KAMDEM-OUAFFO v. LEBLON et al

Filing 36

OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 1/12/2016. (kas, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RICKY EMERY KAMDEM OUAFFO TIA
KAMDEM GROUP,
Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 15-7481

v.

OPINION

HON. VINCENT LEBLON, TODD B.
BUCK, ESQ., TERRY D. JOHNSON, ESQ.,
MARK A KRIEGEL, ESQ., ALLISON A.
KRILLA, ESQ., ERIK ANDERSON, ESQ.,
REARDON ANDERSON, LLC, John and
Jane Does 1-10, ABC Corporations 1-10,

RECEIVED

Defendants.

AT8:30
W!LL!AM T. WALSH

JAN 11

2~~6
M

c~::RK

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
INTRODUCTION
This matter has come before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff
Ricky Emery Kamdem Ouaffo t/a Kamdem Group ("Plaintiff'). (ECF No. 30). Defendants
Allison A. KriHa, Erik Anderson, and Reardon Anderson, LLC oppose the Motion. (ECF No.
33). Upon consideration of the parties' written submissions and without oral argument pursuant
to Local Civil Rule 78.l(b), the Court will deny Plaintiffs Motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is engaged in the business of creating, manufacturing, and distributing food
flavor ingredients and formulas. (Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 1, ECF No. 8). On August 27, 2013,
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey against Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.
("Hill's Pet Nutrition"); its parent company, Colgate Palmolive Co.; NaturaSo~ce International,
LLC ("NaturaSource"); and the sole member ofNaturaSource, Laszlo Pokorny. (Def.'s Mot.
1

Dismiss at 6, ECF No. 16-1 ). In this complaint, Plaintiff alleged a variety of tort and contract
claims related to the alleged misappropriation of Plaintiffs proprietary information. (Id. at 6-7).
At the start of this litigation, Plaintiff was represented by current defendant Allison A. Krilla of
Reardon Anderson, LLC. 1 (Id at 6). Hill's Pet Nutrition and Colgate Palmolive Co. were
represented by current defendants Todd B. Buck and Terry D. Johnson. (Id. at 7). NaturaSource
and Lazio Pokorny were represented by current defendant Mark A. Kriegel.
From 2013 to 2015, the parties filed briefs and motions, and completed discovery. (Id. at
7). On May 22, 2015, Plaintiffs counsel moved to withdraw. (Id at 8). The state court granted
the motion, and Plaintiff has proceeded prose since then. (Id). On June 26, 2015, Hill's Pet
Nutrition moved for summary judgment. (Id.). On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Removal in state court, which Hill's Pet Nutrition opposed. (Id at 8-9). On August 14, 2015,
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Removal in this Court. (Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 14). This Notice was not
docketed until August 21, 2015. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he complied with the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) to correctly remove the case to federal court by giving
notice to all adverse parties and filing a copy of the Notice of Removal with the state court.
(Pl.' s Am. Compl. at 14-15).
On August 20, 2015, the Honorable Vincent LeBlon, named as a defendant here, held a
hearing on Hill's Pet Nutrition's motion for summary judgment. (Tr. of Mot. Hr'g, ECF No. 162). Defendants Terry D. Johnson and Todd B. Buck appeared on behalf of Hill's Pet Nutrition.

(Id at 3). Defendant Mark A. Kriegel appeared on behalf of NaturaSource and Lazio Pokorny.
(Id.). Plaintiff chose not to appear, having previously notified the court and Defendant Buck that
he would not appear because he believed that the state court no longer had jurisdiction. (Id at 4-

1

Reardon Anderson, LLC and founding partner Erik Anderson are also defendants in this action.
(ECFNo. 8).

5). Judge LeBlon decided to go forward with the hearing, and ultimately entered summary
judgment against Plaintiff. (Id. at 9, 30-31).
In response to Plaintiffs August 14, 2015 Notice of Removal in this Court, Defendant
Johnson and Defendant Kriegel moved to remand Plaintiffs case back to state court in early
September 2015. Kamdem Ouaffo v. Naturasource Int'/, LLC, No. 15-6290, 2015 WL 5722837
(D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2015). This Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and remanded
the case to state court. Id. This Court is not aware of any further developments in the state
court. On October 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a new complaint before this Court. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff amended his complaint ("Complaint") on November 4, 2015. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiffs
Complaint contains many counts, but his primary assertion is that the defendants "wanted to hold
some unlawful hearings" after he had removed his case to federal court, and that these hearings
"resulted in Court Orders to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint for the purpose of satisfying personal
interests in the matter." (Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 18). In late November 2015, Defendants Buck,
Johnson, and Kriegel moved to dismiss the Complaint. (ECF Nos. 16, 17). Plaintiff opposed
these motions and moved to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 22). This Court
granted the motions to dismiss, and denied Plaintiffs motion to file a second amended complaint

based on futility. (ECF No. 28). Plainti_ff subsequently moved for reconsideration. (ECF No.
30). This Motion is presently before the Court.
LEGAL STANDARD
In the District ofNew Jersey, Local Civil Rule 7.l(i) governs motions for
reconsideration. A timely motion for reconsideration may only be granted upon a finding of at
least one of the following grounds: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law has
occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) it is necessary to
correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth
3

Advertising & Pub. Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993). Reconsideration is an
"extraordinary remedy" that is rarely granted. Brackett v. Ashcroft, No. 03-3988, 2003 WL
22303078, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003) (internal citations omitted). "A party seeking
reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and
'recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original
decision fails to carry the moving party's burden."' G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275
(D.N.J. 1990) (citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff does not make any arguments based upon the established grounds for
reconsideration described above. Plaintiff does not suggest that there has been an intervening
change in the controlling law, or that new evidence has become available. Rather, Plaintiff
explicitly says that he is merely clarifying certain facts, and that he has "relied on the same
evidence already on the record". (Pl.'s Mot. for Recons. at 43, ECF No. 30). Plaintiff repeatedly
emphasizes Judge LeBlon's decision to seal a number of documents in Plaintiff's state court
case, (see, e.g., id. at 7-8), however this fact is neither new nor was it overlooked by the Court
when deciding to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (See Ct.'s Op. at 8, ECF No. 28).
Plaintiff also fails to show that reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law
or to prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiff's primary argument in this Motion appears to be that a
"deeply rooted conspiracy" between Judge LeBlon and the other defendants is "the only
reasonable conclusion" based on the defendants' actions. (Pl.' s Mot. for Recons. at 37).
Therefore, Plaintiff argues, this Court's decision to dismiss his Complaint was a "flagrant
judicial foul." (Id. at 41). However, threadbare allegations as to the nature of the alleged
conspiracy, and disagreement with the Court's decision do not prove a clear error of law or a
manifest injustice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); G-69, 748 F. Supp. At 275.

4

•

Plaintiff's lengthy repetitions of his previous arguments are similarly unavailing. Carteret Sav.

Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F. Supp. 705, 706 (D.N.J. 1989) (stating that a party cannot carry his
burden in a motion for reconsideration by recapitulating his previous arguments).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration will be denied. An

appropri~te Order will follow.

5