Case law

DANDY v. ETHICON WOMEN'S HEALTH AND UROLOGY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2022

” do not qualify as alternative designs). … Nov. 30, 1999) (“Expert testimony is required to establish the design defect.”).

QUICK v. TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 19, 2020

Ernstoff, 183 F.R.D. 148 (D.N.J. 1998) to argue that the communications about which Plaintiffs seek to question Township witnesses are “clearly part of a process by which the government bodies formed a decision and thus … The initial burden of establishing whether the privilege applies is on the party asserting the privilege. Id.

SecuraComm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc.

984 F. Supp. 286 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 21, 1997

Clearly the mark at issue here is neither generic nor descriptive. … The logical consequences of [failing to recognize reverse confusion] would be the immunization from unfair competition liability of a company with a well established trade name and with the economic power to advertise extensively

KENDRICK v. GREWAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 23, 2022

At the licensed firearms dealer, the purchaser must show her FID card, certify that she is qualified to purchase a firearm under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c), and list her name, address, and FID- card number. … To establish representational standing, the plaintiff association must "make specific allegations establishing that at least one identified member had suffered or would suffer harm." Summers v.

United States v. Menendez

132 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2015

Interpreting the two cases, the Sixth Circuit has explained that: Evans provided a gloss on the McCormick Court’s use of the word “explicit” to qualify its quid pro quo requirement. … Counts 13 through 18, as well as 1 and 21, clearly allege an explicit quid pro quo.

Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel

799 F. Supp. 2d 376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 11, 2011

In its June 22, 2010 Opinion, this Court dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds Plaintiffs’ claims against state ' entities, claims for damages against Schulze and Calorel in their official capacities, and state law claims … To the extent that the doctrine applies beyond the employment context, it is clearly confined to the delayed accrual of a claim based on aggregate wrongs.

OTERO v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2024

As mentioned above, Plaintiff may establish a prima facie case under the ADA by showing that “ (1) [s]he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Communicate in a manner that clearly communicates the message you intend to convey.

PAVLYIK v. NOGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 23, 2024

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 vy. … The state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

BROOKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2026

Because Brooks qualified as a career offender, his offense level automatically became 37. … In other words, a petitioner must establish that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in [] light of the new evidence.”

Pitak v. Bell Atlantic Network Svcs., Inc.

928 F. Supp. 1354 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 8, 1996

Further, the Plaintiffs have not established reliance. … In this ease, the facts establish Defendants clearly indicated to Plaintiffs that their positions would be eliminated following CRIS Standardization.

BROOKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 28, 2026

A criminal defendant bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to § 2255 relief. See United States v. Davies, 394 F.3d 182, 189 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. … In other words, a petitioner must establish that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in [] light of the new evidence.”

VICTORIA v. ANDERSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 9, 2024

To establish a prima facie case for Monell liability, Plaintiff must “(i) demonstrate the existence of an unlawful policy or custom; (ii) that resulted in a deprivation of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by … Nor has Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a de facto policy or practice establishing Monell liability.

Essex Motors, Inc., d/b/a Square One Auto v. Netflix, Inc.

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

“The line clearly is drawn at conduct that is fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal and thereby interferes with a competitor's economic advantage.” Lamorte Burns & Co. v. … And the Court cannot identify any basis for Netflix to enjoy the government’s immunity from suit. Cf. Vanchieri v. N.J.

Maniscalco v. Brother International Corp.

627 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 19, 2009

BIC again relies on the existence of the warranty to immunize itself from any connection between the unlawful act and the harm and, as discussed supra at III.A., BIC’s contention is without merit. … The TAC does not clearly delineate the declaratory relief being sought here.

FARINA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 21, 2026

Choy, 607 U.S. 187 (2026)1, which reinforced the principle that a valid federal rule of civil procedure displaces contrary state law even if the state law would qualify as substantive under Erie. (Id. at 4–7.) … June 15, 2026) (stating that under UPEPA, “the statutory text clearly demonstrates a complaint may be dismissed through a summary judgment motion or a motion to dismiss standard.”). Furthermore, N.J. Stat.

HOPKINS v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC

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

According to the FAC, “Plaintiff was issued pretextual discipline on or about January 9, 2023, and on or about March 9, 2023, which was clearly in retaliation for his complaints.” (Id. ¶ 35.) … “This is just one way to establish the fourth element,” and “[a] plaintiff may also establish the fourth element with proof that, during a reduction in force, younger employees were retained when plaintiff was fired” or

THOMAS v. DAVIS

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

Here, the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … The state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

VINCENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 2026

This Court finds that the ALJ erred at step two in not finding that Plaintiff’s seizure disorder and obesity qualified as severe impairments. … Instead, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not explain the rationale for the decision at step three clearly enough.

MONAGHAN v. COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 2022

USERRA clearly states which members of the military qualify: “[a] person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed … Further, Plaintiff’s USERRA-protected military service also appears to have significantly pre-dated the heated email exchange that occurred in December 2013 where Plaintiff was clearly insubordinate to Undersheriff Knestaut

Gannon v. Continental Insurance

920 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 1, 1996

As such he is clearly is not covered by this plan. … Here the alleged scheme itself is a delay in taking reserves so as to enable corporate executives to qualify for extra compensation for the year 1993. The predicate acts are mailings.