Court Rulings

Self-represented appellants challenge the dismissal with prejudice of their claims against respondent county social services and some of its employees, alleging that appellants' information and records were erroneously released and seeking compensation for the alleged error. Because appellants brought their claims against Dakota County Social Services, which was not the entity responsible for the alleged violations, we affirm the dismissal.

The plaintiff in error, P, the attorney for J and several other defendants in the underlying consolidated actions, filed a writ of error challenging the order of the trial court suspending him from the practice of law for a period of six months. The plaintiffs in those actions, including certain family members of those killed in the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, had filed suit against J and the other defendants as a result of J's use of his nationally syndicated radio program and Internet websites he owned to publish content proclaiming that the mass shooting was a staged event. During trial, the court issued a protective order concerning sensitive personal and confidential infor- mation about the plaintiffs that the defendants had obtained through the discovery process. The order limited use of the information to counsel of record and others involved in the preparation and litigation of the underlying actions. The plaintiffs' confidential information was released during the course of communications P had with attorneys in Texas, including R, about related actions pending there and the possible collabo- ration between P and R on the cases in both states. During that time period, L, a Texas attorney, filed a bankruptcy petition for several defen- dants in the Texas cases. L then contacted W, who was counsel prior to P for several of the defendants in the underlying Connecticut actions, and requested access to all of the discovery materials obtained in the Connection actions. W then emailed L and P, warning that L might not be authorized to access the confidential documents in light of the protective order. Later that day, L obtained copies of the protective order. P did not ask L to sign a confidentiality order, and L was not informed by P or anyone from P's law firm that the discovery materials he was being provided included the plaintiffs' confidential information. A, an attorney in P's law firm, then emailed L, asking him to give R

In this interlocutory appeal, defendants Blue Ocean Waters, LLC and its members Piyush Viradia and Jiten Parikh seek to vacate two orders of the Chancery court. First, its January 18, 2023 order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff AC Ocean Walk, LLC to judicially dissociate Blue Ocean Waters and dissolve the parties' partnership agreement under the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), N.J.S.A. 42:1A-1 to -56. Second, its March 13, 2023 order denying defendants' motion for reconsideration and amending the partial summary judgment order to reflect that the partnership had dissolved on October 10, 2020. We affirm the January 18, 2023 order granting judicial dissociation and dissolution of the parties' partnership agreement. Defendants' failure to respond to AC Ocean Walk's September 30, 2020 notice of breach of the agreement is a clear indication that judicial dissociation was appropriate under N.J.S.A. 42:1A-31(e) as "it [was] not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with the partner." Although no case law in our State has interpreted the "not reasonably practicable" standard for judicial dissociation of a partner, our conclusion is supported by the interpretation of like statutes in other jurisdictions. We, however, reverse the March 13, 2023 order by amending the effective date of the dissociation and dissolution to coincide with the date of January 18, 2023 order. Based on the record before us and the plain language of N.J.S.A. 42:1a-39(e)(3), judicial dissolution occurs when there "is a judicial determination that . . . it is not otherwise reasonably practicable to carry on the partnership business in conformity with the partnership agreement." Again, in the absence of our State's case law defining the effective date of dissociation and dissolution under N.J.S.A. 42:1A-39(e)(3), our conclusion is supported by the interpretation of like statutes in other jurisdictions.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS - termination of spousal support failed to object and/or appeal res judicata attempt to relitigate issues already decided.

The complaint alleged facts sufficient to put appellants on notice that the claims against them involved an exception to their general immunity as government employees pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying appellants' motions for judgment on the pleadings.

Whether a unilateral amendment made pursuant to a change-of-terms provision violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and renders a contract illusory.

The Defendant, Renardo Dixon, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and kidnapping, both Class C felonies, in exchange for concurrent sentences of eight years at 30% release eligibility, with the service left to the trial court's determination. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant's request for probation and ordered that he serve his sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction consecutively to his sentence in a prior case in which his probation had been violated. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for probation. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.