Case law

MCBURNIE v. CRC INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 23, 2020

Plaintiff contends that “plans” containing targets for Plaintiff’s job performance “were constantly shifted by [Defendant CRC] in a fashion adverse to [Plaintiff] and in a manner clearly seeking to allegedly justify his … as to whether the joined defendant had obtained an employment status so as to satisfy an element of a Pennsylvania conspiracy statute, and (b) the Pennsylvania state court might not find that the joined defendant was immune

LEERDAM v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 17, 2023

Federal law is “clearly established” for these purposes if it is clearly expressed in “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta” of the United States Supreme Court. See Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 316 (2015). … Leerdam has not shown that the Appellate Division’s rejection of his challenges to the identification testimony of Plowden and Mbengue was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

INTER METALS GROUP v. CENTRANS MARINE SHIPPING

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 17, 2022

However, the Court is not convinced such a document qualifies as a public record. See Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. … The crossclaims are clearly not plausibly pled, consisting solely of conclusory statements.

ASTRIAB v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

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

at 317, established standards for determining appropriate fee awards in fee-shifting cases. … For instance, on November 2, 2010, Attorney Manshel spent 3.5 hours researching “summary judgment, section 1983 cases on qualified immunity, establishing clear case law on the various 1* and 14" [Amendments’] rights asserted

DAVIS v. DEJOY

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

The element of material adversity is highlighted because “it is important to separate significant from trivial harms,” further stating “[a]n employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize … The Supreme Court has clearly articulated that “it is important to separate significant from trivial harms,” and an adverse action is material when it could have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting

WILLOW SPRINGS OPERATOR, LLC v. USI INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2019

The removing defendants bear the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d 337, 346 (3d Cir. 2013). … To qualify for so-called “diversity” jurisdiction, “the parties must be completely diverse, meaning that ‘no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants.’” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v.

FIGUEROA v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 19, 2024

To satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, Plaintiff must “clearly .. . allege facts demonstrating” all three elements of constitutional standing: (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) that is “fairly traceable” to Defendants … credit reports were disseminated to third-party businesses “suffered a harm with a ‘close relationship’ to the harm associated with the tort of defamationj,]” and as such, “suffered a concrete harm that qualifies

SANDOVAL v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2021

In sum, it cannot be said that “the claims of the named plaintiffs and putative class members involve the same conduct,” and typicality is not established. Newton v. … Here, superiority has not been established. See Newton, 259 F.3d at 186.

LENNON v. NVR MORTGAGE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 26, 2024

To establish a prima facie case under the ECOA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for credit from the defendant; (3) she was qualified for the credit; and (4) despite … qualifying, she was denied credit.

Rolo v. City Investing Co.

845 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 27, 1993

When GDC believed that a lot owner was financially qualified to buy a GDC house, (id. at ¶ 121), GDC frequently sponsored promotional trips to Florida. (Id. at ¶ 119.) … Plaintiffs’ claim here clearly does not satisfy these pleading requirements.

C.P. v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 22, 2020

Finally, individuals may sue a state that has properly waived its sovereign immunity and consented to suit. Id. … In this case, the Second Amended Complaint clearly alleges an ongoing violation of federal law, more specifically New Jersey’s non-compliance with the IDEA’s 45 Day Rule.

MINAYA v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 10, 2023

No such claim can be gleaned from the record, which in fact establishes the opposite. … The answer is clearly no. Mr.

CONTE v. PROMETHEAN INC.

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

(Compl. ¶89-93) Promethean’s letters, however, are protected by New Jersey’s litigation privilege, under which “[a] statement made in the course of a judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged and wholly immune from … The plaintiff “need only establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.” Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93, 97 (3d Cir. 2004).

Morris v. Paul Revere Insurance Group

986 F. Supp. 872 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 12, 1997

That implies that the court’s conclusion was dependant upon findings of fact and consequently that, had the court determined that the plaintiff did intend to pay the premiums, the insurance policy would have qualified for … The Group Policy clearly confers broad discretion on the plan administrator to determine eligibility for benefits. See Defendant’s Ex.

MOLESKY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530, 110 S. Ct. 885, 891, 107 L. … In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the "paragraph C" criteria.

NEW JERSEY BUILDING LABORERS STATEWIDE BENEFIT FUNDS AND THE TRUSTEES THEREOF v. LLANOS MAINTENANCE SERVICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 2019

that “MJO was created to evade Llanos’s obligations under the 1 The complaint states that the award amount is $2,957,167.56, but the judgment entered by Judge Vazquez, U.S.D.J., on July 16, 2018 confirming the award clearly … To qualify as a new ERISA claim, the complaint must “allege that a third party was either responsible for commission of the original ERISA violation, or that the third party committed a new and distinct ERISA violation

FREEDOM FUNDING GROUP, INC. v. THE FREEDOM FUNDINGGROUP L.L.C.

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

Those acts clearly indicate malice. … Like in Lamorte, the Court finds that Defendants’ actions clearly indicate malice.

KUNKLE v. REPUBLIC BANK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 5, 2023

The Policy makes clear: Childcare issues are not considered to be qualifying reasons. … In fact, the record clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff was resolute about not having to physically work — or even receive training — at any of Defendant Bank’s locations in New Jersey.

Jamie Potts v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc.

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

Supp. 2d 439, 453-54 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (Plaintiffs’ allegations that they would not have paid more for an immune support product “[h]ad [they] known the truth that the statements [they] relied on were false, misleading, … Because Plaintiffs state clearly that they have suffered adverse skin reactions from use of the Products, and are obviously aware of the alleged risks associated with such use, I conclude that Plaintiffs cannot establish

CZACHOWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 2022

Five-Step Process and this Court’s Standard of Review To qualify for Title II DIB benefits, a claimant must meet the insured status requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 423. … It is clearly possible for a cane to be helpful to a person who has mobility issues without being strictly required.