Case law

McCoy v. Board of Trustees of the Laborers' International Union, Local No. 222 Pension Plan

188 F. Supp. 2d 461 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 26, 2002

Arguably, the standard for allowing introduction of an untimely qualified immunity defense, as described in Eddy , is more forgiving than the appropriate standard where the asserted defense does not involve “important public … purposes” such as are implicated by official immunity.

MESSINA v. THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 2021

Accordingly, the CDC has clearly opined that these constitute “vaccines.” … New Jersey colleges and universities are allowed to “establish additional requirements for student immunizations and documentation that such institution shall determine appropriate and which is recommended by

NYANTENG v. THOMPSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 15, 2022

(ECF No. 21- 1) at 14–20); (2) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity (id. at 20–28, 32–38); (3) the Court should dismiss Nyanteng’s § 1983 and NJCRA claims for the same reasons supporting dismissal of the Bivens … (ECF No. 29 at 50 (“[T]he defendants/federal employees do not qualify to claim law enforcement status.”).) Therefore, the FTCA’s sovereign immunity waiver does not apply.

Voilas v. General Motors Corp.

73 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 1999

Consistent with the Third Circuit’s mandate that trial courts should not impose overly rigorous requirements to establish expertise, this Court finds that Dr. … Tinari qualifies as an expert for the purpose of clarifying the liability issues presented in this case. II. The Daubert Analysis of Dr. Tinari’s Proposed Trial Testimony Having established that Dr.

FULLERTON v. TINTON FALLS

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

Here, the chief argument of Officer Reyes is that the doctrine of qualified immunity applies, and summary judgment should be granted. … Qualified immunity protects the state actor for his reasonable actions. More specifically, the next issue is whether qualified immunity protects Officer Reyes for shooting the dogs.

BROOKMAN v. TOWNSHIP OF HILLSIDE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2019

To qualify for good faith immunity, a public employee must prove either “objective reasonableness” or that he acted with “subjective good faith.” Alston v. … Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified ll immunity and, in any event, Plaintiffs fail to establish the necessary elements of a “‘spoliation” claim.

Trump Taj Mahal Associates v. Costruzioni Aeronautiche Giovanni Agusta, S.P.A.

761 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 1991

(“Agusta”) does not qualify as a “foreign state” under the removal provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (a). This is so for two reasons. … Thus, plaintiffs assert, Agusta fails (2) and (3) above and does not qualify as an “agency or instrumentality” of a foreign state. A.

BARAN v. ASRC FEDERAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 9, 2019

Therefore, to the extent reports within JPAS are immune from suit, an issue this Court need not decide, that immunity is qualified, rather than absolute: it does not cover reports … THE COURT: So do I present the issue of qualified immunity to the jury? Is it not a jury's finding whether or not it was -- MR.

Lenherr v. Morey Organization, Inc.

153 F. Supp. 3d 662 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 23, 2015

Because plaintiff does not have a qualified expert, defendants argue that her claims fail as a matter of law. … The New Jersey Supreme Court noted, "The mode-of-operation charge that has been in use since 1970, Model Jury Charge (Civil) 5.20F(10), neither reflects recent jurisprudence regarding the rule nor clearly explains the purpose

Evans v. Gloucester Township

124 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2015

For this same reason, the Court finds that Plaintiff^ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, to the extent based on an allegedly improper prosecution, are not clearly time-barred. … Having so concluded, the Court need not consider Defendants' qualified immunily argument. .

HOBBS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR OF LABOR

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

A facial challenge asserts that “the complaint, on its face, does not allege sufficient grounds to establish subject matter jurisdiction.” Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424, 438 (D.N.J. 1999). … So unless the State waived its immunity or Congress abrogated the State’s immunity, “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars such suits.” Id. at 66; see Durham v.

MACELLARI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 11, 2026

While IFP status is not reserved solely for the “absolutely destitute[,]” the litigant “must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. … Under the doctrine of judicial immunity, “a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity” or “for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the

MILLER v. RIVAS

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

It is established that, generally, a judge is immune from liability for all actions taken in his judicial capacity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). … To determine whether an act qualifies as a judicial act, courts look to “the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether

Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC

13 F. Supp. 3d 415 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 4, 2014

This reasoning relates clearly and directly to the issue at hand. … Rubin & Co., Inc., 12 F.3d 1270, 1284 (3d Cir.1993) ("We agree with other courts of appeals that sovereign immunity is a 'critical preliminary determination' of subject matter jurisdiction for which the parties should be

Smith & Solomon Trucking Co. v. United States

120 F. Supp. 277 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 7, 1954

This is the primary test under the statute and ■unless the application qualified under that test the Commission had no authority to allow it. … Nor ■does the Patterson decision, cited as favorable to plaintiff’s position, do other than clearly show its untenability.

Global Naps, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc.

287 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2003

Furthermore, “[u]nder Rule 12(c), like Rule 12(b)(6), judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter … immunity.

Matter of Velis

123 B.R. 497 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 23, 1991

Despite other fundamental changes wrought by the Bankruptcy Code, Congress clearly intended that § 541(c)(2) perpetuate the treatment of spendthrift trusts under § 70(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Act. … No reference is made to the treatment of an ERISA-qualified plan under the Bankruptcy Code. Id.

HAROLD v. BAGLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 12, 2022

“[T]he threshold for establishing this exception is a high one[.]” Id. … Even if this act was part of a judge’s administrative duties to which absolute immunity would not apply, Defendant Malestein would have qualified immunity because sending Plaintiff

General Category Scallop Fishermen v. Secretary of United States Department of Commerce

720 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 14, 2010

While there is no legal requirement to establish a control date, the control date’s purpose was to provide fishers with advance notice that they may not qualify for entry into, or full participation in, the general category … in a given management program” that can “establish a range of years during which a potential participant must have been active in a fishery in order to qualify for a quota share.”

THE ESTATE OF SUZANNE BARDZELL v. GOMPERTS

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

Absolute immunity and investigative actions First, Plaintiff submits that the court “fail[ed] to draw a line” between a prosecutor’s investigative decisions, which it contends are entitled to only qualified … First, Plaintiff cites to N.J.S.A. 59:3-8, which establishes immunity for, inter alia, the institution of judicial proceedings by a public employee. (DE 17-1 at 7).