11-12-08
A-4282-06T2
In this appeal, the court reviewed a partial summary
judgment that found the terms of an earlier settlement agreement
required a dismissal of plaintiff's claims against defendant
Dilip Chokshi, who was plaintiff's former employee, and
defendant Pharmachem Laboratories, Inc., with whom Chokshi
presently has a business relationship. The trial judge also
found that the settlement agreement entitled Chokshi to an award
of counsel fees, but did not quantify the amount due, choosing
instead to dismiss that claim without prejudice to be renewed in
a later suit. The court concluded that the disposition of the
fee issue was not a final determination and left interlocutory
the order under review. Although the court again condemned the
foisting of jurisdiction upon it in the absence of a final
order, as it had in Vitanza v. James, 397 N.J. Super. 516 (App.
Div. 2008), in these particular circumstances the court found it
equitable to grant leave to appeal out of time.
In reaching the merits, the court reversed the partial
summary judgment, holding that the settlement agreement was
capable of more than one plausible interpretation. The court
also declined to determine whether a former employer was limited
to a single suit against an allegedly disloyal former employee,
leaving that novel issue to further factual development in the
trial court.
Lastly, the court concluded that the trial judge had no
authority to compel plaintiff to post a supersedeas bond because
plaintiff had not sought a stay and because no money judgment
had been entered against plaintiff.
