Case law

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.

CENLAR

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 2026

The Complaint does not clearly identify the factual bases for her claims, what specific conduct Defendant allegedly engaged in, when that conduct occurred, or whether Plaintiff challenges discrete past events, continuing … □ Section 2605(e) requires a loan servicer to respond to a borrower’s “qualified written request” (““QWR”) within a specified period.

Jones v. Intelli-Check, Inc.

274 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 30, 2003

IDN claimed that Messina, a former officer and director of the Company, by holding more than 14% of IDN’s outstanding voting stock, so qualified as an “affiliate,” and that his attempted sales did not comport with the SEC … Coopers & Lybrand Chartered Accountants, 930 F.Supp. 1003, 1013 (D.N.J.1996) (“plaintiff need only plead circumstances establishing control because: (1) the facts establishing culpable participation can only be expected to

SOTO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2020

Determining Social Security Benefits To qualify for SSI benefits, the claimant must first establish that she is “disabled.” 42 U.S.C. § 1381. … The ALJ’s decision clearly indicated that his decision was based on the four preceding paragraphs where he summarized and analyzed the following evidence in the record: (i) a psychological evaluation performed by Dr.

DENNIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 26, 2022

Zangaladze’s certification does not establish that he is qualified to offer an opinion as a psychiatrist or psychologist because he is neither. The ALJ recognized that Dr. … Telephone or write to credit departments of business and service establishments to obtain information about applicant's credit standing”).

BUCK v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

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

Here, the numerosity requirement is clearly satisfied. … After Rule 23(a) is satisfied, a plaintiff must establish that the proposed class also satisfies Rule 23(b).

PHYSICIAN AND TACTICAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC v. INOVA HEALTH CARE SERVICES

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 19, 2021

On August 23, 2018, the two parties entered into a Services Agreement, pursuant to which PATHS agreed to assist Inova in qualifying its patients for Medicaid coverage for services … Defendant knowingly and intentionally waived its right to mediate this dispute under the Dispute Escalation provision, and therefore has failed to meet the “high standard required for establishing

Engers v. AT & T

428 F. Supp. 2d 213 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2006

Factual Background 3 AT & T is a business corporation organized and existing under New York law, but is qualified to, and does business in New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 7). … This language clearly raises failure to exhaust as a defense. 17 . Burlingame held the position of head of AT & T's Human Resources organization. 18 .

HOTALING & CO., LLC v. LY BERDITCHEV CORP.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 18, 2022

Privilege Plaintiffs argue that they are immune from liability for statements made to Amazon relating to LYB’s allegedly unlawful conduct because such statements … Here, Plaintiffs argue that their notice and takedown communications with Amazon qualify as communications made in quasi-litigation procedures and are therefore privileged.

X. v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 3, 2022

As this Court noted in certifying the Class, these organizations “are all qualified, experienced, and capable of protecting and advancing the interests of the class.” … Second, examining the percentage-of recovery-factors that have not been discussed in other portions of this Opinion,10 which I may use to cross-check to the reasonableness of a fee award, the fee award is clearly reasonable

CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 2020

The first two categories clearly do not apply in this case. … Forward-looking statements: Some alleged misrepresentations clearly fall into the PSLRA’s Safe Harbor provision which “immunizes from liability any forward-looking statement, provided that: the statement is identified as

RINDOS v. PARTNERS GROUP (USA), INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2023

Co., Inc., 583 F.3d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that at the summary judgment stage, a “plaintiff must establish a prima facie case; the employer must offer. . . … NYSHRL, or NYCHRL; (3) he is otherwise qualified to perform his job; and (4) he suffered an adverse employment decision because of his disability.” Brown v. The Pension Bds., 488 F.

BAEZ RUFINO v. TSOUKARIS

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

He was oriented to person, place, and time, and his ability to think clearly and logically appeared initially within normal limits. Id. ¶ 30. … suppressing an individual’s immune system, making it more difficult for their bodies to fight off infection.

EZEIRUAKU v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2020

To plead a prima facie case of defamation, “a plaintiff must establish (1) the assertion of a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) the unprivileged publication … Plaintiff’s main allegation is that the statements made in the July 22, 2019 letter were of this last type, and qualify as defamation per se.

ADVANCED ORTHOPEDICS AND SPORTS MEDICINE INSTITUTE, P.C. v. HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES OF NEW JERSEY

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

According to Advanced Orthopedics, L.S. was required to use its services because there were no qualified in- network orthopedic surgeons to treat L.S. (/d.) … Advanced Orthopedics’ Complaint fails to establish that Horizon is a proper party to this suit.

UDEEN v. SUBARU OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 4, 2019

Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing, and class members will relinquish any qualifying claims related to the Starlink infotainment system. (Id. at IV.1, V.3). … The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: i. the nature of the action; ii.

TI Investment Services, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

23 F. Supp. 3d 451 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 30, 2014

Recognizing this economic reality, we established two prerequisites to recovery on claims of predatory pricing. … Brunswick indeed sets bounds as to what qualifies as antitrust injury. For plaintiffs to prevail on a Sherman Act claim, they must prove more than injury causally linked to an illegal presence in the market.

Glenside West Corp. v. Exxon Co., USA

761 F. Supp. 1100 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1991

Congress clearly stated its purpose to prevent “arbitrary or discriminatory” terminations. Senate Report at 15, 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, *1108 874. … with restroom supplies, all in reasonable conformity with appearance and image guidelines as may be provided to the Buyer by Exxon during the term of this agreement; and (d) Attendants — to provide a sufficient number of qualified

SCIORE v. PHUNG

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

facts to establish special damages. … Div. 1988) (finding qualified privilege applies to tortious interference claim based on the defamatory statements).

LUENSE v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC.

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

The Plan qualifies as “large” because it had more than $810 million in assets as of December 31, 2017 and more than $766 million in assets as of December 31, 2018. Jd. 9 6-7. … “The party seeking certification bears the burden of establishing each element of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.