Case law

United States v. Caterini

801 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 4, 1992

And if you want, even ten more I can get,” was not sufficient to establish “negotiation” for ten kilograms. … No money was ever produced and no finalized plan was ever established.

EL BOMANI v. BARAKA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 9, 2021

However, legislative immunity does not bar Section 1983 suits against municipal members in their official capacities. … Here, the Amended Complaint lists “Luis Quintana, Councilman at large” as the defendant—seemingly, though not clearly, in his official capacity. (Am. Compl. at 3.)

Wearly v. Federal Trade Commission

462 F. Supp. 589 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 1978

On the record before this court, it has been clearly established that the disputed documents contain proprietary information, that defendants have no right to make any of it public or to provide it to a requester under the … Since venue is clearly proper as to I-R, there is no reason why proper parties like Mr.

LUSKI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2026

Moreover, New Jersey has an overriding interest in establishing terms of probation and enforcing FROs issued under the PDVA because the PDVA is intended “to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection … Without such allegations, the Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it does not contain a short and plain statement clearly alleging which of these defendants were responsible for which

HOPKINS v. HICKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2025

Exposure alone does not establish a constitutional violation[.]” Graham v. Aviles, No. 22–cv– 5760, 2022 WL 16949131, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2022) (citing Hope v. … App’x at 166 (“We therefore agree with the [d]istrict [c]ourt’s assessment that amendment of the complaint would be futile because the statute of limitations clearly had expired when [plaintiff] filed this complaint.”)

WASHINGTON v. MORRIS COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 20, 2021

Here, Plaintiff clearly challenges the validity of a conviction by asserting a conspiracy against him to pursue charges despite Defendants’ knowledge of his innocence. … The final filing is another addendum preemptively asserting that the judge presiding over his criminal matter is not entitled to qualified immunity because the judge knowingly conspired with the other defendants to deny

RODRIGUEZ v. SOMERSET COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 6, 2024

However, the Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Somerset County Sheriff’s Office, as the Sheriff’s Office does not qualify as a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. Brandon v. … A plaintiff may establish supervisory liability under § 1983 by showing: (1) liability based on an establishment of policies, practices, or customs that directly caused the constitutional violation; or (2) personal liability

MAJERSKA v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 12, 2021

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

United States v. Artim

944 F. Supp. 363 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 1996

Discussion Section 3553(b) of Title 18 permits a sentencing judge to depart from the ranges established by the Sentencing Guidelines when the judge finds “an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree … The cases cited by the Defendant where a downward departure was permitted based upon the “extraordinary” mental and emotional condition of a defendant are clearly distinguishable. For example, in United States v.

FALCON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 4, 2025

when (i) the ‘specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the’ party seeking the [temporary restraining order] and (ii) … I find that plaintiff fails to make the specific factual showing required to establish immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.

CORDERO v. NWACHUKWU

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 5, 2024

The statute's “guiding principle” is “that immunity from tort liability is the general rule and liability is the exception.” D.D. v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 213 N.J. 130, 134 (2013) (quoting Coyne v. … Div. 2010) (determining the plaintiff's injuries and memory loss sustained in a motor vehicle accident that required weeks of hospitalization qualified as an extraordinary circumstance); Maher v.

GLAESENER v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2023

Defendants also contend that claims arising before June 15, 2018 are time barred and that any request for punitive damages must fail because Defendants are hybrid entities immune from punitive damages. … To establish pretext, Plaintiff argues that Ms. Haines did not engage in protected activity, had less seniority and experience, and was a less qualified candidate.

INGRAM v. MENDOZA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 29, 2022

. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any claim which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. … clearly was provided with an opportunity to dispute them.

BRUSCIANELLI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 2025

Plaintiff does, however, clearly kick at his cell door. … entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in this matter.

Recchia v. Kellogg Co.

951 F. Supp. 2d 676 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2013

(SSMF ¶ 52) However, based on his score of 2.35 for that position, Kellogg deemed that Recchia was not qualified and terminated him. … As the Third Circuit has noted, “the law is clear that the existence of financial pressure to sign a waiver is insufficient to establish that it was executed involuntarily.” Wastak v.

Chesimard v. Kuhlthau

370 F. Supp. 473 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 1974

Even assuming, arguendo, that this petition was timely filed, and that the State court did lose jurisdiction, this petition does not establish even a claim which would justify removal of this matter permanently from the State … Second, no federal law confers immunity from state prosecution on such charges.

Fancaster, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.

832 F. Supp. 2d 380 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2011

The “proponent of expert testimony must establish his expert is qualified and his testimony is admissible by a preponderance of the evidence.” Poust v. Huntleigh Healthcare, 998 F.Supp. 478, 490 (D.N.J.1998). … Krueger “knew or should have known” that these uses would not qualify. Mr.

Levin v. Great Western Sugar Company

274 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 1967

This is clearly not the case. There can be no doubt that a suit alleging conspiracy to violate the Securities Exchange Act comes within the jurisdictional boundaries set out by section 78aa. … Moving defendant banks’ motion to dismiss is denied, as qualified by this opinion. 1 . 15 U.S.C. § 78aa provides, in its relevant parts: The district courts of the United States * * * shall have exclusive jurisdiction of

HUNTER v. SCHULLERY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 2025

Defendant also asserts that, even if the claim were properly pled, she is entitled to qualified immunity, rendering any amendment futile. Id. at 10-14. … As Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, the Court focuses on that argument and declines to address qualified immunity.

McKay v. Horn

529 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 10, 1981

Whether a state does or does not qualify to receive the benefits of the FUTA program, its employers must still pay FUTA’s payroll tax. … Plaintiffs clearly have standing to attack both the federal and state amendments.