Case law

GREEN v. MNUCHIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 2025

Id. at 1413–14.6 In order to prevail at the summary judgment stage, the affirmative defense must be established “so clearly that no rational jury could find to the contrary.” Stanziale v. … To establish a prima facie case for a discrimination/disparate treatment claim, the plaintiff must establish: “he/she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) suffered an adverse employment

CROCKER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 2026

Regardless, the record clearly reflects Dr. … An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Id.; see SSR 83–19, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.

BYERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

The hypothetical questions should reflect the specific capacity/limitations established by the record as a whole. … For all these reasons, then, Plaintiff has not established that she is entitled to remand on this basis.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. PRINCETON ALTERNATIVE FUNDING LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 8, 2025

Applying well-established case law and given the same work- product concerns expressed above, the Court quashes the deposition subpoenas. … Ill. 2003) (prohibiting deposition of SEC counsel because the defendant “clearly seeks not the facts, but the manner in which the SEC intends to marshal them”); EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick’s, Civ.

APFA, INC. v. UATP MANAGEMENT, LLC

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

To qualify for protection under the NJFPA, three criteria must be met: (1) “the performance of the franchise must require the franchisee to establish or maintain a place of business within the State of New Jersey”; ( … Here, the function of {the defendants’] motion is clearly a dismissal based on forum non conveniens,. . . .

DEEJAIZ LLC v. TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 22, 2024

of the required A-2 use that Plaintiffs were instructed an establishment must be in order to serve food. … " Because there are no adequately pled federal claims, the Court does not need to reach the issue of qualified immunity. (Defs.’ Moving Br. 37.) 14 B.

United States v. General Electric Co.

82 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 4, 1949

But that does not mean that the practice we have here has immunity under the anti-trust laws. Indeed, the recent case of Hartford-Empire Co. v. … The government alleged that it was common practice to permit dealers to over report in order to qualify for higher rates of discount and to grant discounts to dealers from prompt reporting who did not qualify (Exs. 1444-G

United States v. Lightman

988 F. Supp. 448 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 12, 1997

Matthews’ proposal of February 15, are sufficiently definite that the performance to be rendered by each party can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. 15 Moreover, it is well established in New Jersey that an agreement … For example, the January 17 letter from Robert Matthews uses interchangeably the words “shah”, “will” and “would,” without the use of any conditional qualifiers, in describing the proposed terms of the consent decree and

BENAMAX ICE, LLC v. MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 2021

Plaintiff acknowledges that the Complaint states, “Benamax was required to close its food serve establishment” whereas the Policy requires a suspension of operations. … (coverage barred because “the Policy clearly excludes coverage for damage, loss or expense arising from a virus.

SHEDDEN v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

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

The elements of an FMLA retaliation claim are: “(1) [plaintiff] invoked [his] right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) [plaintiff] suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) the adverse action was causally related to … William Paterson Coll. of N.J., 260 F.3d 265, 288 (3d Cir. 2001) (“[Plaintiff’s] termination clearly fulfills the second prong of the prima facie case for a retaliation claim.”).

PRIMUS v. BONDS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 15, 2021

Maryland, also the trial court [decision] was contrary to, and applied an unreasonable application to clearly established law concerning Brady v. … 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 1 The Court has received and reviewed additional

United States Ex Rel. Hussmann Corp. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

999 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 1998

We feel the record clearly demonstrates that Hussmann supplied materials to C. … All services furnished hereunder by Vendor are to be performed by qualified, careful and efficient mechanics in the best and more workmanlike maimer and in exact accordance with the provisions hereof. d.

LYONS v. GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 1, 2022

“concrete injuries in fact” sufficient to establish Article III standing. … ANN. § 56:8-1(c), which clearly includes Defendants as student loan servicers, and that it was the New Jersey Legislature’s intent for the NJCFA to be interpreted broadly to combat consumer fraud. (Opp.

Lynch v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc.

758 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 1991

The Stevens Salaried Plan Stevens established the Salaried Plan effective 1 January 1948. Defendants’ Memorandum at 9; Opposition at 1. … In addition, the submissions of Lynch do not even consistently and clearly support his assertion that Salaried Plan assets were used for the benefit of the Hourly Plan.

ZYDUS WORLDWIDE DMCC v. TEVA API INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 11, 2024

“Not every error and omission qualify for supplementation under the Federal Rules; rather, the expert reports must be incomplete or incorrect in a ‘material respect.’” Raritan Baykeeper, Inc. v. … Regardless, the initial reports currently state that the Delaware District Court’s decision is pending appeal, a fact that is clearly incorrect. ECF No. 209 at 3.

EMQORE ENVESECURE PRIVATE CAPITAL TRUST v. SINGH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 7, 2022

Khazanah moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint for (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) and Rule 12(b)(1); and (2) improper service of process under the FSIA … “[W]hen a domestic plaintiff sues in his or her home state, that choice receives great deference, and will not be displaced unless the remaining factors ‘clearly favor[ ] an alternative forum.’”

CARTER v. BENTLEY MOTORS INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 2020

Defendants contest whether this is sufficient to establish that Plaintiff is a member of a racial minority. … Though Plaintiff’s description of her status as a racial minority could be more clearly stated, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established this element of her Section 1981 claim.

MCADAM

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2026

FEMA established the WYO Program under which “private insurance companies like [Defendant] write their own insurance policies .... … Here, equitable tolling does not apply because Plaintiff did not allege any of these narrow exceptions in the Complaint, nor has he provided evidence of a qualifying circumstance under New Jersey law.

Fein Container Corp. v. Local No. 810, Steel Metals Alloys & Hardware Fabricators

649 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 2, 1986

Section 104 (1982), qualifies that jurisdiction. … The testimony before me clearly established that the central dispute facing Fein and Local 810 was a dispute over the terms of whatever employment agreement would succeed the agreement struck on February 21, 1983.

FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. CITY OF OCEAN CITY, NJ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2022

Therefore, the immunity from subrogation suit provided in the NJTCA does not apply here. B. … While it is a close call, Defendant has not established substantial prejudice here.