United States District Court, D. New Jersey
LAW ASSOCIATES, LLC By: Jeffrey A. Donner, Esq. and McCUSKER,
ANSELMI, ROSEN & CARAVELLI, P.C. By: Bruce S. Rosen, Esq.
Bianca M. Olivadoti, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff.
HECKER WANG LLP By: Alexander Goldenberg, Esq. Counsel for
Defendant Vincent Vitiello.
BRINKMANN, MAGINNIS & PACE, ESQS. By: Gerald J. Dugan,
Esq. Michael J. Lorusso, Esq. Counsel for Defendants Freundt
& Associates Insurance Services, Inc. and C. Kent
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
primarily a breach of contract suit arising out of an alleged
failed business association between Plaintiff Edward Omert
and Defendant Freundt & Associates Insurance Services,
Inc., trading as The Producers Group (hereinafter
“TPG”). As discussed further herein, the other two
Defendants, C. Kent Freundt and Vincent Vitiello, are
employees of TPG. Omert asserts that Freundt and Vitiello
intentionally interfered with Omert's alleged contract
moves to dismiss, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the
single claim asserted against him personally. For the reasons
set forth herein, the Motion will be denied.
alleged in the Complaint, Defendant TPG provides
“distribution and other marketing functions” for
insurance companies. At all relevant times, Defendant Fruendt
allegedly was TPG's “founder, ”
“principal shareholder as well as the President, Chief
Executive Officer and Manager of TPG on a daily basis.”
(Compl. ¶ 3) Defendant Vitiello allegedly was the
“Executive Vice- President of the East Coast Division
of TPG and then a principal therein referred to as a
Partner.” (Id. ¶ 4)
to the Complaint, Vitiello contacted Omert in August 2012 to
see “whether [Omert] would be interested in growing the
Annuity Division of TPG.” (Compl. ¶ 21) Omert
allegedly had been very successful in his previous employment
in the same industry, and TPG allegedly sought out Omert for
his expertise. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 20-21)
communications and meetings allegedly took place between
Omert, Freundt, Vitiello, and others employed by TPG, over
the next six months (Compl. ¶ 21-48), which allegedly
culminated in a “Term Sheet.” The Term Sheet
provided, among other things, that Omert would be “both
an employee of TPG and a co-owner” of TPG's new
Annuities and Linked Benefits Products Division. (Compl.
¶ 50, Goldenberg Decl. Ex. 1, “Term Sheet”)
The Complaint alleges that Omert and Freundt both signed the
document. (Compl. ¶ 61-62; see also Goldenberg Decl. Ex.
1 reflecting signatures of “Ed Omert” and someone
signing on behalf of “The Producers Group.”)
the roll-out of the proposed new Division never happened, and
in a December 16, 2014 email, Vitiello allegedly
“advised Omert that TPG ‘will probably outsource
[its] annuity program, ' [and] further commented that
‘it was difficult to pull the trigger in the way we
planned.'” (Compl. ¶ 103) The December
16themail is the last alleged communication Omert
received from Defendants.
Complaint alleges four counts. Counts 1 through 3, asserted
against TPG only, are breach of contract, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. At
issue in this motion is the last count, Count 4-- intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage, asserted
against Freundt and Vitiello individually.
considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court must accept
all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and
view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005).
It is well settled that a pleading is sufficient if it