Case law

WOLF v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 2023

The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence. Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991). III. … Judicial Immunity and Quasi-Judicial Immunity “It is a well-settled principle of law that judges are generally ‘immune from a suit for money damages’” for actions taken in the performance of their

McCoy v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LABORERS'INTERN.

188 F. Supp. 2d 461 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 26, 2002

Under these circumstances, McCoy clearly has been prejudiced by the Defendants' delay. … Br. at 8-9, the Defendants never responded to it. [4] Arguably, the standard for allowing introduction of an untimely qualified immunity defense, as described in Eddy , is more forgiving than the appropriate standard where

GRAY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 8, 2026

The litigant seeking IFP status bears the burden “to provide the Court with the financial information it needs to make a determination as to whether she qualifies for IFP status.” Freeman v. … Defendant is clearly not an individual, yet Plaintiff does not set forth what type of entity Defendant is – for example a corporation or a limited liability company (“LLC”) – or the information required

ROBLES v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2024

The doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity “evolved out of its well-known namesake, judicial immunity,” which protects judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction. … Moreover, even if Plaintiff had established that Dr.

Block v. Seneca Mortgage Servicing

221 F. Supp. 3d 559 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 31, 2016

In short, Wells Fargo’s interpretation of the qualifying language in section 2 turns an otherwise straightforward offer into an illusion. … Here, the language of the TMA clearly indicates that Plaintiff would be given a permanent modification, provided that certain conditions are met.

BASS v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.

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

Plaintiffs allege that Ronald Bass, Sr. was “denied due process to call an expert witness for my defense or to file a motion in limine under the confrontation clause to establish … Judge Linares is also protected by judicial immunity. Dongon, 363 F. App'x at 155.

HEARD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 22, 2026

immunity because public school students have a clearly established right to receive notice and a hearing before being subjected to a long-term suspension and because assessing qualified immunity on a motion … Finally, School Defendants argue that because qualified immunity is a question of law, if the Court “finds that Plaintiff has properly pled a due process claim, an additional analysis of qualified immunity is appropriate

GRAY v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 3, 2024

To establish a prima facie claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, a plaintiff must show that he: 1) was a member of a protected class, 2) applied for credit from defendant, 3) was qualified for the credit, and 4 … Plaintiff does not allege any facts to suggest that that he was a member of a protected class or that he was qualified for the line of credit requested.

State of NJ v. Kinder

701 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 15, 1988

It is firmly established that when a criminal case is removed from state to federal court, the federal court must conduct the trial under federal rules of procedure, while applying the criminal law of the state. … After the defendant was found guilty by a jury, the district court, acting sua sponte, granted a motion for acquittal based on federal immunity, despite the fact that immunity was not raised as a defense at trial.

Horvath v. Rimtec Corp.

102 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2000

, less qualified individuals. 4 (Id.) … The standards for establishing a retaliation claim under Title VII and the ADEA are the essentially the same.

CLAUSO v. MARTINELLI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 15, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants further assert they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims. … was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

HOLMES v. CHRISTIE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 17, 2023

Defendants contend this Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because the proposed amendment is futile under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. … Based on this Court’s determination regarding absolute immunity, it declines to address Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would be futile under the doctrine of qualified immunity or regarding the

United States v. Souders

27 F. Cas. 1267 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 15, 1871

must have a strict construction; for the law is tender as to the rights of individuals, and courts wisely shrink from the exercise of the power of punishment, except upon conviction in those cases where the legislature has clearly … Where the words used do not clearly disclose this intention, it is proper to consider what was said or done by the law-making power, while the'subject matter was under discussion, in order to arrive at their meaning.

Nieves v. Individualized Shirts

961 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 28, 1997

To qualify for relief under the ADA, a plaintiff claiming wrongful termination must establish that (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she is a qualified individual with a disability; and (3) she was terminated … Nieves has since been employed as a teacher's aide and a bus driver— clearly, her condition does not prevent her from working.

Thompson v. Bridgeton Board of Education

9 F. Supp. 3d 446 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 2014

As for the final candidate, clearly plaintiff was scored higher since he was ranked third, out of four. … As modified, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority; (2) he applied for a position for which he was objectively qualified; (3) he was not hired for that

Christy v. Robinson

216 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2002

March 28, 2000) (“[Plaintiff’s] right to medical treatment for Hepatitis was clearly established in 1997 [when the alleged violations occurred].”). … However, in order to qualify for relief under § 1983, Plaintiff must satisfy the second prong of the Estelle standard and establish that each individual acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

Hall v. AT & T MOBILITY LLC

608 F. Supp. 2d 592 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2009

And finally, the complaint in the matter clearly alleged the deliberate scheme by a party with superior bargaining power to cheat consumers out of small sums of money. Id. … These allegations clearly suffice to meet the third prong of Discover Bank . 2.

THOMPSON-EL v. TOWNSHIP OF GREEN BROOK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 21, 2024

Supp. 3d at 537. 15 Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. (See ECF No. 79-2 at 13-14.) … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” Castro, 521 F. Supp. 3d at 524 n.16. B.

Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center v. Sullivan

183 F.R.D. 119 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 15, 1998

In opposition, Peat Marwick argues that Magistrate Judge Kugler’s finding was not clearly erroneous, that reliance upon newspaper articles was appropriate, that Cooper’s own evidence establishes waiver, and that this Court … The Magistrate Judge’s Finding Was Not Clearly Erroneous Cooper argues that the facts of record establish that it was an ally of the United States and the State, not an adversary, and that any finding to the contrary is clearly

DAMARR-FARUQ v. CITY OF PLEASANTVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 17, 2025

Alternatively, the State Defendants assert that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … “But a decision on qualified immunity would be premature because there are unresolved disputes of historical fact relevant to the immunity analysis.” Williams v. Ponik, 822 F.