District Court, D. New Jersey — appointed by Richard Nixon
Natural Footwear Ltd. v. Hart Schaffner & Marx & Roots, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1983-12-08 · cited 2×
This case concerns the respective rights of Natural Footwear Ltd. (a Canadian company) and Roots, Inc. (a New Jersey retailer acquired by Hart Schaffner & Marx) to use the tradename and mark "Roots" in connection with shoes and apparel. The court ruled for Roots, issuing an injunction against Natural's continued use of the mark, ordering an accounting of profits from US sales, and directing other remedial steps such as destruction of infringing materials. Roots had established common law trademark and tradename rights through its operations beginning in 1917, expansion via mail-order advertising and multiple stores, and sales of private-label goods, creating priority over Natural's adoption of the mark in 1973 for similar products. Although Roots held no federal registration under the Lanham Act, its established use and the likelihood of confusion supported the relief, while Natural's deliberate conduct was noted in connection with the remedies awarded.
business & regulatory
Abramson v. Japan Air Lines
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1983-10-11
The case involved a passenger on an international flight from New York to Tokyo via Anchorage who experienced a flare-up of a pre-existing hiatus hernia about an hour after departing Alaska and was unable to lie down because the plane was full. He sued Japan Air Lines in New Jersey state court (removed to federal court) on three counts: negligence for failing to provide a space to lie down, strict liability under the Warsaw Convention, and willful conduct seeking punitive damages. The district court treated the airline's motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment and granted it, finding no evidence of an "accident" under the Convention or any breach of duty, and later denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend that judgment. The court applied the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Agreement to the international flight, required proof of an accident for liability, and held that the plaintiff's condition and the airline's response did not meet that standard or support negligence or punitive claims under New Jersey law. Key supporting facts included the plaintiff's failure to disclose his condition before the flight and the absence of any unusual event on board.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Nemtin v. Zarin
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1983-09-07 · cited 5×
The case involves a Canadian plaintiff suing a New Jersey defendant in federal court under diversity jurisdiction to recover on promissory notes, checks, and related instruments arising from loans extended to fund the defendant's heavy gambling at Atlantic City casinos, where the defendant had incurred millions in losses and defaulted. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment on grounds of non-liability under New Jersey law. The court granted the motion in part, ruling that loans knowingly made to enable continued gambling or to pay off gambling debts for that purpose are unenforceable, as they violate the state's longstanding constitutional and statutory prohibitions on gambling that render such transactions void as against public policy. The decision is confined to undisputed facts showing the plaintiff's awareness of the loans' purpose, while leaving for trial any separable instruments not commingled with tainted funds; other procedural motions were denied without prejudice.
criminal lawbusiness & regulatory
IAP, INC. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1983-08-30 · cited 5×
This case involved a private antitrust action filed in 1979 by IAP, Inc. and related plaintiffs against Mercedes-Benz of North America, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act through an unlawful combination restraining trade in replacement parts for Mercedes-Benz vehicles. The suit, initially styled as a class action on behalf of independent distributors, dealers, and consumers, was stayed pending a related government enforcement action in California that was later dismissed; plaintiffs later sought to redefine the class to cover wholesale distributors of parts for all imported automobiles and pursued only injunctive relief after abandoning damage claims. After the defendant moved for summary judgment supported by extensive exhibits and plaintiffs failed to submit opposing factual affidavits, instead requesting dismissal with prejudice as to themselves but without costs and without prejudice to absent class members, the court denied class certification due to the untimely and altered class definition, granted summary judgment to the defendant, and rejected the proposed dismissal terms. The reasoning centered on plaintiffs' procedural defaults under the Federal Rules, the availability of tolling from the government suit, and the lack of any need for this duplicative private action given the prior proceedings and consent decree in a related case.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Bernstein v. Aivazis
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1983-07-27 · cited 6×
This case involves a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Lisa Bernstein (then a minor) and her mother against a police officer and the Borough of Fort Lee, arising from her arrest for violating a local loitering ordinance while seated on public stairs in a shopping mall. The juvenile court had dismissed the underlying charge after ruling the ordinance unconstitutionally vague, but the federal court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the § 1983 claims. The core reasoning was that the officer had probable cause to make the arrest because the ordinance had not been invalidated at the time and the conduct fit a narrowing construction upheld in prior state precedent; established Supreme Court authority holds that probable cause is a complete defense even if the law is later struck down. The court also dismissed pendent state claims after resolving the federal issues and noted that the mother's derivative claim fell with the daughter's.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
Prager v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1983-07-25 · cited 8×
The case involved a defamation lawsuit brought by Martin Prager against American Broadcasting Cos. based on two 1982 television news broadcasts reporting on federal grand jury indictments and fraud allegations against officers of International Diamond Corporation, a company where Prager had served as an independent sales representative and district manager. The broadcasts summarized the company's diamond investment program, referenced related charges in Missouri and Minnesota, included statements from FTC spokesmen about misleading sales tactics, and featured clips of an attempted on-camera interview with Prager in which he declined to address the indictments. The court reviewed the full transcripts and videotapes of the broadcasts and analyzed the claims under modern defamation standards derived from state law as modified by the First Amendment, including the requirements from New York Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Welch that public figures must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. It determined that the segments did not directly implicate Prager in the alleged misconduct and applied constitutional protections to media reporting on matters of public concern such as consumer fraud investigations.
free speechtorts & liabilitycriminal lawbusiness & regulatory