Unpublished Opinions for the Week of July 11, 2016

01-2- 9646 In the Matter of Hauber, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Appellant, a county services specialist, appealed the decision of the Civil Service Commission that determined that she did not meet the experience requirement—one year of supervisory experience—for the promotional examination for supervising family service specialist 1, Department of Children and Families. The panel affirmed substantially for the reasons in the commission’s final decision. It found that in the decision, the commission comprehensively set forth the reasons why appellant’s employment history did not meet the required one year of supervisory experience as of the closing date. Each of appellant’s contested positions, including those that the commission determined were submitted as amending information, were analyzed and found lacking. The panel concluded that there was substantial credible evidence to support the commission’s conclusion.

06-2-9656 Kostakopoulos v. Alma Bank, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (17 pp.) Plaintiffs, two founder/shareholder/director/officers and one individual shareholder of Fort Lee Bank, which had been ordered by federal banking officials to raise its capital ratios, appealed the dismissal with prejudice of their complaint asserting that defendant Alma Bank engaged in negotiations with FLB as part of a scheme to convince plaintiffs of its continuing interest in consummating a merger with FLB, while secretly planning to purchase FLB’s assets at a significant discount when the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency closed the bank. Plaintiffs asserted claims for fraud, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The trial judge granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs did not have standing to assert the claims in their complaint since any injuries they suffered were derivative of injuries suffered by FLB as a corporate entity. The judge denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration because it had been filed beyond the time required by Rule 4:49-2. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. It found that the trial judge correctly determined that plaintiffs’ claims were claims of FLB, the corporate entity, not personal claims that could be pursued directly by individual FLB shareholders, and that plaintiffs had failed to establish “special injuries” distinct from the injuries suffered by other shareholders that would have enabled them to pursue a direct suit. The panel also found that, assuming that FLB was a closely held corporation, plaintiffs had not alleged facts that would have allowed the court to treat their derivative claims as a direct action under Brown. However, the panel found that while the court correctly determined that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims based on the factual allegations in the initial complaint, it erred by dismissing the action with prejudice, thereby precluding plaintiffs from filing a new complaint with other factual allegations that might warrant a different conclusion as to their standing. It therefore remanded for entry of an amended order stating that the dismissal was without prejudice.