Case law

DUNCAN v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 4, 2021

Specifically, Defendant contends Plaintiff “fails to plead facts that would establish a causal nexus between the alleged conduct and alleged damages.” (Id. at 10.) … The court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint because the “clearly expressed clauses [in the contract could not] be overridden by the implied covenant of good-faith and fair dealing.” Id.

BETTERSON, JR. v. STRUNCK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 25, 2024

Jan. 29, 2019) (“Brooking’s medical needs were indeed serious: although Brooking admits he suffered no ‘immediate physical injury’ in the end, his allegations that the delay in treatment resulted in clearly visible facial … This allegation is an insufficient basis upon which to establish Kuhn’s personal involvement. See Batts v. Giorla, 550 F.

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Dr. Reddy's Labs. Ltd.

387 F. Supp. 3d 439 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 3, 2016

The Division's chemistry representative indicated that the information to support this change should be presented clearly and completely in the NDA. … Each of the experts who appeared in this trial was eminently qualified to provide the testimony they offered.

United States v. Kungys

571 F. Supp. 1104 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 1983

Their authenticity has been clearly established. In cold, bureaucratic language they describe the killing of the major portion of Lithuania’s Jewish population. … The interpreters appeared to be highly qualified. There is no evidence of any complete misinterpretations.

DURHAM v. KELLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 13, 2024

individual’ with a disability who was denied equal access to the showers at the prison, a qualifying public service.” … In fact, in Tabron, the court held that a “prisoner’s lack of legal experience and the complex discovery rules clearly put him at a disadvantage in countering the defendant’s discovery tactics.”

DEFOGGI v. N'DIAYE

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

Petitioner argues “[t]he BOP took an overly restrictive view of 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g)(5)(A) eligibility requirements under the statute in order to qualify to participate in the EOHDP … “Petitioner prays that this Court will set aside the Bureau of Prisons’ decision and holding Petitioner ‘eligible’ as Congress clearly intended.” Id. at 12.

MELEIKA v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Meleika means to sue this Court or the Court of Appeals, there would be judicial immunity to deal with. See, e.g., Cleavinger v. … It is submitted solely to establish the legal effect of what was said on the record, 1.¢., to establish the terms of the dismissal of the charges.

GROSS-QUATRONE v. MIZDOL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2019

The NJSC established the ACJC to implement rules promulgated by the New Jersey Supreme Court. N.J. Ct. R. 2:15-1 et seq. … Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, although not clearly pled, will be construed as a claim that her free speech rights were violated when her recording device was taken by Simoldoni.

PRAGER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2026

[The employee’s] behavior, while clearly inappropriate, was apparently motivated by nothing more than difficult relationships and a generally hostile disposition towards coworkers, without regard to gender.”). … Plaintiff Establishes a Prima Facie Case Here, Labcorp argues that “even assuming . . . that Plaintiff had a disability under the ADA and was otherwise qualified to perform her job duties, her prima facie case still

MELEIKA v. CITY OF BAYONNE

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

(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 n. 19 (3d Cir. 2002) (non-prisoner indigent plaintiffs are “clearly within the scope of § 1915(e)(2)”). See also Lopez v.

SOMERSET ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P.A. v. HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.

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

A church plan is a “plan established and maintained by a church,” which includes a plan that was established or maintained by a principal-purpose organization.4 Advocate Health Care Network v. … But this definition fails to establish that Horizon was required to pay Plaintiffs’ UCR rates.

Glictronix Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

603 F. Supp. 552 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 4, 1984

Clearly, the customer would obtain the requisite benefit from such interconnection. … It is difficult to see how either of these decisions can be read to qualify the FCC’s earlier, explicit statement that it was not approving the proposed tariffs, however.

Moncada NJ Solar 201, LLC v. ISE Am., Inc. (In re Moncada NJ Solar 201, LLC)

592 B.R. 779 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 7, 2018

Additionally, unlike in True Green , the court noted that Moncada had yet to establish a contractual right to build, had not secured a developer for the Project, and that the delays were caused by contractual and permitting … Here, it is beyond dispute that the BPU qualifies as a "governmental unit."

South Broward Hospital District v. Medquist Inc.

516 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2007

The Third Circuit has already dealt with this issue, holding that: It is clear that a corporation may qualify as a person under the [NJCFA] when it finds itself in a consumer oriented situation such as the purchaser of a … Lummus Crest, Inc., 251 N.J.Super. 271, 277 , 597 A.2d 1109 (Law Div.l990)(“It is clear that a corporation may qualify as a person under the Act when it finds itself in a consumer oriented situation.”)

CLELAND v. TSOUKARIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 7, 2020

Apr. 7, 2020) (denying request for TRO by habeas petitioner as he could not establish deliberate indifference to his medical needs). … In this matter, Petitioner is detained pursuant to the Government’s mandatory detention authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which applies to aliens such as Petitioner who have qualifying convictions.

Sandoz, Inc. v. Employer's Liability Assurance Corp.

554 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 13, 1983

The legal interests of defendants are clearly adverse to those of plaintiff, and the controversy is sufficiently immediate. In ACandS, Inc. v. … The basis for the decision was that “in order for an occurrence to qualify for coverage under this policy the damage must occur within the policy period.” Id. at 53, 380 A.2d 1165 . In Deodata v.

Policastro v. Tenafly Board of Education

710 F. Supp. 2d 495 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 7, 2010

to all activity conducted in a public park”); Ward, 491 U.S. at 792-93 , 109 S.Ct. 2746 (ruling that city noise ordinance did not implicate test applicable to content-based restrictions because it “extended] only to the clearly … Therefore, the Defendants did not subject him to “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , by reprimanding him for that speech, and his remaining claims must

DICKERSON v. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 2025

Crawford, it is well established that individual liability under the NJLAD requires a showing of a principal violation by the employer. … Crawford, and denied leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint on the grounds that such amendments were clearly futile. (Dickerson I, D.E. 54.)

GIBSON

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

Thus, “immunity for public entities is the rule and liability is the exception.” Id. at 453 (citation omitted). … The Court is mindful that it “cannot avoid its responsibility to grant … summary judgment because it hypothesizes ‘what might have been established’ or ‘what possibly could be established’ at a trial.” Williams v.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. American Metal Exchange Corp.

693 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 18, 1988

The documentary record clearly supports a finding that Maxwell controlled AME. For example by letter to Bill Frank, Mr. … the broker-dealer, broker-dealer which you [AME] were about to purchase (Equerry) in the remaining 38 states where it is not presently qualified.