Newark, N.J. (March 31, 2023) - Newark Partner Brent A. Bouma recently secured an appellate victory on behalf of a company and several employees when the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff's claims of evidence tampering, false imprisonment, negligent hiring, training and supervision, and malicious prosecution could not succeed as a matter of law.
In this case, the plaintiff claimed that Lewis Brisbois' clients - a company and several employees - engaged in an orchestrated scheme to maliciously prosecute the plaintiff. This scheme allegedly included falsifying internal records, unlawfully imprisoning the plaintiff when he was a customer in a retail store, and tampering with evidence. The plaintiff also asserted negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims, arguing that the company's failures in all three areas led to its employees acting in an unlawful manner. After discovery ended, Lewis Brisbois obtained summary judgment based on the argument that the plaintiff could not prove his claims as a matter of law. The plaintiff subsequently appealed.
On appeal, in a per curiam ruling, the appellate court conducted a de novo review and affirmed the trial court's dismissal for several reasons. First, the court agreed that the plaintiff did not sufficiently oppose the moving statement of material facts, which deemed each statement admitted for the purposes of the motion. Nevertheless, the court examined each cause of action and determined that the plaintiff did not allege any genuine dispute of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. The plaintiff also did not present any facts or evidence to illustrate how the employees' conduct was incompetent, dangerous, or injurious. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.