Case law

MURPHY v. TOWNSHIP OF MILLSTONE, NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 13, 2022

[T]o have a property interest in a benefit that is protected by procedural due process, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. … As to the next factor, the Court finds that Millstone failed to offer any facts to establish that reasonable precautions were taken to prevent a disclosure.

DZIADOSZ

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

Relevant here, the title alone of the June 2012 Memorandum regarding DACA clearly denotes the discretionary authority afforded under the program: “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals … As noted above, to qualify for mandamus relief, a plaintiff must show three elements: “(1) a clear and indisputable right to relief, (2) that the government agency or official is violating a clear duty to act, and (3)

WHITE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 2022

Based on the Court’s review of the record clearly showing Plaintiff’s history of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy during the relevant period for breast cancer, the Court agrees with … Then, based on the VE’s testimony, the ALJ found that such acquired skills would qualify Plaintiff as a Laboratory Clerk and that such position was not inconsistent with Plaintiff’s RFC. [Id.]

BARGO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2026

When purchasing utility tokens, however, users also receive “a second class of virtual tokens that qualifies [them] for sweepstakes prizes”. (Id. ¶ 8). … “The moving party bears the burden of establishing that the transfer is appropriate and must establish that the alternate forum is more convenient than the present forum.” Santi v. Nat’l Bus. Recs.

FARRINGTON v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION

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

Freedom also contends that it clearly and unequivocally denied that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act applied to the parties’ relationship. Id. … “‘[F]urnishers are neither qualified nor obligated to resolve matters that turn on questions that can only be resolved by a court of law.’” Esperance, 2022 WL 1718039, at *5.

SILIPENA v. AMERICAN PULVERIZER COMPANY

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

That language does not clearly relate to disclaiming liability; it governs insurance. … After saying he was qualified to do the system layout, he stated that he only learned that fluff was flammable at a subsequent meeting in St. Louis c.

GONZALES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 7, 2022

The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff had worked for several months in 2017 and in 2018, but he found that these later periods of employment did not qualify as substantial gainful activity. Id. … However, the ALJ need include only “credibly established” limitations. Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 554 (3d Cir. 2005); see also Zirnsak v.

Davis v. the Merv Griffin Co.

128 B.R. 78 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 1991

corporate veil piercing theories, specifically that Griffin or Griffin and TGC dominated and controlled Resorts would transform assets belonging to Griffin and/or TGC into assets that would be available for Davis’ recovery, and qualify … It is also well established that an action which seeks recovery of a money judgment is an action at law. Granfinanciera, 109 S.Ct. at 2793 . In Granfinanciera, S.A. v.

DENNIS-ORSHAK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 30, 2020

Regulations promulgated under the Social Security Act establish a five-step process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(1), 404.1520(a). … Feb. 28, 2019) (finding the ALJ did not err in giving little weight to a doctor’s report that did not qualify as a medical opinion); see also Johnson, 529 F.3d at 204. Next, the ALJ reviewed Dr.

INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. RODRIGUEZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 2024

The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of establishing its right to summary judgment. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. … The parties also agree that the Policy requires Defendant to “reside” at the Premises at the time of the fire to qualify for insurance coverage. (See Policy at 26.)

BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER v. WATERSIDE CONSTRUCTION, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2021

TERMS argues that it does not qualify as a PRP with respect to the discharge at Veteran’s Field. … TERMS subsequently established a protocol for the approval of proposed fill materials. TERMS SOMF ¶ 38, 41; TERMS Brf. at 41.

RIAD v. DEY EQUINE VETERINARIANS, P.A.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 2023

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint also does not clearly identify the speaker of the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation. … Finally, Defendants argue that, even if they did make each of the alleged statements, each should be characterized as an opinion and therefore immune from defamation claims. (/d. at 18.)

RUDOLPH v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 2021

; (3) the plaintiff was qualified for the position; and (4) s/he was replaced by someone sufficiently younger to support an inference of discrimination. … Thus, the key inquiry is whether an employer’s “dissatisfaction with [the employee’s] performance was so clearly unfounded that it cannot have been sincere.” Id. at 1110. D.

TANJONG v. BENEFIT COSMETICS BOUTIQUE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 17, 2021

Instead, “[it] must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of [every] element essential to [its] case, and on which [it] will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Cooper v. Sniezek, 418 Fed. … Benefit also could not argue that it qualifies as “a business organization whose leadership is composed of ‘licensed persons’ within the meaning of [N.J.S.A.] § 2A:53A-26,” Martin v. Perinni Corp., 37 F.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF NJ, INC. v. DEVINE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 4, 2022

Plaintiff provides no facts in support of this conclusion, and, in the Court’s view, the marks are clearly descriptive. … Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden of pleading that voter confusion qualifies as special damages.

<font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font> TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-cv-14424

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

Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs reply exhibits are not pleadings, Defendants fail to establish any prejudice suffered by Plaintiff's submission. … By Plaintiff's own admission, most entries in the logbook reflect information about notary services customers who do not qualify for the putative class. (See Pl.’s Reply Br. at 5.)

WILSON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 25, 2019

To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination “under either the federal or state statute, a plaintiff must first establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position … The CSC also found that the photos “clearly implicated the State Policy Prohibiting Discrimination.” (Def. SOF ¶¶86–88.)

TUCKER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

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

A diagnosis of impairment, by itself, does not establish entitlement to benefits under the Act”). … App’x 88, 90 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Thus, an ALJ need not specifically mention any of the listed impairments in order to make a judicially reviewable finding, provided that the ALJ’s decision clearly analyzes and evaluates the

Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc.<font color="red"> DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font> TRANSFERRED TO NEWARK VICINAGE - NEW CIVIL NO. 2:13CV1758

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2021

Berardi clearly relied upon the prototype and Ragner’s oral suggestions about alternative methods for building an expandable hose in building his own. … Ragner Technologies attempted to establish an ongoing business relationship with Ed Kelly and Michael Berardi.

ROBBINS v. PLAYHOUSE LOUNGE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 21, 2021

Defendant does not have the burden to establish that they would negotiate terms or otherwise modify the agreement.” Id. at 5. … The arbitration clause here clearly raises concerns under both the second and third scenarios.