Case law

SB BUILDING ASSOCIATES LTD PARTNERSHIP v. IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION MGMT., LLC

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

Specifically, Rule 4:42-9(a)(4) states that a plaintiff may recover up to $7,500 in attorneys’ fees in a qualified foreclosure action. Federal law also contains a statutory fee provision, 11 U.S.C. … In its view, because its mortgage with Iron Mountain lacks an anti-merger provision, the Note does not establish any intent to preserve Iron Mountain’s claim for attorneys’ fees post-judgment.

CALLAWAY v. SMALL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2021

The latter statement is clearly audible in the video. Small also “slapped a cell phone out of the hands of one bystander who had been recording the events.” [Am. Compl. ¶ 24]. … As noted above, the Amended Complaint relies entirely on Plaintiff’s §§ 1983 and 1985 claims to establish federal question subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

TORRES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 10, 2020

“A fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to a reasonable award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Beattie v. Colvin, 240 F. … this Court cannot say that these failings clearly violate Local Rule 9.1(e).

AUTOMOTIVE FINANCE CORPORATION v. DZ MOTORS, LLC

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

Here, the evidence at trial did not clearly establish that AFC provided DZ Motors with specific payoff amounts and the stock number associated with the Bentley. … After carefully considering the evidence at trial, the Court finds that while the first element of the accord and satisfaction doctrine is clearly satisfied, the trial record does not establish the second and third elements

RUSSOMANNO v. DUGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 4, 2021

App’x. 583, 584 (3d Cir.2006) (“A dismissal that is specifically rendered ‘with prejudice’ qualifies as an adjudication on the merits and thus carries preclusive effect”). … Plaintiff and Sunovion are parties to both suits, and clearly satisfy the requirements for that prong of the res judicata analysis.

ONYX ENTERPRISES CANADA INC. v. STANISLAV ROYZENSHTEYN

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

Supp. 32, 35 (D.N.J. 1986) (“Claims of breach of fiduciary duty and of corporate waste are facially claims of injury to the corporation and clearly not individual bases for litigation. … New Jersey law clearly recognizes an aiding and abetting cause of action when that claim is predicated on another tort, such as fraud or breach of a fiduciary duty. E.g., Morganroth & Morganroth v.

FUSION SOURCING GROUP, INC. v. POWEREX, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 7, 2023

In 2017, the parties entered into a written agreement, effective January 1, 2018, establishing variable commission rates ranging from three to nine percent of net sales. [Id. ¶ 8]. … Their agreement that the subject information qualifies for confidential treatment under the applicable order, while not dispositive, weighs in favor of protecting the information from public disclosure.

DOE v. TRISHUL CONSULTANCY LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2019

Specifically, Adams argues that potential embarrassment or economic harm to the plaintiff is not enough to qualify for anonymity. (/d. (citing Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011)).) … Adams contends that the public has an established interest in an open litigation process. Ud. at 3 (citing Megless, 654 F.3d at 408-409, 411).)

COLIHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2025

The Social Security Disability Determination To qualify for DIB, a claimant must show he is disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 423. … In formulating an RFC, the ALJ need only include “credibly established” limitations. Rutherford, 399 F.3d at 554; see also Zirnsak v.

GRINK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 3, 2025

Virtua also established a 403(b) Retirement Program, a defined-contribution individual account plan. (Id. at ¶¶ 21–22). … Thus, the initial selection of the SVA falls clearly outside the statutory period and cannot support a claim.

INDECS CORP. v. CLAIM DOC, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 2, 2020

“To qualify as malice, ‘conduct must be both injurious and transgressive of generally accepted standards of common morality or of law.’” Berkley Risk Sols., LLC v. Indus. Re-Int'l, Inc., No. … Ordinary, even aggressive, efforts to obtain business at the expense of a competitor do not qualify. Here, I do not find that INDECS’s actions were done with malice.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO. v. CARING PAIN MANAGEMENT PC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 18, 2025

The decision of the district judge who decided O’Keefe, who clearly agreed with neither the Third Circuit’s prediction nor the rationale upon which it rested, is not binding on this Court, and, since the Court of Appeals … Plaintiffs also claim, “there are clearly substantial grounds for difference of opinion regarding the correct resolution of these questions.” (Id.)

GRIFFIN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 26, 2019

In November of 2002, Plaintiff’s job title was upgraded to “Principle Clerk Typist” pending her passage of a qualifying typing exam; however, in 2003, Plaintiff was demoted, and she again assumed the title of TA3. … As Griffin did not file her Complaint until January 22, 2019, her claims under Title VII and the ADEA are clearly time-barred.

CARSON v. NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 18, 2019

“Contrary to clearly established Federal law” means the state court applied a rule that contradicted the governing law set forth in U.S. … An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law is an “objectively unreasonable” application of law, not merely an erroneous application.

NEW JERSEY SECOND AMENDMENT SOCIETY v. MURPHY

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

The Amended Complaint does not clearly define the protected activity. Maybe it’s the access to the Daily Public Press Briefings? … See, e.g., Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 126 (established political correspondent); Karem, 404 F. Supp. 3d at 205-06 (same); Tr. of Mot.

JIMENEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

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 of … Here, Judge Shelton clearly and satisfactorily explained the basis for her RFC decision. See Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 41.

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

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 6, 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 … Enjoining regulations that allow these ballots to be canvassed risks rejecting qualified voters’ properly cast ballots for no fault of the voters, An injunction that risks such disenfranchisement is against the public interest

DONZELLA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

The 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. … A review of these records establishes that while Dr.

KANEFSKY v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

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

In addition, notice of the settlement must be the best that is “practicable under the circumstances,” and “clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). … Each Rule 23 requirement must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Grupo Protexa, S.A. v. All American Marine Slip

753 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 16, 1991

Clearly, AAMS could not respond to a telex in advance of its receipt. Guerrero Script at 4. … In opposition, defendant asserts that the cases which have interpreted the phrase “compulsory by law” have clearly established a balancing test of reasonableness in which three factors — -the likelihood of exposure, the sanctions