Case law

C.P. v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 19, 2022

Indeed, “[w]hile 23(b)(2) class actions have no predominance or superiority requirements, it is well established that the class claims must be cohesive.” … It is arguable that the same cannot be said for NJDOE which is required to have procedural safeguards for parties to clearly held that a putative class need not go so far to carry its

CASE MEDICAL, INC. v. ROCK CITY LOGISTICS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 13, 2024

Saia responds that Plaintiff misconstrues its request and clarifies it “has not, as Plaintiff suggests, sought any extension of time to file a supplemental 12(b)(6) motion or any other motion” but rather clearly states … “If an entity accepts responsibility for ensuring the delivery of goods, then that entity qualifies as a carrier regardless of whether it conducted the physical transportation.” Id. at 287.

BACH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

At Step Three, Judge Shelton determined that Charles did not have “an impairment or combination of impairments” that qualified under the Administration’s listed impairments. … ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS A claimant may establish disability under the Social Security Act by proving they are unable to “engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any

ACRISON, INC. v. RAINONE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 3, 2022

Finally, Ralph’s children received health insurance and other benefits through Acrison when they did not qualify for those benefits. (Id. ¶¶ 36–42.) … The established rule is that a cause of action for civil conspiracy requires a separate underlying tort as a predicate for liability.

LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 7, 2021

To be clear, Plaintiffs are asserting a harm that would qualify as an antitrust injury. … Thus, the question before the Court is not whether Plaintiffs’ alleged harm falls within the parameters of antitrust injury; it clearly does.

PERRONE v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 26, 2021

Finally, Plaintiffs remark that if the cash buffer alternative is not viable, then no action would satisfy the more-harm-than-good test, and ESOP fiduciaries are essentially immune from liability. … See e.g., Whitley, 838 F.3d at 529 (“the significant burden of proposing an alternative course of action so clearly beneficial that a prudent fiduciary could not conclude that it would be more likely to harm the fund than

Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. v. American National Insurance

999 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 2014

Giacobbe to clearly *721 evince that IOA Re informed Munich it was reporting improperly. In her email, Ms. Charney requested all claims that Everest had reported to Munich; only after Mr. … (explaining that “adoption of a negligence standard would negate the prejudice requirement established” by the New York Court of Appeals in Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. N. River Ins.

HERNANDEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 19, 2022

As stated above, ALJs are required only to include “credibly established limitations”. Rutherford v. … The text of § 3346(a) uses the word “or” without the use of any qualifying language such as “either”, “but not both”, or “limited to”. See 5 U.S.C.

MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES, LLC v. SANOFI AVENTIS U.S. LLC

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

However, several Courts within this circuit have affirmatively held RICO does not establish a private right of equitable relief. See Curley v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 728 F. … Insulin is a life-saving medication which is clearly used for personal, family, or household purposes.

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 9, 2020

Reinholtz was qualified as an expert in mechanical engineering mechanisms as it relates to the issues of infringement in this case. (Tr. 89:15-20.) Dr. … Moreover, Mylan is correct: Sanofi has not established why teeth unrelated to clutching should be considered part of the clutch.