Case law

DOE v. SEBROW

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

I was upset, and not thinking clearly. It’s not true. I apologize for the grief it caused you.” … (D.E. 13 ¶¶ 38–39.) 6 To the extent Sebrow’s defamation claim is based on statements Doe made during litigation, such statements are immune from defamation actions. Giles v.

S.Y. v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PATERSON

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

Accordingly, the Court concludes Kraizer is qualified. See Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. … the reliability factors outlined in Daubert because Kraizer is “incapable of clearly and consistently describing” her methodology. Exp. Mot. at 4-6.

Rocheux International of New Jersey, Inc. v. U.S. Merchants Financial Group, Inc.

741 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2010

The burden therefore shifts to Defendants to present more than a “mere scintilla” of evidence to establish a genuine issue of fact. See, e.g., Petruzzi’s IGA Supermarkets, Inc. v. … On each of the credit memos and invoices, the additional terms for interest and attorneys’ fees clearly appear as the final line entry on the form. (E.g., McRavin Decl. Ex. K.)

OTERO v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 12, 2019

Before addressing whether Hobbs Act robbery itself qualifies as a crime of violence, the Court notes that Petitioner is entirely mistaken. … This Court therefore need not guess which substantive crimes were found by the jury to support the § 924(c) charges, the record clearly establishes that all seven § 924(c) charges arose out of the Hobbs Act robbery counts

Slick Airways, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.

15 F.R.D. 175 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 9, 1954

It mentions one million dollars, among other property, which it qualifies as being in private money “neither supplied from nor induced by the prospect of Government subsidy.” … This request is clearly not in the province of plaintiff to make in this suit, since its claim for relief is confined to its own damages and it may not take upon itself the burden of protecting the public, a function to be

In Re American Family Enterprises

256 B.R. 377 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 11, 2000

One Class Member objects that the proposed settlement and/or Plan would give Defendants immunity from criminal prosecution. It does not. See Hanlon v. … In the case at bar, the continuation of the injunction post-confirmation is clearly warranted. 23 .

Bollitier v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

735 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 18, 1989

This court believes that the plaintiff has, at trial, established facts demonstrating that he was deprived of an impartial hearing tribunal. … Bednarczyk are immune to universally observed deficiencies in their fellowmen and were able to put aside family and professional sentiment, advantage and loyalties in assessing the charges against the plaintiff.

Jackson v. Fauver

334 F. Supp. 2d 697 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2004

To establish a prima facie case of negligence in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must present expert testimony establishing: (1) an applicable standard of care, (2) a deviation from this standard of care, (3) injury … Hubbard, 168 N.J. at 395 , 774 A.2d 495 , and where “an expert is no more qualified to attest to the merits of a plaintiffs claim than a non-expert.” Id.

College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board

919 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 22, 1996

The contracts are sold primarily to Florida residents because, with limited exceptions, only Florida residents are qualified beneficiaries.... … As such, it is clearly protected by the First Amendment and, in any event, falls outside the “commercial” requirement of § 43(a).

Robertson v. Central Jersey Bank & Trust Co.

834 F. Supp. 705 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 5, 1993

In New Jersey, the attorney-client privilege is well established and vigorously protected. See In the Matter of Nackson, 114 N.J. 527, 531-32 , 555 A.2d 1101 (1989); State v. … A guardian ad litem is defined as “a qualified person, not necessarily an attorney, appointed ... to represent the interests of the child.”

Bonnieview Homeowners Ass'n v. Woodmont Builders, L.L.C.

655 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 22, 2009

And the Plaintiffs have not established such a duty. … Under the NJCFA, Woodmont Court, Woodmont Builders and Associated Sales qualify as "persons.” 14 .

Fotomat Corp. v. Photo Drive-Thru, Inc.

425 F. Supp. 693 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 20, 1977

We are persuaded that the equities of the situation clearly balance in favor of the plaintiff to justify this preliminary injunction. … , then it may well qualify as the trade dress of the respective business.

PENA v. United States

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

Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the record clearly indicates that Petitioner understood the terms of his plea agreement and freely chose to plead guilty. … To qualify for the appointment of counsel for such purposes in light of this Court’s finding that Petitioner’s appeal claim is sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing, Petitioner must show that he is indigent.

JOHNSON v. SOLCO HEALTH CARE, US

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

P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit.”); and WHEREAS, pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and all reasonable latitude must be afforded the pro … Three causes of action are established under the PLA, namely, claims for design defect, manufacturing defect, or warnings defect. Roberts v.

Clean Ocean Action v. York

861 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 1994

(ii) Defendants appear to have performed the mortality tests required by § 227.6, but they have not met the other requirements necessary to qualify the dioxin as a trace contaminant, i.e., they have performed bioaceumulation … deference to the interpretation given the statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration____ When the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly

BRYAN v. OCEAN COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 15, 2020

Excessive Force Plaintiff does not clearly articulate an excessive force claim in his Complaint. … Plaintiff concedes that Defendants are immune from the state law claims set forth in the Complaint. (Opp’n at 17.)

Stratechuk v. Board of Education

577 F. Supp. 2d 731 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 29, 2008

In other words, Defendants contend that “[t]he Policy, as written and currently interpreted, is clearly designed with the goal of avoiding potential Establishment Clause violations.” (Defs.’ Supporting Br. at 18.) … Clearly, this screening of musical selections required by the interpretation of Policy 2270 involves some entanglement with religion.

CHEADLE v. EXPERIAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 23, 2023

The moving party bears the burden of identifying portions of the record that establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)}. … Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s defamation claim because they enjoy qualified immunity regarding such claims.

Cortes v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey

391 F. Supp. 2d 298 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 5, 2005

“Not everything that makes an employee unhappy ‘qualifies as [an adverse employment action], for [otherwise, minor and even trivial employment actions that an irritable, chip-on-the-shoulder employee did not like would form … This is particularly so in light of Third Circuit precedent establishing that temporal proximity between the protected activity and the termination is sufficient to establish the requisite causal link. Woodson v.

CHESLER v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2020

While Plaintiffs, particularly Chesler, could have pled their speech supporting criticisms of Fulop more clearly, giving Plaintiffs all favorable inferences, they sufficiently plead such speech. … Constitution or laws of the United States, or any substantive rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of this State.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:6-2.