UDDOH v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al

Filing 84

OIPINION AND ORDER denying 65 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ; denying 75 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/21/2014. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
HUMPHREY O. UDDOH,
:
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v.
:
:
:
SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:

Civil Action No. 13-2719 (SRC)

OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on two motions: 1) the motion for judgment on the
pleadings by Defendants CNC Catastrophic and National Claims (“CNC”) and Paul Pierce
(“Pierce”); and 2) the cross-motion for various relief by Plaintiff Humphrey O. Uddoh. For the
reasons stated below, both motions will be denied.
On September 13, 2013, CNC and Pierce moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing, inter
alia, that the claim for trespass failed to state a valid claim for relief. On January 16, 2014, this
Court issued an Opinion and Order which, inter alia, denied the motion to dismiss the trespass
claim. CNC and Pierce now, again, contend that the Complaint fails to state a valid trespass
claim, but this time on the ground that the Complaint does not adequately plead damages. This
is meritless, as the Complaint’s theory of damages from the alleged trespass is clearly stated.
(See Compl. ¶ 18.) The motion for judgment on the pleadings will be denied.
In opposition, Plaintiff filed a putative cross-motion for leave to amend the Complaint, to
compel discovery, and for sanctions. L. Civ. R. 7.1(h) states: “A cross-motion related to the

subject matter of the original motion may be filed by the party opposing the motion together with
that party’s opposition papers . . .” Pursuant to this rule, the cross-motion must be “related to the
subject matter of the original motion.” Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is not
related to the subject matter of the cross-motion to amend the tortious interference claim, to
compel discovery, or for sanctions. The cross-motion is not a proper cross motion under L. Civ.
R. 7.1(h) and will be denied.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 21st day of October, 2014, hereby
ORDERED that the motion for judgment on the pleadings by Defendants CNC and
Pierce (Docket Entry No. 65) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for various relief (Docket Entry No. 75) is
DENIED.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J

2