Case law

SAUNDERS v. COLLABERA INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2021

not clear and unmistakable, the FAA prohibits Plaintiff from claiming the provisions are unenforceable—by arguing he did not understand the implication or meaning of the provisions—because such a defense does not qualify … According to the Third Circuit, ifthe complaint or its supporting documents do not clearly establish an enforceable arbitration agreement, “or if the plaintiff has responded to a motion to compel arbitration with additional

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Roussel Corp.

23 F. Supp. 2d 460 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 1998

Glessner, 952 F.2d at 712 n. 10 (plaintiffs attempt to establish distinctiveness between parent and subsidiary by alleging that “fraudulently marketing [the product] was clearly outside their corporate [and normal] course … Count XII clearly fails to satisfy the distinctiveness requirement. 43 Accordingly, *489 Lilly’s § 1962(c) claim, as alleged in Count XII is dismissed.

LAWRENCE v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 25, 2022

Nevertheless, Lawrence is not able to establish actual prejudice or actual innocence sufficient to overcome the procedural default. … Courts looks to “the actual proffer, plea hearing, and other evidence in the record to determine if a qualifying predicate offense was committed.” Collazo, 856 F. App’x. at 383.

United States v. Onque

169 F. Supp. 3d 555 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 2015

The transcript clearly shows that the prosecutor defined “object of the conspiracy” by reciting verbatim the Court’s jury instructions on that term. (10/2 T. 2169:15-2170:16.) … Cromwell’s explanation of why Henry paid to Wolf-Fels merely contradicted Henry’s testimony; it clearly did not prove Henry’s testimony false.

DANIELS v. LANIGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2019

Clearly, Daniels March 26, 2018 EEOC complaint, which he contends gave rise to the retaliation, could not have been incorporate in that filing. … Daniels, holding the burden, fails to establish that his proposed class meets all four requirements in Rule 23(a) and that the proposed class qualifies under at least on section of Rule 23(b).

MURPHY v. EISAI, INC (U.S.)

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2020

Indeed, it explicitly provides to the contrary: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20) [29 USCS § 705(20)] shall, solely by reason of her or … The facts section of the Complaint further alleges, if not very clearly, that the retaliation consisted of Murphy’s dismissal.

APPLEBAUM v. FABIAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 13, 2021

Second, even accepting Plaintiff’s theory that she qualifies as a “de facto seller” or “forced seller,” and assuming that Section 10b-5 applies to such a seller, Plaintiff’s theory would trigger the “probate exception” … Based on the foregoing, I find the Proposed Second Amended Complaint does not establish a Section 10b-5 claim.

MURPHY v. EISAI, INC (U.S.)

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

Indeed, it explicitly provides to the contrary: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20) [29 USCS § 705(20)] shall, solely by reason of her or … The facts section of the Complaint further alleges, if not very clearly, that the retaliation consisted of Murphy’s dismissal.

REEVES v. HEMSLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 8, 2022

The Supreme Court has established that § 1983’s definition of “person” includes municipalities and other local government entities. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). … and immunities under the law; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) injury to a plaintiff’s property or his person, or deprivation of a right or privilege of a U.S. citizen

CHAMBERLAIN v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 17, 2020

Plaintiff argues that Ausborn’s notification to Marin of her second license suspension qualifies as “immediate.” … To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must first establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the

Lever Bros. Co. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING

668 F. Supp. 924 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 8, 1987

P & G has submitted the declaration of Eugene Rzucidlo, who, with fifteen years of experience in the Patent Office (five of those years as acting Examiner-in-Chief) would appear to be eminently qualified to explain why the … Clearly, the patent examiner handling the ’025 patent application was concerned about the scope of the claim’s reach over fabric softeners. Just as clearly, P & G amended its claim to address that concern.

CHIPPERO v. NELSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 14, 2020

Chippero must instead demonstrate a violation of federal due process, as clearly established by precedent of the United States Supreme Court. … The Petition does not demonstrate a violation of federal due process, as clearly established by United States Supreme Court precedent.

Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc.

558 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 1981

I conclude that the destruction of the documents was clearly improper. … The subject matter of this patent clearly is similar to the ’295 patent.

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC v. PLATKIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 5, 2024

Veterans Guardian states that the “compensation [structure] for [its] consulting services is [] clearly laid out” in the Agreement. (Id. { 39.) … Although Soto states that he qualified for WA disability benefits, he was unsuccessful with obtaining VA benefits on his own. (Compl. 4 57.)

DOE 1 v. BANC, JACK & JOE, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 1, 2020

Pero’s testimony clearly establishes that Titillations has a policy of classifying its dancers as independent contractors. … The record clearly demonstrates that defendants applied these policies and practices to Doe and all potential class members.

Simoni v. Luciani

872 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 5, 2012

“The party seeking to take advantage of claim preclusion has the burden of establishing it.” Id. (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Deutz AG, 270 F.3d 144, 158 (3d Cir.2001)). III. … As to the first factor, review of the two complaints clearly demonstrates that each complaint asserts distinct wrongs.

In Re ORFA Securities Litigation

654 F. Supp. 1449 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 10, 1987

Rule 23(a) and (b) establish five criteria to be applied to class certification questions. *1459 Rule 23(a)3 * 5 establishes four prerequisites to a class action, which will be referred to as (1) numerosity, (2) commonality … The court finds that the Barron’s article clearly had a curative effect on the market.

SOSA v. COUNTY OF HUDSON, NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2020

Because “[e]ach and every discreet allegation of professional negligence and/or deliberate indifference occurred more than two years before the filing of Plaintiff’s [original] Complaint,” and “Plaintiff was clearly aware … [his conditions] by ignoring his diagnoses, not providing for treatment by appropriately qualified medical specialists, and insisting upon a course of woefully inadequate and ineffective topical creams.”

NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Cos.

926 F. Supp. 1213 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 11, 1996

The New York Court of Appeals has not clearly ruled on this question. See Technicon Electronics Corp. v. … Moreover, such a rule would clearly be inappropriately applied.

BELLO v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) N.A.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 16, 2021

There is simply no allegation in the proposed amended complaint nor any facts that can be extracted from the exhibits that establish Capital One’s failure to undertake a reasonable investigation. … Bello contends that Capital One is clearly demarcated as a national association in the proposed amended complaint.