govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-3_15-cv-06290-1

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
RICKY EMERY KAMDEM OUAFFO 
T/A KAMDEN GROUP, 
  
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
NATURASOURCE INTERNATIONAL, 
LLC; LASZLO POKORNY; HILL’S PET 
NUTRITION, INC.; COLGATE 
PALMOLIVE CO.; JOHN DOES 1-10, 
AND ABC CORPS 1-10, 
  
Defendants. 
           
 
                        Civ. No. 15-6290 
 
                                OPINION 
 
 
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 
 This matter is before the Court upon the Mo tion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 30) of 
Plaintiff Ricky Emery Kamdem Ouaffo t/a Kamdem Group (“Plaintiff”), challenging the Court’s 
September 29, 2015 Order granting Defendants’ NaturaSource International, LLC, Laszlo 
Pokorny, Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., and Colgate Palmolive Co. (collectively “Defendants”) 
Motions to Remand the case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex 
County, (ECF Nos. 12, 16), and denying as moot all remaining Motions (ECF Nos. 5, 10, 13).  
Defendants oppose.  (ECF Nos. 31, 32).  After considering the parties’ written submissions and 
without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1(b), the Court will deny Plaintiff’s 
Motion.    
Case 3:15-cv-06290-MAS-JBD     Document 34     Filed 10/28/15     Page 1 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
  2
BACKGROUND 
 This case has an extensive history, so the C ourt will only recount those events relevant to 
the current Motion.  Plaintiff is engaged in the business of creating, manufacturing, and 
distributing food flavor ingredients and formulas.  (Compl. 2, ECF No. 1, Case No. MID-L-
5527-13).  Plaintiff’s allegations are as follows: from 2008 to 2010, Plaintiff contracted with 
Defendant NaturaSource International, LLC (“NaturaSource”) to market his products.  (Id.).  
NaturaSource then engaged the services of Defendant Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. (“Hill’s Pet 
Nutrition”) to explore opportunities related to Plaintiff’s product line.  (Id.).  After Hill’s Pet 
Nutrition and NaturaSource signed non-disclosure agreements, Plaintiff provided them with 
proprietary technology and formulas for further exploration of marketing opportunities.  (Id. at 2, 
3).  The business relationship between Plaintiff and NaturaSource ended in 2010, and Plaintiff 
repeatedly requested that NaturaSource return all proprietary information, but NaturaSource did 
not.  (Id. at 4).  Then, in 2013, Plaintiff discovered that Hill’s Pet Nutrition had filed patent 
applications allegedly utilizing Plaintiff’s proprietary information.  (Id. at 4).    
 Upon discovery of Hill’s Pet Nutrition’s pate nt applications, Plaintiff filed suit in the 
Superior Court of New Jersey against Hill’s Pet Nutrition; its parent company, Colgate 
Palmolive Co.; NaturaSource; and the sole member of NaturaSource, Laszlo Pokorny.  (Id.).  In 
this Complaint, Plaintiff brought a variety of tort and contract claims related to the alleged 
misappropriation of Plaintiff’s proprietary information.  (Id. at 1-14).  From 2013 to 2015, the 
parties filed briefs and motions, engaged in unsuccessful mediation, and completed discovery.   
(Kriegel Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 12; see also Am. Notice of Removal 4, ECF No. 6).  After the 
close of discovery, Defendants NaturaSource and Hill’s Pet Nutrition filed Motions for Summary 
Judgment on June 26, 2015 and July 8, 2015.  (See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF Nos. 48, 50, Case 
Case 3:15-cv-06290-MAS-JBD     Document 34     Filed 10/28/15     Page 2 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
  3
No. MID-L-5527-13).  On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.  
(See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 56, Case No. MID-L-5527-13).  On August 20, 2015, the 
Superior Court of New Jersey granted Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and denied 
Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.  (Aug. 20, 2015 Tr. at 24-35, Ex. B, ECF No. 
16).   
On August 14, 2015, just before the Superior Court of New Jersey granted summary 
judgment, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Removal in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1454.  
(Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1).  In response to Plaintiff’s Notice of Removal and the 
judgments in the New Jersey Superior Court, Defendants filed Motions to Remand on September 
10, 2015 and September 11, 2015.  (ECF Nos. 12, 16).  On September 29, 2015, this Court 
granted Defendants’ Motions to Remand the case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, and 
denied as moot all remaining Motions (ECF Nos. 5, 10, 13).  (ECF No. 27).  On October 6, 2015, 
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which is presently before the Court.  (ECF No. 30).   
DISCUSSION 
A. Legal Standard 
Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is to be granted “very sparingly.”  L. 
Civ. R. 7.1(i) cmt. 6(d) (citing cases); Friedman v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 09-2214, 2012 WL 
3146875, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2012).  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 
Local Civil Rule 7.1, a motion for reconsideration may be based on only one of three grounds: 
(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available; or (3) to 
correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.  See North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA 
Reins. Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).  A motion for reconsideration is not an appeal, 
but rather, the movant is asking the Court to “rethink what it has already thought through—
Case 3:15-cv-06290-MAS-JBD     Document 34     Filed 10/28/15     Page 3 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
  4
rightly or wrongly.”  Yurecko v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609 
(D.N.J. 2003) (internal citation omitted).  “The operative word in the rule is ‘overlooked.’ 
Therefore, mere disagreement with a court’s decision normally should be raised through the 
appellate process and is inappropriate on a motion for reargument.”  Id. 
 B. Analysis 
Plaintiff argues that this Court erred in remanding this action to the Superior Court of 
New Jersey because this Court overlooked the fact that Plaintiff filed a joint Notice of Removal 
and a Complaint.  (Pl.’s Br. Supp. Mot. Recons. 11, ECF No. 30).  Plaintiff states that even if this 
Court lacked jurisdiction over the case removed from state court, this Court had federal question 
jurisdiction over the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint.  (Id.).  Plaintiff also challenges this Court’s 
determination that the state court Complaint did not “arise under” the federal patent laws, 
arguing that this Court misinterpreted Uroplasty Inc. v. Uroscience Inc., 239 F.3d 1277 (Fed. 
Cir. 2001).  (Id. at 17).  Additionally, Plaintiff makes various allegations of impropriety against 
Defendants.  (See, e.g., id. at 27-31).     
Plaintiff has not satisfied the high standard for reconsideration.  First, Plaintiff does not 
assert any intervening change in the law.  Second, Plaintiff does not assert the availability of 
new, previously unavailable evidence.  Third, Plaintiff’s arguments relating to the Court’s 
application of the remand standard fail to show a clear error of law.  Plaintiff’s allegations of 
impropriety against Defendants are not relevant to the current Motion, and do not show a clear 
error of law.  The fact that the Court overlooked Plaintiff’s attempt to file both the Notice of 
Removal and a Complaint together does not show a clear error of law, but rather, compliance 
with the procedural rules.  A Notice of Removal must be filed separately from a Complaint, with 
separate case numbers and separate filing fees.  See Filing Fees and Rates, United States District 
Case 3:15-cv-06290-MAS-JBD     Document 34     Filed 10/28/15     Page 4 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
  5
Court for the District of New Jersey, http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/filing-fees-and-rates (last 
visited Oct. 7, 2015) (requiring a $400 fee for “[c]ommencing any civil action or proceeding 
other than an application for a writ of habeas corpus”); Civil Cover Sheet, United States District 
Court for the District of New Jersey, http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-cover-sheet-js44 
(last visited Oct. 7, 2015) (requiring plaintiff to place an “X” in “One Box Only” for the origin of 
a case, where options include “Original Proceeding” and “Removed from State Court,” among 
others).  The joinder rules to which Plaintiff refers, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18, 19, and 
20, allow the joinder of claims or parties within a Complaint, not the joinder of pleadings.  While 
the Court appreciates Plaintiff’s concern for judicial efficiency, if Plaintiff wishes to file an 
original action in federal court, he must file a separate action and pay the separate filing fee.   
Plaintiff has also failed to show a clear error of law with respect to the claim that 
Plaintiff’s state court Complaint arose under the federal patent laws.  Plaintiff cites to no law 
supporting his interpretation of Uroplasty, 239 F.3d 1277, or his suggested application of 
Uroplasty to the facts of his case.  The Court does not find Plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish the 
facts of Uroplasty persuasive.  Moreover, “the fact that there may be two interpretations of the 
same law and the same language is not to say that choosing one reading over another is a clear 
error of law.”  SGS U.S. Testing Co. v. Takata Corp., No. 09-6007, 2010 WL 4789341, at *2 
(D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2010). 
Nor does this Court find that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.  
Plaintiff has received extensive consideration of his claims in the Superior Court of New Jersey.  
If Plaintiff has any claims within the federal courts’ jurisdiction that are not barred by res 
judicata, he may file a separate action.   
  
Case 3:15-cv-06290-MAS-JBD     Document 34     Filed 10/28/15     Page 5 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>
  6
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons explained above, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 
Reconsideration.  A corresponding Order follows. 
 
/s/ Anne E. Thompson 
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 
 
Case 3:15-cv-06290-MAS-JBD     Document 34     Filed 10/28/15     Page 6 of 6 PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight