NORTH JERSEY MEDIA GROUP, INC. VS. IC SYSTEMSOLUTIONS, INC.,ET AL. (L-2791-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2898-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff North Jersey Media Group sued IC System Solutions, Computer Network Solutions, Philip and Nancy Nolan, and the Estate of Peter Van Lenten, Jr., alleging fraud, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and conversion arising from IT purchases and services overseen by North Jersey's IT VP, Peter Van Lenten.
- Van Lenten was fired in 2009 (died in 2010). After his termination North Jersey discovered missing hardware, an unauthorized laptop, and large payments to IC System totaling over $130,000, triggering an internal investigation.
- North Jersey alleges multiple schemes across four projects: a security‑camera upgrade, purchase/resale of LibertyNet software, payment‑card scanning services, and network security/monitoring—claiming overbilling, non‑delivery, and collusion with Nolan and his companies.
- Plaintiff relied on two experts (a security systems expert and a CPA/certified fraud examiner) and employee witnesses to show mis‑installation, unlicensed work, inflated pricing, and concealment techniques (e.g., spreading invoices, mislabeling maintenance).
- The trial court granted defendants summary judgment (striking or discounting expert opinions as net speculation), denied portions of plaintiff’s discovery and deemed a motion to add a defendant moot; held the case was essentially buyer’s remorse.
- The Appellate Division reversed summary judgment as to fraud, consumer fraud (NJCFA), unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy, affirmed dismissal of conversion, found the expert‑exclusion and some discovery rulings were erroneous, vacated the denial of the motion to amend, and remanded for trial and further proceedings (with reassignment suggested).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on fraud, consumer‑fraud, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy | Evidence (emails, invoices, expert reports, employee affidavits) shows collusion, overbilling, non‑delivery and concealment sufficient to create triable issues | Transactions were arm’s‑length; large profits or hindsight complaints do not prove fraud; experts offer net opinions | Reversed: genuine disputes exist; summary judgment inappropriate; claims go to jury (except conversion) |
| Admissibility of plaintiff's experts (security systems and fraud examiner) | Experts are qualified; opinions rely on record facts, inspections, industry data and common bases for expert conclusions | Opinions are impermissible net opinions/speculation and therefore inadmissible | Trial court erred to exclude wholesale; experts were sufficiently grounded and admissible for summary‑judgment purposes |
| Denial of discovery motion to compel documents from IC System and the Nolans | Additional discovery was necessary and denial impeded plaintiff’s ability to prove collusion and damages | Court found prior discovery adequate and time constraints counseled denial | Denial was an abuse of discretion in context; remand to consider the discovery motion on the merits |
| Motion to amend complaint to add Cook (and related procedural rulings) | Leave to amend should be considered on the merits; trial court prematurely found motion moot after granting summary judgment | Moot because summary judgment disposed of claims | Vacated the prior denial as moot; remand to consider the amendment request; discovery and amendment to be addressed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in favor of non‑movant)
- Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 210 N.J. 581 (2012) (appellate review of summary judgment follows same standard)
- Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369 (2010) (doctrine on resolving evidentiary questions before summary judgment)
- Agha v. Feiner, 198 N.J. 50 (2009) (expert witness qualification standards)
- Polzo v. Cty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569 (2008) (reliance on Rule 703 bases for expert opinion)
- Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (2015) (net‑opinion exclusion principle)
- Grzanka v. Pfeifer, 301 N.J. Super. 563 (App. Div. 1997) (discussing evidentiary limits on speculative expert opinions)
- Kemp v. State, 174 N.J. 412 (2002) (trial court procedures when experts are contested)
- In re Estate of DeFrank, 433 N.J. Super. 258 (App. Div. 2013) (caution against deciding intent/credibility disputes on summary judgment)
- Scully v. Fitzgerald, 179 N.J. 114 (2004) (jury’s role in resolving credibility and inference issues)
- McBarron v. Kipling Woods, L.L.C., 365 N.J. Super. 114 (App. Div. 2004) (summary judgment inappropriate where intent and credibility are disputed)