Case law

ZHANG v. GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 25, 2021

“[T]he party resisting application of a forum selection clause . . . bears a heavy burden under Atlantic Marine” of establishing the forum selection clause should not be enforced. … Plaintiff argues the Customer Agreement did not provide adequate notice of the clause because it does not qualify as enforceable clickwrap. (ECF No. 24 at 15.)

HARRIS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2025

As OPIA determined, Nitti’s comment “clearly and inappropriately objectifie[d| an alleged underage victim of sexual misconduct by a trooper.” … To prove the prima facie case for race discrimination, a plaintiff must show (1) he is a member of the protected class, (2) he is qualified for the job that he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4

FRANCHITTI v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 3, 2023

The party challenging an agency action bears the burden of establishing that the decision is not rational but is arbitrary and capricious. See Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. E.P.A., 984 F. Supp. 2d 289, 309 (M.D. … Here, because the request seeks documents and information clearly relevant, there is no basis under the DOJ’s Touhy regulations to refuse production on an objection of relevancy.

FAIELLA v. SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.

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

“If the moving party meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-movant to establish that summary judgment is inappropriate.” … the circumstances of its infliction on the worker must be (a) more than a fact of life of industrial employment and (b) plainly beyond anything the Legislature intended the Workers’ Compensation Act to immunize

CUNNINGHAM

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 2025

In addition, notice of the settlement must be the best that is “practicable under the circumstances,” and “clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). … Grunfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert (“Class Counsel”) are experienced, familiar with the applicable legal issues, and qualified to represent the Class.

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY v. DUFAULT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 9, 2023

On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff advised Defendant that it had determined that she did not qualify for coverage in any of the Underlying Plaintiffs’ civil actions. PSMF ¶ 40; ECF No. 28- 25. … Plaintiff further advised Defendant that it intended to file the instant declaratory judgment action to establish that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant in the underlying civil suits.

ROBINSON v. SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 2, 2019

little [sic] while and was clearly contemplated while we were giving guidance on our last earnings call.” … The PSLRA's Safe Harbor provision, 15 U.S.C. § 78u–5(c), “immunizes from liability any forward-looking statement, provided that: the statement is identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language; or

M. A. v. WALL TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 22, 2021

“The IDEA establishes a private cause of action against a school district that fails to abide by its legal obligations.” Cape Henlopen, 606 F.3d at 66. … Microsoft clearly is inapplicable to the instant matter. First, and most obviously, Plaintiff’s appeal does not derive from a denial of class certification, nor from a permissive interlocutory appeal under 23(f).

MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD v. LG ELECTRONICS INC

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

Bio-Rad teaches clearly that admission of such an opinion is improper. See also MLC, 2021 U.S. App. … Mondis and Bratic have not established the necessary comparability.

EAGLE FRUIT TRADERS, LLC v. ULTRA FRESH, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 2019

A meritorious defense is “presumptively established when the ‘allegations of defendant’s answer, if established at trial, would constitute a complete defense to the action.’” … Therefore, the Court finds this factor clearly weighs in favor of Plaintiff. c.

MURRAY v. COUNTY OF HUDSON

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

To establish the County Defendants’ liability under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. … These assertions do not establish the required nexus between the interference and the loss.

SANCHEZ-ORTIZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 8, 2022

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 … Raising the duty of the ALJ to this level clearly conflicts with Congress' intention to impose responsibilities on all parties[.]”).

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 9, 2024

Accordingly, a determination that the DOL need not respond to these requests based on overbreadth was arbitrary and capricious because the DOL clearly erred in failing to consider the potential relevancy of the requested … Cognizant had discussions regarding the Subpoena, it appears that the IRS did not assert the technical failure to comply with the Touhy regulations (by failing to set forth the “estimated volume of IRS records involved” or establish

BORCHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

Unless the clinician clearly explains the reasons behind his or her GAF rating, and the period to which the rating applies, it does not provide a reliable longitudinal … Rather, in posing a hypothetical to the VE, references to all impairments encompass only those that are medically established.

WILMOTH v. ARPIN AMERICA MOVING SYSTEMS, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 19, 2021

As to protected activity, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that her alleged direct protests to Cianflone’s advances—which are outlined in the Amended Complaint—qualify as protected activity for pleading purposes. … Specifically, Relocation Express claims that a subsequent letter sent to Plaintiff “clearly addresses her as the Operations Manager for the warehouse, a position she held at all times.” (Mov. Br. at 8).

OKOGUN v. CREEGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 2025

Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 67 n.7 (2024) (using the phrase in reference to plaintiff's burden to establish standing by setting forth specific facts); United States v. … It is recommended that litigants establish a PACER account. This can be accomplished by visiting the PACER web site at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.

MACLEAN v. WIPRO LIMITED

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

After Valles’ termination, he also allegedly applied to several IT analyst positions within Wipro in the Los Angeles area, for which he was purportedly “well qualified,” but Wipro never contacted him about his applications … The inference drawn from these allegations is clearly that Wipro favors South Asian and Indian employees, and therefore, the company practice is to ensure these individuals receive higher scores and better evaluations

GOULD v. THE GUIDA-SEIBERT DAIRY COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 2023

Plaintiffs assert that their proposed class has numerosity, and that the members “could clearly range from the hundreds to the thousands.” (ECF 1 at 7). … “A fail-safe class is ‘one that is defined so that whether a person qualifies as a member depends on whether the person has a valid claim.’” Landy v. Nat.

ANYCLO INTERNATIONAL INC. v. CHA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 15, 2024

Lee was not qualified as an expert witness at trial to make these determinations. Mr. Lee testified extensively to the transfer of funds, the reading of financial statements, and other financial matters. … As has been established, no such controls over those funds existed.

BENNETT v. BAYER CORPORATION

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

The FAERS data also, according to Relator, “clearly document[ed] that Cipro and Levaquin consumption [wa]s associated with FQAD.” (Id. ¶ 125). … Without identifying what Bayer and J&J failed to comply with, Relator clearly cannot satisfy materiality.