THE RODGERS GROUP, LLC v. LEWIS
3:22-cv-00482
D.N.J.Apr 30, 2025Background
- Lewis and String, former employees of Rodgers Group, started Aspirant Consulting, a competing business allegedly using Rodgers Group’s confidential information.
- Rodgers Group sued Lewis and String, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and poaching of clients; a preliminary injunction was entered against Lewis and String.
- Lewis, String, and Aspirant (Counterclaim Plaintiffs) filed counterclaims for tortious interference and commercial disparagement.
- The Court previously dismissed the commercial disparagement claim for failing to allege disparagement of goods/services but allowed the tortious interference claim to proceed.
- Counterclaim Plaintiffs then amended their commercial disparagement claim to focus on false statements about their services, identifying lost business from at least one client.
- The present opinion addresses Counterclaim Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Counterclaims for failure to state claims and applicability of New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations | Defendants’ conduct caused loss of a specific contract (Police Dept. 9) | Allegations insufficient to support claim | Sufficient claim for Police Dept. 9 |
| Commercial Disparagement – About Goods/Services | Amendments now allege false statements about plaintiffs’ services | Still fails to allege statements relate to plaintiffs’ services | Allegations now sufficient |
| Malice (Commercial Disparagement) | Defendants knowingly/recklessly made false statements | Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead malice | Malice adequately alleged |
| Special Damages (Commercial Disparagement) | Lost a $72,000 contract due to defendants’ statements | No link between statements and lost contract | Special damages adequately pleaded |
| New Jersey Anti-SLAPP Applicability | Statute does not protect statements related to sale of services | Statute bars commercial disparagement claim | Statute does not apply; claim proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard for plausibility in pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard, need for plausible claims)
- U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Phila., 898 F.2d 914 (commercial disparagement claim must address goods/services, not just the business)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (standard for accepting factual allegations at pleadings stage)
- Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge, 632 F.3d 822 (counterclaim dismissal uses same standard as original claim)