Case law

ROSE v. BOHN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 6, 2022

The Court will assume, as it has 1 The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s claims insofar as they concern prior proceedings before the state probate court are clearly outside this Court’s jurisdiction as such claims … Ultimately, it is Plaintiff’s burden to establish that his case belongs in federal court, and Plaintiff has not done so. III.

OLCOTT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 11, 2026

recognizes that he must demonstrate that after his termination, WWI sought or hired a similarly qualified person to perform his role. … “sought a similarly qualified individual to replace [him] after his termination”).

Ebenhoech v. Koppers Industries, Inc.

239 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 24, 2002

The report is therefore clearly relevant not just to the accident’s cause, but also to the issue of when and how the PAA appeared on the exterior of the tank car. … Because the report does not qualify for any exception to the hearsay rule, this Court does not need to consider the hearsay within the report.

UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 23, 2024

The issue of whether or not the word, “caused,” connotes proximate or “but for” causation is clearly context-driven. … As just established, United failed to persuade this Court that Liberty denied benefits in bad faith.

United States v. Kramer

757 F. Supp. 397 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 1991

“[A] court should not grant a motion to strike a defense unless the insufficiency of the defense is ‘clearly apparent.’ ... … Section “107 does not contain any qualifying language.

STEVEN KURELKO v. ROBERT A. BALLARD, JR., et al.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 2026

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561; see also Road-Con, Inc. v. … Section 59:10A-1 merely establishes the State’s obligation to provide a defense to a State employee or former State employee for qualifying acts or omissions within the scope of employment.

ELLIS v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2023

In September 2018, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Sjogren’s disease, which is a chronic autoimmune disorder where the immune system attacks glands that make moisture in the eyes, mouth, and other parts of the body. … The Court questions whether Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of retaliation, To make such a showing, a plaintiff must establish “(1) protected employee activity; (2) adverse action by the employer either after

GROSS v. TRIS PHARMA, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 22, 2023

First, to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she “(1) has a ‘disability,’ (2) is a ‘qualified individual,’ and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of … First, Plaintiff has established that her hip condition, including the presence of tumors, which were the underlying cause of the condition, qualifies as a disability.

Mulder v. PCS HEALTH SYSTEMS. INC.

432 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 2006

First, the 1992 Contract clearly provides that PCS and Oxford would work together to develop a formulary “acceptable to Oxford ... tak[ing] into account both [PCS’s] own recommendations and any existing formularies now employed … It is clear that PCS provided services in accordance with the terms of the 1997 Contract and that those actions do not qualify PCS as an ERISA fiduciary.

MIRETSKAYA v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 2024

In toto, Plaintiff alleges that Richardson’s actions “appear to be clearly driven by either some prejudice or stereotypes.” (/d. { 153.) … Such conjecture is not tantamount to evidence establishing the required causal connection.

M & R Marking Systems, Inc. v. Top Stamp, Inc.

926 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 13, 1996

Irreparable Harm “[W]here validity and continuing infringement have been clearly established ... immediate and irreparable harm is presumed.” Smith Int’l Inc. v. … The court concludes that the plaintiff has established irreparable harm. D.

SAINTIL v. BOROUGH OF CARTERET

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 16, 2022

In addition, each of the three groups of Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. … If so, then the court will “proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id.

RAMOS v. WALMART INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2024

Courts have long established that a finding is clearly erroneous when, upon review of all evidence, “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed … Feb. 10, 2023) (finding a delay in filing a motion to amend was not “so protracted or unjustified” that it qualifies as undue); Wilson v.

FORT v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN'S AFFAIRS

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

The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of establishing its right to summary judgment. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. … Therefore, while Valdivieso’s letter opinion is neither binding nor dispositive, it is clearly relevant and the Court may consider it.

Geltzer v. Virtua West Jersey Health Sytems

804 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 20, 2011

It is not sufficient to establish that age was a substantial motivating factor in Virtua’s decisions with regard to Geltzer. … ] was qualified for the position in question; and fourth, that [he] was ultimately replaced by another employee who was sufficiently younger to support an inference of discriminatory animus.”

Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc.

830 F. Supp. 1525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1993

We concur with the assessment of the NJDEPE that the circumstances which resulted in these violations qualify as an upset. … The economic harm of injunctive relief is alleged to be clearly outweighed by the injury to plaintiffs and the public if an injunction is denied. Id.

Snyder v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.

837 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2011

The Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs claim was completely preempted by § 301 because “[t]he duties imposed and rights established through the state tort ... derive from the rights and obligations established by … Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 217 , 105 S.Ct. 1904 (“The duties imposed and rights established through the state tort ... derive from the rights and obligations established by the contract. ...

Hulmes v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

924 F. Supp. 673 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 10, 1996

Kaplan confirms these facts, admitting that the characterization of the dismissal as “with prejudice” was “clearly a clerical mistake.” Kaplan Certif. ¶ 8. … Div.1985) (allowing plaintiff to join his employer in a “John Doe” products liability action, despite workers’ compensation immunity, in order to discover evidence relating to the manufacturer of the machine on which plaintiff

United States ex rel. Simpson v. Bayer Corp.

376 F. Supp. 3d 392 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 2019

"[T]he moving party must show that the non-moving party has failed to establish one or more essential elements of its case on which the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial." McCabe v. … Having rejected Bayer's assertion of a bright-line rule immunizing claims made pursuant to the DRG system from FCA liability, the Court examines the undisputed facts in light of what the materiality standard does require

Salud Services, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc.

67 F. Supp. 3d 663 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 16, 2014

Defendant argues that the Salud plaintiffs are bound by Judge Seitz’s March 3, 2014 Order denying the expansion of the complaint to include non-bus *668 vehicles, plaintiffs have not established good cause for their amendment … The amendment would clearly be denied. However, since Judge Seitz’s Order was entered, defendant applied for, and was granted, consolidation of sixteen separate federal complaints.