Case law

PHELPS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 8, 2023

Bokkala- Pinninti qualified that response by writing “could be.” Id. Dr. … The DOT and other relevant sources clearly contemplate that some jobs require some tasks to be performed on a less-than-continuous basis, and there is no error in finding a claimant capable of an activity on an ‘occasional

Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc.

822 F. Supp. 1099 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 1993

Primerica”). 1 Plaintiffs brought suit to declare and enforce their asserted rights to medical insurance benefits, life insurance benefits and survivor income benefits under a retirement welfare benefits plan (the “Plan”) established … Beginning in 1957, American Can maintained the Plan which is a retirement welfare benefits plan for qualified salaried employees who retired. Id., ¶21 .

ROBINSON v. SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2020

was improper, and (iii) as the Company resolved to improperly recognize $5 million in cloud software licensing revenue from Verizon despite not having a signed contract in hand, clearly … Id. ¶ 329.13 The PSLRA 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

Granillo v. FCA US LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 27, 2019

The burden of establishing the reasonableness of the requested rate is on the applicant, and an attorney’s usual billing rate is a good starting point for assessing reasonableness, though it is not … Furthermore, the settlement agreement provides qualifying class members with non-monetary benefits such as an extension of their vehicle warranties.

FAIELLA v. SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 18, 2022

documents at issue does not qualify as supplementation pursuant to Rule 26(e).”), aff'd as modified, 2020 WL 256194 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2020). … Clearly, in light of the Roberts decision, Guthorn and Sunbelt should have known that they were required to produce the data that Guthorn input into the PC-Crash system.

OPHEIM v. VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

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

While not all these states have precedent clearly endorsing such exceptions to the privity requirement, a persuasive consensus of courts has emerged to recognize the exceptions.6 Moreover, it is basic contract law that … Assuming that these qualify as affirmative misrepresentations, under New Jersey law Plaintiffs must plead that they suffered a loss “as a result of” the misrepresentations in the materials. Dugan v.

AYER v. LIGHTSTONE VALUE PLUS REIT I, INC.

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

As an initial matter, the Court notes that “Maryland courts have clearly established the proposition that directors and officers owe fiduciary duties to both the corporation and the shareholders.” … explicitly disclosed this proposed amendment: In order to conform our charter more closely with those of our competitor REITs who are listed on an exchange, and to retain and recruit qualified

C. v. HOPE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION

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

The IDEA also “establishes a private cause of action against a school district that fails to abide by its legal obligations.” C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. … Even if Defendant had not understood or intended D.C.’s removal to be a unilateral change of placement, it clearly constituted one under the law.

COUNT BASIE THEATRE INC. v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

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

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact remains. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … In contrast, Count Basie asserts the 14 In its moving papers, Zurich argued that Count Basie was not entitled to coverage for loss sustained at two surface parking lots that it had leased as they did not qualify as

STATE OF MINNESOTA, BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL KEITH ELLISON v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 11, 2020

clearly authorizes a court, in its discretion, to decree restitution . . . in order to give effect to the policy of Congress. … As to the first Lane Labs element, Plaintiff contends that § 1964(a) invokes this Court’s equitable powers because there is no statutory language that clearly limits them. (Id. at 13–14, 16.)

LINCOLN HARBOR ENTERPRISES, LLC v. HARTZ MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIES, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 2020

The Plaintiffs clearly could have done much more to key their factual allegations to the elements of these federal statutory violations. … I assume arguendo that this provision would qualify as a statute or regulation designed to protect the environment, as required by the ERA.

RATHAKRISHNAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 10, 2024

Sequential Evaluation Process The Social Security Act establishes a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the … In his function report, Plaintiff similarly stated, “[W]hen I am anxious, I cannot see clearly and so I don’t drive. And I don’t drive when it is dark.” R. 261.

LOURENCO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 2022

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s lay opinion does not qualify as medical evidence showing that Plaintiff’s Hepatitis is a severe impairment. … Therefore, the ALJ clearly considered both the limiting effects of Plaintiff’s Hepatitis C, as well as the limiting effects of the weight gain caused by Plaintiff’s Hepatitis C medication.

MANKARYOUS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 17, 2026

unmarried; and (5) You are under age 18; you are 18 years old or older and have a disability that began before you became 22 years old; or you are 18 years or older and qualify … May 27, 2025) (“Clearly, the ALJ did not abdicate his duty to develop the administrative record” under the “every reasonable effort” obligation under § 416.912(b) when that ALJ sent initial evidentiary requests; followed

TAYLOR v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 2021

Jurisdiction must be established as a threshold matter. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 140 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1998). … For a claim to “arise under” the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty, “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiffs’ cause

ROOFER'S PENSION FUND v. PAPA

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

P’ships Litig., 164 F.R.D. 362, 370 (S.D.N.Y) (“It is well-established that ‘pendency of an individual action does not excuse a class member from filing a valid request for exclusion.’” … A party’s failure to timely file an opt-out request in a class action in some cases may qualify as “excusable neglect.” In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig. (MDL 1663), 374 F.

DIEBLER v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC

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

antiaging benefits; and implying Serovital’s clinically proven efficacy (including references to clinical testing, research, or science), to the specific reason(s) asserted.11 Requiring Defendant to qualify … P. 26(f) conference, and identify as clearly as possible the categories of information which may be sought.” Discovery Plan at *12 [Doc. No. 36].

CDK GLOBAL, LLC v. TULLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 2020

It is well-established that the NJCFA applies to certain commercial transactions. Id. at 443. … The statute defines “person” to include business entities, and “a corporation may qualify as a person under the Act when it finds itself in a consumer[-]oriented situation.” Trocki v. Penn Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins.

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED v. GREWAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 27, 2022

The movant bears the burden of establishing that transfer is appropriate. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995). … In determining whether judicial estoppel applies, courts analyze whether a party adopted a position that is “clearly inconsistent with an earlier position.”

LOPEZ v. PEC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 3, 2025

The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Common Cause of Pa. v. … Here, Plaintiffs have failed to establish likelihood of success on the merits, nor have Plaintiffs addressed, let alone established, the remaining prongs warranting injunctive relief, apart from generally stating they will