Joel A. Pisano

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.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

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.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

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.

procedure

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.

family lawprocedureproperty

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves Lincoln National Life Insurance Company seeking to rescind a $3 million life insurance policy issued to Walter Calhoun's family trust, alleging that the policy was part of a stranger-originated life insurance scheme lacking an insurable interest and that Calhoun misrepresented his intentions regarding selling the policy. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that neither future intent to sell nor third-party financing invalidates the policy. The court denied the motion without prejudice, holding that discovery is needed to determine if Calhoun had arranged to sell the policy at the time of application, as such facts could support claims of lack of insurable interest or material misrepresentation under applicable law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an appeal from bankruptcy court orders granting summary judgment to Kara Homes against subcontractor Michael Wright Construction, which had asserted over $769,000 in construction liens on residential properties without filing required Notices of Unpaid Balance. The district court addressed whether the subcontractor agreements qualified as residential construction contracts under the New Jersey Construction Lien Law, triggering specific filing and perfection rules. The court affirmed the bankruptcy rulings, holding that the contracts for framing services on hundreds of dwelling units were residential in nature and that the liens were invalid due to noncompliance with the statutory notice requirements. The reasoning emphasized the plain language of the Lien Law definitions, the purpose of protecting residential owners, and the need to give effect to all provisions including Section 18 on proportionate releases for multi-unit projects.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves AstraZeneca's patent infringement claims against Teva and Sandoz regarding U.S. Patent No. 4,879,288 covering the antipsychotic drug quetiapine (Seroquel). The defendants raised an inequitable conduct defense, alleging that Astra withheld material information and made misleading statements during the patent's prosecution in the late 1980s. The court granted Astra's motion for summary judgment on the inequitable conduct defense, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding either the materiality of the alleged omissions or any intent to deceive the PTO, as the prosecution record showed the examiner considered the relevant prior art and the claims were rejected and allowed on obviousness grounds. The court denied as moot Astra's separate motion to preclude certain untimely inequitable conduct claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the SEC's claims against Kenneth Pasternak and John Leighton, senior executives at Knight Securities, for allegedly aiding and abetting securities law violations and for control person liability in connection with trades executed by Joseph's Leighton on behalf of institutional clients in the NASDAQ market during 1999-2000. The SEC alleged that Joseph engaged in fraudulent practices including excessive markups, failure to disclose them, front-running, and improper use of trade modifiers, and that the defendants as supervisors failed to prevent or disclose these actions. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendants on all counts, finding that Joseph did not violate any securities laws and therefore the defendants could not be held secondarily liable. The court's reasoning centered on the absence of evidence showing primary violations by Joseph or Knight, including no proof of scienter or material misrepresentations in the execution of the trades.

business & regulatory

The Township of Marlboro sued multiple defendants, including former public officials and developers, under federal and New Jersey RICO statutes as well as common law claims, alleging a bribery scheme in which officials accepted payments in exchange for land use approvals on development projects between the late 1990s and 2004. The defendants moved to dismiss the RICO claims for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that the township failed to allege a cognizable RICO injury to its business or property, as its claimed damages—primarily the amounts of bribes paid among the defendants and loss of honest services—did not meet the statutory requirements for direct injury and proximate causation. The court also denied leave to amend the complaint and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose after Jersey City police officer Julio Reyes fatally shot his girlfriend Omayra Soberal in 2003, leading her estate and family to sue the city, its police department, and various officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of substantive due process, failure to train or supervise, and related state-law tort claims including wrongful death. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants' handling of a temporary restraining order and interactions with Reyes created or increased the danger to Soberal. The court granted summary judgment to the City of Jersey City, the police department, and high-ranking officials Director Carter and Chief Behrens, finding no municipal liability under § 1983, but denied summary judgment to individual officers Lt. Nalbach, Insp. Wolleon, and Sgt. Younger, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding their conduct under the state-created danger doctrine and qualified immunity. The decision addressed the remaining federal constitutional claims and pendent state tort claims after extensive procedural dismissals of other parties and counts.

civil rightstorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Joseph Signorile, a former Perth Amboy police officer, filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the city, its police department, and several officers, alleging constitutional violations stemming from his July 2003 arrest on a simple assault charge arising from an alleged domestic incident with his wife. The arrest followed an investigation prompted by the wife's initial reports of injury to neighbors and police, supported by visible injuries and her statements to officers, even though she later recanted and claimed the injury was accidental. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the claims on the grounds that the officers' actions complied with state domestic violence laws and procedures and did not violate Signorile's constitutional rights, while also dismissing the unopposed claims against one defendant for failure to state a claim; however, it denied the request for Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff. The core reasoning centered on the existence of probable cause from the initial credible reports and the officers' reasonable investigation, which insulated the defendants from liability under the federal civil rights statute.

criminal lawcivil rights

This consolidated class action securities litigation alleged that Shell violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting its proved oil and gas reserves during the class period from 1999 to 2004. The court considered Shell's motion to dismiss claims brought by Non-U.S. Purchasers (those who bought shares on non-U.S. exchanges) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After appointing a Special Master to evaluate the issue following discovery, the court adopted the Special Master's report and dismissed those claims. The core reasoning was that, under the conduct test for extraterritorial application of U.S. securities laws, the alleged U.S.-based activities by Shell were merely preparatory and not essential to the claimed fraud affecting the Non-U.S. Purchasers.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case centered on claims by Hudson County and related plaintiffs against former County Executive Robert Janiszewski and various vendors and entities, alleging a long-running scheme in which vendors bribed Janiszewski to obtain or renew public contracts, in violation of federal and New Jersey RICO statutes and other laws. Plaintiffs also sought a declaratory judgment against Western Surety Company regarding coverage under fidelity bonds issued for Janiszewski. Third-party defendant Oscar Sandoval raised counterclaims and a third-party complaint alleging extortion and retaliation under RICO. The court granted summary judgment and motions to dismiss the main complaint as to several defendants, dismissed Sandoval's counterclaims and the third-party complaint, and partially granted Western Surety's motion by limiting recoverable damages under the bonds to the period from September 3, 1993 through November 30, 2000, largely due to statutes of limitations and pleading deficiencies.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned defendant William Baskerville, who was convicted of drug offenses and two capital murder conspiracy charges related to the killing of a confidential witness. After the guilt phase, the defendant moved to strike a special finding in the indictment supporting one of the FDPA gateway intent factors for death-penalty eligibility, specifically the factor requiring that the defendant intentionally engaged in an act of violence knowing it created a grave risk of death. The court granted the motion, holding that no evidence showed the defendant personally committed such an act, as he was in custody at the time of the murder and the evidence established only his role in a conspiracy. The ruling turned on the statutory distinction between an "act of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2)(D) and broader concepts like "crime of violence," requiring the defendant himself to have engaged in the violent conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a New Jersey resident who held an American Express Blue Cash credit card and sued the company, alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act based on misrepresentations about the cash-back rewards program's tiered structure and actual payout terms. Defendants moved to compel arbitration under the cardmember agreement, which contained an arbitration clause, a class-action waiver, and a Utah choice-of-law provision. The court granted the motion, dismissed the complaint, and ordered individual arbitration, finding the arbitration provision valid and enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, the claims within its broad scope, and the class waiver consistent with federal policy favoring arbitration. The decision relied on precedents enforcing similar agreements even without class procedures and rejected arguments that the waiver rendered the clause unconscionable or unenforceable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a purported class action under ERISA in which a former Avaya employee alleged that Avaya and its Pension and Employee Benefits Investment Committee breached fiduciary duties by maintaining Avaya and Lucent stock funds as required investment options in three retirement plans after the companies experienced sharp financial declines and stock price drops following Avaya's 2000 spin-off from Lucent. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying the Moench presumption of prudence to claims involving employer securities and assessing whether the complaint adequately alleged that defendants knew or should have known the investments were imprudent.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned defendant Kevin McCray, who faced federal charges of Hobbs Act conspiracy and robbery plus firearm use in connection with check-cashing store holdups; after a competency hearing the court found him incompetent to stand trial due to mental disease or defect including PTSD and mild mental retardation. The government moved for an order allowing involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to restore competency so the trial could proceed. The court denied the motion, applying the four-factor test from Sell v. United States and concluding that the prosecution had not satisfied the required showing that involuntary medication was necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

criminal law

The case Hill v. Dobin involved a debtor appealing bankruptcy court orders that granted summary judgment to the trustee and included her two annuities in the bankruptcy estate rather than excluding them under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). The district court affirmed, holding that the annuities did not qualify for exclusion because they failed to meet the statutory requirements of representing a beneficial interest in a trust subject to an enforceable transfer restriction under non-bankruptcy law. The court applied a case-by-case analysis of the specific annuity terms and found they lacked trust characteristics such as a fiduciary relationship or intent to create a trust, resulting instead in a contractual debtor-creditor relationship.

procedurefederal power