Case law

North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Ashcroft

205 F. Supp. 2d 288 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 28, 2002

Section 1252(b)(9) is but one of a number of statutory requirements for the specialized review established by § 1252(a)(1). … Clearly, the terms of this section, as well, limit its applicability to the removal context.

LOVE v. JOHN DOES 1-9

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 28, 2023

There is no genuine issue of fact that answering Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to the common law doctrine of qualified immunity. 9, There is no genuine issue of fact that Plaintiffs damages … Here, the Plaintiff's numbered paragraphs refer to affirmative defenses, such as res judicata, collateral estoppel, immunity, qualified immunity, and exhaustion, but he does not provide any legal arguments showing that

United States v. Grossman

154 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 12, 1957

So long as the defendants are-told that they have the option not to answer any questions, their rights are fully protected, and the fact that they are the subjects of the investigation does not make them immune from inquiries … But Congress clearly so intended. Its words in the statute penalize the use before a governmental agency of “any” false document.

United States v. Ernstoff

183 F.R.D. 148 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 16, 1998

General Dynamics Corp., 115 F.R.D. 147 (E.D.Pa.1986), is not enough to establish a reasonable anticipation of litigation under Rule 26(b)(3). … Additionally, the qualified immunity enjoyed by the work product doctrine can be overcome upon a showing of substantial need and undue hardship. Sporck v.

Brennan v. Board of Education, Jersey City, New Jersey

374 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 1974

Building Service Workers”) in such establishment at salaries and resulting rates less than the salaries and hourly rates at which it pays male custodial workers in such establishment, “for equal work on jobs the performance … In fact, the Board has continuously, though erroneously, insisted that it is immune from federal law and prevented by state law from raising pay rates.

WISE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 17, 2021

Accordingly, New Jersey state agencies “established in the Executive Branch of State Government” qualify for Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, “regardless of the relief sought,” unless an exception to the immunity … A plaintiff must allege facts that “establish each individual [d]efendant’s liability for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Acetylene Welding Co.

259 F. 940 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 8, 1916

The plaintiff, as against that defendant, is therefore clearly entitled to an injunction as broad as that which was preliminarily granted in this case. … One-half of the capital stock was divided equally between the Bournonvilles, and the remaining one-half between the Lorentowitzes; the son apparently taking only one share to qualify, him as a director.

Rich v. State

294 F. Supp. 3d 266 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 2018

In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the NJLAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) plaintiff was handicapped or disabled within the meaning of the statute; (2) plaintiff was qualified … The record clearly demonstrates Rich was terminated because of her employment performance, not disability.

WILSON v. BIDEN, JR.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 2021

The Court, accordingly, finds that Wilson has established indigence and grants the IFP Application. B. The Court Dismisses Wilson’s Complaint. … Also, although unclear from the facts alleged in Wilson’s Complaint, the Court surmises that all Defendants may be entitled to immunity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. IV.

BRENES v. THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2020

Plaintiff’s constitutional claims; and 5) qualified immunity.3 I will address each of these arguments, in turn. … These allegations, even if credited, however, clearly relate to Prosecutor Butler’s role as prosecutor.4 Green v. United States, 418 F.

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

649 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 9, 1986

The decision of the Court of Appeals clearly rejects the plaintiff’s right to pursue that theory and makes no distinction between the intentional, negligent, or good faith publication of such assertions. … Indeed, the tobacco industry evidently can continue to deny or refute the risks of cigarette smoking with impunity and immunity so long as the little rectangle with the necessary language appears in its advertising and on

Bronze Shields v. City of Newark

214 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 17, 2002

It did not seek to establish any sort of priority system for police hiring. … Elliot, to assert a position that was clearly precluded by the law, counsel proclaimed that the City was simply ignoring and abandoning the requirement of 122.1 and, like other municipalities, was “kind of doing their thing

Alintoff v. State Of New Jersey

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 15, 2025

or the state waives its own immunity.” … As to the Title II aspect of count one, plaintiff “must demonstrate that: (1) [s]he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [s]he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public

Milton v. Bell Laboratories, Inc.

428 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 7, 1977

None of this has any bearing on the issues before the court; it simply established that persons considered qualified for permanent employment at BTL still had to undergo lengthy and intensive training. … Clearly, he found her work far superior to plaintiff’s. Tr. 942-50.

MOSLEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 2022

State Motion Defendant State of New Jersey and the Prosecutor Defendants argue that prosecutorial immunity, absolute immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and/or qualified … A prosecutor bears the “heavy burden” of establishing entitlement to absolute immunity. Light v. Haws, 472 F.3d 74, 80–81 (3d Cir. 2007).

MACDONALD v. SABANDO

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 12, 2025

to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” … Div. 2008) (noting the Board’s dual purpose of granting licensure to qualified physicians and protecting New Jersey citizens).

BAYNARD v. MONA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2021

Meanwhile, a prosecutor has only qualified immunity for actions she takes “in 3 In light of the below ruling, the Court does not reach Defendants’ other arguments for dismissal. … The Third Circuit has previously indicated that “instituting grand jury proceedings without investigation” is “clearly . . . encompassed by the immunity doctrine as ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the

DURHAM v. DAVIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 2021

App’x 163, 170 (3d Cir. 2015), and state officers are immune from suit for money damages to the extent they are named as Defendants in their official capacity. See, e.g., O'Donnell v. … Because Plaintiff has not clearly identified the program, service, or activity which he was allegedly denied, nor has he pled facts showing he was denied any such service, program, or activity because of his back issues

Crumley v. Stonhard, Inc.

920 F. Supp. 589 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 4, 1996

In opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff argues that “it is not clearly established that the Plan at issue was unfunded. This is a disputed question of fact and, a such, summary judgment cannot be granted.” … Plaintiff' seeks to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law only if the Plan is not a qualified plan under ERISA.

Merli v. Heckler

600 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 7, 1984

The court recognizes that the EAJA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such, it must be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. Ruckelshaus v. … Plaintiff’s application clearly states that compensation is sought only for services performed before this court and not for work performed in the agency proceedings.