The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants' Intergrated Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter "IGS") and Geotech Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter "Geotech") Motions for Partial Summary Judgment [Docs. 148, 149] on Count One of Plaintiff's Complaint. IGS and Geotech (collectively "Corporate Defendants") contend they are entitled to partial summary judgment because neither corporation owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty. Plaintiff disputes this contention. According to Plaintiff, the Court should analyze the relationships among all Defendants, including Defendants Scott Kavalek (hereinafter "Mr. Kavalek") and Roberta Kavalek (hereinafter Ms. "Kavalek"), and not determine the existence of a fiduciary relationship solely by examining the interactions of IGS and Geotech with Plaintiff. For the reasons expressed below, Corporate Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment will be denied.*fn1
This case involves a long, complicated and disputed factual history. The Court will only discuss the facts relevant to the current Motions.*fn2 Plaintiff, Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. (hereinafter "Vibra-Tech"), specializes in the measurement of vibrations in the mining and construction industries and also provides consulting services in the areas of liability seismology, blasting, efficiency, structure dynamics and geophysics. From April 1998 to May 2008 Plaintiff employed Mr. Kavalek. Mr. Kavalek began his employment with Plaintiff as an Area Manager of Vibra-Tech's New Jersey office and during his tenure was promoted to Vice-President. Mr. Kavalek was also voted a member of Vibra-Tech's Board of Directors. Ms. Kavalek*fn3 was employed with Plaintiff from September 1997 to December 2006 as the Office Manager for Vibra-Tech's New Jersey office.
In December 2004, Mr. Kavalek and Ms. Kavalek (collectively "Individual Defendants") incorporated Geotech,*fn4 a business that sells geotechnical equipment. Through Mr. Kavalek's connections with Plaintiff,*fn5 Geotech sold equipment at a profit to VibraTech. From Geotech's incorporation through the termination of their respective employments with Plaintiff, Individual Defendants conducted Geotech's business while simultaneously employed by Plaintiff and without its knowledge. In May 2005, Ms. Kavalek incorporated IGS, a company that also performs vibration monitoring services on construction sites. IGS is a competitor of Plaintiff. Although Mr. Kavalek performed various duties on behalf of IGS and its customers, including serving as the company's Vice President, the record is unclear on the extent of the duties he preformed and whether he was an owner or employee of IGS.*fn6 Individual Defendants performed their respective duties for IGS while simultaneously employed by Plaintiff and without its knowledge. As a result of their interactions with Corporate Defendants, Individual Defendants seemingly concede their respective conduct violated their fiduciary obligations to Plaintiff.*fn7 See Doc. 175, Supplement to Joint Final Pretrial Order ("Ms. Kavalek acknowledges that her conduct was a technical violation of her fiduciary obligation to her employer [Vibra-Tech]"); See also Id. ("The conduct of Mr. Kavalek was a technical violation of his fiduciary obligation to his employer [Vibra-Tech] although Plaintiff suffered no actual damages as a result").
Plaintiff filed its original Complaint on May 29, 2008,*fn8 alleging several causes of action.*fn9 On July 30, 2010, Corporate Defendants moved for entry of summary judgment on their behalf with respect to count one of Plaintiff's Complaint, breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff opposes entry of summary judgment.
A. Standard for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
An issue is "genuine" if it is supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is "material" if, under the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the suit. Id. In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the nonmoving party's evidence "is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).
Initially, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must identify, by affidavits or otherwise, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. Thus, to withstand a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict those offered by the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57. A party opposing summary judgment must do more than just rest upon mere allegations, general denials, or vague statements. Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001).
A. Failure to Comply with New Jersey Local ...