Case law

WALSTEIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 28, 2026

Defendants, additionally, aver that the individual capacity claims asserted against Schuler should be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity. (/d. at 32-33.) … > For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will not reach the issue of qualified immunity. A. Section 1983 Section 1983 “provides a remedy for the violation of rights created by federal law.”

DANIELS v. CAPITAL HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 4, 2024

. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief … Based on Plaintiffs sworn statements in her IFP, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established that she lacks the financial ability to pay the filing fee and thus qualifies to proceed IFP.

SHUJA v. N.J. DEPT. CORRECTIONS

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

“To establish an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, [plaintiff] must show that (1) the deprivation alleged was objectively, ‘sufficiently serious’ such that the prison officials’ acts or omissions … App’x 164, 166 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“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

WOODWARD v. ROBINSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 25, 2023

Moreover, the New Jersey State Parole Board was established within the New Jersey Department of Corrections, see N.J. Stat. § 30:4-123.47(a); and the NJDOC is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. … “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, ... including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” DeHart v.

VELASQUEZ v. SHARP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 5, 2023

IFP Application Plaintiff qualifies for permission to proceed IFP. … Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff established that he lacks the financial ability to pay the filing fee.

WOODWARD v. TAMBINI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 25, 2023

Moreover, the New Jersey State Parole Board was established within the New Jersey Department of Corrections, see N.J. Stat. § 30:4-123.47(a); and the NJDOC is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. … “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, ... including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” DeHart v.

WOODWARD v. AHEARN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 25, 2023

Moreover, the New Jersey State Parole Board was established within the New Jersey Department of Corrections, see N.J. Stat. § 30:4-123.47(a); and the NJDOC is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. … “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, ... including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” DeHart v.

OM 309-311 6TH STREET, LLC v. THE CITY OF UNION CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 23, 2022

Board Members “Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial … Marotta also claims that he is protected by qualified immunity (id. at 30– 33), but I do not reach this issue because I find that the claims against him are covered by the litigation privilege.

EHRLICH v. ALVAREZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 2021

The plaintiff generally has the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F.3d 625, 627 (3d Cir. 2009). … Clearly this allegation does not challenge the surrogate’s conduct as a judge, nor does it implicate quasi-judicial immunity. Russell v.

RHODES v. CAMDEN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 8, 2021

“To establish a claim for unequal terms and conditions in employment, or disparate treatment, [Plaintiff] must establish that she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified … “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII . . .

WASHINGTON v. ARAMARK CORP.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 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. … Plaintiff's allegations fail to set forth so much as negligence or malpractice, and thus fail to establish a basis for relief in a federal civil rights action.

Agostino v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.

256 F.R.D. 437 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 11, 2009

To obtain class action certification, Plaintiffs must establish that all four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are met and must also qualify under the one of the three sections of Rule 23(b). Baby Neal, for and By Kanter v. … The factors listed in Rule 23(b)(3) clearly militate in favor of certification. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).

In re Healing & Son, Inc.

124 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 1954

be delayed, until after the possible insolvency of the petitioner, to seek a complete remedy in another court, solely because the owner cannot make his case of personal immunity. … If Congress has constitutional power to gather into the admiralty court all claimants against the vessel and its owner, whether their claims are strictly in admiralty or not, as this court has clearly held, it necessarily

STEIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 10, 2026

asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity bears the burden of proving its applicability.” … The RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 151a: “establishes a mandatory arbitral mechanism for the prompt and orderly settlement of two classes of disputes. […] The first class, those concerning

MALHAN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2021

A plaintiff also bears the burden of establishing that its claims are not barred by sovereign immunity. See Young v. United States, 152 F. Supp. 3d 337, 344–45, 345 n.5 (D.N.J. 2015). … June 13, 2017) (noting that the burden to establish a private right of action rests with the plaintiff).

Han v. Food & Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture

580 F. Supp. 1564 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 8, 1984

Participating retail establishments are authorized to accept food stamps from cus *1567 tomers, in exchange for payment by the United States of full face value of all food stamp coupons accepted by the establishment or reimbursement … “The privilege is a qualified one and requires balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information and assistance to the enforcement authorities against a party’s right to prepare his case.” 8 Wright & Miller

United States v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc.

511 F. Supp. 958 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 20, 1981

It is Premo’s version of each of these established products that is in dispute here. … It establishes something of an intermediate position between Pharmadyne and Lannett.

ANDERSON v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET INC.

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

See id. at T217:11-18 (“I think he was … maybe not a native English speaker, and there were other people that articulated more clearly the grievance or the alleged theft.”). … Moreover, given that Jarrett and Malish’s statements qualify as vicarious admissions, they are probative as to whether the LPO had probable cause to detain Plaintiff.

Thomas v. Dietz

518 F. Supp. 794 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 1981

The district court dismissed the action against the prosecutors and defenders on grounds of absolute immunity. … Unlike the complaint in Ross , plaintiff’s complaint in this action clearly challenges, in all respects, the fact or duration of confinement.

DIMANCHE v. LA BRISE GENERAL CONTRACTOR

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 2021

If Plaintiff chooses to refile his application, he should complete the entire form so that the Court can determine whether he qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. … complaint and dismiss the action if it determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune