Case law

KUSHELOWITZ v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2023

Fast Rig Support, LLC, 823 F.3d 786, 790–91 (3d Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted) (stating that employers bear the burden to show “plainly and unmistakably” that their employees qualify for an exemption under the FLSA … . § 1331, and this Court finds no reason not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the clearly related NYLL claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

EAST BRUNSWICK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION v. D.S.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 28, 2023

She was qualified as an expert in education and education of learning-disabled children and prepared a report in connection with her evaluation of A.S., which was conducted on February 26, 2020. (Id.) … “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting Anderson v.

SPECIAL POLICE ORGANIZATION OF NEW JERSEY v. CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 16, 2019

However, it is well established that “the class-of-one theory of equal protection has no application in the public employment context.” Engquist v. Or. … Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972) (“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

LIVINGSTON v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 25, 2019

A district court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing “where a petition allege[s] any facts warranting relief under § 2255 that are not clearly resolved by the record . . . .” … untimely and must be dismissed.1 Petitioner argues that, because of Johnson, his instant federal bank robbery charge and his December 6, 1990 conviction for burglary no longer qualify

Levine v. United Healthcare Corp.

285 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 6, 2003

by resolution,” provided the resolution process was established by ordinance. … The court was clearly aware of the Reuter decision, which was issued on March 29, 2001, when it issued its Perreira decision on June 26, 2001. 15 .

DEL TURCO v. RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 2020

The prosecution clearly stated that it would not withdraw the Brady Order disclosing Del Turco’s false testimony, but would amend it to indicate that he had resigned. … Defendants also argue that these counts fail to state a claim, and that the Morris County Defendants are immune.

Biovail Corp. International v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft

49 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 1, 1999

At this juncture, Biovail need not establish precisely which comments in the letters were — and specifically how they were — false or misleading. … Absent an assertion of immunity, which has not been asserted here, defendants are not insulated from liability simply because their allegedly anticompetitive conduct was directed at a foreign government’s regulatory process

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.

Barr v. HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

555 F. Supp. 2d 484 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2008

The 2001 SRU Plan was “intended to be a non-qualified retirement plan which [was] unfunded.” (Id.; see also Arts. 7.1, 9.8.) … As established previously, the value received per equity award unit was $23.76.

Central R. Co. v. Martin

30 F. Supp. 41 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 1939

But he qualified his answer by adding that he had not tried it in any of these cases. … Weeks, supra, as follows: “ * * * Courts decline to disturb assessments for taxation unless shown clearly to transgress reasonable limits.

B.H.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2026

Howard Johnson may qualify as “perpetrators” and/or “beneficiaries.” … To the extent that Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to establish that the hotel entities “participated in a venture with any person or entity related to the sex trafficking of [Plaintiff],” the Court agrees with

In Re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Securities Litigation

380 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 9, 2005

Jurisdiction is established by satisfaction of either test. Id. … The Fourth Circuit has clearly established that the “fiduciary shield rule is solely a matter of statutory construction under state law and is not required under the due process clause.” In re Royal Ahold N.V.

Dawn O’Hara Pagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avantic Medical Lab, Inc.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 2026

Here, typicality is clearly satisfied since Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same course of conduct which gave rise to the claims of all other Proposed Class Members, namely the Data Breach, and are based on the same legal … Milberg, PLLC and Kopelowitz, Ostrow, Ferguson, Weiselberg Gilbert are therefore qualified to represent the class. 5.

SCHNEIDER, FAMILY TRUST v. PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 28, 2025

A plaintiff is required to establish standing for each form of relief sought, Yaw, 49 F.4th at 317, and at summary judgment a plaintiff must set forth specific facts to establish standing, Greenberg, 81 F.4th at 384. … The court dismissed the appeals because it was not clear that the trust intended to appeal through a qualified agent. Id.

MASTRIPOLITO v. JEFFERSON HEALTH-NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 2, 2022

The Third Circuit has permitted experts to “opine on established industry customs and standards, provided the testimony stops short of defining the legal duties arising from … Because the incident report is more than a decade old, is somewhat illegible, and does not clearly describe what Mr.

RULLAN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 2022

Federal law is clearly established for these purposes where itis clearly expressed in “only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta” of the opinions of the United States Supreme Court. See Woods v. … This evidence does not qualify as hearsay.

HILLS v. CHAPMAN MCDONALDS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 23, 2023

class, (2) she was qualified for the position, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) circumstances exist that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. … Clearly the parties disagree as to the number of times Plaintiff faced discrimination.

MASTRIPOLITO v. JEFFERSON HEALTH-NEW JERSEY

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

The Third Circuit has permitted experts to “opine on established industry customs and standards, provided the testimony stops short of defining the legal duties arising from … Because the incident report is more than a decade old, is somewhat illegible, and does not clearly describe what Mr.

Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC

100 F. Supp. 3d 405 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 20, 2015

The “basic character of the claimed subject matter” in dispute in this action is clearly evident to the Court and no further construction of the claims is required. C. … The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidi *411 ty.” 35 U.S.C. § 282 (a).