United States District Court, D. New Jersey
S. ROSEN BIANCE M. OLIVADOTI MCCUSKER, ANSELMI, ROSEN &
CARVELLI, PC, JEFFERY A. DONNER STRYKER, TAMS & DILL LLP,
Attorneys for Plaintiff Edward Omert.
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.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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
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.
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.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
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.
Motion for Reconsideration Standard
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).
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
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
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.
the Court will first consider Plaintiff's legal argument
on the tort of intentional interference and then will