Case law

Cardona v. General Motors Corp.

942 F. Supp. 968 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 8, 1996

Thus, a substantial relationship was established even though such general information may not have been specifically relevant to the merits of the employment contract dispute. . … For example, as a matter of public policy, a “six-month rule” may be appropriate in cases involving former government attorneys, in order to allow public entities to continue to attract qualified attorneys into government

United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Fleming Foods East, Inc.

105 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2000

Fleming is one of the world’s largest distributors of wholesale food products much of which is distributed to retail food establishments. … Fleming is constantly attempting to increase its business by locating suitable food establishments for acquisition.

Hunter v. Greenwood Trust Co.

856 F. Supp. 207 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 24, 1992

There is no federal right or immunity that is a “necessary element” of any of these claims. … This court therefore will not address complete preemption removal as defendant clearly does not rely thereon for removal purposes.

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

CRAWFORD v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 9, 2019

They argue that damages claims against them in their official capacities must be dismissed, that Crawford’s claims are barred by qualified immunity, that Crawford has failed to adequately plead constitutional claims, and … Such claims are clearly impermissible. See Will, 491 U.S. at 65–66, 71 & n.10.

GAMBRELL v. SOUTH BRUNSWICK BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 20, 2020

While the SAC is not clearly pled, Mrs. Gambrell seems to allege that for at least three years, the School Board and Ms. Bunnell “did not appreciate [sic] [Mrs. … It is well established, however, that “a local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.” Monell v. Dept.

MURRAY v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 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.

MILLER v. BERNHARD

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

. § 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. … Although Plaintiff may argue that the dentist may have initially been negligent in the way he removed the tooth,' resulting in the injury to his lingual nerve, negligence is insufficient to establish a basis for relief

WELCH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 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.

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.”)

JIMOH v. RAIMONDO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 31, 2024

seeks relief from an immune defendant. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff brings this action against Gina M. … Yet Plaintiff does not specifically allege his racial identity or national origin, nor any fact that would establish his race or national origin to qualify him as a member of a protected class.

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.

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.)

Krys v. Aaron

112 F. Supp. 3d 181 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 12, 2015

Taken together, these authorities therefore instruct that any qualified expert, including Mr. … It is, of course, the duty of counsel to clearly advise their, experts of any limitations placed on their testimony. VI. CONCLUSION An accompanying Order will be entered. .

RIVER NILE INVALID COACH AND AMBULANCE v. Velez

601 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 9, 2009

(B) Has oversight procedures to monitor beneficiary access and complaints and ensure that transportation is timely and that transport personnel are licensed, qualified, competent, and courteous. … River Nile argues that this "contract of adhesion" does "not clearly express that the provider would be waiving a protected property right by entering into the contract." (Plt.'s Summ. J. Mot. at 15.)

TUNG v. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 10, 2020

Eleventh Amendment immunity may be invoked through a 12(b){1} motion because Eleventh Amendment immunity deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Blanciak v. … ae Tung Does Not Allege That a Violation of Federal Law Is Continuing Even if Tung established that the New Jersey state courts criticized him to the point of sanctioning him, he would still need to establish that

Empire Box Corp. v. Willard Sulzberger Motor Co.

104 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 1952

The course of conduct subsequently pursued by the parties is clearly consistent with their obvious intent to establish an interstate carrier service under the mere guise of a lease. … at Stroudsburg above the established máximums.

SALKIN v. LABROSSE

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

Second, the Individual Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by qualified immunity because as of the filing of the complaint, there was no controlling authority or robust consensus that termination based on … Plaintiff further argues that the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that HPSD engaged in a policy or custom of retaliatory termination based

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.

Mulder v. PCS Health Systems, Inc.

216 F.R.D. 307 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 17, 2003

If Mulder establishes PCS’s fiduciary status with respect to the plans administered by Oxford under the Commercial Contract, then Mulder can further attempt to establish the alleged breach of PCS’s fiduciary duties on a class-wide … The court must find that the representative plaintiffs counsel is qualified. See Barnes v. American Tobacco, 161 F.3d 127, 141 (3d Cir.1998).