Case law

TRUIST BANK v. ELGEO CORP

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

The Court finds the record clearly demonstrates Plaintiff attempted to serve Sharashenidze, individually, and as resident agent for Elgeo. … Plaintiff mailed each 4 Plaintiff established that Defendants are not active-duty service members or parties in other open federal cases. See Ex. 9, Servicemembers Search, D.E. 8-9; Ex. 10, Indiv. Defs.

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.

CUNNINGHAM v. HERAEUS INCORPORATED

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2020

Plaintiff contends he has established a prima facie case of retaliation. (Pl.’s Opp’n 13.) … “An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.” Td, at 68.

Union County Utilities Authority v. Bergen County Utilities Authority

995 F. Supp. 506 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 23, 1998

In order to determine Atlantic Coast II’s retroactive effect, a court must (1) interpret, as a substantive matter, whether the injunction mandates abrogation of contracts that, if entered into today, would be clearly illegal … We make no determination as to whether or not the UCUA/BCUA contract qualifies as an Impacted Old Law Contract.

Adami v. Cardo Windows, Inc.

299 F.R.D. 68 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2014

Rule 23(b) Requirements Before a class may be certified, Plaintiffs must show that they qualify under at least one subsection of Rule 23(b), and in this case Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3). … R. 5.3(c)(2), a party moving to seal must address four factors: “(a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the legitimate private or public *86 interests which warrant the relief sought, (c) the clearly

PIACENTINO

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

Here, the ALJ explicitly qualified the persuasiveness of the state agency’s findings. … App’x. 775, 780 n.7 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[T]he ALJ’s mere failure to cite specific evidence does not establish that the ALJ failed to consider it.”)

JABRI v. GONZALEZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 7, 2024

patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that covered establishment. … Banks are not enumerated establishments qualifying as public accommodations under the plain text of Title II. See Jarvis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 21-687, 2022 WL 1663568, at *3 (D. Md.

United States v. Eastern of New Jersey, Inc.

770 F. Supp. 964 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 1991

The burden of proving used oil is within specification is clearly and squarely placed upon the marketer. … Moreover, the EPA's representations regarding Eastern's compliance with RCRA were clearly informal.

REGAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

However, it is well- established that a diagnosis alone does not establish the degree of impairment flowing from that diagnosis. Foley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 349 F. … Plaintiff goes on to assert that the “[t]he evidence clearly documents” that she meets Listing 12.06, citing to testimony and medical evidence that she believes supports her argument.

FLETCHER v. GATEWAY GROUP ONE

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

An “executive agency” is defined as “an Executive department, a Government corporation, and an independent establishment.” See 5 U.S.C. § 105. … An “independent establishment” is “(1) an establishment in the executive branch (other than the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission) which is not an Executive department, military department

SUNNYSIDE MANOR v. THE TOWNSHIP OF WALL

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2020

The requirements and regulations to be applied in determining the number of beds and what persons would qualify for the beds was to be determined by the parties at a later date. … Clearly, both Wall Storage and Twin Resources claim an interest that directly relates to the subject of the action before this Court, and both are necessary and indispensable parties.

MCGUINNESS v. SILGAN CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 2020

, as in this case, the NJLAD claim is based upon discriminatory discharge, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following elements of a prima facie claim: (1) that plaintiff is disabled; (2) that plaintiff was otherwise qualified … As to the third element, clearly, McGuinness clearly suffered an adverse employment action when he was terminated from his job.

JOSEPH SORANNO v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC

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

active Sales Employees who were employed as of July 2014 for transactions processed by merchants who transitioned from OnePoint to OptBlue, which were calculated in the 4 Plaintiff claims that merchants who did not qualify … The party bringing the suit has the burden of establishing the breach. Nolan v. Control Data Corp., 243 N.J. Super. 420, 438 (App. Div. 1990).

BASSE v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 2023

Because the defendant was “qualified” to do business in Pennsylvania, which explicitly allowed Pennsylvania courts to “exercise general personal jurisdiction” over them, the Third Circuit found that they were … 16 burden of demonstrating facts that support personal jurisdiction, [] courts are to assist the plaintiff by allowing jurisdictional discovery unless the plaintiff's claim is “clearly

Union Cnty. Util. Auth. v. Bergen Cnty. Util. Auth.

995 F. Supp. 506 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 23, 1998

In order to determine Atlantic Coast II's retroactive effect, a court must (1) interpret, as a substantive matter, whether the injunction mandates abrogation of contracts that, if entered into today, would be clearly illegal … We make no determination as to whether or not the UCUA/BCUA contract qualifies as an Impacted Old Law Contract.

VOORHEES v. TOLIA

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

To qualify for so-called diversity jurisdiction, “the parties must be completely diverse, meaning ‘no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants.’” Auto- Owners Ins. … Vorhees does not explain in the Amended Complaint nor in her opposition to this Motion why she invokes the authority of this Court to enforce an agreement that clearly limits forum choice to courts in Pennsylvania.

CAMPAGNA v. TD BANK, N.A.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 2021

Although the Agreement does not specify what other factors will go into the decision to graduate an account, it clearly implies that there are requirements beyond simply maintaining the account for seven consecutive default-free … [It] establishes a private cause of action, available to ‘[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited

GASKINS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 22, 2025

The ALJ’s Five-Step Sequential Evaluation Process To qualify for disability insurance benefits, a claimant must show that she is disabled 3 The Court adopts the Statement of the Case and Statement of … The Act establishes a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a plaintiff is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

IN RE EROS INTERNATIONAL PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 20, 2021

“[R]emains” clearly refers to a current, not future, state. “[O]n track to be free” is not as clear. “On track” is arguably a reflection of a current position, while “to be free” clearly indicates a future event. … As discussed, Plaintiffs clearly state that they do not contend that the forward-looking components are actionable. Plfs. Opp. at 15-16.

LOMONICO v. FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORP.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 20, 2020

Thus, to qualify as a question of arbitrability that the Court may consider, the challenge must “relat[e] to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate.” Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. … The Third Circuit has established a two-tiered framework for assessing motions to compel arbitration. See Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764, 776 (3d Cir. 2013).