Case law

BROWN v. SALEM COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 1, 2023

Dec. 15, 2022) (citiaton omitted) (“Federal question jurisdiction exists if the claims arise from a “right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district … Forum non conveniens grants relief to a defendant “when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the case, and when trial in the chosen forum would establish . . . oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant . . .

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO. v. ADAMS CHIROPRACTIC CENTER P.C.

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

Shatzer is qualified to opine on matters concerning Defendants’ treatment and billing practices. … He has also testified as a qualified expert in multiple court cases. (Id. at 22.) While Dr.

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.

Woods v. New Jersey Department of Education

796 F. Supp. 767 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 19, 1992

The ALJ also clearly stated in his May 9, 1991 decision approving the Stipulation of Settlement, that the decision was final and appealable to a United States District Court. … Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 , 101 S.Ct. 2748 , 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Id. 101 S.Ct. at 2762 .

JORJANI v. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 11, 2021

• Log Entries 275 and 276: These emails are clearly privileged. … Given that the email is between two attorneys and discussing legal issues, it is clearly privileged. It also qualifies for work-product protection as a conversation about plausible future litigation.

Gilliam v. Edwards

492 F. Supp. 1255 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 9, 1980

These facts clearly indicate Edwards’ abandonment of his fiduciary obligation to secure for the Fund the best contract possible. … Edwards’ business-agent salary entitlement from the union — an employee organization whose members are plan participants — was substantial enough to qualify as full-time pay for purposes of the fiduciary rationale of the

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.

BARTLEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2019

As discussed above, based on the allegations of the Complaint, Plaintiff was clearly aware of the selective enforcement, false arrest, illegal search at the time of his arrest. … To state a valid malicious prosecution claim, Plaintiff must establish: (1) the defendant initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in plaintiff’s favor; (3)

McKenna v. Fargo

451 F. Supp. 1355 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 25, 1978

Clearly Jersey City intends to continue psychological testing. … If the impact on the privacy interests is insufficient in kind or degree, the actions by Jersey City are clearly constitutional.

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.

LINDSAY v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2019

Excusable neglect is insufficient to establish a basis for equitable tolling. United States v. … Indeed, what little caselaw exists suggests that structural errors are not immune to the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Dedona v.

HERMAN v. SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 15, 2023

Constitution or laws of the United States, or any substantive rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of this State, or whose exercise or enjoyment of those substantive rights … Equities, LP, 254 A.3d at 671 (“The Legislature clearly envisioned that a claimant would disclose to a public entity its tort causes of action in a single document.”).

Corestar International PTE. Ltd. v. LPB Communications, Inc.

513 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 10, 2007

Moreover, in addition to its affirmative claims, LPB’s own admissions clearly establish that a contract existed between the parties. … a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract.

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.

106 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 2000

In weighing these factors, a “court should not be reluctant to use its equity powers once a party has so clearly established its patent rights.” Smith International v. … To rebut a presumption of irreparable harm, the infringer must clearly negate the finding of irreparable harm. Polymer, 103 F.3d at 975 .

BARKER v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

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

First, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 300. … Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, fall short of establishing a prima facie disability claim.

Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

348 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 7, 2004

The e-mails of Samsung’s employees were clearly within Samsung’s control since the inception of this litigation. That evidence was relevant to claims or defenses in this case. … After all, “email” is short for “electronic mail,” which any reasonable litigant would understand qualifies as a “letter,” “correspondence,” “communication,” etc.

Radio Corporation of America v. Philco Corporation

275 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 11, 1967

Law’s description (Exhibit 57) dated November 15, 1948, clearly and conclusively establishes conception of the process of photo-deposition of phosphors. RCA stands on the writing alone and contends that, while Dr. … However, Bowie was not qualified to give any meaningful testimony on the subject. Phileo then called Richard S.

Hulmes v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

960 F. Supp. 844 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 17, 1997

Hulmes now contends that Honda failed to establish through the testimony of a “qualified witness” that the lab report at issue was trustworthy under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. … Plaintiff simply never established what this notice contained, other than notice that U-Haul put additional warning labels on its ATVs.

Van Orman v. American Insurance

608 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 26, 1984

Fireman’s Fund applied to the IRS and received a determination that the reactivated TARP would be a qualified plan under the Internal Revenue Code. Plaintiff class moved to enjoin defendants from reactivating TARP. … Although the statutes and regulations clearly require pension *18 funds to be held for the exclusive benefit of the plan’s beneficiaries, the regulations also permit the employer to include a plan provision, such as § 9.3

United States v. Kramer

644 F. Supp. 2d 479 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 19, 2008

the Consent Decrees, the Settling Work Defendants (along with the other Settling Defendants) have paid settlement funds as reimbursement for the Government’s response costs into the Helen Kramer Landfill Superfund Site Qualified … First, the undisputed facts of record establish that Alumax is a “covered person” under section 107(a).