Case law

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

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.

City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. David/Randall Associates, Inc.

96 F. Supp. 3d 403 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 2015

See 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(4) (noting that a qualifying advertisement under the TCPA need only advertise “the com *417 mercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services”). 2. … Rather, as relevant here, the Court found that the undisputed factual record "clearly depict[ed] Miley as intimately involved” in the "discussions and negotiations with B2B concerning the fax broadcasting program.” Id.

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.

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.

Freedman Truck Center, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.

784 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 1992

legislation: We cannot conceive that the Legislature would enact a statute prohibiting a manufacturer from canceling a franchise agreement if it determined to stop manufacturing that product because it was unprofitable____ Clearly … Defendants contend that they are immune from liability in any case, since the Dealer Agreement constitutes the only franchise plaintiffs ever possessed, and that Agreement remains in force despite the termination of the Heavy

Eastampton Center, LLC v. Township of Eastampton

155 F. Supp. 2d 102 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 9, 2001

Plaintiffs claim that they qualify as an “aggrieved person” under the Fair Housing Act, and therefore may bring a private action against Defendants for allegedly discriminating against families with children. … Plaintiffs cannot establish a Fair Housing Act claim Even if the Fair Housing Act applied, Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination.

LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY v. JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 27, 2021

Cal. 2009) (observing “there are few authoritative cases that clearly define the legal showing required to justify application of the control exception”); In re G-Fees, 584 F. … But Noerr-Pennington immunity, as applied to litigation, does have a limit.

WILCOX v. MARTINEZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 2019

. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 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 … App’x 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Filing a formal prison grievance clearly constitutes protected activity ...”); see also Watson v. Rozum, 834 F.3d 417, 422 (3d Cir. 2016).

Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Katun Corp.

380 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 2005

That said, when the term “end” is used with a qualifier, such as the “end of said hollow body,” the terms refers to “the last part lengthwise” of that hollow body. … Ricoh claims that this language clearly suggests that this “groove” is part of the “bottom portion.”

United States v. Lake

53 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 1999

The Sentencing Guidelines clearly contemplate that the sentencing court should consider the number of images of child pornography possessed by a defendant. … Mere membership in a class of persons likely to suffer abuse in prison does not qualify a defendant for a downward departure pursuant to § 5K2.0. See United States v.

Galioto v. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms

602 F. Supp. 682 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 1985

apparently does not affect in any way a general hospital’s participation in Medicare or Medicaid ... whereas a psychiatric hospital must either be JCAH accredited, or else certified under the ‘distinct part’ survey in order to qualify … Because the holding of the court in this matter will create a void in an area which clearly requires governmental control and regulation, the court, on its own motion, will stay the effective date of its order for a period

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).

6th Camden Corp. v. Evesham Tp., Burlington Cty.

420 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 2, 1976

However, the mere fact that the regulation deprives the property owner of the most profitable use of his property is not necessarily enough to establish the owner’s right to compensation.” … The town officials, of course, could raise an immunity defense; with regard to the Township here, see note 18 infra. 17 . Lomarch Corp. v.

AFFINITY HEALTHCARE GROUP VOORHEES, LLC v. THE TOWNSHIP OF VOORHEES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2022

The applicant will be responsible to clearly state all aspects of the proposed use of the property. … It is also well-established that the ADA and RA apply to municipal zoning decisions.

Wolf Ex Rel. Wolf v. Procter & Gamble Co.

555 F. Supp. 613 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 1982

Howat Concrete Co., 578 F.2d 422 (D.C.Cir.1978) (statement made 15 — 45 minutes after accident did not qualify as “immediately” after accident under Fed.R.Evid. 803(1)). … This rule clearly bars the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct.

Weber v. Wynne

431 F. Supp. 1048 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 24, 1977

However, application of these principles is particularly difficult, for predatory intent has never been clearly defined. … It is therefore important to clearly indicate the types of business behavior which violate the Act.

Stair v. Thomas & Cook

254 F.R.D. 191 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 23, 2008

To certify a class, the Court must find that the proposed class meets the prerequisites to a class action; “plaintiffs must establish that all four requisites of Rule 23(a) and at least one part of Rule 23(b) are met.” … Doherty’s demonstrated capacity in litigating this matter to date, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs counsel is “qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.” 5 Wetzel, 508 F.2d at 247

Riggs v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

940 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 18, 2013

Riggs is unable to establish that she is eligible for benefits under the plan or show that the claim determination was arbitrary and capricious. … Eastman Kodak Co., 113 F.3d 433, 439 (3d Cir.1997) (explaining that “a claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that he qualifies for benefits”). .

Landau v. Lucasti

680 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 6, 2010

While the Committee intends that at least some inquiry be made, the inquiry' need only be 'reasonable and prudent under the circumstances', which clearly recognizes a limited duty to inquire as opposed to a burdensome obligation … The facts so specified must be treated as established in the action."