Unpublished Opinions for the Week of February 6, 2017

36-2-2386 Nat’l Auto Div., LLC v. Collector’s Alliance, Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (16 pp.) Plaintiff appealed from the order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice its complaint against defendant for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted. Defendant cross-appealed from the denial of its motion for sanctions against plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that defendant, a competitor, improperly raided employees from plaintiff, and asserted claims of tortious interference, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy against defendant. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly made factual findings on a motion to dismiss, considered information outside the amended complaint, and failed to recognize that plaintiff had adequately pleaded facts supports its claims. As to plaintiff’s tortious interference claims, the trial court determined that plaintiff lacked standing to bring a tortious interference with contracts claim related to its poached employees’ restrictive covenants and NDAs, which were signed with Metro Marketing, LLC. The court ruled that plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss by alleging that it was an affiliate and/or subsidiary of Metro and therefore a beneficiary of the contracts. The court further ruled that the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant paid bonuses to persons who lured away plaintiff’s employees was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. As to plaintiff’s unfair competition claim, the court ruled that plaintiff had alleged facts to survive a motion to dismiss by pleading that its marketing materials, which were known to the poached employees, constituted confidential and proprietary information. However, the court ruled that plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim was properly dismissed, noting that a corporation could not act in conspiracy with its own authorized agents and employees. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion for sanctions, finding no basis in the prior procedural context for the trial court to find that plaintiff’s complaint was frivolous.

46-2-2369 Ragland v. State of New Jersey Dep’t of Treasury, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Appellant Kim Ragland appealed from the final agency decision of the New Jersey Department of the Treasury denying his request for a declaratory ruling. Appellant relied on N.J.S.A. 30:4-871 and N.J.S.A. 30:4-1332 to support his claim that Treasury should direct the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) to disburse unpaid wages he alleged he earned while incarcerated. Appellant further contended that Treasury’s failure to return the unclaimed wages violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey State Constitution. Appellant also asserted, without evidentiary support, that DOC improperly deducted funds from his inmate account. Treasury determined that it did not have the authority to compel DOC to tender unclaimed wages earned while in the custody of DOC or return wages improperly withdrawn from an inmate’s account. The appellate panel agreed and affirmed. Treasury’s decision to deny appellant’s request for a declaratory judgment was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Further, appellant’s attempt to assert a property interest in his alleged unclaimed wages was misplaced. Inmates have no property interest in a job while incarcerated. Nor do inmates have a liberty or property interest in the wages or credits that can be earned from performing a prison work assignment.