Opinion ID: 3015863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The New Jersey Action

Text: In July 1999, Construction Drilling commenced an action in the District Court of New Jersey (“the New Jersey Court”) against members of the Chusid family, including Boris Chusid, and companies owned by the family (“the New Jersey Action”). The basis of the complaint is that the Chusid family used sham corporations in order to steal money from Construction Drilling. Specifically, the Chusids created a “bank” in which Construction Drilling “deposited” money, only to have it diverted though other sham corporations for the family’s benefit. The New Jersey Court immediately granted a motion to freeze the family’s assets and to attach certain commercial and residential properties located in New Jersey. In December 2000, Construction Drilling filed a motion for summary judgment on its claims, 3 which was opposed by the Chusids. The New Jersey Court denied Construction Drilling’s summary judgment motion against Chusid, except as to an unjust enrichment claim, for which Construction Drilling was awarded over $350,000 (jointly and severally against all defendants). The New Jersey Court issued a lengthy opinion detailing the open factual questions that mandated the denial of summary judgment on most claims.