H. Lee Sarokin

This case involved a class action settlement resolving ERISA and RICO claims against Continental Group, Inc., where plaintiffs' counsel sought attorneys' fees that included a risk-enhancement multiplier. The court determined that the Supreme Court's restrictions on such enhancements in City of Burlington v. Dague did not apply because the fees were drawn from a common fund ultimately borne by the plaintiffs rather than paid directly by the defendants as statutory fees. The core reasoning was that statutory fee awards are designed to make plaintiffs whole without penalizing defendants for the strength of their defenses, but common-fund recoveries should replicate marketplace contingency arrangements by compensating counsel for risks assumed, efforts expended, and results achieved, allowing the requested enhancement.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns plaintiff Vincent Landano's FOIA request to the FBI for investigative files on his 1976 murder conviction, which he sought to support a state-court claim that prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence. The government withheld material under FOIA Exemption 7(D) on the ground that it came from confidential sources, including eyewitnesses and state law-enforcement agencies. Following the Supreme Court's rejection of any categorical presumption that information supplied during a criminal investigation is confidential, the district court applies the factors identified by the Court—chiefly the character of the crime and the source's relation to it—to decide whether an inference of implied confidentiality is warranted in each instance. The court notes that once the government makes the required showing, the requester may rebut the inference, and it proceeds to evaluate the remaining withholdings under this standard.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned an employee who was terminated for poor performance without the employer following the progressive discipline procedures detailed in its employee handbook and policy manual, leading to claims for breach of an implied employment contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and emotional distress. The court addressed the employer's motion for summary judgment, focusing on whether disclaimers in the handbook, manual, and a signed statement of employment relationship were sufficient to negate any implied contract under New Jersey law. The analysis centered on precedents like Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, evaluating if the disclaimers were clear and prominent enough to prevent employees from reasonably expecting enforceable disciplinary procedures, while also noting that poor performance was listed only for progressive discipline and not immediate termination. The court further examined whether the documents created a factual issue precluding summary judgment on the contract claims.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved four former officers and employees of a subsidiary of CityFed Financial Corp. seeking a preliminary injunction or summary judgment to compel the company to advance their attorneys' fees and defense costs in a related lawsuit brought by the Resolution Trust Corporation, based on CityFed's bylaws requiring indemnification and advancement of expenses. The court denied the motion. It reasoned that CityFed's limited assets, which faced claims far exceeding their value due to the savings and loan crisis, created a risk of irreparable harm to other creditors if funds were advanced without guaranteed repayment, especially given evidence of potential misconduct by the plaintiffs that could ultimately bar indemnification; this outweighed the plaintiffs' hardship in funding their own defense in the interim, and equitable considerations in insolvency favored protecting the limited fund for valid claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Schering Corporation, a manufacturer of pioneer drugs including non-systemically effective drugs, brought suit against the FDA to challenge its 1992 regulation defining bioequivalence for abbreviated approval of generic drugs under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Schering argued that the FDA exceeded its authority by replacing the statutory term absorption with the broader concept of availability at the site of drug action, rendering the abbreviated process inapplicable to drugs that do not rely on systemic absorption. The FDA countered that the statutory definitions create a safe harbor rather than exclusive criteria, permitting additional methods to demonstrate bioequivalence while still ensuring safety and efficacy. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, addressing standing under the Administrative Procedure Act and principles of statutory interpretation in the context of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In NeoRx Corp. v. Immunomedics, Inc., NeoRx alleged that Immunomedics infringed its '868 patent on processes for labeling antibodies with radioactive isotopes by using those methods in eight cancer imaging and therapy products under development. Immunomedics sought summary judgment on the infringement claims, asserting that all challenged activities fell within the safe harbor exemption of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) because they were reasonably related to generating data for FDA submissions required for product approval. The court examined the scope of the exemption, the nature of Immunomedics' preclinical studies, IND filings, clinical trials, and foreign regulatory efforts, and concluded that the activities were covered by the statutory protection, granting summary judgment to Immunomedics. The core reasoning was that Congress enacted the provision to shield regulatory compliance work from patent liability, provided a sufficient nexus existed between the work and FDA data requirements.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a federal district court's review of a magistrate judge's report recommending sanctions against plaintiff's counsel, Edward J. Gaffney, Jr., for his conduct in litigation brought on behalf of a student against Kittatinny Regional High School regarding a school suspension and subsequent special education placements. After the underlying claims were resolved or dismissed, defendants moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, citing the attorney's history of filing related actions, misrepresentations to the court, failure to pay prior fee awards, and lack of opposition to the sanctions motion. The court adopted the recommendation in full, ordering Gaffney to pay defendants $100,000, permanently enjoining him from filing further complaints involving the school as an attorney, directing the clerk to screen any future filings by him, and referring the matter for disciplinary proceedings. The core reasoning was that Gaffney had engaged in a pattern of abusive litigation practices without justification or compliance with prior orders, and no objections had been filed to the proposed sanctions.

procedure

In Wade v. United States, plaintiff Yvonne Wade sued the IRS after it denied her request for injured spouse relief and applied her share of a 1981 joint tax refund to her ex-husband's child support debt, eventually obtaining a consent judgment for the $343 owed plus interest. She then moved for attorney's fees under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 as a prevailing party. The court granted fees for reasonable litigation costs incurred after she filed suit in district court but denied fees for pre-litigation administrative proceedings. It reasoned that the statutory triggers for administrative costs under § 7430(c)(7) were not met, while the government's position in the litigation itself was not substantially justified once the suit was filed.

taxesprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff suing the estate of his former sexual partner for failing to disclose an AIDS diagnosis during their relationship, bringing claims of negligence, intentional tort, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking damages for medical testing costs and emotional distress from fear of contracting HIV despite repeated negative tests. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all counts. The core reasoning was that although a duty to disclose may exist in such circumstances, the plaintiff offered no competent evidence like sworn affidavits or medical expert testimony to show severe emotional distress or physical injury, and the passage of time with negative results eliminated any viable claim based on enhanced future risk.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involves the FDIC, acting as receiver for a failed New Jersey bank, suing the bank's former directors and officers for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty in managing the institution prior to its insolvency and closure. The FDIC moved to strike most of the defendants' affirmative defenses, including contributory negligence and failure to mitigate damages based on alleged government inaction or mismanagement both before and after the takeover. The court granted the motion and struck the defenses, reasoning that the FDIC owes no duty to the alleged wrongdoers in either its regulatory or receivership capacity, that public policy requires holding those who initiated the losses responsible rather than shifting additional burdens to taxpayers, and that government inefficiencies cannot excuse or reduce the defendants' liability. The court left open the possibility that defendants could still challenge proximate causation of specific losses.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved defendants Thomas D’Alessio, then Essex County Sheriff (later County Executive), and Joseph Thor, his campaign treasurer, who were indicted on mail fraud charges for soliciting contributions to a 1989 fundraiser via mailings that allegedly misrepresented the funds’ purpose, as well as a sixth count concerning use of campaign funds for personal expenses. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss counts one through six of the indictment. The core reasoning was that the grand jury had been improperly instructed on a court rule barring gifts to public officials that did not clearly apply to sheriffs and thus could not provide the requisite fair warning for criminal liability, and that a state regulation restricting political funds had been promulgated without proper authority; because the court could not determine whether the grand jury would have indicted absent these improper bases, resubmission was required.

criminal lawelections

This case involved the Prisoners' Legal Association and several inmate paralegals at East Jersey State Prison suing a corrections officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging harassment through verbal abuse, searches of legal materials, and denial of meals in retaliation for their court-approved assistance to other prisoners. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing for the association and that the facts did not establish a constitutional violation. The court analyzed the claims, noting that verbal harassment alone does not violate the Eighth Amendment but that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the alleged actions were connected to the plaintiffs' paralegal activities and access-to-courts rights, requiring denial of summary judgment on those grounds.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with embezzlement from her employer bank, where she stole funds out of fear that her physically abusive husband would retaliate if she could not obtain a loan for them; she had also endured childhood incest from her father and had a history of mental health issues including borderline personality disorder and organic personality disorder linked to abuse and head injuries. The court granted her motion for a downward departure from the federal sentencing guidelines. The core reasoning was that her history of relentless abuse and resulting mental conditions were exceptional, atypical, and a contributory cause of her conduct in a manner not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission, justifying mitigation under Section 5K2.0 rather than imprisonment.

criminal lawfamily law

This case was a long-running class action in which employees alleged that Continental Group, Inc. had systematically deprived thousands of workers of pension benefits through wrongful layoffs. After ten years of litigation, the court approved a settlement and plan of distribution that provided monetary recovery to class members and their spouses. The court found the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) based on arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a special master, extensive notice to the class, and the plan's recognition of both direct employee losses and derivative spousal rights under ERISA. The distribution formula aimed to compensate the majority of claimants with substantial awards while accounting for state-law marital property interests.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves a habeas corpus petition by Gabriel Pemberthy, a Latino defendant convicted in state court, claiming that the prosecutor's peremptory strikes of all Spanish-speaking and Latino venirepersons violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. The trial involved disputed Spanish-language recordings and translations, and the prosecutor struck every identified Spanish-speaker from the jury pool. The court held that these strikes amounted to racial discrimination because Spanish-speaking ability functioned as a proxy for Latino ethnicity in this context, and no adequate race-neutral justification was provided or accepted. The reasoning emphasized the inextricable link between the language ability at issue and ethnicity, requiring the state to tolerate any risks associated with including such jurors rather than excluding them on that basis.

criminal lawcivil rights

This memorandum opinion in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. addresses a district judge's decision to recuse himself from ongoing tobacco industry litigation. Following the Third Circuit's ruling in the related Haines v. Liggett Group case, which held that the judge's prior findings on fraud and misrepresentation lacked the appearance of impartiality due to their strong language, the judge voluntarily steps aside. He states that his rulings were based on evidence presented over a decade rather than any personal bias, but he respects the appellate decision and the need to maintain judicial standards. The opinion notes the judge's concern about the implications for judicial independence when powerful parties seek a judge's removal but concludes that recusal is required out of respect for the law.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Banks v. Fauver, prison inmate Daulton Banks challenged his involuntary placement in protective custody following an incident where his wife allegedly attempted to smuggle money into the facility and amid anonymous reports of threats to his safety and suspicions of his involvement in drug trafficking. Banks claimed that the prison hearing and related procedures violated his federal due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because the evidence was fabricated or insufficient and he was not provided adequate information or process. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing no protected liberty interest existed. The court concluded that although the Due Process Clause itself does not protect against such confinement, New Jersey regulations create a state-created liberty interest by requiring a reasonable basis for protective custody and implicitly requiring release if none is found, and that the hearing procedures must comply with due process standards for the claim to be viable.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved the Easter Seal Society's efforts to open a community residence in North Bergen, New Jersey, for up to eight adults with mental illness and substance abuse issues, after the township's construction code official denied a permit on the grounds that the use was not permitted in an R-1 residential zone under the building code. Plaintiffs sued the township and officials under the Fair Housing Act, alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap and failure to make reasonable accommodations, and sought a preliminary injunction to compel issuance of the permit. The court granted the injunction and denied the defendants' summary judgment motion, finding a likelihood of success on the FHA claims based on evidence that the township did not apply its zoning laws uniformly, statements indicating discriminatory intent, and the public interest in community residences for such individuals.

civil rightsproperty

The case involved students at Rutgers University challenging the university's collection and use of their social security numbers for administrative purposes without adequate notice or consent, and seeking to prevent unauthorized dissemination of those numbers, based on the Privacy Act of 1974 and FERPA. The court ruled that Rutgers could lawfully request and utilize students' social security numbers but was prohibited from unauthorized dissemination of the information. The core reasoning was that Rutgers does not qualify as a state agency subject to the Privacy Act's collection restrictions, while evidence showed ongoing confidentiality breaches that warranted injunctive relief to prevent future unauthorized disclosures under applicable federal privacy protections.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved thirteen tenured faculty members at New Jersey state colleges who challenged the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 10:5-2.2, a statute permitting institutions to require retirement of tenured faculty at age 70, alleging violations of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and parallel state constitutional provisions. The court applied rational basis review, determining that age is neither a suspect nor quasi-suspect class and that continued public employment is not a fundamental right, and concluded that the statute satisfied this standard because it was rationally related to legitimate governmental interests such as workforce planning and renewal. As a result, the court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissed the federal claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

civil rightslabor & employment