Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Omert v. Freundt & Associates Insurance Services, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 3, 2019

EDWARD OMERT, Plaintiff,
v.
FREUNDT & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. trading as THE PRODUCERS GROUP, C. KENT FREUNDT, and VINCENT VITIELLO, Defendants.

          BRUCE S. ROSEN BIANCE M. OLIVADOTI MCCUSKER, ANSELMI, ROSEN & CARVELLI, PC, JEFFERY A. DONNER STRYKER, TAMS & DILL LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff Edward Omert.

          GERALD J. DUGAN MICHAEL J. LORUSSO DUGAN, BRINKMANN, MAGINNIS & PACE, ESQS., Attorneys for Defendants Freundt & Associates Insurance Services, Inc. and C. Kent Freundt.

          ALEXANDER G.P. GOLDENBERG CUTI HECKER WANG LLP, Attorney for Defendant Vincent Vitiello.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         This case is a breach of contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage action brought under New Jersey common law. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Edward Omert's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (“Motion for Reconsideration”). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

         BACKGROUND

         The Court relies upon the facts discussed in its December 20, 2018 Opinion, which is the subject of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and incorporates those facts by reference. On December 20, 2018, the Court issued its decision on three competing motions for summary judgment, one filed by Plaintiff, another by Defendants C. Kent Freundt and Freundt & Associates Insurance Services, Inc. t/a The Producers Group (“TPG”), and a third by Defendant Vincent Vitiello. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. As a result, it dismissed the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claims against the two individual defendants, Freundt and Vitiello.

         On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration. On January 16, 2019, Defendant Vitiello filed opposition in the form of a letter brief. On January 22, 2019, Defendant Freundt filed its brief in opposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. The Court will note any other relevant facts where necessary in its Opinion.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the present action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.

         B. Motion for Reconsideration Standard

         Local Rule 7.1(i) allows a party to file a motion with the Court requesting the Court to reconsider the “matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked.” Under Local Rule 7.1(i), the moving party must demonstrate “‘the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.'” Andreyko v. Sunrise Sr. Living, Inc., 993 F.Supp.2d 475, 478 (D.N.J. 2014) (citations omitted). In doing so, the moving party must show the “‘dispositive factual matter or controlling decisions of law'” it believes the court overlooked in its initial decision. Mitchell, 913 F.Supp.2d at 78 (citation omitted). A mere disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law. United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).

         C. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration

         Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is built upon two general arguments. First, Plaintiff argues the Court committed a clear error of law in determining that Freundt, as the majority shareholder of TPG and sole decisionmaker, could not be liable as a matter of law for tortious interference with TPG's contract with a third-party. Second, Plaintiff argues the Court failed to consider or overlooked key facts as to whether Vitiello influenced Freundt's decision concerning termination of the alleged agreement with Plaintiff.

         Defendant Freundt opposes Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Freundt dedicates the majority of his opposition to discussion of the legal origins of the tort of intentional interference and why its origins supports the Court's decision in this instance. Freundt also argues Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on factual issues merely rehashes his Motion for Summary Judgment already considered by the Court. Defendant Vitiello also opposes Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration in a brief letter. Vitiello's argument is simple: the Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration as it relates to him because the motion merely rehashes arguments made in the summary judgment briefing.

         Accordingly, the Court will first consider Plaintiff's legal argument on the tort of intentional interference and then will ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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