Case law

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.

ABDUL-AZIZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 2025

It is well established that the moving party “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers … RLUIPA did not abrogate sovereign immunity with respect to money damages; money damages are unrecoverable where a plaintiff sues a state entity or a state official in their official capacity under RLUIPA. Sossamon v.

MESHINSKY & ASSOCIATES, LLC v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

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

Under its “Coverage Agreements,” the Policy lays out requirements that the insured must satisfy to qualify for coverage, containing the following language: A. … As discussed hereafter in greater detail, the Second Interim Order clearly found P. Meshinsky liable for damages in the form of attorney’s fees.

COCHLEAR LTD. v. OTICON MEDICAL AB

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 2019

While the ‘807 Patent uses the terms “preferably” and “in one embodiment” as qualifiers, these qualifying terms do not indicate that the circumferential groove could be located somewhere other than around the cylindrical … Such is clearly not the case here.

MANNING & NAPIER ADVISORS, LLC v. PERRIGO COMPANY PLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2019

The ultimate issue of materiality should not be decided as a matter of law unless “the disclosures or omissions are so clearly unimportant that reasonable minds could not differ.” In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Sec. … The PSLRA’s safe harbor provision, 15 U.S.C. § 77z-2, “immunizes from liability any forward-looking statement, provided that: the statement is identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language; or is

FIRST MANHATTAN CO. v. PAPA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2019

The ultimate issue of materiality should not be decided as a matter of law unless “the disclosures or omissions are so clearly unimportant that reasonable minds could not differ.” In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Sec. … The PSLRA’s safe harbor provision, 15 U.S.C. § 77z-2, “immunizes from liability any forward-looking statement, provided that: the statement is identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language; or is

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).

FUZY v. WESTFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION

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

Moreover, the Arbitrator clearly acted in a judicial capacity and provided the parties adequate opportunity to litigate the issues before her. During and after the eight-day hearing, at which Mr. … protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or

MAGIC REIMBURSEMENTS LLC v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2023

To qualify, “conduct must be both ‘injurious and transgressive of generally accepted standards of common morality or of law.’” Lamorte Burns & Co. v. … Most clearly, “conduct that is fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal’ amounts to tortious interference. Jd. at 1171; see also Harris v.

AZAM v. BITTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 4, 2024

“To hold otherwise would be to sanction the perpetual delay of governmental obligations that are clearly mandated by law.” Liu v. Michael Chertoff, 2007 WL 2119427, at *1 (N.D. Cal. … The Length of Time Elapsed Plaintiff’s visa petition has been documentarily qualified since August 2022 meaning that Ms. Azam and Mr.

LATOC, INC. v. KARTZMAN

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

“In considering 4 Appellee is incorrect that the appropriate review standard is “clearly erroneous.” Appellee’s Brf. at 1, 5. … Ultimately, there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact” if a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.”

CARMIGNAC GESTION, S.A. v. PERRIGO COMPANY PLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2019

The ultimate issue of materiality should not be decided as a matter of law unless “the disclosures or omissions are so clearly unimportant that reasonable minds could not differ.” In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Sec. … The PSLRA’s safe harbor provision, 15 U.S.C. § 77z-2, “immunizes from liability any forward-looking statement, provided that: the statement is identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language; or is

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FUNDS v. PERRIGO COMPANY PLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2019

The ultimate issue of materiality should not be decided as a matter of law unless “the disclosures or omissions are so clearly unimportant that reasonable minds could not differ.” In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Sec. … The PSLRA’s safe harbor provision, 15 U.S.C. § 77z-2, “immunizes from liability any forward-looking statement, provided that: the statement is identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language; or is

BRINK v. BORMANN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 2023

Co., 839 F.2d 979, 982 (3d Cir. 1988); see also Hritz, 732 F.2d at 1181 (stating that “a meritorious defense is presumptively established when the allegations of defendant’s answer, if established on trial would constitute … Moreover, it is well-settled that “intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind

MERRIWEATHER v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 27, 2019

Johnson adds that she was informed on multiple occasions that her loan did not qualify for a modification review, but at one point received help in getting a modification from a Congressman she had reached out to. … This Court also has an independent obligation to establish that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. Morel v. INS, 144 F.3d 248, 251 (3d Cir. 1998).

ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY v. SCHIBELL & MENNIE LLC

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

The fact that district courts are limited to predicting—rather than establishing—state law requires “serious consideration” and is “especially important in insurance coverage cases.” Id. at 135; Mattdogg, Inc. v. … The Court finds the State Court Action clearly falls within the Third Circuit’s definition of a parallel action.

PRIANO-KEYSER v. APPLE, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 31, 2019

Apple also acknowledged the swelling battery defect in certain Series 2 watches, and, for qualifying watches, extended its Limited Warranty from one year to three years. (/d.) … Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Apple also argues that Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability should be dismissed, because such a warranty is clearly disclaimed.

LEE v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 5, 2021

Lee appeared with the aid of a duly sworn, qualified interpreter. (Transcript of plea, Lee I, DE 157 at 2.) … The government-agent defense is not clearly recognized in this Circuit.

RODRIGUES v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 27, 2019

Johnson adds that she was informed on multiple occasions that her loan did not qualify for a modification review, but at one point received help in getting a modification from a Congressman she had reached out to. … This Court also has an independent obligation to establish that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. Morel v. INS, 144 F.3d 248, 251 (3d Cir. 1998).

WESLEY v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2024

To establish standing, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) he or she “suffered an injury in fact, an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent … This statement of law is not qualified by whether the buyer has read the warranty clause and relied on it in seeking its application.” Samuel- Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 613 Pa. 371, 412 (2011) (emphasis added).