Case law

G.L. AND C.L. v. VERONA BORO BOARD OF EDUCATION

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

Fog qualified as an expert in speech pathology. (Id. at 18.) … Fiorile as a witness, who was qualified as an expert in the areas of ABA and developing programs for students with autism. (Id. at 22.) Dr.

Hayes v. Cha

338 F. Supp. 2d 470 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2004

At that point, the doctors tested the bacteria for resistance and established that there were three therapeutic drugs that could work on Mrs. Hayes’s particular strain of mycobacterium fortuitum. … Hayes started again on the Cipro and Ri-fampin, but this time the sores did not heal, indicating that the bacteria had become immune to one or both of these treatments.

TRAMAGLINI v. MARTIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 9, 2019

Individual Liability under § 1983 (Count I) Plaintiff’s constitutional claim arises under § 1983, which provides a civil remedy for the “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Indeed, Plaintiff alleges two state-law violations in the Complaint in support of his federal constitutional claim: Plaintiff had a clearly established right pursuant

PRICE v. THE COUNTY OF SALEM <font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font>

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 8, 2024

“Good cause means ‘that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity.’” Id. (quoting Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786). … That regulation further requires any such plan to be “reviewed and approved by a qualified medical or mental health professional.” N.J.A.C. 10A:31-13.24.

WASHINGTON v. BONDS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 2019

“Contrary to clearly established Federal law” means the state court applied a rule that contradicted the governing law set forth in U.S. … Therefore, the Appellate Division’s decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law.

In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litigation

267 F.R.D. 113 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 15, 2010

Under that rule, a party seeking certification must establish that the proposed class meets all four of the requirements outlined in Rule 23(a) and qualifies under at least one of the three sections of Rule 23(b). … Under that standard, the parties seeking certification must establish that the proposed class meets all four of the requirements outlined in Rule 23(a) and qualifies under at least one of the three sections of Rule 23(b).

REICH v. FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY

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

The only material that, at best, could qualify as Student Information is found in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the proposed counterclaims, (ECF No. 86-2 at 21, ¶¶ 16-17 & ECF No. 86-3 at 23-24, ¶¶ 16-17 [reflecting the amount … Further, the potentially embarrassing nature of the Defamatory Statements does not alone rise to the level of a clearly defined injury, which warrants sealing.

RUBIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2026

Gomez, 577 U.S, 153, 156 (2016), as revised (Feb. 9, 2016) (“A text message to a cellular telephone, [] qualifies as a ‘call’ within the compass of § 227(b)C. )(A)(ili)”); see also Howard v. … of the TCPA establish that voice refers to an audible sound.”); Soliman v.

HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY v. KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY

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

The Court finds that the arbitration agreement contained within the Kinsale Policy clearly covers HCC’s claims. … HCC’s claims for declaratory judgment at Counts One through Four and its equitable subrogation claim at Count Five all depend on whether BBC Englewood LLC, ARC, and FM qualify as “additional insureds” under the Kinsale

MHA, LLC v. AMERIGROUP CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 17, 2021

Supp. 3d 597, 637 (D.N.J. 2019) (explaining what qualifies as a negligent statement). … The spreadsheet, however, does not even clearly specify which accounts were Medicare accounts.

LIRIANO OLIVO v. TSOUKARIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 9, 2020

Petitioners do not need to actually show that they have COVID-19 to establish standing. … Clearly the public has an interest in preventing the further spread of COVID-19.

KHARTCHENKO v. THE AMERICAN ONCOLOGIC HOSPITAL, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 10, 2025

Thus, “[w]hile it is a well-established tenet of administrative law that a Title VII or ADA plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief, it is equally well-established that such a plaintiff … Under this framework, a plaintiff must plead a prima facie case of discrimination, which requires the plaintiff to set forth factual allegations that she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position

FELDMAN v. SCYNEXIS, INC

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

PSLRA Safe Harbor The PSLRA’s safe harbor provision “immunizes from liability any forward-looking statement, provided that: the statement is identified as such and … As it stands, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint “does not rely upon internal documents or confidential witnesses to establish true facts that conflict with Defendants’ statements at issue.” Id. at 590.

STROMBERG

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2026

But whether Dunham can establish standing on her own is not part of the survivability analysis. … Accordingly, Dunham qualifies as a proper party for substitution under Rule 25. IV.

In Re Asbestos Litigation

628 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 1986

Clearly, the chasm between strict liability defendants who may advance a state of the art defense and those who may not is not nearly so wide as the chasm between defendants subjected to strict liability and those who are … Yet the imprecision that is brought to the opinion by the term "atypical"—however qualified it may be in context—unnecessarily opens the door for an extension of the challenged rule to an unforeseeable maze of applications

MILLER v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY RETIREMENT & PENSION PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 9, 2022

A release may qualify as an affirmative defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). To satisfy Rule 8(c), an affirmative defense need not contain detailed factual allegations. Id. … If a proposed amendment is not clearly futile, then denial of leave to amend is improper.’”

Schiaffo v. Helstoski

350 F. Supp. 1076 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 19, 1972

The Speech and Debate Clause, which affords immunity to certain kinds of Congressional conduct, does not apply here and will not bar relief against the defendant if otherwise appropriate. United States v. … The government publications, “The Yearbook of Agriculture” and “Capitol Symbol of Freedom” distributed by defendant clearly come within the purview of the 1895 Act, and thus within the scope of 39 U.S.C. § 3211 .

VERA v. MIDDLESEX WATER COMPANY

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

The notice of removal filed by MWC, which has the burden to establish timeliness, says nothing about the date of service or other receipt by 3M. … The “actual receipt” rule is clearly designed to prevent a diverse party from losing its right to remove because the 30-day deadline began running before it knew it was being sued.

CARTER v. PSEG SERVICES CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 3, 2024

(ECF No. 21 at 1-2) 7 The record does not clearly define an “Adams clamp,” however, from the context of how it is described, it appears to be a tool or device Plaintiff … Even if Plaintiff could establish the four elements of a hostile work environment, Plaintiff still has not met his burden under the fifth prong of the hostile work environment framework in establishing a basis for employer

ETHERIDGE v. NOVO NORDISK INC.

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

Nor does Novo challenge that Etheridge is qualified for his position. (See generally Def.’s Moving Br.) … Feb. 27, 2017) (“Plaintiff clearly suffered an adverse employment action when she was terminated.”).)