Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Waterloov Gutter Protection Systems Co., Inc. v. Absolute Gutter Protection

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


September 28, 1999

WATERLOOV GUTTER PROTECTION SYSTEMS CO., INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
ABSOLUTE GUTTER PROTECTION, L.L.C., CHARLES KNIGHT, WILLIAM GUMPPER, GUMPPER'S GUTTER SERVICE, RAY VANDERGRIFT, NELSON SENSENIG, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT OF SENSENIG SPOUTING AND WHITE OAK MFG., L.L.C.,
DEFENDANTS,
V.
RICHARD L. KUHNS, CHARLES LEE THOMASON, RAYMOND R. MOSER, JR., EMON J. WALL, AND THOMASON & MOSER,
ADDITIONAL COUNTERCLAIMDEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Stephen M. Orlofsky

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the motion of Additional Counterclaim Defendants Charles Lee Thomason, Raymond R. Moser, Jr., Emon J. Wall, and Thomason & Moser (collectively "Attorney Defendants"), for summary judgment, Michael J. Canning, Esq., Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C., appearing on behalf of Attorney Defendants, and Norman E. Lehrer, Esq., and Vanitha M. Elgart, Esq., Norman E. Lehrer, P.C., appearing on behalf of Defendants, Absolute Gutter Protection, L.L.C., and Charles Knight; and,

The Court having considered the submissions of the parties, for the reasons set forth in the OPINION filed concurrently with this ORDER;

IT IS, on this 28th day of September, 1999, hereby ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment of the Attorney Defendants is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. The motion for summary judgment of the Attorney Defendants is GRANTED with respect to the unfair competition claim (Count IV) asserted by Defendants, Absolute Gutter Protection, L.L.C., and Charles Knight;

2. The motion for summary judgment of the Attorney Defendants is GRANTED with respect to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim (Count VIII) asserted by Defendants, Absolute Gutter Protection, L.L.C., and Charles Knight;

4. The motion for summary judgment of the Attorney Defendants is GRANTED with respect to the legal malpractice claim (Count IX) asserted by Defendants, Absolute Gutter Protection, L.L.C., and Charles Knight; and,

5. The motion for summary judgment of the Attorney Defendants is DENIED with respect to the common law fraud claim (Count VII) asserted by Defendants, Absolute Gutter Protection, L.L.C., and Charles Knight.

STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY United States District Judge

19990928

© 2000 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.