants filed three motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that, over an eight-year period, it was the victim of a technology equipment and services scam orchestrated by a former executive, then employed with plaintiff, in collusion with two outside vendors; specifically, that defendant charged unreasonable rates for equipment and services, provided services that were unnecessary, and otherwise scammed plaintiff out of funds for the procurement of IT equipment and services. Plaintiff asserted claims of fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and sought a constructive trust. However, the court viewed plaintiff’s allegations as “buyer’s remorse,” nor was there a viable cause of action for plaintiff to claim that defendants got “ too good of a deal.” The court further noted that plaintiff had an opportunity to review its contracts and vendor relationships and the decisions of its senior managers, including the former executive at issue, and further had a duty to institute financial and management controls to avoid the problems it now alleged. Accordingly, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a case for fraud or any other tort, or that there was any material fact in dispute. Instead, the court noted that plaintiff had merely presented various suppositions and conspiracy theories. The court found that there was no evidence of a knowing and material misrepresentation made by defendants to plaintiff, or any complaint about the services provided by defendants to plaintiff prior to the present lawsuit. The court held that simply because a party failed to live up to its contractual obligations was not a basis for fraud or any other tort claims. Finally, the court held that plaintiff’s claims for conversion and fraud based on “inflated” invoices and prices for services were nothing more than a regret that plaintiff paid more than it should have.
46-2-3276 Lai v. Langbert, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) Plaintiff appealed from the order dismissing her complaint against defendants for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was the principal of Fantastic Realty, which owned property leased to Dr. Carl Langbert, who operated his dental practice on the premises. Plaintiff alleged that Langbert stopped paying rent in January 2011, and subsequently retained defendant Shoshana Schiff to represent him in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiff further alleged that she requested her name be removed from Langbert’s creditor list, but that defendants refused to do so, based upon plaintiff’s status as a “multiple disabled, old, Chinese woman.” Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, which was granted by the trial court upon its finding that plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a factual basis for relief but instead merely contained conclusory language asserting the type of relief requested. On appeal, plaintiff asserted that the procedural history before the court demonstrated that defendants intentionally refused to remove her form Langbert’s creditor list because she was an elderly woman of Chinese ancestry, with multiple disabilities. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, noting that plaintiff’s argument failed to address the basis for dismissal, namely, that she failed to set forth a factual basis to support the causes of action asserted. The court found the only facts alleged were that defendants failed to give plaintiff Langbert’s “asset listing,” and that defendants refused to remove plaintiff from the creditor list because she was a multiple-disabled, elderly Chinese woman. The court held that neither fact, without more, asserted a claim of discrimination under the state or federal Constitutions or under the Law Against Discrimination. Finally, the court held that because defendants did not represent plaintiff, her negligence claim could not stand.
