Katharine Sweeney Hayden

The case involved an autistic student MG and his parents suing the Caldwell-West Caldwell school district and staff for alleged violations of constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution, New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, and tort claims, stemming from the use of physical restraints and isolation rooms in response to the child's escalating aggressive behaviors during the 2007-2008 school year. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all federal claims. It reasoned that the school's policy of restraining and isolating MG was rationally related to the legitimate governmental purpose of protecting the child and others from harm, satisfying rational basis review and precluding an equal protection violation. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

civil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Demings, the defendant, a convicted felon, was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) with possession of a firearm after Newark police officers stopped his car for an alleged parking violation, searched it, and recovered a gun, ammunition, and marijuana. Demings moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the stop and search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. After a hearing, the district court credited the defendant's account over the officers' testimony, which it found internally inconsistent and not credible, and concluded that the encounter lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The court therefore granted the motion to suppress, holding that the seized items were inadmissible. The ruling turned on the application of Fourth Amendment standards to a street encounter initiated by police in the absence of observed criminal activity.

criminal lawproceduregunscivil rights

The case involved defendant John Howard, a convicted felon charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) with possessing a firearm, who moved to suppress the gun seized during a warrantless stop and frisk by Newark police officers. The officers testified that they approached Howard after seeing him appear startled outside a crack house and shove a black object into his waistband, leading to a pat-down that revealed the handgun; Howard countered with evidence including cellphone records showing he was using a phone at the time and claimed the gun was taken from his back waistband without prior furtive movements. After a suppression hearing, the court assessed witness credibility and found the officers' account inconsistent with the evidence and lacking in common sense, while Howard's version was more consistent. The court concluded that the Terry stop was unconstitutional because the facts did not establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or danger to the officers, and it granted the motion to suppress the evidence. The decision emphasized that police testimony in such cases must be truthful to avoid undermining the rule of law.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this taxpayer refund action, Schering-Plough sought repayment of approximately $473 million in taxes after the IRS treated lump-sum payments from its foreign subsidiaries—received in exchange for assigning rights to future interest payments under swap agreements—as immediately taxable loans rather than deferrable sales of income streams. The court examined the transactions under the substance-over-form doctrine to determine their economic reality and applied the economic substance test to assess whether they served legitimate non-tax business purposes or functioned primarily as a means to repatriate offshore earnings without triggering Subpart F taxation. Central to the analysis was whether the arrangements were properly characterized as loans from the subsidiaries, which would validate the tax assessment, or as sales allowing amortization of the payments over the life of the swaps pursuant to IRS Notice 89-21.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case is a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement suit in which EKR, the holder of the '405 patent covering a nicardipine pharmaceutical composition for parenteral administration (embodied in Cardene I.V.), sued Sun after Sun filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version and certified under Paragraph IV that its product would not infringe the patent. The court previously granted EKR summary judgment of infringement based on claim construction of the term 'isotonic' and comparison of Sun's ANDA product to the patent claims. On Sun's motion for reconsideration, the court denied relief, reasoning that the accused product literally met the concentration and isotonicity limitations when measured in the ampul as formulated, that the proper infringement analysis compared the ANDA product to the claims rather than the commercial embodiment, and that Sun's prosecution-history and waiver arguments lacked merit.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved Coastal Outdoor Advertising Group challenging the Township of East Hanover's denial of a billboard permit under its sign ordinance, claiming violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the New Jersey Constitution. The court granted summary judgment to the township, dismissing the federal claims for lack of standing and on the merits, finding that the ordinance was a valid time, place, and manner restriction and that Coastal could not show causation or redressability. The state claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatoryproperty

Phyllis Schwartz sued Hilton Hotels Corporation and its subsidiary Hilton HHonors Worldwide after slipping on water and breaking her leg in the shower of her room at the Hilton Athens Hotel in Greece in 2006, claiming the defendants were vicariously liable for negligent maintenance by the hotel operators. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court held that the defendants owed no duty to Schwartz because they neither owned nor controlled the hotel premises, which were instead owned and managed by independent Greek entities. The court further concluded that any duty arising from the defendants' role in booking Schwartz's rewards stay did not extend to this particular injury, which was not reasonably foreseeable.

torts & liability

This case is a putative class action by a New York law firm against a New Jersey partnership alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through the sending of unsolicited fax advertisements. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under both federal question and diversity grounds. The court held there was no federal question jurisdiction, following Third Circuit precedent that private TCPA suits belong exclusively in state courts. On diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), the court applied New York law, which prohibits class actions seeking statutory damages, and concluded the plaintiff could not satisfy the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement. The court therefore granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Beulah Parker suing debt collectors Pressler & Pressler, LLP, Palisades Collection, LLC, and an attorney under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for alleged violations in attempting to collect a debt, along with related state law claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the FDCPA claim, finding it time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations, with no basis for equitable tolling, and insufficient evidence on the merits for any timely portions of the claim. The court also denied the defendants' request for fees and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Vitarroz Corporation and G. Willi Food International Ltd. and its subsidiary over a failed merger agreement, where Vitarroz alleged breach of contract and trade libel due to a press release about the termination. The parties arbitrated their claims pursuant to the agreement, and the arbitration panel issued an award in favor of Vitarroz. Vitarroz moved to confirm the award under the Federal Arbitration Act, while the defendants moved to vacate it. The court granted confirmation and denied vacatur, reasoning that the limited grounds for vacating an arbitration award under the FAA were not met, as the panel did not manifestly disregard the law or exceed its powers.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case was a contract dispute between KPSS, a manufacturer of hair care products, and its regional distributor Mid-Atlantic over a series of exclusive distributorship agreements that were set to expire at the end of 2007. Mid-Atlantic sued under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, claiming KPSS unlawfully signaled it would not renew the agreements, while KPSS counterclaimed for breach of contract and trademark infringement. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that Maryland law governs the non-NJFPA claims, found the renewal provisions in the agreements ambiguous, and determined that material factual disputes exist regarding performance and breach that prevent summary judgment on the contract and franchise claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Grober, the defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of receiving or transporting child pornography and one count of possessing it, all involving images obtained via internet file-sharing and email. The Presentence Report applied U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 enhancements that raised the offense level to produce a guidelines range of 235-293 months, near the 20-year statutory maximum, despite Grober being a first-time offender who accepted responsibility. The district court varied downward from that range after multiple evidentiary hearings. The core reasoning was that the § 2G2.2 enhancements apply in nearly every downloading case and operate exponentially to produce excessive and disparate sentences, so the court instead used the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors along with the mandatory minimum sentences set by Congress to arrive at a reasonable punishment.

criminal law

This case involved New Jersey residents and an out-of-state winery challenging provisions of the New Jersey Alcoholic Beverage Control Act that regulate wine licensing, direct shipping, salesrooms, and related fees, claiming they discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant commerce clause. After the Supreme Court's decision in Granholm v. Heald invalidated similar discriminatory schemes, the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and found that the plaintiffs had standing. The court held that only the licensing fee schedule for out-of-state businesses and the provision allowing in-state wineries multiple salesrooms violated the dormant commerce clause by granting preferential treatment to in-state entities, while the remainder of the statutory scheme did not. It reasoned that these specific provisions created unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce that could not be justified under the Twenty-first Amendment, and it severed the offending sections to preserve the state's three-tier regulatory system for alcohol.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerned a dispute over possession of a sea shipment of business documents from Hong Kong to New York, with plaintiff Sean Hotung filing an in rem admiralty action to arrest the cargo after alleging that the freight forwarder breached its contract by following his father's unauthorized instructions to return the goods. Intervenors Hotung Enterprises Limited and Hotung Investment (China) Limited claimed ownership and sought immediate release of the cargo. The court first addressed subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that admiralty jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 because the underlying contract involved ocean transport of goods. It then granted the intervenors' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's contract and related claims, concluding that the intervenors were the owners entitled to the cargo under the non-negotiable bills of lading, while denying requests for costs by either side.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Royal Wine Corp. sued Golan Heights Winery Ltd. in New Jersey state court over ownership of the GAMLA trademark for Kosher wines, alleging breach of contract and related claims arising from a series of distribution agreements dating back to 1985. Golan removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), citing a forum selection clause in the 1998 agreement that required disputes to be resolved only in Tel Aviv, Israel. The court denied the motion, holding that Royal had sufficiently alleged the 2001 agreements were substitute contracts that superseded the 1998 agreement and lacked any forum selection clause. The decision rested on the principle that a complaint survives dismissal unless no set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief, and the court accepted the pleaded facts about the agreements at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

In DirecTV, Inc. v. DeCroce, the plaintiff sought default judgment against a defendant accused of buying and using pirate descrambling equipment to intercept its satellite television programming without authorization, claiming violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing the § 605(a) claim while dismissing the other two for lack of a private right of action. It awarded $1,000 in statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction under § 605(a) only. The core reasoning examined the statutes' text and history, noting that the flexible remedies and specific focus of § 605 on satellite piracy made the rigid mandatory damages framework of the Wiretap Act provisions inapplicable here.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs suing Schering-Plough Corporation, its directors, benefits and investment committees, and the plan trustee under ERISA on behalf of the company's employee savings plan, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of prudence, loyalty, and care for continuing to offer company stock as an investment option while knowing of corporate actions that artificially inflated or later depressed the stock price. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint for failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the plan was an individual account plan (including an ESOP component), so any losses from stock value changes resulted solely from participants' own investment choices rather than plan-wide losses recoverable under ERISA Section 1109 and 1132(a)(2).

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves Carmine Fornaro's attempt to remove two state court lawsuits—one filed by State Farm Indemnity regarding PIP insurance benefits and another by a collection agency—from New Jersey Superior Court to federal district court. The magistrate judge recommended remand after finding no diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, and determined that the filings amounted to an improper effort to obtain federal review of prior state court judgments. The district judge conducted a de novo review, adopted the recommendation in full, and ordered the cases remanded to the appropriate state court divisions, while dismissing any erroneous prior dismissal orders. The core reasoning was that federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be established through citations to federal statutes, regulations, or doctrines like the entire controversy rule when the complaints present only state-law claims.

procedure

This case involved a shareholder of the Prudential Jennison Growth Fund suing the fund's investment adviser and principal underwriter under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in the receipt of compensation under management and distribution agreements. The plaintiff claimed the agreements were invalid because the fund's board lacked the required percentage of independent directors under Section 10(a), violating the approval process in Section 15(c), and that the fees paid were excessive. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the amended complaint failed to plead sufficient facts showing the fees were so disproportionately large as to bear no reasonable relationship to the services rendered, as required under the Gartenberg standard, and addressed only the independence factor without connecting it to excessiveness or alleging constitutional standing through injury.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved real estate developer MDC seeking summary judgment to dismiss counterclaims by broker defendants Marando and PFS for quantum meruit recovery of fees or commissions allegedly earned in securing financing for the purchase of a Baltimore shopping mall. The court granted the motion and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, dismissing the counterclaims. The core reasoning was that Marando was not the procuring cause of the loan from Nomura because he lacked prior authorization to contact lenders, did not introduce the key parties who negotiated the deal, and had no involvement in the successful transaction arranged by other brokers.

business & regulatoryproperty