Case law

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 .

HENRY v. FUTU HOLDINGS LIMITED

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 2024

For example, Article 117 of the PRC Securities Law3 provides: “The establishment of a securities company must be examined and approved by the State Council’s securities regulatory body. … 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

DANG v. AMARIN CORPORATION PLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 27, 2022

There is no dispute that the Amarin Group selected competent and well-qualified counsel. (See generally Resume, Apton Decl. Ex, E, ECF No. 16-7.) … The Court finds that the Amarin Group has not established a prima facie case of its adequacy for the following reasons.

ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY CHIROPRACTORS v. AETNA, INC.

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

Under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), a class qualifies for certification if “inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members [] would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing … May 14, 2008) (“The fact that some plaintiffs may be successful in their suits against a defendant while others may not is clearly not a ground for invoking Rule 23(b)(1)(A).”

KELK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2025

On August 6, 2020, Bausch Health announced that it intended to establish a B+L spinoff, which would result in the establishment of two separate companies: an eye-health company based on Bausch + Lomb, and a diversified … “Though liability under Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) may attach despite dismissing a 10b-5(b) claim, as a baseline the conduct supporting 10b-5(a) or (c) claims must involve statements that qualify as false or misleading or must

General Development Corp. v. Binstein

743 F. Supp. 1115 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 30, 1990

Application of both doctrines is central to the purpose for which civil courts have been established, the conclusive resolution of disputes within their jurisdictions.... … Notwithstanding the emphasis on the time of the initial submission, however, parties will not be entitled to continuing immunity if they acquire knowledge under the Rule’s standard before a later filing.

ZAVATTARO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 19, 2020

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.’” … However, the ALJ need include only “credibly established” limitations. Rutherford v.

In re Effexor Antitrust Litig.

337 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2018

Under Rhode Island law, it is well established that statutes cannot be applied retroactively, unless clearly stated. … , federal courts have criticized the rationale in In re Motor Vehicles , concluding that its "crabbed reading of Tungate " is incongruent with the Maine Supreme Court's holding since "[t]he Maine Supreme Court [did] not qualify

UNITED WINDOW & DOOR MFG., INC.. v. DECEUNINCK NORTH AMERICA LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 17, 2025

DNA maintains that “[l]ike in Brown, by signing the Addenda, United agreed to the clearly described and oft-referenced SCTC Agreement, and it therefore promised to be bound by each of its terms, including its … As noted above, valid consideration is a core element for establishing a novation.

SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. CHRISTEYNS LAUNDRY TECHNOLOGY, LLC

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

describe (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the legitimate private or public interests which warrant the relief sought, (c) the clearly … RENÉE MARIE BUMB United States District Judge 6 The Court further notes that the parties dispute precisely which damages would qualify

MONTERO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2022

Speaking: Speak clearly and distinctly with appropriate pauses and emphasis, correct pronunciation, variations in word order, using present, perfect, and future tenses. … Similarly the lack of relevant work experience would have little significance since the bulk of unskilled jobs require no qualifying work experience.

RIZAS v. DEJOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 2022

A review of Plaintiff’s formal EEO complaint clearly shows that Plaintiff did not allege discrimination and retaliation based on age. See Mapp Decl., Ex. 9, ECF No. 9-3 at 55. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) [he or she] is over forty, (2) is qualified for the position in question, (3) suffered from an adverse employment decision, and

HOCHEISER v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

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

That is clearly not the case, here. specific, factors, reaching a result by weighing all together.’” Miller, 632 F.3d at 855 (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. … and limitations found by Liberty’s physicians, there is still no evidence in the record that Hocheiser can perform another qualifying occupation.

In re Party City Securities Litigation

189 F.R.D. 91 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 6, 1999

Clearly, the In/out Plaintiffs no longer have a vested interest in the viability of the defendant corporation. … It appears both of these firms have experience in prosecuting complex securities actions and are qualified to represent the Proposed Class in the instant action.

Reliable Volkswagen Sales & Service Co. v. World-Wide Automobile Corp.

182 F. Supp. 412 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 24, 1960

The pleadings and affidavits herein clearly raise questions of fact. Therefore, as to these causes of action the motion under Rules 12(b) and 56 must be denied. … The evil was present as the qualifying clause stated it to be — “where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend

WARRICK v. NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2022

. § 37 (“Defendants overlook African American well-qualified employees for promotions and instead give them to lesser qualified Caucasian employees.”’); id. … That is particularly true in this case where the Amended Complaint alleges an ongoing discriminatory practice and does not clearly allege that Defendants applied the practice in the limitations period.

HORNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

Sleep apnea appears to be mentioned in passing a few times in the record, most clearly on page 573. … Feb. 25, 2022) (“It is well established in this circuit that where the DOT is silent on an issue, a conflict does not exist.”)

YATES HOUSE FOR MILITARY VETERANS, INC. v. PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

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

EVERS: I think the goal of this project -- and I'd have to defer to the project manager to -- after they're discharged, they qualify 6 Sic: regress? … Moreover, the burden for establishing the need for a variance falls to the applicant. (See Pr. Op. 20, 32-33.)

10 E. WASHINGTON AVE., LLC v. AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 22, 2024

The insurer bears the burden of establishing that a coverage exclusion or limitation applies. Id.; Zurich, 513 F. Supp. 2d at 70. A. … The burden of establishing a fortuitous loss falls on the insured. See Cobra Prods. Inc., 317 N.J. Super. at 401; Chartis Prop. Cas. Co. v.

NEW CONCEPTS FOR LIVING, INC. v. COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 1040

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

The wiretapping itself could not supply the qualifying tortious conduct; instead, “all authority . . . indicate[d] that the criminal or tortious acts contemplated by § 2511(2)(d) are acts secondary to the acquisition of … Moreover, it was not “a clearly articulated fraud in and of itself.” (Tr. 75:24- 76:1.) The first element of a fraud claim is a “material misrepresentation of a presently existing or past fact.” Banco Popular N.