Trading v. Colgate Palmolive Co.

• Decision Date: 26 October 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 15-7902
• Parties: RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO trading as KAMDEM GROUP, Plaintiff, v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., NATURASOURCE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, LASZLO POKORNY, JOHN DOES 1-10, SARAH B. MARTINEZ, LUIS J. MONTELONGO, BENT K. POPE, DENNIS JEWELL, LYNDA MELENDEZ, SHANNON McGARAH, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO trading as KAMDEM GROUP, Plaintiff, v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC.,NATURASOURCE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, LASZLO POKORNY,JOHN DOES 1-10, SARAH B. MARTINEZ, LUIS J. MONTELONGO, BENT K. POPE,DENNIS JEWELL, LYNDA MELENDEZ, SHANNON McGARAH, Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 15-7902

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

October 26, 2016

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

CECCHI, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on two motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo ("Plaintiff" or "Kamdem"). The first Motion to Dismiss was filed by Defendants Colgate Palmolive Company ("Colgate") and Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. ("Hill's Pet Nutrition") (collectively, the "Colgate Defendants"). [ECF No. 28.] The second Motion to Dismiss was filed by Defendants Naturasource International, LLC ("Naturasource") and Laszlo Pokorny ("Pokorny") (collectively, the "Pokorny Defendants"). [ECF No. 15.¹] Also before theCourt is Plaintiff's Motion for Jurisdiction and Res Judicata Discovery. [ECF No. 17.] The Court finds that oral argument is not necessary in this matter and decides the motion without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.² Having considered the parties' submissions and for the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Jurisdiction and Res Judicata Discovery.

II. BACKGROUND

To quote Judge Anne E. Thompson in some of her opinions involving the Plaintiff and Defendants in this matter: "This case has an extensive history . . . ." [See Kamdem v. Naturasource Int'l, LLC et al., No. 15-6290-AET-LHG (D.N.J.), ECF No. 26 at 2, ECF No. 34 at 2, ECF No. 42 at 1.] That history began in August 2013, when Kamdem filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey against a number of the Defendants named in this case alleging 13 causes of action:

Count 1: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Count 2: Violation of the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act ("NJSA")

Count 3: Misappropriation of Confidential and Proprietary Information

Count 4: Breach of Non-Disclosure Agreement

Count 5: Breach of Contract

Count 6: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Count 7: Unjust Enrichment

Count 8: Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Count 9: Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage and Business Opportunities

Count 10: Unfair competition

Count 11: Breach of Contract

Count 12: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Count 13: Fraud

[See Case No. 15-6290, ECF No. 1 at 114-122.]

This Court reiterates Judge Thompson's recitation of some of the factual and procedural background of the state court action as follows. Plaintiff Kamdem is engaged in the business of creating, manufacturing, and distributing food flavor ingredients and formulas. [Id.] From 2008 through 2010 he contracted with Defendant Naturasource to market his products. [See Case No. 15-6290, ECF No. 26 at 2.] Naturasource then engaged the services of Defendant Hill's Pet Nutrition to explore opportunities related to the product line for use in pet food. [Id.] Both companies signed non-disclosure agreements with Kamdem, pursuant to which Kamdem allegedly released confidential information to them in furtherance of the business relationship. [Id.] After the business relationship ended in 2010, Kamdem requested that his confidential information be returned and Naturasource allegedly ignored those requests. [Id.] In 2013, Plaintiff discovered that Hill's Pet Nutrition had filed patent applications allegedly utilizing Kamdem's proprietary information. [Id.]

Upon discovery of Hill's Pet Nutrition's patent applications, Kamdem filed suit against Hill's Pet Nutrition, Colgate (its parent company), Naturasource, and Pokorny (the sole member of Naturasource). [Id.] From 2013 through 2015, the parties engaged in discovery and unsuccessful mediation. [Id.] After the close of discovery, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment and Kamdem filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. [Id.]

Before oral argument was held on the summary judgment motions in the state court action, Kamdem filed in that action a Motion for the Removal and/or Transfer of the Complaint and Remaining Proceedings to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. [ECFNo. 28-1 at 13.] Kamdem also filed Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. [See Case No. 15-6290, ECF No. 26 at 2.] Kamdem then sent a letter to the state court judge, the Honorable Vincent LeBlon, informing him that Kamdem would not be participating in the state court's oral argument on the motions for summary judgment. [ECF No. 28-1 at 13; see also ECF No. 14-2 at 44-46.] Among other things, Kamdem stated:

Hon. Judge Leblon,

I am writing this letter to you in response to the Defendants' Naturasource International LLC and Laszlo Pokorny 07/31/2015 vile personal letter to you.

. . .

With respect to the remaining content of the Defendant's vile letter, it smells like defeat and nothing else: it is a blatant display of utter failure to comply to the Court rules for the Motion for summary Judgment and a blatant demonstration of the Defendants' dangerous practice of communism in the State Court. Where in America does somebody claim that another person's statements is his statements and that another person answers is his answers and without even providing the basis for such claim. They must be sick in their mind. Where in Rule 4:46 does it say that a person filing a motion for summary judgment may communism rely on another person's papers and statements that is not even exhibited as part of the movant's motion record.

. . .

First of all Defendants NaturaSource International LLC motion for summary Judgment was untimely, but as usual maybe they are counting on some back doors phone and fax motion papers to obtain a favorable ruling on their awfully untimely motion papers. Let them continue to make more back doors phone and faxed motion papers, go ahead, go ahead for more and more communism.

The defendants NaturaSource International LLC and Pokorny must at least learn how to prepare their own papers rather than communism claiming some other people papers without even attaching copies of the said papers to their pleadings. This Plaintiff is by no standard a communist and in case you are presiding over a communism tribunal you may rest assure that this Plaintiff would not have anything to do with your communism jurisdiction.

Because the Defendants' platform is their communism agenda, and to the extent that the Court is presiding over the said Communism tribunal, this plaintiff rejects your communism jurisdiction as incompetent in this capitalism matters. You may want to have your communism tribunal with the Defendants but this plaintiff is no communist nor will this Plaintiff waste his time in communism tribunal because this Plaintiff's matter is capitalism matter, thank you!

. . .

The honorable thing to do is to transfer the case to the Federal Court, but everybody knows that the communism way of acting is that two wrong make it right, so why not do more wrong so they can have more right as shamefully argued by NaturaSource International LLC and Laszlo Pokorny. It is no surprise their houses and walls in their houses and offices have the statutes of their communism idols and their communism gods.

Kamdem Group has not at any time requested any Oral Argument before the State Court in this matter relating to patent under an Act of the United States Congress, you don't have jurisdiction over this matter. I don't wish to waste your time and I don't wish you to waste my time.

Respectfully submitted

Ricky Kamdem, PhD.

[See ECF No. 14-2 at 42-44.] Subsequently, at the request of Judge LeBlon, counsel for Hill's Pet Nutrition sent an email to Kamdem reminding him that the oral argument was scheduled for August 20, 2015 and asking him to contact Judge LeBlon's chambers to confirm his intentions to attend the argument. [ECF No. 28-3 at 63-64.] Kamdem responded to counsel stating that "Kamdem group will not be part of any of this that you have described." [Id.] After holding oral argument, Judge LeBlon granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Kamdem's claims with prejudice. [ECF No. 28-3 at 66-67.]

Concurrently with the ongoing state court proceedings, Defendants filed in federal court a Motion to Remand the case as well as responses to other motions filed by Kamdem. [ECF No.28-1 at 15.] On September 29, 2015, Judge Thompson granted the Motion to Remand. [Case No. 15-6290, ECF No. 26.] Judge Thompson subsequently denied Kamdem's motion for reconsideration [Case No. 15-6290, ECF No. 34] and awarded Defendants costs, finding that Kamdem "lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal" [Case No. 15-6290, ECF No. 42].

Additionally, on October 14, 2015, Kamdem filed a lawsuit against a number of individuals involved in the state court proceedings, including the attorneys and Judge LeBlon. [ECF No. 28-1 at 15; see also Kamdem v. LeBlon, et al., No. 15-7481-AET-TJB (D.N.J.), ECF No. 1.] On December 21, 2015, Judge Thompson dismissed Kamdem's complaint in that action and subsequently denied reconsideration. [Case No. 15-7481, ECF Nos. 28 and 36.]

The Complaint in this action was filed on November 4, 2015 [ECF No. 1] and the Amended Complaint was filed on January 19, 2016 [ECF No. 16]. In his Amended Complaint, Kamdem alleges 26 causes of action, many of which are exact claims made in his state court complaint. [See ECF No. 16.] Moreover, the additional causes of action that do not appear in his state court complaint appear to rely on the same factual allegations as his state court complaint. [Id.] Before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts have only limited jurisdiction to entertain certain lawsuits and therefore the party seeking to invoke...