John Winslow Bissell

This case is a class action securities litigation brought by institutional investors on behalf of purchasers of Royal Dutch/Shell securities, alleging that the company and its executives and auditors disseminated materially false statements overstating proved oil and gas reserves, reserves replacement ratios, and future cash flows in SEC filings, annual reports, and other public statements from 1999 to 2004, in violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over individual defendant Watts, and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, with additional challenges based on statute of limitations, res judicata, and international comity. The court addressed whether U.S.-based activities such as audits at Shell Deepwater Services in Houston and investor relations provided a sufficient basis for jurisdiction under the Exchange Act and evaluated the adequacy of scienter and reliance allegations tied to the reserves reporting.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiff William Colarusso's claim against the Estate of Eugene T. Day, Jr. under ERISA Section 502(c)(1) for failing to provide requested information about an employee benefit plan in which Colarusso participated while employed at Transcapital Fiscal Systems, Inc. The court determined that the Top Hat Value Added Plan was covered by ERISA, that Day served as both plan administrator and fiduciary, and that he violated ERISA by not furnishing plan documents or termination notices in response to Colarusso's requests. After a bench trial, the court imposed civil penalties on Day's estate at a rate of $50 per day for 928 days, totaling $46,400 plus post-judgment interest, but limited the penalty period to end on the date of Day's death in February 1997 because the provision's purpose is punitive. The ruling followed from findings that the plan imposed fiduciary duties, Day qualified as a fiduciary under ERISA definitions, and the statutory penalty applied to the information disclosure violations.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the validity of Schering's U.S. Patent No. 4,659,716 ('716 patent), which claims the compound DCL, a metabolite of the antihistamine loratadine covered by Schering's earlier '233 patent. Generic drug manufacturers challenged the '716 patent's validity, arguing it was anticipated by the prior '233 patent. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding Claims 1 and 3 of the '716 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) due to inherent anticipation. The reasoning was that administering loratadine to humans, as disclosed in the prior art patent, necessarily produces DCL in the body, making the metabolite inherently present in the prior disclosure regardless of whether it was explicitly identified.

business & regulatory

This case concerns newspaper publishers suing Attorney General John Ashcroft and Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy over a post-September 11, 2001 memorandum that closed certain "special interest" deportation hearings to the public and press, restricted docket information, and applied without individualized determinations. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction asserting a First Amendment right of access to these proceedings under federal regulations, while defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss, confirming federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and analyzed the merits by examining precedents on public access to trials, the nature of immigration hearings, and limits on blanket closures.

immigrationfree speech

The case concerns enforcement of a 1987 Consent Decree resolving a class action (Bronze Shields v. City of Newark) alleging racial discrimination in the City's police hiring practices. Class member Lester J. Elliott sought appointment to the police force under the decree's preferential hiring list for victims of past discrimination, but the City objected on the ground that he was not a Newark resident at the time of his reapplication. The court ruled that the City must appoint Elliott, holding that New Jersey statutes (N.J.S.A. 40A:14-122.1 and 40A:14-123.1a) bar municipalities from treating residency as a qualification or requirement for initial police appointments and permit only a voluntary priority system among qualified applicants. The core reasoning distinguishes between prohibited residency requirements (which would disqualify non-residents) and permissible preferences (which do not override the decree's priority scheme for class members), while noting the City's prior acceptance of the decree's terms.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a physician with a history of substance abuse who sought an unrestricted medical license from the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners, along with the Medical Society of New Jersey, challenging a policy by the Director of Consumer Affairs that required public disclosure and proceedings for substance abuse-related cases instead of private letters of agreement used for other disciplinary matters. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Equal Protection Clause, claiming discrimination against physicians with disabilities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that the Medical Society lacked associational standing and that the individual physician's claims were not ripe, resulting in dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Most claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the Society's ADA claim was dismissed without prejudice. The decision rested on justiciability doctrines rather than the merits of the discrimination allegations.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

The case involved the Port Authority seeking recovery under first-party property insurance policies for costs of asbestos management and abatement in its facilities from 1978 to 1991. The insurers moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including that the claims did not fall within the policies' insuring agreements. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the insuring agreements and excluded certain dust sampling evidence, resulting in final judgment for the insurers. The core reasoning was that the Port Authority failed to present evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact that its losses qualified for coverage under the policy terms, after viewing facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

propertybusiness & regulatory

Centennial Insurance Company filed suit against Lithotech Sales, LLC seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify under a Marine Open Cargo Policy for a claim stemming from an allegedly substituted commercial printing press shipped from Indonesia. Lithotech counterclaimed for coverage, relying on the policy's Insuring Conditions Clause and Fraudulent Bills of Lading Clause. The court granted Centennial's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact because the record showed neither physical loss or damage from an external cause during shipment nor any fraudulent bill of lading that caused the loss. The decision rested on the policy language and the absence of evidence supporting the defendant's factual assertions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit by Stanley Harrow against Prudential Insurance Company under ERISA, alleging wrongful denial of coverage for a Viagra prescription and breach of fiduciary duty. The court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment, dismissing both counts without prejudice. The core reasoning was that Harrow failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies under the plan, which included a grievance procedure and appeal to the Pennsylvania Department of Health, and there was no evidence that pursuing those remedies would have been futile despite Prudential's general policy against covering the drug.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved Paul Mullen, a Port Authority police officer who was suspended and later terminated after pleading guilty to endangering the welfare of a child based on off-duty conduct that led to his 1991 arrest. Mullen filed suit alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, New Jersey Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, primarily challenging the Port Authority's disciplinary rule as unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and asserting other constitutional claims. The court granted the Port Authority's motion for summary judgment, holding that the rule was not facially invalid given its focus on conduct affecting workplace efficiency and public reputation, that the § 1983 claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and that Mullen failed to establish a substantive due process violation.

civil rightslabor & employmentcriminal lawprocedure

Susan Mardini sued her former employer Viking Freight, Inc. in New Jersey state court, alleging gender discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination along with claims for breach of employment contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common-law wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and negligent supervision. The federal district court, exercising diversity jurisdiction after removal, granted the employer's motion to dismiss the six non-LAD counts. The court held that disclaimers in employee handbooks prevented formation of an enforceable contract and barred related claims, that the Workers' Compensation Act precluded the negligence claim, and that the pleadings failed to state viable claims for wrongful discharge or intentional infliction of emotional distress; the fraud claim was dismissed without prejudice for lack of particularity while the LAD claim remained. The reasoning rested on New Jersey employment law treating the plaintiff as an at-will employee and on the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation statute.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiff Darryl W. Siss, a Republican appointed as Assistant County Counsel by a Republican-controlled Passaic County Board of Freeholders, sued after the newly Democratic majority terminated him shortly after taking office following the 1997 election. Siss alleged violations of due process, First Amendment rights to political association and speech, the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and common law wrongful discharge. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the entire complaint. It reasoned that Siss had no protected property interest in the position to support a due process claim, that political affiliation was a permissible basis for termination in this policymaking role under federal and state law, and that the other claims lacked factual or legal support, including no proven violation of the Open Public Meetings Act or a clear public policy mandate.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employmentprocedure

This admiralty case concerned shipments of 14 sealed containers from Hong Kong to the United States that arrived containing cement bricks instead of the expected plastic videocassette casings; plaintiff Daewoo, the consignee, sued non-vessel-owning common carriers Wice and RTW for breach of their duties under bills of lading that listed weights of 17,500 kilograms each and were marked “Shipper’s Load and Count” and “said to contain.” The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment in the consolidated actions brought under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). It held that the carriers’ weight notations on the bills of lading did not by themselves demonstrate that the cargo was in good condition when received by them, a required element of the consignee’s prima facie case, because the containers were loaded and sealed by the shipper and the carriers had not weighed or verified the contents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The New Jersey Turnpike Authority sued three chemical companies (Occidental, AlliedSignal, and PPG) that had processed chromium ore, seeking to recover investigation and remediation costs for chromite ore processing residue found at seven highway sites under CERCLA, the New Jersey Spill Act, and state common law. The defendants moved for summary judgment while the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, holding that the plaintiff had not shown the defendants' specific waste reached the sites in question and that alternative liability doctrines such as market-share or enterprise liability did not apply to these off-site generators.

environmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involves Osteotech suing GenSci Canada and GenSci Labs for infringing its '558 Patent through the manufacture and sale of DynaGraft Gel and Putty products, filed in New Jersey federal court shortly before a broader related action was filed in California involving additional patents and state-law claims. The court ruled that it had personal jurisdiction over GenSci Labs due to its product sales and advertisements in New Jersey but lacked jurisdiction over GenSci Canada, whose contacts were limited to unrelated negotiations. It decided to transfer the entire action to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because that forum better served the interests of justice given the overlapping California litigation, and it denied the motion for a preliminary injunction as moot.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a New Jersey township and neighboring residents suing state officials, Project Live, HUD, and intervenors over the placement of two group homes for individuals with mental illness in residential areas of West Orange, following the closure of Marlboro Psychiatric Hospital. Plaintiffs alleged violations of procedural and substantive due process, the Fair Housing Act, the First Amendment, and state laws, claiming inadequate community notice, hearings, and safety safeguards under the siting process. The court granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), while denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. It reasoned that the various counts failed to state cognizable claims, that the Fair Housing Act provisions did not support the asserted causes of action or discovery of confidential records, and that jurisdiction was not properly invoked for certain constitutional challenges.

civil rightsprocedurehealthcare

This case concerns liability for penalties on unpaid property taxes and liens assessed against an apartment complex in Old Bridge Township, New Jersey, that was acquired by plaintiffs North County Conservancy and Old Bridge Partners from the FDIC after foreclosure proceedings involving prior federal receiverships. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, claiming exemption under 12 U.S.C. § 1825(b)(3) from penalties that accrued while the property was held by federal agencies, arguing that the protection extended to them as successors. The court denied the motion and granted judgment to the Township, holding that the statutory bar on penalties applies only to the FDIC and RTC during their ownership or receivership and does not shield subsequent private owners from municipal penalties on pre-existing liens.

propertytaxesfederal power

The case involved a dispute between Crossroads Cogeneration Corporation, a qualifying facility under PURPA, and Orange & Rockland Utilities over the scope of a power purchase agreement, specifically whether the utility was obligated to purchase electricity generated by newly installed equipment. The New York Public Service Commission had previously ruled that the agreement only covered energy from the original equipment. The court dismissed the complaint, which included state law contract claims and federal antitrust claims, on the grounds that the NYPSC's interpretation was binding and that the antitrust claims lacked sufficient allegations of harm to competition.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a class action challenge by individuals required to register as sex offenders under New Jersey's Megan’s Law for offenses committed before the law's October 31, 1994 effective date. The plaintiffs claimed the law's retroactive application violated the ex post facto clause, double jeopardy protections, and procedural due process under the U.S. Constitution. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion, upholding the law. It reasoned that the registration and tiered notification requirements were regulatory and remedial rather than punitive, thus not triggering ex post facto or double jeopardy concerns, and that the classification and review processes provided adequate procedural safeguards.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a motion for class certification in a lawsuit challenging New Jersey's Community Notification Act (Megan’s Law) on constitutional grounds. Plaintiffs, convicted sex offenders whose crimes predated the law, sought to represent all individuals required to register under the Act and classified as Tier II or Tier III offenders, aiming to enjoin enforcement of tier classifications and public notifications pending resolution of ex post facto and double jeopardy claims in related litigation. The court certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), finding that numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy were satisfied, that the defendants had acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, and that injunctive relief was appropriate for the class as a whole. Core reasoning focused on the impracticability of joining thousands of potential class members, the shared legal questions regarding the Act's retroactive application, and the uniformity of the representative plaintiffs' circumstances with those of absent class members. The court also entered preliminary injunctive relief staying notifications during the pendency of the Artway appeal.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure