Case law

JACKSON v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 8, 2024

. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court sua sponte screened the complaint for dismissal1 based on frivolity, failure to state a claim, or immunity of the defendants. (Order, Dkt. No. 3.) … with timing to establish a causal link.”

ZAMFIROVA v. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2024

Put simply, to trigger safe harbor protection, another provision must bar the action or clearly permit the conduct. … First, Plaintiffs do not need to establish at this stage that they viewed the statements at issue.

EDWARDS v. LINDENWOLD POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 3, 2022

P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit.”). As indicated, this Court must follow the Rule 12(b)(6) standard in considering a pro se complaint. … Clearly, here, there is no question that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that a seizure occurred.

VALENTINE v. MONROE TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 2023

The allegations set forth in the Consolidated Complaint clearly establish that the alleged unlawful acts by Defendants were recurring, which satisfies the second prong of the continuing violations doctrine. … Plaintiffs generally allege that Defendants denied them permits they otherwise qualified for, issued unwarranted citations, and imposed nonexistent requirements.

Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

482 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 2007

Pfizer also argues that in a field where the COX-2 in vitro assays were new and less understood than well-established in vivo assays, the person of ordinary skill would have clearly preferred to start with a lead compound … It does not clearly define the boundaries of distinct inventions.

VALENTINE v. MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN LLP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2023

To satisfy Article II’s standing requirements, Plaintiff must “clearly ... allege facts demonstrating” all three elements of constitutional standing: (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) that is “fairly traceable” to Defendants … There, the Court considered whether a plaintiff who “establishes the first two elements of standing (injury and traceability) can establish the third [redressability] by requesting only nominal damages.”

C.D.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 25, 2026

Opticians of Am., 920 F.2d 187, 192 (3d Cir. 1990)); and WHEREAS Plaintiff’s Complaint has failed to allege facts that establish a likelihood of success on the merits in the litigation, which is a threshold bar to … The “[p]ublication must be to the general public” and “comments made to officials within the same public institution do not qualify as public dissemination.” Kahan v. Slippery Rock Univ. of Pennsylvania, 50 F.

FLORES JIMENEZ v. TSOUKARIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 15, 2020

He received an antibody test which indicated that Petitioner was likely infected with the virus and in the process of recovering and developing immunity to the virus. (ECF No. 7 at 7). … Apr. 7, 2020) (denying request for TRO by habeas petitioner as he could not establish deliberate indifference to his medical needs).

Lipstein v. UnitedHealth Group

296 F.R.D. 279 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2013

Other plans establish contingencies for when the primary plan’s rate will control. … Plaintiffs urge the Court to disregard Gates because the decision "clearly applied an incorrect standard of review to United’s conduct.

BENTON v. SIMS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 26, 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. See Woods v. … The Appellate Division did not unreasonably apply any clearly establish federal law in rejecting Petitioner’s claim.

KANG v. SIVILLI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 28, 2022

“The burden of persuasion for establishing diversity jurisdiction, of course, remains on the party asserting it.” Hertz Corp. v. … In order to qualify as a citizen of a state under diversity jurisdiction, a “natural person must be both a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State.” Id. at 183-84 (quoting Newman-Green, Inc. v.

Cohen v. Chase Bank, N.A.

679 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 20, 2010

not participate in the NAF’s “ ‘Kangaroo Court;’ ” threatened to sue the NAF and the arbitrator for “mail and wire fraud” unless they agreed to “cease and desist this ‘action’ immediately;” and advised that “there is no immunity … STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party establishes that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [it] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. United States Gypsum Co.

146 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 2001

Instead, it establishes a schedule and the parties’ current understanding of the remaining claims in the case. … period (May 30, 1984 through December 22, 1994); and/or because Gypsum’s proofs do not account for the fact that the properties in question consist of more than one building; and/or because the buildings’ tenants did not qualify

HONAUER v. NORTH JERSEY TRUCK CENTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 25, 2023

Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff-employee bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. … Defendants do not dispute what the evidence clearly suggests—that, at the time Honauer was fired, his broken leg and blood clots substantially limited his ability to stand and walk.

ASTRAZENECA LP v. Apotex, Inc.

623 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 14, 2009

. § 355© established a procedure for the submission and review of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”). … This type of relationship does not qualify as a functional one and, therefore, it does not create a new patentable product.

United States v. D'Alessio

822 F. Supp. 1134 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 2, 1993

This language clearly relies on D’Alessio’s posited duty not to accept gifts from attorneys or others who would have official business with his office. … This objection is similar in nature to defendants’ earlier complaint that the Government could not establish that a single disclosure error constituted a “scheme to defraud.”

RUIZ RUBIO v. CORREIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 2020

The Supreme Court qualified immunity grounds. … The Supreme Court clearly delineated an action for injunctive relief as opposed to one for damages.

M.A. ex rel. G.A. v. Voorhees Township Board of Education

202 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2002

Null, who was more academically qualified and experienced than Mr. Gianeaterino, was unable to adequately “handle” M.A. and confer any educational benefit. … James Ball, who was extremely respected and qualified to oversee such a program. (See 7T 63:7-65:17; 8T 125:12-126:16.) Dr.

VALENTINE v. MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN LLP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 17, 2023

requirements, Plaintiff must “clearly ... allege facts demonstrating” all three elements of constitutional standing: (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) that is “fairly traceable” to Defendants’ challenged conduct, and (3) “that … There, the Court considered whether a plaintiff who “establishes the first two elements of standing (injury and traceability) can establish the third [redressability] by requesting only nominal damages.”

Bass River Associates v. Mayor of Bass River Township

573 F. Supp. 205 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 16, 1983

Furthermore, the presence of a residential community of over sixty housing units clearly constituted a significant change in the general use of the marina. … Plaintiffs, however, have failed to establish this estoppel claim.