William H. Walls

This case involves a proposed nationwide class action filed in New Jersey federal court by consumers alleging that Unilever's Breyers ice cream was deceptively labeled 'all natural' despite containing chemically processed alkalized cocoa, asserting claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. A nearly identical class action (Thurston v. Conopco) had been filed three days earlier in the Northern District of California, along with a related case involving another Unilever brand. Defendant Unilever moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer the New Jersey action under the first-filed rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court granted transfer to the Northern District of California, finding the actions substantially similar in parties, claims, and facts, that the first-filed rule applied, and that transfer served convenience and the interests of justice while granting plaintiffs leave to refile if the California action was dismissed on procedural grounds.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned independent truck owner-operators who leased their equipment and services to All Saints Express, Inc., and alleged that the company's leases violated multiple provisions of the Federal Truth in Leasing Regulations. After the court issued a 2010 permanent injunction requiring compliance, the plaintiffs sought contempt sanctions, claiming All Saints' proposed new leases remained non-compliant, particularly regarding insurance obligations and documentation. The court found that All Saints' proposed leases needed targeted revisions, such as explicit language stating the carrier's duty to maintain public liability insurance under 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(j)(1), but that the leases would satisfy the regulations once amended. It therefore ordered All Saints to execute revised leases meeting those standards by February 4, 2011, while deferring a final contempt ruling and setting briefing on an arbitration clause.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involved negligence claims by truck driver Bradley Flint against IMTT-Bayonne and fellow driver Jeffrey Jackson stemming from an incident in which a corrosive chemical was loaded into an aluminum trailer instead of a stainless steel one, became contaminated, and required an emergency transfer between trucks at a highway stop. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment to both IMTT and Jackson on the negligence claims. The court found IMTT had no liability for the loading process and determined that Flint's claim against Jackson was barred because both drivers qualified as employees of Langer Transport Corp. under New Jersey workers' compensation law. The court reached the employment conclusion by applying the control test and the relative nature of the work test, noting Langer's direction of routes and schedules as well as the drivers' exclusive work for the company. Langer's motion on cross-claims was denied as moot.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In Gudiel-Soto v. United States, the petitioner sought a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his 1998 conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The court denied the petition, holding that although Padilla v. Kentucky established that such advice is required, the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The reasoning centered on the petitioner's admission of guilt, the overwhelming evidence against him, and the highly favorable sentence he received due to his cooperation, making it unlikely he would have proceeded to trial.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Ward, defendant David James Ward, who had pled guilty in 1996 to kidnapping after abducting and repeatedly sexually assaulting a victim over several days across multiple states, moved pro se in 2010 to correct his 1997 sentence of 720 months' imprisonment and for the sentencing judge to recuse himself. The court denied both motions, holding that there was no authority under 28 U.S.C. § 452, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, or 18 U.S.C. § 3582 to reopen or reduce the sentence, particularly as Ward had been repeatedly warned during his plea that he faced up to life imprisonment and possible guideline departures for factors like multiple acts of sexual abuse. On recusal, the court found that Ward's filing of a commercial lien against the judge in state court did not establish bias under Third Circuit precedent. The opinion notes this was Ward's third post-conviction challenge to his sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves independent truck owner-operators who leased their equipment and driving services to All Saints Express, Inc., which in turn provided transportation services exclusively for St. George Warehouse, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that their lease agreements violated the federal Truth in Leasing Regulations (49 C.F.R. § 376) by omitting required provisions on compensation amounts and documentation, lease duration, workers' compensation insurance, and charge-backs, and they sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 49 U.S.C. § 14704. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, granting them in part and denying them in part after reviewing whether All Saints qualified as a motor carrier subject to the regulations and whether the agreements met the regulatory requirements. Core reasoning focused on the application of the regulations to the parties' arrangements, the content of the leases and any addenda, and the relationship between All Saints and St. George, including whether St. George was an affiliate exempt from certain obligations.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involves plaintiffs in an employment discrimination action against Johnson & Johnson who moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 60(a) for additional findings and holdings to supplement a prior opinion denying their renewed motion for class certification. The court denied the motion, finding that the two practices plaintiffs claimed were overlooked—failure to monitor the performance appraisal system and failure to post job vacancies uniformly—had already been considered at oral argument and in prior rulings. The court reasoned that these practices did not identify a common, excessively subjective employment policy across the diverse proposed class as required for certification under Rule 23(a), and that plaintiffs had not met their burden to demonstrate commonality or manageability. The decision reaffirmed earlier holdings that the occupational diversity of the class undermined allegations of a shared policy or practice.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which Liberty Insurance Corporation sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend its insureds, Tinplate Purchasing Corporation, Trakloc North America, LLC, and David Jablow, in an underlying California lawsuit brought by Pacific Roll-forming, LLC. The underlying complaint alleged breach of license agreements, defamation, tortious interference, and related claims arising from business dealings over a drywall framing system. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the duty to defend, while Liberty cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims fell outside policy coverage or were subject to exclusions and that late notice of the suit (after sixteen months) caused no prejudice. The court granted Liberty's motion and denied the defendants', holding that the policy exclusions applied and that the insurer was not estopped from denying coverage because the defendants had controlled their own defense and settlement negotiations without reasonable reliance on Liberty. The court also denied Liberty's motion to strike portions of a certification as moot.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this trademark dispute, plaintiff CSC Holdings (doing business as Cablevision), an ISP and provider of telecommunications services, sued defendants Optimum Networks, Inc. and its founder Frank Aznar, alleging that their use of "Optimum" designations and the domain OptimumISP.com in connection with ISP services infringed plaintiff's federally registered and incontestable OPTIMUM marks, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. The complaint asserted claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and cybersquatting under the Lanham Act, as well as unfair competition under New Jersey law. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing they were first users of the phrase and that "optimum" is merely a descriptive term not entitled to protection. The court denied the motion, accepting as true the allegations that the mark is registered and incontestable (making it valid and presumptively strong), and finding that the complaint states plausible claims for relief under the Iqbal and Twombly standards.

business & regulatory

The case involved Cargill Global Trading, as holder of a mortgage-backed security, suing Essex & Sussex Associates and related entities for breach of contract, conversion, and tortious interference after Essex defaulted on a HUD-insured loan, obtained a HUD override of prepayment restrictions, prepaid the balance, and converted the senior living facility to condominiums, resulting in Cargill losing about $4 million in expected interest. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendants on all claims. It reasoned that Cargill failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant breached a duty of good faith, acted wrongfully or in bad faith by seeking the HUD override rather than paying a premium to Cargill, or caused Cargill's loss, as opposed to potentially greater losses if the property had failed without prepayment.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between credit card holder Joy Cohen and Chase Bank over amendments to the Cardmember Agreement that added binding arbitration provisions for resolving disputes. Cohen, who had opened an account in 1994 and continued using the card after receiving mailed notices of changes in 1998 and 2005, challenged the validity and enforceability of these arbitration clauses. The court denied Cohen's motion for summary judgment and granted Chase's, holding that Delaware law permitted the amendments via bill-stuffer notices and that the arbitration agreements were valid and enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The core reasoning centered on the agreement's explicit terms allowing amendments, Cohen's receipt and continued use of the card as acceptance, and the absence of any unconscionability or procedural defects in the notices.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Champion Laboratories' post-trial motion under Federal Rules 52 and 59 for reconsideration of an August 2009 bench trial decision in its CERCLA and state common law claims against Metex Corporation over alleged groundwater contamination at the Interlee Site. The court had previously found that Champion failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it incurred necessary response costs consistent with the national contingency plan, that its settlement allowed contribution under CERCLA Section 113(f), or that contamination had migrated from Metex's property. Champion argued the court overlooked NJDEP correspondence and testimony supporting migration of contaminants. The court denied the motion, holding that reconsideration was unwarranted because Champion identified no dispositive factual or legal matter overlooked and the NJDEP materials did not unambiguously establish Metex's responsibility as claimed.

environmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs including Trustcash Holdings, Inc. and its shareholders sued defendants Gregory Moss and Ayuda Funding Corp. for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that Ayuda participated in a scheme of sham recourse loans collateralized by Trustcash shares to allow Moss, an affiliate, to evade Rule 144 volume limits and holding periods when selling stock into the market. Ayuda moved to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims against Ayuda with prejudice, holding that plaintiffs lacked standing as non-purchasers to bring private actions under Sections 12 and 17(a) of the Securities Act, that non-purchasers or non-sellers lack standing for injunctive relief under Rule 10b-5, and that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a Rule 10b-5 violation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Alla Granovsky's state court lawsuit against Pfizer and Kforce alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, and related claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, plus tortious interference and violation of public policy, stemming from her termination after an EEO complaint about a hostile work environment. Pfizer removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but Granovsky moved to remand, arguing the removal violated the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446, including the rule of unanimity. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that although Pfizer's notice of removal was timely filed within 30 days of service, Kforce failed to file its consent until after the deadline, rendering the removal defective. The court rejected defendants' arguments that the amount in controversy was unclear or that service was improper, finding the complaint itself established the jurisdictional threshold and that service triggered the removal clock. No attorney's fees were awarded because the removal attempt was based on a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case arose from a dispute over ownership interests in Crystex Composites LLC, a company formed to acquire assets of a bankrupt manufacturer. Plaintiff John Murray, who helped assemble investors and arrange the purchase, claimed he was entitled to a managing member stake but was voted out after failing to contribute promised funds and engaging in alleged misconduct; he sued Crystex in federal court on claims including breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It held that New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine barred the action because Murray's ownership claims were directly implicated in a prior state court proceeding between the same parties, where he unreasonably failed to assert them, causing potential prejudice to the defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a motion for reconsideration by several defendant sheriff's department officials in a lawsuit brought by former officer Ivan, who alleged sexual harassment by supervisors including inappropriate comments, differential treatment, and indifference to complaints. The underlying claims at issue on reconsideration are aiding and abetting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and violations of equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denied the motion, finding that the intervening New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Cicchetti v. Morris County Sheriff's Office did not alter the relevant legal standards for individual liability or require revisiting the denial of summary judgment. No new evidence was presented, and defendants identified no clear error of law or fact in the prior ruling that would justify reconsideration.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case is a civil enforcement action by the SEC against former Lucent executives alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through improper revenue recognition on telecommunications equipment sales in fiscal year 2000. The SEC claimed that the defendants authorized verbal side agreements, credits, or return assurances to distributors that created substantial doubt about collectibility, rendering revenue recognition improper under GAAP and causing material overstatements of pre-tax income in SEC filings. The court granted Aversano’s motion for partial summary judgment on the primary Section 10(b) violation claim, granted Dorn’s motion on the primary violation but denied it on aiding and abetting and other counts, granted Carter and Hayes-Bullock summary judgment on the first, third, and fourth counts but denied it on the fifth count, and denied the motion to strike the SEC’s accounting expert reports. These rulings turned on the absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendants’ roles in financial reporting, scienter, and good-faith defenses, while finding triable issues on certain aiding-and-abetting and control-person claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves two female sheriffs officers who alleged they were subjected to repeated sexual harassment by male supervisors and colleagues in the Middlesex County Sheriff's Department, along with broader claims that department policies and customs unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender under federal and state law. The plaintiffs sought damages and other relief for specific incidents involving verbal abuse, unwanted physical contact, and differential treatment, as well as challenges to practices such as gender-based prisoner transport assignments. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the defendants' motions in part and denied them in part while denying the plaintiffs' motion. The rulings rested on an assessment of the evidence regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment, the adequacy of the department's remedial actions, and the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' discrimination and retaliation theories.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson, four former African American and Hispanic employees sued the company alleging racial discrimination in compensation and promotions through excessively subjective practices, seeking to represent a class of about 8,600 similar employees across 35 operating companies. The court denied the motion for class certification. Plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(a) requirements of commonality, typicality, and adequacy because the company's decentralized management meant employment decisions varied by subsidiary without a uniform policy or practice affecting the entire proposed class.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a parent suing the South Orange-Maplewood School District over its Policy 2270 and related implementation, which barred religious music including Christmas carols and Hanukkah songs from school concerts and prohibited celebrations of religious holidays while allowing objective teaching about religious traditions. The plaintiff claimed the restrictions sent a message of government disapproval of and hostility toward religion, violating the Establishment Clause. The district court granted summary judgment to the school board defendants and denied the plaintiff's motion. The court reasoned that the policy's text and application demonstrated a purpose of religious neutrality and inclusivity for students of all beliefs, not hostility, by broadly prohibiting devotional activities and holiday-focused performances without targeting any specific religion.

religious libertycivil rights