Case law

ALTISOURCE S.A.R.L v. SZUMANSKI

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

defendants does not satisfy the person / enterprise distinctness principle would mean that an association-in-fact composed of every member of an organized crime gang was not distinct from the gang and therefore immune … This is clearly wrong.

HOLDEN v. GUARDIAN ANALYTICS, INC.

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

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). … Class Counsel are very familiar with the applicable legal issues and are qualified to represent the Class. Regarding the second prong, there is no conflict of interest between the named parties and the Class.

SMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 2020

Moreover, it cannot be denied that 46,541 jobs for the position of document preparer is clearly a “significant number.” Young v. Astrue, 519 F. … Only licensed physicians (medical or osteopathic doctors), licensed or certified psychologists, licensed optometrists, licensed podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists are considered “acceptable medical

CHAIRES v. NOVO NORDISK INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 31, 2024

As Defendants see it, Plaintiffs now, for the first time, “contend . . . that some named plaintiffs qualify as direct purchasers because they purchased from mail-order pharmacies.” (Id. at 13.) … As the party challenging Plaintiffs’ claims under consumer protection statutes, Defendants must establish that the burdens imposed on interstate commerce clearly outweigh the local benefits.

CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.

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

When the drug was approved, it qualified for orphan status, with an estimated market of 5,000 patients. [Tr. at 123:15–18 (Dr. Belanoff).] … “The court did not clearly err by considering all relevant evidence, including Sandoz’s proposed label and physician practice.” Id.

VALLI v. AVIS BUDGET RENTAL CAR GROUP, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 10, 2023

Jan. 5, 2010) (“Clearly, there are material conflicts among many of the unjust enrichment laws of the various states in which putative class members reside.”). … “Courts look at two factors: ‘(1) the plaintiff’s attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (2) the plaintiff must not have interests antagonistic to those of the

KHORCHID v. 7-ELEVEN, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 14, 2019

A plaintiff cannot meet the burden of establishing these elements by merely making conclusory allegations. See In re Nice Sys., Ltd. Sec. … “Each count of a properly pled complaint must contain: (a) its own cause of action against a clearly identified defendant(s), and (b) those particular factual allegations that would allow

CHARLOT v. ECOLAB, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 2019

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 183-84 (3d Cir, 2001) (“(T]ypicality is established regardless of factual differences . . . … Since Rule 23(b)(3) is an “adventuresome innovation,” designed for situations in which “class- action treatment is not clearly called for,” courts have a duty to take a “close 8 This Circuit has given prominence

FAHRION v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2024

This work was thus clearly performed within the past fifteen years; and was of long enough duration to allow the claimant to fully learn all duties of the job. … As previously explained, the Court must include in the RFC only “credibly established” limitations.

HUMANA INC. v. MERCK & COMPANY, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 4, 2025

Generally, it contends Humana fails “to overcome the ‘considerable antitrust immunity’ afforded patent holders like Merck.” (ECF No. 72 at 9.) … Sandoz, Inc., 2024 WL 4753308 at *25, explained very clearly, the language in Pressure Vessels construing the PRAA as requiring nothing “more than a factual causal link between the harm suffered and the violation of the

MILLS v. ATRIUM MEDICAL CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 22, 2023

Thus, “a bare statement of how a good will perform after delivery does not constitute an explicit extension forward,” particularly where it “fails to state clearly and unambiguously a period of time during which the warrant … Courts have also found that a warranty that a suture will provide “lasting strength” or a warranty that a hip implant “would not fail” did not qualify as extended warranties under Pennsylvania law.

TEMPLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 2020

STANDARD OF REVIEW In order to qualify for DIB, a person must be disabled, as defined by the Social Security Act and subsequent regulations. … As the ALJ clearly explained, Appellant’s pain was stable in May 2013, see A.R. 18, 294, Appellant had full strength and no walking impairment in August and September 2014, id. 18, 467, 470, Appellant was able to walk

KLAPPER v. SULLIVAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 2024

“To qualify as a consumer transaction, which is not defined in the CFA, the challenged services generally must be of the type sold to the general public.” Finderne Mgmt. Co., 955 A.2d at 954. … But “[t]here is no valid claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on members in a member-managed company acting in conformity with the provisions clearly set forth in [an] Agreement.” Namerow v.

FIELDS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 24, 2022

A diagnosis of impairment, by itself, does not establish entitlement to benefits under the Act”). … To the extent that Plaintiff suggests that these state agency physicians’ opinions of only mild limitations support a finding that Plaintiff’s mental health impairments were severe, this record clearly establishes that

BREWER v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 27, 2025

At least two courts have already determined that Domino’s commercial truck drivers qualify for the § 1 exemption. See, e.g., Carmona Mendoza v. … Thus, as here, a signed Agreement, bolstered by the Apollon Declaration (sans paragraph 14), is clearly sufficient to establish a valid arbitration agreement because Michigan law does not require parties to “affirmatively

HANCOCK v. THE CREDIT PROS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 13, 2021

but that broad allegations of harm are not sufficient to establish good cause. . . . … Confidentiality Credit Pros also argues that these requests improperly seek information that is confidential and proprietary, and which qualifies as trade secrets.

DILL v. YELLIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2024

Under New Jersey law, “a plaintiff can establish a cause of action for tortious interference with business relationships by showing the following elements: (1) they had some reasonable expectation of economic advantage; … Supp. 747, 772 (D.N.J. 1995), but a mere “assertion that Plaintiff prevented Defendant from raising necessary funds” is “simply too speculative to qualify as a reasonable expectation.” Intervet, Inc. v.

PADRO v. SHAKIR

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2021

Once the moving party has met this initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party who must provide evidence sufficient to establish that a reasonable jury could find in the non-moving party’s favor to warrant … Plaintiff clearly stated during his deposition that all of his claims against Ms.

CTC TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC v. QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 28, 2021

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that Simon, George, McCrae, and Guffey only qualify as “Insureds” under the Primary Policies where they were acting “on behalf of the Named Insured” and “within the scope of their duties … A motion for judgment on the pleadings should only be granted where “the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

J.A. v. MONROE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 24, 2023

In a pair of March 30, 2022 decisions, the Court held that individual ALJs were entitled to judicial immunity and dismissed claims against them with prejudice. … “[I]t is well established that a court ‘is obliged to give a party opposing summary judgment an adequate opportunity to obtain discovery.’