Case law

MELENDEZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 28, 2025

Discrimination (Count I) A prima facie claim of discrimination requires a plaintiff to establish four elements: (1) the plaintiff belonged to a protected class; (2) she was qualified … The court must “clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying its decision to grant 54(b) certification.” Id. at 220- 21.

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

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 1, 2022

Here, the trial court analyzed whether Petitioner’s confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, consistent with clearly established federal law. … Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which constitutes “clearly established Federal law” for AEDPA purposes. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000); Rainey v.

In Re ELECTRICAL CARBON PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

447 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2006

The risks of establishing liability; 5. The risks of establishing damages; 6. The risks of maintaining a class action through the trial; 7. The ability of defendants to withstand a greater judgment; 8. … Risks of establishing liability Plaintiffs have candidly recognized several hurdles to be jumped before liability could be established if the case went forward.

BODEN SCOTTI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 24, 2024

ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS A claimant may establish disability under the Social Security Act by proving they are unable to “engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any … Tishuk’s opinion and Plaintiffs RFC; specifically, the ALJ should clearly explain the weight afforded to Dr. Tishuk’s opinion in its RFC analysis.

DEJOHN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 2020

(R. 15) The ALJ goes on to state as to each listing: • “none of the medical evidence established findings or symptoms sever enough to qualify under listing 1.02”; … • “none of the medical records establishes findings or symptoms sever enough to qualify under listing 1.04”; and • “the severity of the claimant’s mental impairments, considered

MONROY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 5, 2020

However, an ALJ need include only “credibly established” limitations. Rutherford v. … Clearly, did not have a sedentary job at any time in the relevant past.

MESADIEU v. CITY OF ELIZABETH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 4, 2019

His pleading likewise lacks any particularized factual allegations that clearly identify the specific individuals who had direct, personal involvement in the alleged conspiratorial actions Mesadieu complains … privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, and that the deprivation of those rights was the result of an official government policy or custom.” Mulholland v.

United States v. Manzo

182 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 16, 2001

The United States clearly establishes that Dominick Manzo and Carmella Manzo own, for purposes of CERCLA, Lots 6, 6A, and 43. … The Court finds that these presumptions clearly favor the United States’ position.

Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc.

555 F. Supp. 1251 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 1983

Because plaintiff has established an ambiguity in the settlement agreement, a factual question exists as to the intent of the parties which cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. … In the absence of a clearly expressed congressional intention to apply the ADEA extraterritorially, cf. Blackmer v.

WILLIAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 21, 2024

Marvella asserts that even under the ALJ’s flawed RFC determination, the record establishes she is disabled. [Id.] … According to the Commissioner, the record doesn’t establish that Marvella lacks any transferrable skills and notes the VE explained Marvella’s past work qualified as semi-skilled. [Id.]

Pryzbowski v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc.

64 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 8, 1999

.”); Elsesser, 802 F.Supp. at 1290-91 (holding that claim for negligent authorization “clearly has a connection with or relates to” an ERISA plan); but see Pappas v. … Under the latter provision, however, a defendant may raise a defense of preemption, arguing that the claims "relate to” an ERISA plan, but because a federal defense is not sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction

HALE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2026

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 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 … Plaintiff additionally asserts that the relation-back doctrine clearly applies in this case. (Opp’n Br. to CFG Mot. to Dismiss at 2–5; Opp’n Br. to Cnty. Defs. Mot. to Dismiss at 3–7).

Girard Bank v. Mount Holly State Bank

474 F. Supp. 1225 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 1979

Subsection (4) refers to failure of the drawer to report a forged indorsement within three years of receipt of the item, so is clearly not relevant to the instant case. … As one commentator has stated, citing the posited situation as an example: Gearing loss allocation to negligence is blatantly thwarted where one party, by waiving a defense, can immunize a negligent person from attack of

MEJIA DE GOICO v. USCIS

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

‘Once it has been determined that a person does not qualify for citizenship, the [] court has no discretion to ignore the defect and grant citizenship.’” (quoting Pangilinan, 486 U.S. at 884)). … The Court cannot read new exceptions into a statute which has already clearly enumerated its exceptions.

MICHAEL v. BRAVO BRIO RESTAURANTS LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 10, 2024

To hold an employer liable, the plaintiff must also establish a fifth element, respondeat superior. Id.) … Leon's discriminatory treatment was clearly motivated by Plaintiff being transgender, thus qualifying as sex discrimination under element one. See Bostock v.

MCNAIR v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 27, 2022

It is well-established that states and state entities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989); Howlett By & Through Howlett v. … Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990) (explaining that Will established that “an entity with Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.”).

Kraftco Corporation v. Beatrice Foods Co.

342 F. Supp. 1361 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 1971

Beatrice’s expert witness, although well qualified as an organic chemist, prior to his engagement as an expert witness in this suit, had no practical experience in dry whipping compositions, powdered shortening and their … The prior art and the ordinary skill of the art clearly contemplate the use of corn syrup solids as a sweetener in dry whipping compositions without any “fractionation” of the corn syrup solids to determine the amount of

STEVENS v. NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION

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

The Court explained that an individual’s due process right in a driver’s license only arises once a license is received, and that because Plaintiff clearly stated in his Complaint that he has never held a license, the … Pa. 1992), aff’d, 998 F.2d 1002 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Conclusory allegations of generalized racial bias do not establish discriminatory intent” under § 1981).

JOHNSON v. THE CITY OF CLIFTON

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

Sergeant Arthur also confirmed that Plaintiffs had not applied for a disqualification removal order, which could qualify the Johnson Powell Group for a liquor license notwithstanding the criminal conviction. … Sept. 20, 2022) (dismissing §§ 1985 and 1986 claims without further analysis after finding defendants enjoyed immunity under § 1983).

Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Gibson

474 F. Supp. 1297 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 6, 1979

Privileges and immunities were assured to the free citizens in the several States along with the right to travel freely from State to State (paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted). … On the separate question of preemption, it found that it did not clearly appear that the Legislature intended to occupy the entire field, despite its regulation, through the Real Estate Commission, N.J.