[brief] This matter arises from Appellants’ claims for damages related to the ownership and development rights to a solar project located in Holland Township, NJ.  Appellants assert this action against Respondents/Defendants [...], essentially claiming [...] stole the solar project from [...].  [...] and [...] were joined as Defendants for providing engineering services to [...].  First and foremost, Appellants claims are primarily unrelated to [...]’s services provided for the solar project.  [...] was retained to replace [...], the original engineer on the Project, to provide certain engineering services through the design of the Project.  [...] subcontracted the project to [...], who handled the engineering and site development of the Project.  Subsequently, [...] and [...] entered into a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) to explore a potential sale of the project.  At some point thereafter, [...] gained control of the project and advised [...] accordingly.  As is apparent from the documents presented in the Trial Court record, it is clear [...] defaulted on its lease payments to the property owner, thereby ending its ability to develop the Project.  No evidence exists that any of the defendants caused [...] to default on the lease, let alone [...], who was not even involved with the engineering project after November 14, 2017 and had no responsibilities vis-à-vis project by the time these developments and the complained of damages allegedly occurred.  Moreover, [...], who was not a member to the NDA, was terminated by Appellants from the Project on or about November 14, 2017, which ended the contractual relationship with Appellants.  Since [...]’s termination, [...] was handling the engineering and all engineering services for the Project.  As of November 14, 2017, [...] did not have any involvement or control over the use or the dissemination of the Project Plans, including at all of the times since termination and the filing of the Complaint on or about March 28, 2019.  Additionally, since [...] subcontracted the project to [...], [...] handled the engineering and site development of the Project, including, retaining ownership of the Project Plans and other work product, which [...] no longer had any control over.  Upon termination, [...] had absolutely no involvement in the Project.  Moreover, [...], who was never party to any NDA, owed no professional duty outside of its previous work capacity and did not direct the use of or discuss or disseminate the project.  As the events giving rise to the allegedly complained of damages occurred after [...]’s termination, [...] was wholly uninvolved and owed no further professional duties to [...] under which it could be liable for damages.  Thus, [...]’s dismissal would have been proper due to the absence of any allegations of wrongdoing by them.  This is assuming arguendo that the complained of use of the Project Plans would make out a claim for negligence in the first place; but, this is something we will never know, since Appellant never obtained an Affidavit of Merit (or was unable to find any professional engineer willing to opine that a breach of professional duties occurred on these facts).