Case law

KALINS v. MOUNTAIN CREEK RESORT, INC.

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

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact remains. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. … with the duties operators owe to skiers — denying immunity to operators who breach safety responsibilities.

LOPEZ v. MORRISON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 2023

he has not been provided sufficient legal assistance in the form of legal aid or a law library, he will not be able to make out a claim for denial of access to the courts unless he alieges facts establishing … Clearly, from their timely filing of this amended complaint, Plaintiff's retain alternative means to contact and interact with the Court.

GPS OF NEW JERSEY M.D., P.C. v. AETNA INC.

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

Br. at 18 (“[Defendants’| offer was the [qualifying payment amount], which equated to the median in-network rate.”)). … established legal precedent such as where an arbitrator appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but decides to ignore or pay no attention to it.”

Estate of Jennings v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

126 F. Supp. 3d 461 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 27, 2015

The allegations in the Complaint clearly implicate the Plan terms. … Although Plaintiffs argue that finding preemption in this case would result in a situation in which "a records keeper or employer with no relationship to an ERISA plan who negligently acted would be immune from liability”

In Re Electrical Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation

333 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2004

Such specificity regarding the product market at issue in this lawsuit clearly satisfies the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). … Clearly, the plaintiffs will be required to prove each particular defendant’s culpability prior to obtaining relief from that defendant in this action.

In re Biogen 755 Patent Litig.

335 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 7, 2018

The Federal Circuit has explained that "[i]t is a claimant's burden to keep the district court clearly apprised of what parts of its claim it wishes to pursue and which parts, if any, it wishes to reserve for another day. … have failed to conclude that [the defendant's] case had been established by clear and convincing evidence." *737 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.

Granovsky v. Pfizer, Inc.

631 F. Supp. 2d 554 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2009

It simply clarified that the “initial pleading” should contain the summons and the complaint as required by the relevant state law to qualify as “formal” process. … Courts typically award attorney’s fees *564 where the complaint clearly does not state grounds for removal to federal court. See, e.g., Ingemi v. Pelino & Lentz, 866 F.Supp. 156, 163 (D.N.J.1994).

Hart v. United States

84 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 1949

It clearly appears from the undisputed testimony, supported by the documentary evidence, that the decedent expressed an intent to change the beneficiary. … It is argued by the defendant that on May 28, 1943, when the change of 'beneficiary was made, the plaintiff could not qualify as a beneficiary.

N. Sound Capital LLC v. Merck & Co.

314 F. Supp. 3d 589 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 15, 2018

The "burden in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion rests with the plaintiff, who must establish that there is subject matter jurisdiction." Animal Sci. Prod., Inc. v. … Similarly, in Ali , the Court considered the scope of the word "any" in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (c), which provides that the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity for torts committed by federal employees "does not apply to

United States v. Kramer

953 F. Supp. 592 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 1997

Similarly, a party otherwise qualifying as a responsible party under CERCLA may be defunct, bankrupt, uninsured, or otherwise lack the resources to bear its ideal measure of responsibility in monetary terms. … of each of those parties through the process of equitable allocation among PRP’s called for in CERCLA The third-party defendants’ argument conflates the concept of equitable apportionment of responsibility among PRP’s in establishing

Schiavone Construction Co. v. Time, Inc.

646 F. Supp. 1511 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 6, 1986

An intentional or wanton and reckless abuse of the power of the press should not be immune from a punitive damage award. However, the danger from permitting any libel award is apparent. … When speech is of public concern and the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, the Constitution clearly requires the plaintiff to surmount a much higher barrier before recovering damages from a media defendant

JANE DOE v. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2022

Oct. 13, 2009) (“Plaintiff’s claim against HESC is clearly barred by the Eleventh Amendment and must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).”). … Plaintiff does not dispute HESC’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

DESPOSITO v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 2024

, I must review the Complaint to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune … Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) “limits the Court’s ability to issue a [temporary restraining order] to instances when (i) the ‘specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate

Duffy v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

97 F. Supp. 2d 592 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 4, 2000

Duffy’s trademark infringement claim must fail because Duffy’s limited use of the mark “MUTUAL FUND REPORT CARD” did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark and did not establish secondary … Thereafter, Duffy abandoned his efforts to establish a relationship with AARP. (Id.)

Capital Bonding Corp. v. New Jersey Supreme Court

127 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2001

Eleventh Amendment Immunity The State first argues that this motion and complaint should be dismissed because the suit violates the state’s sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment as embodied in the seminal case of Ex … The state law claims in this case, on the other hand, are more clearly defined.

Garden State Pain Management v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 1, 2025

Section 9 of the FAA establishes the process by which parties may seek to have a court confirm and enforce an arbitration award. 9 U.S.C. § 9. … The NSA clearly lacks any language that would create a cause of action or right to have an IDR award confirmed by this Court.

Wyndham Construction, LLC v. Columbia Casualty Insurance Co.

208 F. Supp. 3d 599 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 21, 2016

Permasteelisa explicitly adopts the reasoning of Bacon, which is clear: an insured is not legally obligated to pay *605 damages until that responsibility has become “legally fixed and established.” … That letter reads, in material part: “The Authority’s demand for services from Wyndham as a result of the allegedly improper installation of the walls is sufficient to qualify as a claim alleging wrongful acts within the

CALABRESE v. TIERNEY

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

Second, Defendant contends that he has qualified immunity for his actions and thus cannot be held liable. … immunity. 1A IV.

United States v. Princeton Gamma-Tech, Inc.

817 F. Supp. 488 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 1993

Moreover, plaintiff contends that well-established principles of administrative law require the use of an “arbitrary and capricious” standard. … Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has broad discretion to control and, where appropriate, to deny, limit or qualify discovery.- Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(c).

FISHER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 2026

status is not reserved solely for the “absolutely destitute,” the litigant “must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. App’x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016) (first citing Adkins v. … The litigant seeking IFP status must “provide the [Court] with the financial information it need[s] to make a determination as to whether he qualifie[s] for in forma pauperis status.” Freeman v.