Case law

E.I.H. v. FAIR LAWN BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2021

Waldor’s decision to award legal fees in the amount of $139,553.50 is clearly erroneous and contrary to law. … Petitioners qualify as prevailing parties under the IDEA, and as such, are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). B.

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.)

HINES v. POWELL

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

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. … As Petitioner failed to provide an affidavit from a qualified expert who would have been available to testify at trial, he has failed to show prejudice as to counsel’s alleged failure to secure an expert witness, and this

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.

EP Medsystems, Inc. v. Echocath, Inc.

30 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 19, 1998

[EchoCath’s] future success will depend in part upon its ability to attract and retain highly qualified personnel. … The 17 January 1996 Prospectus, the 1996 10-K of EchoCath and the 1997 10-Q of EchoCath clearly and precisely cautioned that EchoCath represented an exceptionally risky, indeed speculative, investment.

Wilks v. Ford Motor Co.

174 F.R.D. 332 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 1997

The predominance inquiry “trains on the le *340 gal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy____” Amchem Prods., supra, — U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2249 . … Feb. 27, 1997) (refusing to certify class on “record that reflects so many variations in state laws that common questions of law clearly cannot be said to predominate for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3)”); In re Masonite Hardboard

HELLMAN v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 2020

She thought that she was qualified for the position and that her many years of experience at the company weighed in her favor. (Pl. Dep. 178:8-20.) … However, she establishes a question of material fact regarding her retaliation claim.

CONOPCO, INC. v. WBM, LLC

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

A motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) will be granted only where “the insufficiency of the defense is clearly apparent.” Cipollone v. … renumbered.2 The remaining challenged affirmative defenses are as follows: 1) Plaintiff lacks standing because it has no valid rights in the subject marks, trade dresses, and other intellectual property and Defendant can establish

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.”)

Kinark Corp. v. Camelot, Inc.

548 F. Supp. 429 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 14, 1982

By virtue of his experience in this field, the court accepts his testimony and work product as that of a person qualified to conduct and report. on the results of a survey. 48. … Important features of the billboards were not clearly legible by the respondents. (Vol. II, pp. 103-05). 50.

ALLIED MANAGEMENT, INC. v. LUCID GROUP USA, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2025

between you and us or relating in any way to this Agreement will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that either you or we may assert claims in small claims court if the claims qualify … Any waiver of rights must be “clearly and unmistakably established,” and the waiver of rights provision must “be written clearly and unambiguously.” Skuse, 244 N.J. at 48-50.

Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp.

34 F. Supp. 3d 465 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 2014

Thus, under McCarthy , Plaintiffs potentially qualify for the co-conspirator exception.” Id. 376-77. … Defendants’ position on this issue is most clearly articulated in its supplemental briefing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration. See ECF Nos. 133-142.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chester Holdings, Ltd.

41 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 19, 1999

As the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated: Rule 56(f) clearly requires that an affidavit be filed. … Scienter is clearly established here. Rule 10b-5 also imposes liability for insider trading. Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 , 103 S.Ct. 3255 , 77 L.Ed.2d 911 (1983).

NAHACZEWSKI v. BUCK GLOBAL LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 26, 2022

Plaintiff notes that Gibney also said that “[Plaintiff was] clearly trying to improve, but at the same time has made more than one comment about being near the end of his career and being comfortable with the status quo … Plaintiff therefore fails to establish a prima facie case. B.

MEDWELL, LLC v. CIGNA CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 4, 2020

Moreover, because jurisdiction can be assessed at any time, MedWell is free to later more clearly establish as a matter of fact that no relevant plans qualify for the ERISA inquiry. 5 MedWell … Indeed, courts in this District find that unjust enrichment claims by a provider as assignee qualify for ERISA preemption. E.g., Cohen v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., Civ.

KOCI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 2025

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Id.; see Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 83-19, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. … If a claimant believes an error was made, she “must clearly identify the error and explain how the error actually ‘affect[ed] [his or her] “substantial rights.”’”

KAREEM v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION

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

to “a quotient of reasonableness, a basic level of understanding, and a willingness to read with 3 In our prior Opinion, we found that Plaintiff’s Section 1692(e) claim with respect to the delinquency notice was not clearly … to a notice of error with respect to such qualified written request.

Birthright v. Birthright, Inc.

827 F. Supp. 1114 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 1993

Accordingly, the “B” logo is a suggestive term, and it therefore qualifies under A.J. Canfield for trademark protection. 22. … In the case at bar, the parties were clearly not competitors.

SPIEWAK v. WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 26, 2023

First, Plaintiff must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case for gender discrimination by proving that (1) plaintiff is member of a protected class, (2) plaintiff was qualified for the position … “[T] here is a low bar for establishing a prima facie case of employment discrimination.”

CEZUS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 2026

named plaintiffs’ claims are not antagonistic to the class and that the attorneys for the class representatives are experienced and qualified.”); New Directions Treatment Servs. v. … “The bar for establishing commonality is ‘not high’ and is ‘easily met.’” In re Insulin Pricing Litig., No. 17-699, 2024 WL 416500, at *19 (D.N.J.