NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3179-19 MAURICE OPARAJI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INNOVATE 1 SERVICES, INC., d/b/a ONLINE INTEGRAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Respondent. _____________________________ Submitted October 19, 2021 – Decided October 28, 2021 Before Judges Fisher and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-6600-17. Maurice Oparaji, appellant pro se. John C. Uyamadu, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM This is now the third time we have taken up this case. In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that, "under false pretenses," he: paid defendant twice – the first time $77 and the second time $137 – for a Nigerian passport he never received; that defendant promised to refund the first payment; that he made eighteen requests for the refund to no avail; that to avoid missing a business opportunity he obtained a visa from the Republic of Togo's New York office; and that when he traveled from Nigeria to Togo he was arrested at the airport in Lagos and lost his business opportunity. Plaintiff's complaint pleaded causes of action sounding in fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied -in- fact contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, and conversion. Nearly two years ago, we reversed an order dismissing the action for failure to answer interrogatories. Oparaji v. Innovate 1 Servs., Inc., No. A-1348- 18 (App. Div. Dec. 3, 2019) (Oparaji I). Shortly after that disposition, plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to include a consumer fraud claim, alleging defendant hacked into his computer and stole personal information while defendant moved for summary judgment as to the entirety of the complaint. The trial judge denied the former on March 13, 2020, and granted the latter on March 27, 2020. On April 24, 2020, the judge granted defendant's motion and awarded $38,061.33 in frivolous litigation fees. A-3179-19 2 Plaintiff appealed and, because the judge's rationale for these three orders was largely unrevealed, we retained jurisdiction and temporarily remanded for the judge's expression of his reasons for entering those three orders. Oparaji v. Innovate 1 Servs., Inc., No. A-3179-19 (App. Div. July 1, 2021) (Oparaji II).1 In responding to our mandate, the judge timely provided a four-page written opinion. We allowed the parties an opportunity, which they have taken, to file supplemental briefs, and we now consider again the issues raised on appeal. For the following reasons, we reverse all three orders. 1. We turn first to the March 13, 2020 order. Motions for leave to amend are to be "granted liberally." Kernan v. One Wash. Park Urban Renewal Assocs., 154 N.J. 437, 456 (1998). In determining whether the amendment states a valid cause …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals