the Court will note counsel’s confusion of his client's gender as yet another of the many inconsistencies within the Complaint. 23 . The Court notes that this quote is essentially identical to the briefs quoted in Rivera, 637 F.Supp.2d at 268-69 and Martino, 639 F.Supp.2d at 494-95. 24 . See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 353 and comment a ("Recovery for emotional disturbance will be excluded unless the breach also caused bodily harm or the contract or the breach is of such a kind that serious emotional disturbance was a particularly likely result.... Damages for emotional disturbance are not ordinarily allowed.”). 25 . See Ogbin v. Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, PC, No. 08-4138, 2009 WL 1587896 at *3-4, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46954 at *9-10 (D.N.J. May 29, 2009) (Cavanaugh, D.J.) (<HOLDING>). 26 . The careful reader will note that this
holding that punitive damages award against vicariously liable law firm was not excessive in part because the award is proportionate to the law firms financial position holding that the plaintiffs met their burden by highlighting the experience and qualifications of plaintiffs counsels firm and the firms long history of practice in this area of law holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that law firm who was plaintiffs adversary in foreclosure proceeding owed no duty to plaintiffs as law firm could not have expected that plaintiffs would rely on law firms representations about payoff amounts holding that plaintiffs law firm was subject to disqualifica tion when after unsuccessful mediation the plaintiffs firm hired the mediator appointed to settle the case