Case law

ARBOUR v. TINGO GROUP, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 2024

Kanda and Krykhtin also argue that their selection of Saxena White as proposed lead counsel illustrates their commitment to protecting the interest of the class, as the firm is highly qualified in securities class action … group may be found to be inadequate if it “lacked legal experience or sophistication, intended to select as lead counsel a firm that was plainly incapable of undertaking the representation, or had negotiated a clearly

PATEL v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 5, 2024

However, “motive and opportunity” do not “serve as an independent route to [establishing] scienter.” Avaya, 564 F.3d at 277. … Additionally, Plaintiffs clearly separated their claims under the Exchange Act and the Securities Act, and did not incorporate allegations from the Exchange Act Claims into the Securities Act Claims.

JUAREZ COYOY v. United States

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

Cir. 2002), Plaintiff argues that “such a ‘routine and ongoing process of agency self-evaluation’ does not qualify for deliberative process protection.” (Pl.’s Br. at 14). … Balancing Of Interests Having established that the privilege applies, the court must next determine whether Plaintiff has overcome the privilege by establishing either (i

PARAGON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. ECKELS

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

To sustain their claim for malicious abuse of process, Eckels must establish two elements: “(1) [an] ulterior motive; and (2) [a] ‘further act after the issuance of process representing the perversion of the legitimate … See Avaya, 2012 WL 2065536, at *7 (noting that “to the extent Cisco contends that Avaya’s act of using discovery information to unfairly compete with Cisco to further its ‘Attack Cisco’ campaign qualifies as a ‘further

CARE ONE MANAGEMENT, LLC v. UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, SEIU 1199

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 2019

In disputes between unions and management, the word “wrongful” is an important qualifier. … See Al Hedaithy, 392 F.3d at 590 (establishing the elements to “prove mail or wire fraud”); United States v.

Darboe v. Decker

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

Petitioner does not need to actually show that he has COVID-19 to establish standing. A. … While the Court appreciates Petitioner’s argument, he has not established why this Court should grant the desired relief.

SUN VALLEY ORCHARDS, LLC v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 27, 2023

The H-2A program permits employers to temporarily hire foreign workers upon certification that “(A) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, and qualified, and who will be available at the time and place … Such profits are clearly prohibited in the H-2A regulations noted above.

Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

808 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 9, 2011

Indeed, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element … The first is that the right of publicity regulates words, sounds and visual images that clearly qualify as ‘speech.’

MEDLEY v. ATLANTIC EXPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 26, 2021

To demonstrate the elements of prima facie case of discrimination under the NJLAD, “a plaintiff must first establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified … Good cause exists only when the moving party makes a particularized showing that disclosure will cause a “clearly defined and serious injury.” Id.

NORTH v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2021

Still, even in CAFA cases, the defendant, having removed the matter, bears the burden of establishing diversity. See Samuel-Bassett v. … According to Plaintiff, his “Complaint in the subject action clearly seeks relief from state- court judgments, thus barring federal courts’ jurisdiction and review of those judgments.”

YU v. GILMORE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 2024

Here, there is clearly a “plain, speedy, and efficient” state court procedure available to Plaintiff. … Opp’n at 3.9 But this argument is unavailing—the tax issues raised here were clearly raised in Tax Court.

LEINHEISER v. SHAKIR

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 13, 2023

District courts must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. … In order to establish that a defendant’s conduct was part of a continuing practice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “the defendant’s conduct was more than isolated or sporadic acts.” Spencer, 552 F. App’x at 123.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. LOANCARE, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2024

establishing its entitlement to the disputed $22.7 million. … Now, clearly, you had a contract here.

GEA MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT U.S., INC. v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 11, 2025

(ECF No. 57-2 ¶ 4; ECF No. 58-3 ¶ 4.) 6 There is no dispute that the circumstances of the underlying action qualified as an “occurrence” under the provisions of the … The Court is persuaded by Hartford’s central argument that the confluence of the undisputed facts clearly shows GEA Mechanical’s notice in August 2019 was late under the ordinary and plain meaning of the Excess Policies

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line Ltd.

708 F. Supp. 1440 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 1989

As to Cunard’s suggestion that Todd should have affirmatively pled Section 8 in its complaint, however, it is clear the Act does not itself establish subject matter jurisdiction of any sort. … Sections 9 and 10 by their terms ("may make an order”) are clearly permissive. See NII Metals Services, Inc., supra, 514 F.Supp. 164 ; Smiga v.

BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC. v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TEAMSTERS INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 3, 2019

Defendants also assert that Beacon improperly made contributions on behalf of employees who no longer qualified for Fund benefits. … The second requirement, that the separate document be clearly identified, is also met. Here, the CBA makes clear reference to the Trust Indenture.

Goldenberg v. Indel, Inc.

741 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 17, 2010

Consequently, since the Complaint does not establish on its face that the defense applies, it is an inappropriate basis for dismissal. … But even if the Court were to take as given that employer contributions represented the vast majority of the interest, the Plan would still qualify as a security because its overall value and the value of each participant

PENA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 19, 2026

To determine whether a given claimant qualifies as disabled, “[t]he Commissioner uses a five-step process.” Dellapolla v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 662 F. … In fact, as detailed below, the ALJ’s detailed RFC analysis clearly referenced tasks relevant to the “sedentary work” analysis.

BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC. v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TEAMSTERS INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 12, 2019

Defendants also assert that Beacon improperly made contributions on behalf of employees who no longer qualified for Fund benefits. … The second requirement, that the separate document be clearly identified, is also met. Here, the CBA makes clear reference to the Trust Indenture.

Costello v. Target Corporate Services, Inc.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 14, 2020

Sugarman concedes that the bollards did not violate any established code or standard. … Simply put, there is nothing to establish that the drip ledge or the roof as it existed on the day in question qualified as a danger posing an unreasonable risk of harm to Ronald.” Longo,374 N.J. Super. at 475.