Case law

People of The State of California v. Eli Lilly and Company

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 2025

“Thus, disclaimers that ‘clearly carve[] out certain factual bases, whether by time span or location, such that any alleged injury could not have happened under the direction of a federal officer’ will prevent removal.” … Pa. 2008) (finding corporation acting as Medicare Part B carrier qualified as “person” for purposes of federal officer removal statute).

<font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font> -TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN - NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-11808

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 14, 2023

The website specified that bonuses paid on demo accounts did not qualify as “profit sharing” because “you will be trading on a simulated account.” … This allegation applies most clearly to the context of live accounts. It is not disputed that, of Defendants’ customers, 92% never advanced out of “demo accounts” and into either the B Book or the A Book.

COPELAND v. US BANK CUST PCF STERLING NATIONAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 2021

More specifically, the court dismissed the claims against Judge Famular based on judicial immunity, reasoning that “all allegations against Judge Famular in this case arise from actions taken in the Judge’s judicial capacity … prejudice clearly constitutes an adjudication on the merits...”); see also Velasquez v.

ZACHEIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 2025

At Step Three, the ALJ determined that Cecil did not have an “impairment or combination of impairments” that qualified under the Administration’s listed impairments. … ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS A claimant may establish disability under the Social Security Act by proving that he is unable to “engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason

MOR v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

Determining Social Security Benefits To qualify for DIB, a claimant must establish that he is “disabled.” 42 U.S.C. § 1381. … In those situations, the statutory provision would clearly cause harm. Id. at 1788. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to rule on this issue in the first instance. Id.

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

99 F. Supp. 3d 461 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 2015

Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2012) (finding that the district court erred in finding irreparable harm based upon “clearly quantifiable” losses). … suggestion, however, the causal nexus requirement applies regardless of the complexity of the products,” Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1362 , and even if it did not, Otsuka has, under no circumstances, demonstrated that Abilify® qualifies

ESTEVEZ-FIGUEREDO v. United States

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

“In considering a motion to vacate a defendant’s sentence, ‘the court must accept the truth of the movant’s factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous based on the existing record.’” United States v. … To qualify for a safety valve reduction, a petitioner is required to “not only ... admit the conduct charged, but [ ] also ... volunteer any information aside from the conduct comprising the elements of the offense.”

CARE ONE MANAGEMENT, LLC v. UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, SEIU 1199

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 2025

Defendants “invoke the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which immunizes petitions to government officials, like the Memo, from liability,” in support of their argument that because the issue of the Unions’ belief in … Here, Plaintiffs have not met their burden as they have failed to establish whether the prior conduct was unlawful.

CALABRESE v. TIERNEY

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

Giving Plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences, he was clearly aware of the error at the time, and thus, at the very latest, the statute of limitations began to run in mid-November 2016. … To the extent Alvarado may have other viable defenses, e.g. qualified immunity, Alvarado has leave to file a second motion to dismiss within forty-five days of the accompanying Order.

ESPINAL v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 16, 2020

Qualify Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118 (6th Cir. 1980), overruled by Barlik v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 62 F.3d 163, 166 (6th Cir. 1995) (en banc). … This is sufficient to establish a concrete, although intangible injury, such that the alleged statutory violation establishes Plaintiff’s standing. See, e.g., Hovermale v.

THE COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM v. MAXIS HEALTH SYSTEM

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 14, 2021

“If the moving party meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-movant to establish that summary judgment is inappropriate.” Id. … The Court finds that in its Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 248], Maxis has merely restated and/or expanded on the material factual issues that clearly remain in dispute among the parties.

GREEN v. IRON WORKERS LOCAL 11

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 7, 2025

A journeyperson is a union member qualified to “install iron and steel to form and support buildings, bridges, and roads.” Id. ¶ 14. … Furthermore, “based on the relevant case law, it is clearly [Plaintiff’s] burden to demonstrate the need to depose Hertzig.” Id. at p. 1.

KERBEL DIAZ v. C.R. BARD INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 15, 2023

Bard’s Align and other devices produce negative immune responses and inflammation, contributing to adverse effects such as infection and chronic pain. (See Stanton Pet. ¶¶ 39, 40.) … As a matter of law, however, continuing effects of an injury do not restart the limitations period; the discovery rule very clearly provides that the period starts running not when all effects of the injury have run

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. v. MURPHY

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

First, by organizational standing, “an organization may be granted standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the organization or association … Thus, even with respect to the July 2020 primary, Plaintiffs do not clearly allege that their members’ tights to equal protection were violated.

Emissive Energy Corporation v. Olight Store USA, Inc.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 16, 2026

To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly present a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning and express its intent to redefine the term. Id. … If the parties dispute what degree of deviation from a 90-degree angle is sufficient to qualify as “perpendicular” in the context of the patents in suit, they may present those arguments to the jury in the infringement

FORT

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

Any statement that is not clearly and substantively denied with an appropriate citation to the record is deemed admitted pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1. See Coastal Jersey Holdings, LLC v. … The other actions cited by Fort similarly do not clearly constitute adverse employment actions. See Sorensen v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 742 F. Supp. 3d 240, 252 (D.

T

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

The requirement establishes a strong preference for mainstreaming disabled children by educating them with non- disabled children in the same classrooms. See id. at 533; Oberti v. … On remand, the ALJ must clearly articulate, with legal support, how, if it all, Defendants can prove a Section 504 violation.

MCTIGHE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

solely on the basis of a claimant’s allegations regarding symptoms; and... must be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source.” … An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.’” Jones, 364 F.3d at 504 (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 990)).

MCLEAN v. SUMITRA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 11, 2025

established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee’ as established by State or Federal law.’” … Supp. 2d 256, 268 (D.N.J. 2009) (dismissing TCCWNA claim where “Plaintiffs have not identified which provisions of either document allegedly violate a clearly established right of Plaintiff[] or responsibility of [Lender

CENTENO v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 23, 2022

“The ‘clearly established Federal law’ provision requires Supreme Court decisions to be viewed through a ‘sharply focused lens.’” Id. … application of clearly established federal law, nor did Petitioner overcome the presumption of correctness of a state court factual finding and establish that a state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination