Case law

RICHARDS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 16, 2025

So the relevant question is how a complaint might establish a limitations defense. Ford invokes Crugher v. … Your health benefits will terminate on June 30, 2022 unless you qualify and participate in COBRA.

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.

ESPINAL v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 2021

Without such a limitation, the putative class includes drivers and helpers who do not qualify for overtime compensation under the NJWHL, which establishes an overtime rate “for each hour of working time in excess of 40 … Finally, “it protects defendants by ensuring that those persons who will be bound by the final judgment are clearly identifiable.” Id.

MAHER v. BAUMEISTER & SAMUELS, P.C.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 21, 2022

The Court also previously found that these states of citizenship were adequately shown to establish subject matter jurisdiction. D.E. 23. … Plaintiffs characterize this interpretation as “clearly erroneous,” “patently incorrect” and “unreasonable.” Id. ¶¶ 34, 36, 51. Again, these conclusory allegations are insufficient.

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.

ESPINAL v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC

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

“The party seeking certification bears the burden of establishing each element of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. … Additionally, they contend that counsel “is a highly qualified wage and hour class action litigator.” Id. Defendants do not contest this element.

BAGLIVO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 22, 2025

Citing extensive record evidence, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not, and cannot, establish two of the three conditions necessary to qualify as “Totally Disabled” under the Policy: (1) an inability to perform the … Regardless, the elements of § 17:33A- 4(a)(1) are clearly established here. 31 See id.; see also Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Lajara, 117 A.3d 1221, 1231 (N.J. 2015).

Olsen v. Hegarty

180 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2001

This is clearly not a proposal, but rather a report informing the Board that a decision has already been made. … The record shows that the Trustees themselves were, for the most part, not qualified to manage the investments of a pension fund based on their own backgrounds, experiences, skills and knowledge.

OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. 21ST CENTURY FOX AMERICA, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 13, 2022

P. 36(a)(4) (A denial “must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer to deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify … SPG Defendants’ arguments to the contrary do not bar OxyChem from qualifying its Amended Responses, where appropriate. The appropriateness of each of OxyChem’s qualified responses is addressed in Exhibit A.

Artway v. Attorney General of New Jersey

876 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 1, 1995

The Collins court re-established the Colder criteria for determining the viability of laws under ex post facto scrutiny. … Collins, 497 U.S. at 46 , 110 S.Ct. at 2721 (“by simply labeling a law ‘procedural,’ a legislature does not thereby immunize it from scrutiny under the Ex Post Facto Clause....

POWELL v. VERIZON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 20, 2019

The allegations of the complaint clearly set forth those five essential elements of a hostile work environment claim. … In order to establish liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that the wrongdoer is employed by the defendant; (2) acts or omissions causing injuries or damages to others; and

SEVERINO v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 2024

Legal Analysis Here, Plaintiff clearly filed his motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint out of time. … Plaintiff does not describe any conduct of the Defendants, "with specificity and with sufficient facts to overcome a likely defense of immunity." Biase v. Kaplan, 852 F.

DOE v. WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 2024

I will hold in confidence and not disclose to anyone not qualified under the Discovery Confidentiality Order any Confidential, Attorneys’ Eyes Only, or Plaintiff’s True Identity Material or any words, … Good cause exists if “‘disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury’” to the party seeking protection. Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786 (quoting Publicker Indus., Inc. v.

AVILA v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

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

“[A] state-court decision is an unreasonable application of [the Supreme Court’s] clearly established precedent if it correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies that rule … New Jersey law requires “that a person convicted of a qualifying sex offense ‘shall’ be assessed the statutory penalty.” State v.

TRYCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC v. LLOYD'S SYNDICATE 3624 (HISCOX)

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2023

This includes establishing if and when each entity became an insured under the Policies, as this is an element of establishing the right to coverage under the policy. … Further, none of these five entities qualify as insureds under the definition of “Insured Organization” in the Policy.

SPENCE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 12, 2021

“The first four elements of this claim establish that a hostile work environment existed. The fifth element ... establishes the basis on which to hold the employer liable.” … Plaintiff has clearly alleged that she reported her harassment to multiple superiors on three separate occasions, and that both Kiersnwoski and Williamson failed to take any remedial

SPATOLA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2025

ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS A claimant may establish disability under the Social Security Act by proving that they are unable to “engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason … Though the analysis of persuasiveness might well have been more clearly articulated, Judge Krappa’s reasoning is supported by her broader recitation of Dr.

Ansell Inc. v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc.

757 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 1991

Although dippers may sell their products through a number of different channels of distribution, the evidence presented to the Court clearly shows that the industry participants view their sales to the retail trade as a separate … The Court reaffirmed that an injury, although causally related to an antitrust violation, nevertheless does not qualify as “antitrust injury” unless it can be attributed to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under

MANZ v. WALMART SUPERCENTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2025

out as serving patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that covered establishment … Retail stores are not among the enumerated establishments that qualify as public accommodations under Title II. See McCrea v. Saks, Inc., Civ. A. No. 00-1936, 2000 WL 1912726, at *2 (E.D. Pa.

HASLER v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 7, 2020

The Supreme Court reasoned that Koray’s time in a community corrections center while “released” on bail did not qualify as “official detention” under § 3585(b), because he was not subject to … Therefore, Respondent relied on facts other than those clearly intended by Congress and, thus, the Respondent’s action was arbitrary and capricious