DOC PREVIEW
CMU ISR 08732 - THEODORE JOHNSON v. BENJAMIN MOORE & COMPANY

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4 out of 13 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

THEODORE JOHNSON v. BENJAMIN MOORE & COMPANY347 N.J. Super. 71; 788 A.2d 906; 2002 N.J. Super. LEXIS 37 (AD 2002)COUNSEL: Walter J. Tencza, Jr. argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent.Patrick J. Monaghan, Jr. argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant (Monaghan, Monaghan, Lamb & Marchisio,attorneys; Mr. Monaghan and Mark F. Heinze, on the brief).[**908] [*75] The opinion of the court was delivered by PETRELLA, P.J.A.D.Plaintiff, Theodore Johnson, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint that had asserted that defendant, BenjaminMoore & Co., based its Crayola Paints program on various concepts plaintiff had disclosed to it without paying for hisideas and his proposed product line. Plaintiff's proposal had described a do-it-yourself art project called Mural in a Can,consisting of a one-gallon paint can containing: a line drawing with color indications on transfer paper folded like amap; step-by-step instructions; information on color and paint quantities; brushes; masking tape; [***2] and a dropcloth. Prior to presenting his product proposal, plaintiff had defendant's representative sign a one-page letter agreeing tocompensate him if his idea or product was used by defendant.After a tortuous procedural history before many different judges, Judge Yannotti granted summary judgment indefendant's favor on the ground that plaintiff's proposal was neither novel nor original, but denied defendant's motionsfor counsel fees, costs and sanctions. [**909]On appeal Johnson raises the following issues:1. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment by not considering instructions and tools to be part ofdefendant's Crayola product, and by not considering paint to be part of plaintiff's proposed mural in a can product?2. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment by not considering evidence other than novelty indetermining whether defendant had taken ideas from plaintiff's proposal? [*76]3. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment by holding that a pre-disclosure express written contract forsale of a non- novel idea was not enforceable without a post-disclosure agreement?4. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment by applying an improperly high standard [***3] of novelty?5. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment by not addressing whether the combination of ideas, as awhole, met a minimum standard of novelty?6. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment in the face of admissions of novelty by defendant'semployees that created an issue of fact for the jury?7. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment because novelty, if any is needed, is a question of fact for thejury?8. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment because, in New Jersey, novelty should not be required forideas in express contract situations when it is not required for trade secrets?9. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment because he did not discuss whether plaintiff's ideas mightconstitute trade secrets?10. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment because he did not address whether enforcement of the pre-disclosure agreement was in keeping with increasingly higher standards of morality?11. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment because he changed another judge's denial of summaryjudgment without any significant new material facts or new controlling law?12. Did the judge improperly grant summary judgment [***4] by taking an improperly limited view of plaintiff'sproposal as just paint-by-numbers when another judge had not taken such a view and plaintiff had not limited theproposal in such a manner?13. Did the judge decide all issues as a matter of law so they are reviewable de novo by the Appellate Division?14. Did the judge err by not considering the corporate receipt doctrine (not raised below)?15. Did the judge err in not hearing plaintiff's motion to alter or amend final judgment in favor of Ellen Singer?16. Did the judges err by dismissing or severing plaintiff's spoliation claims?17. Did the judge err by allowing defendant to bring an amended defamation claim?18. Are defendant's defamation and abuse of process claims barred by the entire controversy doctrine?19. Did the judge err by failing to dismiss the defamation and abuse of process claims with prejudice based on thelaw of the case doctrine?20. Should the defamation claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim under R. 4:6- 2(e)?21. Should the abuse of process claim be dismissed with prejudice? [*77] [**910]22. Did the judge err by failing to grant sanctions against defense counsel for intentional misrepresentation? [***5]23. Did the judge err by quashing Lee Flemming's deposition?24. Did the judge err by ordering plaintiff to pay for David Gallinson's deposition?Defendant cross-appeals from the denial of its requested counsel fees and costs under the offer of judgment rule,and the denial of sanctions.I.In his November 21, 1996 complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant n1 and Peter Bishop, defendant'sMerchandising and Graphic Design Manager, misappropriated confidential information.n1 Defendant refers to Benjamin Moore & Co. except where otherwise indicated.In a first amended complaint, plaintiff added claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of an expresscontract, breach of a confidential relationship, unjust enrichment, and breach of an implied contract. A second amendedcomplaint added more facts. A third amended complaint added Ellen Singer as a defendant and counts for tortiousinterference with prospective economic advantage by her and Bishop; and civil conspiracy.Defendants denied the key allegations [***6] of these complaints, raised affirmative defenses and counterclaimedfor abuse of process and commercial defamation.Summary judgment was granted in favor of Singer on plaintiff's individual claims against her. All of the otherclaims against Singer were merged into plaintiff's claims against defendant because those alleged actions were taken onbehalf of the corporation.On November 17, 1998, defendant's summary judgment motion was denied. Thereafter, Bishop was grantedsummary judgment [*78] on plaintiff's individual claims against him, and the remaining claims were merged with theclaims against defendant.Plaintiff's motion to file a fourth amended complaint adding fraudulent concealment of evidence or spoliation ofevidence was granted. Two different motion judges denied plaintiff's motions to dismiss the counterclaims, andreconsideration was denied at least twice.


View Full Document

CMU ISR 08732 - THEODORE JOHNSON v. BENJAMIN MOORE & COMPANY

Documents in this Course
gnusort

gnusort

5 pages

Notes

Notes

24 pages

Citron

Citron

63 pages

Load more
Download THEODORE JOHNSON v. BENJAMIN MOORE & COMPANY
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view THEODORE JOHNSON v. BENJAMIN MOORE & COMPANY and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view THEODORE JOHNSON v. BENJAMIN MOORE & COMPANY 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?