CHRIS KOENITZ v. WAYNE FERGUSON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

CHRIS KOENITZ and CHERYL

TICE-KOENITZ,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

WAYNE FERGUSON, DIANE ZRODOWSKI,

LINDA DEUTSCH, and DELAWARE WATER

GAP KENNEL CLUB,

Defendants-Respondents.

______________________________________________

June 18, 2014

Submitted May 19, 2014 - Decided

Before Judges Harris and Guadagno.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-1800-10.

Chris Koenitz and Cheryl Tice-Koenitz, appellants pro se.

Decker & Magaw, attorneys for respondents (Thomas J. Decker, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs, Chris Koenitz and Cheryl Tice-Koenitz, appeal from the February 22, 2013 order of the Law Division granting summary judgment to defendants Wayne Ferguson, Diane Zrodowski, Linda Deutsch, and the Delaware Water Gap Kennel Club (DWGKC) and dismissing plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. As we find plaintiffs' arguments lack merit, we affirm.

Plaintiffs are professional dog breeders and members of several kennel clubs, including the DWGKC. They are engaged in breeding Akita show dogs and display the dogs at various shows in hopes of earning "winning positions." Plaintiff Cheryl Tice-Koenitz is also a certified dog show judge. The individual defendants are all members and officers of the DWGKC.

In June 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants alleging defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The first motion judge dismissed the defamation claim but granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to support the tortious interference and emotional distress claims.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint re-alleged the same three causes of action, including defamation. After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the emotional distress claim.

The second motion judge concluded that the allegations of defamation were not supported by any evidence in the record. She distilled plaintiffs' proofs of defamation into three allegations: (1) defendants accused plaintiffs of unprofessional conduct; (2) defendants published a report (the Point Shows Report) alleging that plaintiff Chris Koenitz was verbally and physically abusive; and (3) defendant Zrodowski accused plaintiff Cheryl Tice-Koenitz of stealing funds from the club.

The judge noted that, after dismissing the defamation count, the first motion judge "denied the repeated requests of [plaintiffs'] counsel seeking the opportunity to amend the complaint further." Seemingly oblivious to these rulings, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint containing a defamation count alleging essentially the same conduct, albeit with additional details. In spite of the prior dismissal, the second motion judge addressed the merits of the defamation count and concluded that plaintiffs' allegations are not supported by any evidential material in the record.

As to plaintiffs' allegation contained in the Point Shows Report, the judge noted that there was no suggestion that an act of physical violence occurred as alleged by plaintiffs and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of defamation. As to the tortious interference claim, the judge, citing Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989), found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a protectable interest.

Plaintiffs claim that a judge at a dog competition, Charles Rubenstein, told them that defendants had urged him not to pick one of plaintiffs' dogs to win the competition. Plaintiffs' proof consisted of a handwritten letter from Rubenstein informing them that he judged one of their dogs in a competition and resigned his position as a judge after he had a "very bad

. . . experience" with a "rep.," who was not identified. Rubenstein did not testify and the letter was never authenticated. The judge refused to consider the letter, as it was hearsay, but indicated the result would not be different if she had.

On appeal, pro se plaintiffs do not summarize their legal arguments with appropriate point headings as required by Rule 2:6-2(a)(5). We discern that they challenge the motion judge's conclusion that the reference in the Point Shows Report indicating that Koenitz loudly and aggressively attacked Deutsch did not allege physical violence. As it is brief, we reproduce the portion of the report relied on by plaintiffs:

Several members arrived early and readied judges tables, flowers, etc. . . . At about 9:05 Chris [Koenitz] loudly and aggressively attacked Linda [Deutsch] for failing to have ring hospitality arranged as a steward or judge who left breakfast minutes earlier needed beverages in their ring immediately! This embarrassingly in earshot of vendors, super, and exhibitors.

Plaintiffs argue that the judge's interpretation was flawed because "[i]n the 'dog world' there is a language all its own[]" and the "the phrase, 'aggressively' has absolute significance for any person who is showing dogs[.]" Plaintiffs do not explain what this significance is or provide any authority that would elevate otherwise petty and frivolous allegations to actionable harms simply because they occurred in the arena of canine competition. We find plaintiffs' arguments so utterly devoid of merit that no further discussion is warranted. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm based on the thorough and comprehensive decision of Judge Rosemary E. Ramsay.

Affirmed.