Case law

CUSHING v. GREENTREE MORTGAGE COMPANY, LP

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

In sum, Plaintiff rests this count on his assertion that Defendants “all clearly failed and refused to adhere to the forbearance rules.” Gd. | 92). … Supp. 2d 424, 438 (D.N.J. 1999), Where a defendant raises a factual challenge to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, See Gould Elees. Inc. v.

DODSON v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 6, 2024

Supp. 3d 490, 495 (D.N.J. 2015) (“It is well-settled that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction in order to defeat a motion under Rule 12(b)(1).”). … employment action despite being qualified; and (4) under circumstances that raise an inference of discriminatory action.’”

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AJANTA PHARMA LIMITED

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

Before the Court construes the claims in light of the specification, it must establish the level of skill that a POSA possessed at the time of the invention. Supernus Pharms., Inc. v. … Defendants argue that, because the patentee “chose not to include ‘about’ as a qualifier to the descriptions of the IR component release profiles while including it as a qualifier to the descriptions of the XR component

THOMAS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 8, 2021

The hypothetical questions should reflect the specific capacity/limitations established by the record as a whole. … Determining Entitlement to Social Security Benefits To qualify for benefits under the Act, the claimant must first establish that he1 is “disabled.” 42 U.S.C. § 1381.

J. W. v. MEDFORD LAKES BOARD OF EDUCATION

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

Specifically, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation … “[Section] 504’s ‘negative prohibition’ is similar to the IDEA’s ‘affirmative duty’ and . . . requires schools that receive federal financial assistance to ‘provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified

BAILEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 2025

The ALJ’s Five-Step Sequential Evaluation Process To qualify for DIB, a claimant must show that she is disabled within the meaning of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). … The Act establishes a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a plaintiff is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Shao-Hui T. Kao v. Aetna Life Insurance

647 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2009

Nov. 28, 2007) (“[The administrator] clearly explained the basis for its termination decision, made [the claimant] aware of his right to appeal, provided him with access to his claim file, and told him that he was free to … Subparagraph (h)(3)(iii) specifically requires such evidence be evaluated by qualified healthcare professionals....

DIXON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

Dixon’s obesity when determining if he qualified for one of the listed impairments. The ALJ provides a conclusory discussion of Mr. Dixon’s obesity at step three. … Indeed, there is no question that the medical record here establishes that Mr.

GIRON v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 2020

J.B. specifically remembers seeing the driver's face very clearly, noting, “I can always remember his face.” … Indeed, a detective testified that Petitioner came to police headquarters and agreed to permit police to take a photograph that was to be used to either qualify or disqualify him as a suspect in the case.

BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. BIOGEN IDEC MA INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2020

The human immune system naturally produces 4 BIOGEN MA INC. v. EMD SERONO, INC. … patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in . . . the spec- ification’” (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v.

NITE GLOW INDUSTRIES INC. v. CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 1, 2020

App’x 582, 591 (3d Cir. 2017) (trial judge may employ remittitur when jury’s decision is “‘clearly unsupported and/or excessive’” (citation omitted)).8 2. … Cir. 2013) (discussing prosecution history disclaimer, including that qualifying statements “can take the form of either amendment or argument”).

JUUL LABS, INC. v. 4X PODS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 28, 2020

The court expressly rejected WGACA’s argument that this qualified as nominative fair use, as the close association between WGACA’s brand and products to this hashtag could create confusion as to the true nature of the … Defendants clearly used hashtags such as “juulgang,” unequivocally using Plaintiff’s registered mark without any alteration. See Prop. Amend. Compl., D.E. 109-1, ¶ 62.

TORRES DE LIMA NETO v. THOMPSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 10, 2020

might be more clearly expressed as “is inadmissible during that 10-year period.” But (B)(i)(II) is clear enough. … To read (B)(i)(II) as imposing the same punishment as subparagraph (C) would not be consistent with the expressed views of Congress that aliens qualifying for subparagraph (B) are a step below aliens qualifying for

WORLD EXPRESS & CONNECTION, INC. v. CROCUS INVESTMENTS, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 2, 2025

This exhibit alone does little to establish what a reasonable value of services would be. … Super. 190, 202-03 (Law Div. 1992) (stating statements as to future event do not qualify as a misrepresentation absent an intent to deceive).

GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION v. E.N.

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

Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) As a condition for the receipt of federal funding, local educational agencies must provide a “free appropriate public education” or “FAPE” to qualifying … The District also seeks attorney’s fees on the basis that Defendants continued to litigate the Due Process Matter after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

McKowan Lowe & Co., Ltd. v. Jasmine Ltd.

127 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2000

To “salvage” the work of the district court and counsel, appellate court instructed district court to explore the possibility of intervention by qualified class representatives.); Haas v. … The Third Circuit also has used legislative history to construe the meaning of the 1933 Act: Congress’ intent in enacting the 1933 Act was clearly to regulate initial offerings.

THOMAS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 6, 2019

Under this definition, a Plaintiff qualifies as disabled only if her physical or mental impairments are of such severity that she is not only unable to perform her past relevant work … Both the ALJ’s decision and the Appeals Council’s decision are rather brief and conclusory, but the transcript of the hearing before the ALJ clearly establishes why remand of this case

CRESPO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Jones, 364 at 504 (quoting Sullivan v. … If Plaintiff believes an error was made, she “must clearly identify the error and explain how the error actually ‘affect[ed] [his or her] “substantial rights.”’”

LAIBOW v. MENASHE

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

Stubblebine, particularly with respect to his inability to communicate his health needs clearly and effectively. (DE 1 | 59-61 & 63-65). Gen. … It provides that “[a] person not qualifying to practice pursuant to the first paragraph of this rule shall nonetheless be permitted to appear and prosecute or defend an action in any court of this State if the person..

TORTORA v. BOROUGH OF BERGENFIELD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 2024

The plaintiff has the “initial burden” of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 802. … To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show the following elements: (1) [plaintiff] is a member of a protected class; (2) [plaintiff] was qualified for the position s/he sought to attain or