[brief] The Trial Court Improperly Held Defendant Liable For Breaching The Covenant Of Good Faith  Plaintiffs contend that the trial court correctly found that Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith in the subject contracts because they established that her conduct had the effect of destroying the Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations under the contracts (Pb74).  This argument is flawed for several reasons.  First, Plaintiffs failed to introduce any evidence at trial demonstrating that Defendant engaged in wrongful conduct with respect to these contracts.  Tellingly, Plaintiffs do not cite any evidence in the record supporting their contention or where in the trial court’s decision the court referenced such evidence.  As noted in Defendant’s moving brief, the only analysis the trial court offered regarding this claim concerned the 2007 [...] (which Defendant was not a party to) where the trial court concluded, without any evidentiary support, “And I think Count 11, those do violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which I think are present here” (Db30; 36T51-19 to -21).  Absent credible evidence that Defendant engaged in conduct that had the effect of destroying or injuring the Plaintiffs’ rights to receive the fruits of the subject contracts, the trial court could not, as a matter of law, find that Defendant breached the covenant of good faith.  *Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc.*, 148 N.J. 396, 420 (1997).  Because there was no evidence that Defendant committed any such acts, the trial court erred by finding that Defendant breached the covenant of good faith.  Second, Plaintiffs fail to cite any cases where a defendant was found liable for breaching the covenant of good faith under a contract that the defendant was not a party to.  *FDIC*, 27 F.3d at 876; see also *Wade v. Kessler Inst.*, 343 N.J. Super. 338, 346-52 (App. Div. 2001) (to prove a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith, a plaintiff must prove a contract existed between the parties and the defendant acted with bad faith and deprived the plaintiff of rights or benefits under the contract).  Likewise, Plaintiffs failed to even address how their good faith claim could survive as an independent cause of action when it was based on the same underlying conduct as their breach of contract claims and there was no evidence that Defendant had a “bad motive or intention. ”  See *Hills v. Bank of Am.*, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32502, *8 (D.N.J March 17, 2015) (citation omitted); *Tredo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing*, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145731, *15 (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2014) (explaining the limited circumstances under which a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith may be an independent cause of action).  What the evidence did establish is that [...] received every dollar of the $740,000 share price he bargained for under the 2017 [...] (18T52-9 to -25, 141-16 to 145-24).  In sum, the trial court erred by sustaining Plaintiffs’ covenant of good faith claim because: (1) Defendant could not breach the covenant in contracts that she was not a party to; (2) the claim was based on the same underlying conduct as their breach of contract claims, and thus, could not be asserted as independent cause of action; and (3) Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof of a bad motive or intent in establishing a breach of the implied covenant by Defendant.