The case was a citizen suit brought by environmental groups against NL Industries under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act, seeking remediation of contaminated sediments in the Raritan River adjacent to a former industrial site, along with related declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice on abstention grounds. The core reasoning was that ongoing state administrative proceedings under New Jersey's Industrial Site Recovery Act and related laws provided timely and adequate review, and retaining federal jurisdiction risked interfering with the state's coherent policies on remediation and redevelopment of contaminated sites under the Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act.
This case arose from the fatal workplace injury of Thomas Lawlor, who was struck by a cast iron pipe at his employer ASCIP (a division of McWane) in 2005; the plaintiff, as administratrix of his estate, sued the defendants for negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, and wrongful death. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The core reasoning was that the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act barred the suit because the employer's conduct, including occasional disabling of an anti-rollback safety device and use of wooden wedges, amounted at most to recklessness rather than an intentional wrong with virtual certainty of injury, and no pre-accident OSHA violations or other evidence showed intent to increase profits by removing safety measures. The court viewed the incident as an ordinary risk of industrial pipe manufacturing that the legislature would not treat as removing the workers' compensation exclusivity bar.
This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Wyeth and Cordis against Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) and Abbott Laboratories. BSC's counsel, Howrey LLP, was challenged by Wyeth on grounds that Howrey's simultaneous representation of Wyeth in an unrelated European patent matter violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7's prohibition on directly adverse representations. The magistrate judge disqualified Howrey, but the district court reversed, finding that the two matters were unrelated, separated by an ethical wall, handled in different locations, and caused no prejudice to Wyeth; it also noted that both parties contributed to the conflict and that disqualification was not required to protect the proceedings' integrity. The court therefore permitted Howrey to continue representing BSC.
The case involved a dispute over the distribution of approximately $288,000 in funds from Edward Geisel's ERISA-governed DuPont retirement account following his death in 2006. Plaintiffs, the executrix of his estate and his six children from a prior marriage, sued DuPont, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, and his second wife Angela, alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and ERISA violations based on beneficiary designations made in 1997 and a 2001 prenuptial agreement in which Angela waived rights to the account. The court granted the moving defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that the prenuptial agreement did not qualify as a valid spousal waiver under ERISA plan terms requiring a specific written consent, so the funds were required to be paid to the surviving spouse. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction as moot, ordered the funds deposited into the court registry, and granted leave to amend the complaint solely against Angela Geisel.
This case involves the bankruptcy reorganization of Congoleum Corp., a flooring manufacturer facing numerous asbestos-related tort claims from its pre-1983 products. After years of negotiations and multiple proposed plans, the Bankruptcy Court denied confirmation of the fourteenth plan and dismissed the case. On appeal, the District Court reversed the dismissal of the bankruptcy cases, partially reversed the denial of plan confirmation, withdrew the reference to the Bankruptcy Court, and scheduled further hearings to resolve the matter. The core reasoning centered on the court's authority under bankruptcy statutes to manage the case and the viability of the pre-packaged plan involving insurance assignments and settlements.
This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Abraxis Bioscience and APP Pharmaceuticals against generic drug maker Navinta after Navinta filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application to market a generic version of the anesthetic Naropin (ropivacaine). The plaintiffs alleged that Navinta's proposed products infringed three patents covering the compound, compositions, and methods for using ropivacaine for local anesthesia and acute pain management. Following a bench trial, the court ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that Navinta's ANDA products at 0.5%, 1.0%, and 0.2% concentrations infringed the asserted claims of the '086, '524, and '489 patents, both directly and by inducement, and dismissed Navinta's counterclaims for noninfringement. The court credited the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts over the defendant's on issues of chemistry and infringement, and set the earliest possible FDA approval date for the ANDA as the patents' expiration in 2014.
