Case law

Makky v. Chertoff

489 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2007

To establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas , Dr. … Makky cannot establish prong two, that he was qualified for the position. It is undisputed that Dr. Makky’s former position, Electronics Engineer, requires a security clearance.

United States v. Villard

700 F. Supp. 803 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 29, 1988

Feltman’s testimony of what he saw when he viewed Beach Boys No. 2 clearly established that the male depicted therein was either fourteen or fifteen years old. … Feltman’s testimony did not provide the necessary details for the jury to evaluate the lasciviousness of the photo, nor did his testimony establish that the child in the photo was clearly under 18 years of age.

Estate of Oliva v. New Jersey

579 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2008

immunity. … Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment is appropriate. For all of the above stated reasons, summary judgment will be granted to all Defendants on all of the § 1983 claims. D.

SANCHEZ v. ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 23, 2020

This Court has consistently held that a public-school Board of Education qualifies as “public entity” under the meaning of the NJTCA. See, e.g., Williams v. … App'x 378, 382 (3d Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of Fourteenth Amendment Claim where plaintiff did not “articulate clearly the basis for the claim”).

Wade v. United States

865 F. Supp. 216 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 15, 1994

The government argues that under these specific definitions, plaintiff does not qualify for attorney’s fees under either the administrative costs provisions or the litigation costs provisions. … The TAMRA amendment clearly provides for recovery of expenses incurred in administrative disputes, but limits the award to costs incurred after the position of the United States is established in one of two specified ways

DILLARD v. MORRIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 24, 2020

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Court finds that Speirs, Murzenski, and McNamara are not entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

HOBBS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR OF LABOR

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

Notably, however, “a State is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983,” as, absent waiver of immunity, “t]he Eleventh Amendment bars such suits.” See Will v. Mich. … “In order to make out a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, [a plaintiff] must establish that she (1) has a disability, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) has suffered an adverse employment

Midland Glass Co. v. Smith

331 F. Supp. 88 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 26, 1971

The evidence clearly discloses that the defendants— Edward V. Smith and C. 0. … The Company had a right to negotiate with the established bargaining agent until such time as that bargaining agent was replaced by another.

McClendon v. Continental Group, Inc.

113 F.R.D. 39 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 21, 1986

The court finds plaintiffs’ counsel to be qualified and experienced in class action litigation in this area. … By following the model established in Franks , this action can be managed in an efficient and fair way.

FRANKLIN v. THE JERSEY CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 16, 2024

. § 3610(a)(1)(A)(i) sets a one-year statute of limitations for administrative complaints. 3 Plaintiff does not clearly state her claims in the CAC. … To establish standing, a plaintiff must prove three elements: (i) a plaintiff suffered an “injury in fact”4 that is “concrete and particularized”5 and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”; (ii) that the

BAYETTE v. VANAMBURGH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 2019

Specifically, Defendants Tighe was employed by the Laboratory, and the Laboratory permitted her to testify as an expert in Plaintiff’s trial even though she was not qualified. (Id. at 18.) … Specifically, it is well-established the State and state entities are not “persons” for purposes of § 1983, and thus, are not amenable to suit under that statute. See Will v. Mich.

Piszczatoski v. Filko

840 F. Supp. 2d 813 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 12, 2012

To the extent that the Supreme Court has not yet established a right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home, these categorical exceptions are irrelevant and do not establish outer bounds for the scope of Second … One whose life is in danger, as evidenced by serious threats or earlier attacks, may perhaps qualify ... but one whose concern is with the safety of his property, protectible [sic] by other means, clearly may not so qualify

Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Wolckenhauer

24 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 1998

Even a cursory review of the record shows that Becton Dickinson cannot establish the second and third elements. … Moreover, even assuming that the September 24, 1996 restitution order created in plaintiff a property interest within the meaning of § 7426, such an interest would clearly be junior to the Government’s interest, which was

Davis v. Township of Paulsboro

371 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 25, 2005

Because both parties clearly rely on matters outside the pleadings, this Court has treated the motion as one made under Fed.RXiv.P. 56. 3 . … As amended, N.J.S.A. 59:3-l(c) specifically states that “[a] public employee is not liable for an injury where a public entity is immune from liability for that injury.”

DAVENPORT v. NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 11, 2019

Abrogation of Sovereign Immunity “It is well established that the Eleventh Amendment generally bars a civil rights suit in federal court that names the state as a defendant.” … Claim under § 1983 Plaintiff contends that Defendants receive “some sort of qualifying federal funding,” which in turn abrogates their sovereign immunity in accordance with

United States v. State of NJ

658 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 1986

DISCUSSION The Justice Department in initiating this action, sought to enjoin use of the existing promotion lists because they were the product of clearly unlawful exams. … There is little question that this court has the discretion to order affirmative action here, even given the rigorous threshold these rulings establish.

Giordano v. MGC Mortgage, Inc.

160 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 16, 2016

Oct. 30, 2015) (“[T]o the extent plaintiff incurred fees for postage, he cannot recover for mailing the qualified written request itself.”); Steele v. … Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly alleges that MGC has exhibited a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the requirements of RESPA.”) (citation omitted). .

Miller v. Beneficial Management Corp.

776 F. Supp. 936 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 1991

Although Miller was a member of the protected class, Miller fails to establish she was qualified for the position and salary paid to Walsh. … Valley Forge Sewer Auth., 839 F.2d 171, 174 (3d Cir.1988) (“inability to establish satisfactory performance of his supervisory duties would ... preclude Spangle from establishing that he was qualified to assume the position

Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

855 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 12, 2012

Finally, the prosecution history of the patents clearly indicates that the patentees defined the controlled release formulation with reference to the fluctuation index. See, e.g. … Rather, whether a compound qualifies as an active moiety depends on what compound is administered as the active ingredient.”

TOMMOLILLO v. COLUMBIA BANK

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

First, Plaintiffs’ asserted claims against the SBA Defendants clearly all arise from alleged contractual rights rather than sounding in tort. … As this is clearly a request for injunctive relief, and injunctive relief against the SBA is barred by sovereign immunity, Plaintiffs’ claim for equitable estoppel must be dismissed with prejudice. v.