Case law

GRIFFITH v. CIOX HEALTH

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

It is true that conclusory allegations of suffering from a medical disability are not enough to qualify as disabled under the ADA. See Sproul v. Sunpro Solar, Civ. No. 22-1439, 2023 WL 3548976 (W.D. Pa. … Auth., Red Arrow Div., 982 F.2d 892, 895 (3d Cir. 1993) (deeming trial court’s finding of a causal link to not be clearly erroneous when evidence was presented that the plaintiff was subjected to a “constant barrage of

FLYNN v. DELAWARE RIVER & BAY AUTHORITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 2019

[I]n order to qualify as “scientific knowledge,” an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. … First, the witness must be qualified to testify as an expert, which requires “that the witness possess specialized expertise.” Id.

DEPALMA v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 10, 2019

(PSOF; DE 187). 2 These submissions pose dozens of disputes of fact, some material and some clearly not. … Encino, however, clearly overturns that former narrow-construction approach. Encino, 138 S.

LAVELL v. CAMDEN COUNTY COLLEGE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 2023

Thompson argues that Plaintiff’s education and experience should have qualified him as an “Associate Professor” rather than an “Instructor.” Id. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, he has not established that an award of expenses would be unjust.

DIAMOND v. MJH LIFE SCIENCES

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

Karas, Defendant has clearly made out a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its termination of Plaintiff. Disruptive behavior, such as Plaintiff’s inappropriate conduct towards Ms. … Plaintiff is clearly attempting to cast doubt by demonstrating “weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable

In Re Intelligroup Securities Litigation

527 F. Supp. 2d 262 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 13, 2007

Rather, to qualify as a “strong” inference, the facts alleged “must be cogent and compelling ... in light of other explanations.” Id. … Mar. 28, 2006), which clearly deals with the element of transactional causation, that is, reliance, rather than loss causation.

PETTY v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 2019

He was found qualified but not among the best qualified ten times and was considered as an exception to merit promotion sixteen times. Id. at ⁋ 36. … The movant is entitled to summary judgment where the non-moving party fails to “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden

CONSERVE v. CITY OF ORANGE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 9, 2021

(D.E. 18-20, 24-26, 28-30.) 5 The Complaint does not clearly identify which officers were present on June 24th. … “[T]o establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must establish intentional and outrageous conduct by the defendant, proximate cause, and distress that is severe.” Buckley v.

United States v. Local 560 (I.B.T.)

736 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 4, 1990

The evidence clearly establishes that the government is likely to prove at the final hearing that the officers and Executive Board members are relatively new and inexperienced, and that Michael Sciarra has used his personal … These funds established for the benefit of Local 560’s members have accumulated very substantial assets.

Hornstine v. Township of Moorestown

263 F. Supp. 2d 887 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 30, 2003

To establish a prima facie case under Section 504, a plaintiff must show that: (a) she is a handicapped individual; (b) she is otherwise qualified for participation in the program; (c) the program the plaintiff is challenging … The question here is whether the Board may retroactively apply a policy clearly intended to discriminate against plaintiff. In that connection, Martin actually supports the outcome in this case.

FLOYD v. UNITED STATES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 2024

immunity. … The burden is on the plaintiff to establish the court’s jurisdiction. Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F.3d 625, 627 (3d Cir. 2009). B.

MATTA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2021

Her date of last insured was December 31, 2013 (Tr. 371.)1 Her claim was initially denied on January 8, 2016. 1 To qualify for disability insurance benefits, Plaintiff must show that her alleged disability occurred … The substance of those treatment records, according to her, “clearly contradict” the ALJ’s findings that Matta could sit for six hours and stand for two hours in an eight-hour workday. (Id.)

TOWNSHIP OF PISCATAWAY v. Duke Energy

389 F. Supp. 2d 607 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 20, 2005

To avoid summary judgment, the non-moving party must then demonstrate facts supporting each element for which it bears the burden, thus establishing the existence of a “genuine issue of material fact” justifying trial. … Defendants responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment on the same three issues and an additional argument that Plaintiffs’ expert was not qualified. 4 .

Birnberg v. Rancho La Costa (In re Reach, McClinton & Co.)

102 B.R. 392 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 9, 1989

that Bernheim received the statement sometime in 1980. 19) Footnote 10 of the corporate statement would put any reasonable person on notice of an irregularity and would require that person to inquire further. 20) Reach was qualified … He established a New Jersey domicile only after he had discovered that his potential claim was time barred under New York law.

GLASS v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES (UPS)

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2023

Ultimately, Plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish causation. Id. at 74. … Defendant Lyneer cannot prevail on this argument because at this facility Defendant UPS is clearly not in the business of permitting the public “customers” to have access to the property.

MOSES v. WAYFAIR INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 6, 2024

However, summary judgment on Count V based on Plaintiffs termination is denied, To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under NJLAD and Title VII, Plaintiff must establish the following four elements: ( … Additionally, there is no dispute that Plaintiff was qualified for the position he held. Defendants instead dispute whether Plaintiff can establish elements three or four.

MCCOY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 4, 2024

Evankow answered, denying liability and asserting the defense of qualified immunity. (D.E. 25.) After discovery, Evankow moved for summary judgment on all counts. (D.E. 44.) … Further, “an officer need not be factually accurate in her belief that a traffic law had been violated but, instead, need only produce facts establishing that she reasonably believed that a violation had taken place.”

McCoy v. Health Net, Inc.

569 F. Supp. 2d 448 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 8, 2008

Sept. 13, 2005) (finding that 70 opt-outs and 8 objections from class of 850,000 qualified for presumption of fairness). … Because establishing damages will be contingent on establishing liability, the same concerns animate both of these elements of the Girsh test.

ITALIAN AMERICAN ONE VOICE COALITION v. TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 30, 2021

City of New York, 804 F.3d 277, 294 (3d Cir. 2015), as amended (Feb. 2, 2016). 1Mayor Parisi is protected from this suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity, but only to the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages … App’x 241 (3d Cir. 2010) (plaintiff’s procedural due process claim failed where it did not meet “the initial burden of establishing that a protected property interest exists”) (citations omitted). V.

United States v. NEARY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 24, 2021

To implement the provisions of the Small Business Act, SBA regulations and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”) establish regulatory criteria that companies must meet to obtain contracts reserved for SDVOSBs. … Nor can the VE Source Defendants be immune from “Under the theory of fraudulent inducement, either express false statements or fraudulent omissions in [bids] can constitute false or fraudulent statements under the FCA