Case law

SCHIFF v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.

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

A court may grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings only if the movant “clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [the movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … Thus, in addition to being an account charged to loss, the Court is satisfied a charge off also qualifies as an “adverse item of information” as contemplated by 15 U.S.C. § 1681 c(a)(5).

MATRIX DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BOARDS OF PHARMACY

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

That qualifies as a final judgment on the merits. Papera v. … First, the state action doctrine is firmly established by judicial precedent.

United States v. Schiff

538 F. Supp. 2d 818 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 19, 2008

The Government has, over and over again, insisted that it need not establish the reason for the stock price drop. … He has worked as both an analyst and an investor, and has been qualified to testify as an expert in various prior cases and arbitrations. Mr.

NEW JERSEY CIVIL JUSTICE INSTITUTE v. GREWAL

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

standing where the regulation is directed at [the plaintiffs] in particular; it requires them to make significant changes in their everyday business practices; [and] if they fail to observe the . . . rule they are quite clearly … This conclusion is underscored by the fact that because Defendant is a state official sued in his official capacity, any relief in the form of monetary damages is barred by sovereign immunity.

NIETO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 26, 2024

At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff does not have “an impairment or combination of impairments” that qualifies under the SSA’s listed impairments. … “A claimant cannot qualify for benefits under the ‘equivalence’ step by showing that the overall!

Caldwell v. KFC Corp.

958 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 1997

KFC, a private purveyor of Med and roasted chicken, fails to qualify as a state actor under either the state or the federal standard. See Schmid, 84 N.J. at 562-63 , 423 A.2d at 629-30 ; see also Flagg Bros., Inc. v. … Thus, the Court holds that these claims clearly fall outside the substantive scope of the arbitration clause.

Wärtsilä NSD North America, Inc. v. Hill International, Inc.

342 F. Supp. 2d 267 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 29, 2004

Without assessing the sufficiency of the proffered evidence for support of Wártsilá’s claims — which would only be appropriate on a motion for summary judgment — the Court notes that the proffered evidence clearly establishes … Here, Hill asserts that there is no evidence of breach because it supplied a consultant in LeFebvre who was qualified for the tasks for which he was acquired.

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation

46 F. Supp. 3d 523 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 12, 2014

The merger qualified as a tax-free reorganization and was accounted for as a pooling of interests. Warner-Lambert Company became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc. … The flexible pleading benchmark established by Twombly requires such pleading same in these difficult cases.

FRANCISCO v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 30, 2025

As explained by the Supreme Court, “[b]ecause Bounds did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his … “Although these grievances and other complaints Plaintiff has filed have not borne fruit, Plaintiff clearly has access to a remedy system where he may raise his claims, and the . . . loss of his property therefore does

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. AIG INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 6, 2022

Allergan was an established, global company with over 10,000 employees and a healthy research-and-development budget. Ud. {| 24-25.) … A court may grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings only if the movant “clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [the movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.

210 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 26, 2002

If the person establishes the cause of action, the court shall enter an order granting possession.” N.J.S.A. 2B:50-1. … Parker, 30 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1231 (N.D.Cal.1998) (finding preemption of unjust enrichment claim because “the rights sought to be vindicated ... are rights involving reproduction and distribution that are clearly equivalent

Merckle GmbH v. Johnson & Johnson

961 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 15, 1997

Medicinal products containing rHuEPO may be used to treat anemia related to chronic renal failure, infections, immune deficiencies, and other ailments. … (citation omitted); see also Sun Dial Corp., 29 N.J.Super. at 368 , 102 A.2d 90 (“Absolute secrecy is not required, but rather that qualified secrecy which arises from mutual understanding and is required alike by good faith

DESTEFANO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 4, 2024

Here, ALJ Allard clearly explained why she declined to assign controlling weight to Dr. Lim’s opinions. She noted Dr. … Accordingly, because ALJ Allard’s decision clearly explained why she assigned less weight to Dr.

PRUITT v. DAVIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 21, 2021

“The ‘clearly established Federal law’ provision requires Supreme Court decisions to be viewed through a ‘sharply focused lens.’” Id. … Therefore, the issue is whether the state court’s decision was objectively unreasonable under clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Baron & Budd, P.C. v. Unsecured Asbestos Committee

321 B.R. 147 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 25, 2005

The factual determinations of the bankruptcy court are not to be set aside unless “clearly erroneous.” See Fed. R. … First, the party seeking standing must establish that it is a party-in-interest under § 1109(b). Id. Second, the party seeking standing must satisfy minimum constitutional requirements. Id.

FORA FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC v. DREAM DATA SERVICES, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 15, 2023

At this stage, these allegations are sufficient to establish the existence of a trade secret. … The Court held that this “clearly indicate[d] malice” for purposes of a tortious interference claim and that such “conduct was not only unethical, but also unlawful in that it constituted the wrongful taking of [plaintiffs

HOLDREN v. ADMINISTRATOR, NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON

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

Burke, who was qualified as an expert in gang terminology, gang culture and gang dynamics, explained that a set is “a subgroup that falls underneath the Bloods” street gang. … 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.

Ziemann v. Burlington County Bridge Commission

155 F.R.D. 497 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 25, 1994

In Cipollone , the Third Circuit established that in order to overcome the presumption and satisfy the good cause requirement, the movant must demonstrate a particular need for protection. Id. … As noted previously, neither the Federal Rules of Evidence nor any cases have established such a privilege.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. LOANCARE, LLC

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

Because Rule 702 “clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects and theories” to which an expert may testify, the Supreme Court has stated: [I]n order to qualify as “scientific knowledge,” an inference … First, the witness must be qualified to testify as an expert, which requires “that the witness possess specialized expertise.” Id.

United States v. Cannistraro

800 F. Supp. 30 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 22, 1992

The Defendants neither establish Renshak’s expertise with respect to the impact of trading on the market such that Renshak would have been qualified to offer an opinion that the M & I Fund purchases had no impact on the market … “[F]or a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v.