Case law

TIBURCIO

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

“The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164 (citations omitted). … Accordingly, the putative “next friend” does not meet his burden to clearly “establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court,” Whitmore, 495 U.S. 149 at 164 (citations omitted).

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.

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

State National Insurance v. County of Camden

10 F. Supp. 3d 568 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2014

inadequacies argued by State National are (1) the County’s failure to assign a lawyer to investigate Anderson’s accident and tort claim during the statutory pre-suit notice period; (2) the County’s waiver of statutory design immunity … In Cooper , an insured instituted a declaratory judgment action against his insurer to establish GEI-CO’s liability to provide coverage under the policy.

SIEIRA-MANEIRO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 23, 2026

It is essential for Plaintiff to make such a demonstration in order to establish prejudice under Shinseki: as already discussed, Shinseki gives Plaintiff the burden of proof that an error was harmful. … Moreover, as to the limitation to simple and routine tasks, the ALJ clearly explained the evidentiary support in the opinions of Dr. Felensfeld and the state agency consultants. (Tr. 36-37.)

SAVAGE v. AUTOLENDER'S LIQUIDATION CENTER, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 20, 2025

Plaintiff further claims that he did not fit within the inside sales exemption because defendants cannot establish at this time that they qualify as a retail or service establishment and he does not concede that he was … Defendants claim that they are a qualifying establishment and that plaintiff was eligible for incentives for each vehicle he purchased and based on the profits gained from vehicles he purchased. (Id.

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 .

KAYE v. REEVES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2019

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, 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 who is immune … It is well established that state prisons are “public entities” as defined by Title II of the ADA. See Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998); Brown v.

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.

Castro v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc.

134 F. Supp. 3d 820 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2015

“Professor Elhauge has been described as a ‘highly qualified antitrust titan.’ ” In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 06-0620, Dkt. No. 718, 2015 WL 5767415 , at *8 (E.D.Pa. … One of the methods of proving monopoly power is to define a market and establish dominant market share. See Dentsply, 399 F.3d at *846 187 (citing U.S. v.

LIU

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 10, 2025

“[A] plaintiff seeking to hold an individual liable under § 1983 must establish that []he was deprived of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a state actor.” Kach v. … Because the Court dismisses both federal claims against Lazovick, it need not reach the merits of Lazovick’s argument that he is entitled to both absolute and qualified immunity.

United States v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 26, 2021

these provisions violate the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The principles of intergovernmental immunity were first set forth by the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. … In County of Ocean, the Court briefly addressed the issue of intergovernmental immunity.10 There, I found that the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity did not invalidate the information sharing provisions of the Directive

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.

Hailey v. City of Camden

631 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2009

Ultimately, Quinn and Marini, both white, were permitted to sit for the exam, while Hailey (who was no less qualified) was not. … This is not to say that state law can answer the question for us by, for example, simply labeling as a state official an official who clearly makes county policy.

Jennifer Di Benedetto v. The Lockwood Group, LLC, Tourmalet Parent Holdings LP, Matthew Schecter, individually, Alan Banner, individually, Elisabeth West, individually

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

This interpretation is at odds with the well-established meaning of the statutes. … Di Benedetto clearly alleges the Award Agreement between herself and Lockwood is the contract at issue (ECF No. 19 ¶ 139)—and outside of citing Anderson v.

Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.

547 F. Supp. 1095 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1982

All other capsules clearly involve the proverbial comparison of “apples and oranges.” … Lana Lobell, Inc., 214 F.2d 649 (3d Cir. 1954), the Third Circuit in SK&F stated that “[i]t is well established that section 43(a) proscribes not only acts that would technically qualify as trademark infringement, but also

CARATOZZOLO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2026

Although the Complaint also several facts regarding Plaintiff's 2020 arguing that Plaintiff cannot establish her prima facie case. … request, it does not clearly identify those facts as a distinct, independently actionable ADA violation. Compare Compl. 76-78, with Jf 116-24.

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. MCI Communications Corp.

736 F. Supp. 1294 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 3, 1990

Accepting this argument would effectively , immunize Pioneer from liability for misrepresentations *1304 arising out of its telecommunications in any state other than its home forum. … Even in cases where "the lack of in personam jurisdiction is in doubt, sound judicial administration requires transfer to a district where [the action] clearly could have been brought." Societe Nouvelle Generale v.

MCGILLVARY v. SCUTARI

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 13, 2025

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1067.6 (4th ed. 2020) (“Alternatively, when the jurisdictional question is complex or difficult, a court simply may avoid the issue by resolving the suit on the merits when they clearly … App’x 586, 593 n.2 (2d Cir. 2019) (“Because the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety on the grounds of CDA immunity and failure to state claims, we need not address Grindr Holding's and KL Grindr's personal jurisdiction

Mendez v. Shah

28 F. Supp. 3d 282 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2014

The plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a duty to warn, and then establish that an adequate warning was not provided. James v. Bessemer Processing Co., 155 N.J. 279 , 714 A.2d 898, 907 (1998). … Plaintiff must clearly state the federal regulation that parallels her state law claim. G.