Case law

Duffy v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

123 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 21, 2000

Schwab argues that these counts depend entirely upon whether Duffy can establish misappropriation by Schwab and that Duffy cannot establish a claim for misappropriation because Duffy’s submission to Schwab was not novel, … The test for determining whether an idea is sufficiently novel to warrant protection has not been clearly defined in New Jersey.

Public Service Electric & Gas Co. v. Local 94 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

140 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 2001

“Had it received the NRC’s vote of confidence, Section 7.2 would have ratified the qualified support for arbitration which appeared in the Commission’s April 1991 commentaries.” Id. at 16 . … The court further found that the NRC regulation “clearly contemplates the notion of both rehabilitation and reinstatement.” Id.

American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Sidamon-Eristoff

755 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 14, 2011

essential and historical attribute that belongs to the State as a sovereign, and thus, the state officials are immune from this suit. … As such, Defendants are not immune from suit. II.

Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp.

26 F. Supp. 3d 304 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2014

For the Energy Star program, DOE has established minimum standards for energy and water efficiency. Qualified machine models must use approximately 37% less energy and 50% less water than standard models. FAC ¶ 2. … The FAC alleges that DOE requires that Energy Star-qualified washers exceed certain minimum standards for energy efficiency.

NAH v. CARVANA CO.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 27, 2025

Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of the Application fails to sufficiently establish his inability to pay the Court’s fees. … While plaintiff indicates that he receives “no regular income … that would qualify under traditional income guidelines” (id.), I am unable to discern what this means.

ALLEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 2026

)(2)(B) requires courts to review the complaint and dismiss claims that are: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Even under the liberal reading this Court gives to her Complaint, there is nothing in the pleading from which the Court could infer that any Defendant qualifies as a state actor. [Compl. at 4.] Rather, Ms.

EVANGELISTA v. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 22, 2024

Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006) (citations omitted). 10 Defendants’ Motion is generally premised on a defense of qualified immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where either (1) a constitutional right is not violated; or (2) the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the official’s actions.

DOE v. HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2024

In addition, because Plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed as time-barred or for not meeting the pleading standards of Rule 12(b)(6), the Court need not address Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments at this stage. … Dec. 21, 2017) (declining to determine qualified immunity after dismissing § 1983 claim); Manion v. Sarcione, 192 F. Supp. 2d 353, 357 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (same). IV.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.

941 F. Supp. 2d 513 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2005

Because there is no demonstrated intent to refrain from parallel litigation, the Court is further convinced that the non-binding provisions do not qualify as “arbitration” within the Third Circuit’s interpretation of the … Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), non-dispositive matters decided by a Magistrate Judge are reviewed under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard.

Town of Secaucus v. United States Department of Transportation

889 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 17, 1995

In order to have standing, a plaintiff must establish that he has suffered an “injury in fact.” Id. … If plaintiffs cannot establish this statutory prohibition, they cannot establish the first requirement for preliminary injunctive relief, a likelihood of success on the merits.

Matter of Taylor

103 B.R. 511 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 28, 1989

This Court reviews issues of fact determined by the Bankruptcy Court under the “clearly erroneous” standard. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Rule 8013 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. … This provision merely qualifies the general power of the trustee to assume or assign “any executory contract”.

Armstrong v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital

276 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 2003

The burden is not on the defendants to establish that the plaintiff is not entitled to your verdict in their favor. … In order for the plaintiff to establish his failure to accommodate claim, he must show, by the preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) he was handicapped; (2) he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job

M.S. v. Mullica Township Board of Education

485 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 12, 2007

Bliss’ report establishes that in September, 2003, M.S., Jr. was performing poorly in certain areas, especially fine motor grasping, but there is no evidence in the record establishing with any particularity the extent of … Moreover, § 300.502 clearly assumes that the disabled child is living within the district from which reimbursement is sought.

East Rutherford Syringes, Inc. v. Omega Precision Medical Instrument Co.

152 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 26, 1957

It is well established that the adaptation of an old process to a new use, clearly indicated by the prior art, is not invention. Lovell Mfg. Co. v. … Hilbert, a patent attorney and qualified chemist, called as a witness by the plaintiff.

CRAWFORD v. LINARES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2020

is clearly applicable.” … “[The alleged conspiring judges’] additional intent was to prevent evidence of collateral estoppel from being established in the court record emerging from

Farmland Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Union Local 680

956 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 11, 1997

, read as a whole, clearly envision non-arbitrability.” … Section 303 of the LMRA establishes jurisdiction of the district courts over suits for damages suffered because of violations of § 8(b)(4).

NORIEGA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 2022

It is well established that the United States is not subject to suit for constitutional torts, including the civil rights claims Plaintiff seeks to raise, and is entitled to absolute sovereign immunity. … As explained by the Honorable Kevin McNulty in dismissing the same type of claim brought by another federal pretrial detainee, the standing orders at issue here “were clearly issued in a judicial rather than administrative

THIEME v. CARVAJAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2023

Qualified Immunity This Court has determined that it should not imply a damages remedy for Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims. … Thus, the Court need not address Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. IV.

GRAHAM v. NJ DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2022

Though Brantley does not enjoy the same immunity, the allegations against him fare no better. … “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O'Lone v.

Dultz v. Velez

726 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2010

They applied for benefits after having transferred assets to family members in order to qualify for Medicaid. Id. at 3. … in the Medicaid Act’s nursing home provision, *490 42 U.S.C. § 1396r, is “clearly phrased in terms of the persons benefitted”).