Case law

MCLEOD v. FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PA

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

On January 19, 2021, the originally-named Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and based on Rooker-Feldman and immunity doctrines. (ECF No. 3.) … For example, “where the alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and

BELL-PARNELL v. MOUNT LAUREL POLICE DEPARTMENT

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

Although the Amended Complaint does not clearly identify where this interaction began, Plaintiff’s account suggests that it occurred outdoors, in front of the hotel. … Similarly, the Amended Complaint does not clearly explain how this encounter escalated.

BAGAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 2025

Although not clearly stated, Plaintiff’s alleged injury appears to be the stigma associated with his membership in a religion that the Report has characterized and disapproves of. … standing under the Establishment Clause).

SHAFRANSKI v. NEWREZ, LLC

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

Importantly, unless a proposed amendment is “clearly futile . . . denial of leave to amend is improper.” Morton Intern., Inc. v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., 106 F.Supp.2d 737, 745 (D.N.J. 2000). … Discussion The FCRA was “crafted to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them, and to establish credit reporting practices

TAYLOR v. SHEET METAL WORKERS' NATIONAL PENSION FUND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 11, 2024

The Plan Document here clearly grants discretionary authority to Defendants. … He asserts that he is entitled to discovery to establish the merits of this claims. Plaintiff is incorrect. The Supreme Court has long acknowledged that ERISA preemption is “clearly expansive.” Cal.

CONNER v. STARK & STARK, P.C.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 2025

To prove disability discrimination under the NJLAD, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) she was disabled within the meaning of the statute; (2) she was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position of employment … Here, the record clearly reflects that Plaintiff had no intention of taking FMLA leave.

MINION v. KEYSTONE AMERIHEALTH CARITAS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 8, 2020

In order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, she must show that: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential … As such, Plaintiff has clearly alleged that Ogden was denying her the accommodations her condition required—the only issue is whether that condition qualified as a disability under the ADA.

Dworman v. Mayor & Bd. of Aldermen, Etc., Morristown

370 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 15, 1974

But further, the new businesses established, retail and commercial, should provide substantial additional tax revenues for the Town government itself. … Although there is some authority holding that shopping center lease arrangements qualify for such equitable relief, see City Stores Co. v.

THEODORE v. NEWARK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND COMMUNITY WELLNESS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 16, 2022

On November 22, 2016, Plaintiff notified NDH in writing about the hostilities she faced based on her national origin and thereafter, Berlyne Vilcant and Martha Duque, two younger, less qualified inspectors were promoted … Defendants’ contention that claims occurring prior to December 6, 2019 are barred by the two-year statute of limitations is clearly erroneous. 10

G-69 v. Degnan

130 F.R.D. 326 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 22, 1990

adjudicated with reference to the federal common law, by operation of Rule 501, Federal Rules of Evidence. 5 *332 The law enforcement privilege, sometimes called the “official information privilege,” in federal law is a qualified … The State *333 argues that such information is collateral and not clearly relevant to plaintiff’s claim concerning formation, performance and breach of the confidential informant contract.

Manna v. United States Department of Justice

815 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 4, 1993

N.L.R.B., 632 F.Supp. 776, 781 (D.Conn.1985) Therefore, factual work-product materials are immune from disclosure. … "Before the court orders in camera inspection, the Government should be given the opportunity to establish by means of testimony or detailed affidavits that the documents are clearly exempt from disclosure.

JONES v. United States

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

In considering a § 2255 motion, “the court must accept the truth of the movant’s factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record.” United States v. … This is an apparent reference to establish that Jones was a career offender.

VOGT v. NOVO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 7, 2023

For a decision to be clearly erroneous, the court must have a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 92 (1992). … To the extent that Plaintiffs fail to establish the Court overlooked or otherwise did not consider Plaintiffs’ privacy interests, Plaintiffs necessarily fail to establish that the Court’s ruling resulted in a manifest injustice

McCAFFREE FINANCIAL CORP. v. ADP, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2022

PACE Int’l Union, 551 U.S. 96, 101 (2007) (“It is well established . . . that an employer’s decision whether to terminate an ERISA plan is a settlor function immune from ERISA’s fiduciary obligations.”). … Fourth, Plaintiff appears to suggest, though not clearly, that it is a fiduciary because it “and other participating employer co-sponsors make contributions credited to participant accounts.” (Opp. Br. at 14–15).

Electric Mobility Corp. v. Bourns Sensors/Controls, Inc.

87 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2000

Here, the plaintiff clearly and unambiguously alleged in its original complaint and amended complaints that it was a party to the [franchise agreement]. … E, submitted by Electric Mobility to establish the existence of a material fact in this case.

BARNES v. MONMOUTH COUNTY DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 7, 2024

Disability Discrimination To sustain a NJLAD claim based on disability discrimination, Plaintiff must establish that “(1) she was disabled within the meaning of the statute; (2) she was qualified … And, other than her disciplinary issues, Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position. (Id.)

AMOOP v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 19, 2025

Therefore, I may only grant habeas relief if the Appellate Division’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination … In summary, I find that the Appellate Division’s decision is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. IV.

New West Urban Renewal Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

909 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 21, 1995

A rationale for the principle is that “the king has established his own rules for litigation.” Id. … Westinghouse correctly notes that the mere fact of publication does not perforce qualify a source as sufficiently accurate so as to form a basis for judicial notice.

MANTUA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION v. E.K.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2025

One of those safeguards is the parent’s ability to obtain an “independent educational evaluation” (“IEE”)––an assessment conducted by a qualified professional outside of the school system. … The Board did not provide an appropriate filing to the court or inquiry to petitioner (within twenty days) which clearly articulated that their evaluations were appropriate.

Manna v. United States Department of Justice

832 F. Supp. 866 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 15, 1993

In order for a document to qualify as exempt under Exemption 7, therefore, the court must first make a threshold determination whether the records were “compiled for law enforcement purposes.” … I therefore find that the withheld records clearly constitute “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.”