Anne Elise Thompson

This case involved multiple motions in a dispute over the United States' attempts to enforce tax liens on properties allegedly fraudulently conveyed by taxpayers to third parties or held by nominees, along with related cross-claims by another party. The court denied the motion for reconsideration of its prior dismissal of one count against the United States, as well as all motions to dismiss the United States' complaint and the cross-claims. The core reasoning was that the reconsideration motion merely restated prior arguments without showing overlooked dispositive facts or law, and the complaints met the liberal notice pleading standards under Rule 8(a) such that no clear grounds for dismissal existed on the face of the pleadings regarding statutes of limitations, jurisdiction, or other defenses.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case involves an appeal from bankruptcy court orders in a Chapter 7 proceeding filed by debtor Bernea Smith, who failed to disclose a pending personal injury claim against Allstate Insurance in her petition. After the petition, her counsel Friedman and Associates settled the claim without trustee approval or disclosure, leading the trustee to void the settlement under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 and order disgorgement of the proceeds. The district court affirmed, holding that the post-petition settlement was void and that the firm lacked a valid retaining lien due to voluntary transfer of files or a statutory charging lien because it was unperfected and could not attach to a void settlement. The court rejected arguments based on the law of the case doctrine and recent state precedent, finding no basis to disturb the bankruptcy rulings. The appeal was denied.

procedureproperty

The case involved a property owner who, after its real property was foreclosed upon by a township through an in rem tax foreclosure action for unpaid taxes, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sued to set aside the final foreclosure judgment as a fraudulent conveyance under state law or on equitable grounds. The district court granted the township's interlocutory appeal from the bankruptcy court's partial denial of a motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims could not proceed. The court reasoned that New Jersey statutes, including the Tax Sale Law and amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, expressly bar treating tax foreclosures as fraudulent conveyances, that an equity theory would improperly circumvent statutory limits and procedures for challenging such judgments, and that the reasoning of BFP v. Resolution Trust applies equally to tax foreclosures.

propertytaxesprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey and several physicians to the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, which criminalized performing a "partial-birth abortion" defined as partially vaginally delivering a living fetus before killing it, with penalties including license revocation and fines, and applied throughout pregnancy without a health exception for the woman. The court decided to grant the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief, declaring the Act unconstitutional and preventing its enforcement. The core reasoning was that the Act's vague definitions of key terms like "partial" and "substantial portion" combined with its lack of a maternal health exception imposed an undue burden on the right to abortion under the Casey standard, both pre- and post-viability, while chilling providers' ability to offer legal services.

abortioncivil rights

Daniel Piccolo, incarcerated for possession of firearms as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), filed a habeas corpus petition seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) after completing a residential drug treatment program. The court denied the petition, upholding the Bureau of Prisons' determination that his offense did not qualify as nonviolent and thus was ineligible for the reduction. The court reasoned that the Bureau properly exercised its discretion by referencing the definition of crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) and its program statement categorizing felon-in-possession offenses as crimes of violence in all cases, consistent with Third Circuit precedent, and that the statute's language created no liberty interest in the reduction.

criminal lawguns

This case concerns an appeal from a bankruptcy court's December 1995 order that used 11 U.S.C. § 105 to preliminarily enjoin the State of New Jersey and its Bureau of Securities from continuing a civil action against debtor Robert Brennan and non-debtors Austin Bernet, Inc. and Roger Barnett. The state action alleged securities fraud, obstruction, and racketeering arising from a prior $75 million SEC judgment against Brennan, who had filed for bankruptcy shortly afterward. The district court reversed the injunction and remanded, ruling that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion because the state proceeding qualified for the police-powers exception to the automatic stay and the debtor had not demonstrated irreparable harm. The court further held that extending the stay to non-debtors was likewise improper under the circumstances.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved the Secretary of Labor suing Chez Robert, Inc., a New Jersey restaurant, and its owner for alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping requirements between 1984 and 1987. After a trial featuring testimony from former employees due to the defendants' inadequate records, the court made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining that violations had occurred and calculating specific amounts of unpaid wages, overtime, uniform costs, and other damages owed to individual employees. The court applied FLSA provisions on tip credits and meal credits while rejecting some defense assertions about record-keeping and uniform requirements, ultimately awarding back pay plus liquidated damages and issuing an injunction against further withholding. The reasoning centered on reconstructing hours and compensation from witness accounts, as no uniform remedy applied across employees with varying schedules and roles.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns an appeal from a bankruptcy court order granting debtor Alfred Glen Hagaman an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) that limited New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (DEPE) from continuing a hazardous waste cleanup on his property beyond addressing imminent hazards. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's limitation on the cleanup, holding that the state's actions fell within the police and regulatory power exceptions of §§ 362(b)(4) and (5), but affirmed the debtor's right to possession of non-waste personal and business assets. The court reasoned that precedents like Penn Terra Ltd. v. Department of Environmental Resources establish that requiring compliance with state environmental laws is an exercise of regulatory authority exempt from the stay, and that Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection does not restrict the exception to imminent harms. The underlying dispute arose after the DEPE obtained state court orders for possession and cleanup of Hagaman's recycling site, which were interrupted by his Chapter 13 filing.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between Torwico Electronics, which had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy over whether Torwico's obligations to clean up hazardous waste at a former site constituted a dischargeable claim under the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the cleanup obligation was an unsecured claim that was time-barred and thus dischargeable. On appeal, the District Court reversed this ruling, holding that the obligations were not dischargeable because they addressed both past contamination and ongoing pollution through the state's exercise of regulatory authority. The court relied on precedents distinguishing monetary claims from equitable regulatory actions, noting that no alternative payment remedy existed under state law and that the Bankruptcy Code did not preempt the environmental requirements.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved creditor John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company's appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying its motion to lift the automatic stay in the Chapter 11 case of debtor Route 37 Business Park Associates, a New Jersey partnership that owned and operated a commercial park subject to Hancock's undersecured non-recourse mortgage. The district court affirmed the denial, holding that although the debtor had no equity in the property, the debtor had met its burden to show that the property was necessary to an effective reorganization that was in prospect. The court reasoned that the debtor's proposed plan of reorganization, which involved new equity investment and payments to creditors including Hancock's unsecured claim, was not legally flawed under the absolute priority rule or other confirmation standards and was supported by sufficient evidence of feasibility to satisfy the standard under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) as interpreted in United Savings Ass'n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest. The court applied a clearly erroneous standard to factual findings and plenary review to legal conclusions, rejecting arguments that separate classification of the undersecured claim or the new value exception rendered the plan unconfirmable at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns former owners of a New Jersey test laboratory facility seeking a declaratory judgment that the estate of Ralph T. Reeve, who served as president and director until 1974, is liable under CERCLA and the New Jersey Spill Act for costs to clean up hazardous substances found at the site. Both sides moved for summary judgment on the CERCLA and Spill Act claims as well as a counterclaim for indemnification, with the court setting out the Rule 56 standards and the four elements plaintiffs must prove for CERCLA liability under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), including that the defendant owned or operated the facility at the time of disposal. The opinion analyzes whether releases occurred during Reeve’s tenure, the retroactive application of CERCLA, and the scope of indemnification clauses in corporate by-laws and stock-purchase agreements to determine if they bar or shift liability for pre-closing environmental obligations.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves environmental groups suing Yates Industries under the citizen suit provision of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act for alleged violations of its New Jersey water discharge permit, including failures to meet pollutant limits, monitoring, and reporting requirements at its manufacturing facility. On cross-motions for partial reconsideration of an earlier summary judgment ruling, the court reviewed arguments about bioassay effluent limitations in the permit, certain reporting failures, and whether violations were wholly past. The court granted reargument on the bioassay issue after overlooking key exhibits, found that the permit imposed a discharge limitation violated by the company, granted plaintiffs summary judgment on three bioassay violations, and reaffirmed that the violations were not wholly past under Gwaltney standards because the company had not achieved complete compliance.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a citizen suit brought by environmental groups under the Clean Water Act against Yates Industries, a manufacturer, alleging thousands of violations of its New Jersey pollution discharge permit through exceedances of effluent limits, failures to report violations and sampling data, and improper monitoring at two discharge points flowing into local waterways. The court addressed standing by finding that the groups represented members with sufficient injury traceable to the discharges and redressable by the suit. On the merits, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on most categories of violations based on the company's discharge monitoring reports, while granting defendant's cross-motion on a subset of claims; it also granted injunctive relief prohibiting future violations of permit terms for bioassay and other effluents. The reasoning relied on the permit's explicit requirements, the data in the reports showing non-compliance, and the absence of valid defenses such as claims that violations were wholly past.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

In Retter v. Georgia Gulf Corp., the plaintiff, a former sales manager terminated in 1987 after nine years of employment, sued his employer alleging that his demotion and firing violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case and that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination based on documented performance issues and customer complaints. The court granted the motion, assuming arguendo that a prima facie case existed but finding that the employer had presented evidence of valid reasons for its actions and that the plaintiff had failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact showing those reasons were pretextual. The decision rested on the summary judgment standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which require the non-moving party to produce actual evidence of disputed facts rather than conclusory assertions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the State of New Jersey challenging a $1,088,471 federal penalty for excessive errors in administering the Food Stamp Program during fiscal year 1984. The court had previously denied the United States' motion to dismiss, ruling that the state was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before suing in district court and that equitable tolling applied to make the filing timely. On the government's motion for reargument, the court reconsidered and held that the 10-day deadline for seeking agency review under 7 U.S.C. § 2023 and 7 C.F.R. § 276.7(c) is jurisdictional. Because the state filed its administrative appeal one day late, the 30-day period for seeking judicial review began running from the FNS decision date, rendering the April 1989 district court complaint untimely. The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding no basis to toll the limitations period despite the general presumption favoring judicial review of agency actions.

federal powerprocedure

In Sciarotta v. Bowen, the plaintiff, who received both Social Security disability insurance benefits and a $35,000 net lump-sum workers' compensation settlement from New Jersey, challenged the Social Security Administration's decision to reduce his federal benefits by prorating the settlement. The district court, on remand from the Third Circuit, addressed whether the SSA's method of converting the lump sum into a stream of periodic payments—by dividing it by the state's maximum weekly workers' compensation rate of $156—was rational under 42 U.S.C. § 424a. The court found that this proration, which treats the settlement as representing maximum allowable payments over the shortest time period, is arbitrary and inconsistent with the Social Security Act's purpose of providing adequate disability benefits. Accordingly, the court held that step 3 of the SSA's interpretive rule in the Program Operation Manual System cannot be applied to prorate the plaintiff's award.

federal powerlabor & employment

Albert Ervin petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his sentence for four armed robbery convictions was amended. He had originally received four 15-year terms (three consecutive and one concurrent) plus a single aggregate 15-year period of parole ineligibility; the trial court later corrected this to three consecutive five-year parole ineligibility periods and one concurrent five-year period, keeping the total at 15 years. The district court denied relief, holding that the amendment was a valid clerical correction under New Jersey Court Rule 1:13-1 that matched the sentencing judge’s original intent, did not increase the sentence, and raised no federal constitutional issue under double jeopardy or due process. The court further noted that questions of state sentencing procedure generally do not support federal habeas intervention absent a clear constitutional violation.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved plaintiffs seeking attorney fees and costs after prevailing on their Administrative Procedure Act claim against federal defendants, with their lawyers being salaried employees of the American Federation of Government Employees union. The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to award $7,468.01 in fees and $653.33 in costs but limited recovery to the union's actual expenses rather than the market rate charged by private attorneys. The core reasoning was that awarding market rates would improperly grant a windfall profit to the non-profit union in violation of ABA ethical rules against fee-splitting and the unauthorized practice of law by lay organizations, as established in Federal Circuit precedents like Devine v. National Treasury Employees Union. The court also rejected automatic doubling for overhead, required proof of actual expenses incurred, and apportioned fees and costs only to the successful APA claim while excluding unsuccessful Bivens and § 1983 claims.

procedurelabor & employment

In Hanusiewicz v. Bowen, the plaintiff appealed the denial of Social Security disability benefits by the Secretary of Health and Human Services after an ALJ found he was not disabled despite claims of chemical poisoning, neuropathy, back injuries, and skin conditions from his prior work as a printing press operator. The district court examined whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that the plaintiff could perform the full range of light work. The court determined that the ALJ failed to adequately address non-exertional impairments, including restrictions on pushing, pulling, sitting or standing for extended periods, and environmental exposures, which could preclude application of the medical-vocational grids. The court therefore remanded the matter for further review and potential vocational expert testimony on job availability.

healthcare

The case involves plaintiff Pasquale LaCorte seeking judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of his application for disability insurance benefits, based on claims of disability from a heart condition, coronary artery disease, and panic attacks since October 1982. After initial denials, two administrative hearings, and a court remand, an Administrative Law Judge again found the plaintiff not disabled, a decision that became final. The District Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence from medical examinations, stress tests, physician reports, and vocational expert testimony supported the conclusion that the plaintiff's impairments were not disabling and that he retained the capacity for sedentary security work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

healthcarefederal power