Case law

Just Born, Inc. v. Maillo Confections LLC and The Snackatere NJ Incorporated

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 27, 2026

Plaintiff cannot establish that consumers would mistake Defendants’ clearly displayed Good Mallow confectionaries for Plaintiff’s PEEPS products as Defendants’ products are clearly distinguishable with large labels and … Similarly, with regards to Plaintiff’s trade dilution claims, Plaintiff also fails to establish a likelihood of success.

Phoenix Assurance Co. v. K-Mart Corp.

977 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 5, 1997

To qualify as a “freight forwarder” one need not perform all of the functions authorized under the statute, as long as the party “proffers all of the services.” See, e.g., Metropolitan Shipping Agents of Ill., Inc. v. … The Court need not address the amount in controversy requirement other than to say that Phoenix alleges at least $437,755.65 in damages, clearly satisfying the amount in controversy requirement. 7 .

ELFAR v. TOWNSHIP OF HOLMDEL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 29, 2025

However, the NJTCA provides the following exception to immunity: “[n]othing in this act shall exonerate a public employee from liability if it is established that his conduct was outside the scope of his employment or constituted … “Immunity [under the NJTCA] is an affirmative defense, and the party asserting immunity carries both the burden of production and persuasion.” Stewart v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth.

Farber v. City of Paterson

327 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 7, 2004

Ann. § 11A:4-1; (2) the Commissioner of Personnel must establish a list of eligible candidates, N.J. Stat. … As noted, she cites the union’s “ratification” of her illegal termination as an “act in furtherance,” and clearly the termination itself constitutes such an act.

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.

GUZMAN v. POWELL

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 10, 2022

Federal law is clearly established for these purposes where it is clearly expressed in “only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta” of the opinions of the United States Supreme Court. See Woods v. … Absent such actions, Petitioner has likewise failed to show adequate diligence, and he fails to qualify for equitable tolling for that reason as well, In his second argument, Petitioner contends that he was delayed

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

Williams Victor Funes Nunez v. Morgan Properties LLC et al.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 4, 2026

A plaintiff must allege facts that “establish each individual [d]efendant’s liability for the misconduct alleged.” … Title UL of the ADA identifies twelve categories of establishments which constitute “public accommodations” under the statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).

Williams Victor Funes Nunez v. Morgan Properties LLC et al.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 4, 2026

A plaintiff must allege facts that “establish each individual [d]efendant’s liability for the misconduct alleged.” Jd. … Title II] of the ADA identifies twelve categories of establishments which constitute “public accommodations” under the statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).

SHIH v. MASELLI, MILLS & FORNAL, PC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2025

“[T]he litigation privilege is well-established and broadly applicable.” Rickenbach v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 635 F. Supp. 2d 389, 401 (D.N.J. 2009). … “[L]iability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Taylor v. Metzger, 706 A.2d 685, 694 (1998) (quoting 49 Prospect St. Tenants Ass’n v.

MALEK v. CHEF'S ROLL, INC.

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

Fraudulent Inducement Malek’s proposed claim for fraudulent inducement is not clearly futile.6 “In order to establish a claim for fraudulent inducement, five elements must be shown: ( … The claim is not clearly futile.

GERMAIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 2026

Accordingly, Plaintiff is unlikely to establish that Defendants engaged in “racketeering activity,” and therefore Plaintiff has not clearly established that he is likely to succeed on his RICO claim. … Plaintiff has thus not clearly established that his due process rights were violated.

L. F. Dommerich & Co. v. Bress

280 F. Supp. 590 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 1968

Clearly, the litigation in this Court is in personam in that it seeks a money judgment of damages against the named defendants, personally, for an alleged tort of conversion. … As such it could not possibly qualify as an exception within the intendment of Section 2283.

BUCCHERI v. NOGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 6, 2019

application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409 (2000). … Pa. 2018) (“[T]here is no “clearly established Federal law” or “squarely established” rules concerning autopsy reports.”)

Carlo C. Gelardi Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co.

421 F. Supp. 237 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 1976

countfies]” does not amount to “failure by the franchisee to substantially comply with those requirements imposed upon him by the franchise”. 19 *247 The delivery of Miller products in Middlesex and Somerset counties is clearly … We will assume, for the sake of the discussion in the text, that the sale of Miller products in Middlesex and Somerset counties qualifies as “some appreciable part of interstate commerce”. 15 .

Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

411 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2006

This clearly establishes a limitation of the invention to processes producing substantially pure piperidine derivative compounds. As will be seen infra, this conclusion is well-supported by the prosecution history. … The applicant concluded: Even if a prima facie case of obviousness could be established from the combination of Carr, Sheehan, and Morrison (which it cannot), that combination is *503 clearly rebutted by the advantageous

NEIMEISTER v. THE COUNTY OF SALEM

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 2024

A score of 50 points or above qualifies an individual as “at-risk” for self-harm. (Id., at ¶¶ 44–45.) Plaintiffs allege Cuzzupe is not qualified to perform this function. (Id., at ¶ 42.) … Defendants are not State entities and employees who are immune from suit under § 1983 and the NJCRA.

SAQA v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

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

Plaintiff explained that “God created [him] with a naturally robust immune system, and [he would] not alter His design.” Id. … Instead, Plaintiff applied for a religious exemption and expressed the unsubstantiated opinion that he qualified for the exemption under the law.

JOHNSON v. WALGREENS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 7, 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 … Three causes of action are established under the PLA, namely, claims for design defect, manufacturing defect, or warnings defect. Roberts v.

SPENCE-WHITE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 24, 2025

May be designated according to nature of establishment . . . . [DOT #211.462-010.] … To establish that a claimant’s impairment “matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.”