Dennis M. Cavanaugh

This case concerns Eli Lilly's U.S. Patent No. 5,658,590, which claims a method of treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder by administering tomoxetine (atomoxetine), the active ingredient in Lilly's Strattera product. Generic drug manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking to market generic versions and certified under paragraph IV that the patent was invalid or unenforceable. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendants. The decision rested on findings that the patent failed to meet the utility requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and related enablement standards, as the specification did not provide sufficient evidence that a person of ordinary skill would accept the claimed therapeutic effects without further testing.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves Eli Lilly & Co. suing several generic drug manufacturers for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,658,590, which covers methods of treating ADHD with atomoxetine. The defendants filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications to market generic versions and challenged the patent's validity and enforceability on grounds including inequitable conduct, anticipation, lack of enablement, obviousness, and non-infringement. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, granting in part the plaintiff's motion regarding no inequitable conduct, denying summary judgment on enablement and obviousness due to factual disputes, and analyzing indirect infringement after finding no direct infringement by the defendants.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case involved Plaintiff Tyrone Menter's request for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after a Social Security disability benefits claim was remanded following appeals. The court granted the application in part, awarding $8,753.90 in fees and $455 in costs rather than the full requested amount of over $17,000. The core reasoning was that the claimed 124 hours were excessive for a routine Social Security case, as typical expenditures are 20-40 hours and even adjusted amounts in slightly complex matters fall short of the inefficient time spent on briefing and review by experienced counsel and law students.

federal powerprocedure

The case concerned a motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after the plaintiff prevailed in a Social Security appeal. Plaintiff, represented pro bono by Rutgers Urban Legal Clinic, sought fees for work by counsel and law students. The government argued fees should be paid only to the prevailing party to allow offset of any delinquent debts owed by the plaintiff. The court granted fees of $30,217.95 directly to pro bono counsel. It reasoned that Third Circuit precedent requires awards to go to such counsel to avoid windfalls to plaintiffs and that the government had not shown its position was substantially justified.

procedurefederal power

In Raspa v. Home Depot, plaintiffs Antonio and Patricia Raspa sued Home Depot in New Jersey state court after Antonio was attacked and bitten by a raccoon while shopping there, claiming severe physical and emotional injuries along with loss of consortium, without specifying a damages amount. Defendant removed the case to federal district court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the amount in controversy likely exceeded $75,000. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the defendant had not shown to a legal certainty that the jurisdictional threshold was met. The court denied the motion to remand, applying the standards clarified in Frederico v. Home Depot for determining the amount in controversy in removal cases and finding that the defendant had satisfied its burden.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, former Quest Diagnostics employees Douglas Boyle and Anthony Gouveia sued the company for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after they reported material errors in financial projections related to Quest's acquisition of Unilab, which they claimed led to retaliation including diminished roles, exclusion from meetings, and constructive termination. The plaintiffs had also asserted a claim under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) for whistleblower retaliation. The court granted Quest's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the breach of contract claims alleging wrongful termination and the implied covenant claim because they were waived by the CEPA claim as they arose from the same retaliatory facts. However, the court denied dismissal of the breach of contract claim regarding Quest's alleged failure to promote Boyle to Regional Vice President and failure to pay amounts due under the contracts, finding those claims required different proofs than the CEPA claim and were not waived.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) between the Ringwood Board of Education and a parent over the appropriate educational placement for a student with disabilities, K.F.J. After the district court ruled in favor of the school board—finding that the district could provide a free appropriate public education in its own schools and ordering a new IEP—the parent appealed to the Third Circuit and sought to maintain the student's current placement at the private Banyon School. The court granted the parent's motion for a stay pending appeal, requiring the district to continue funding tuition and transportation at Banyon School during the appeal process. The core reasoning was that the IDEA's stay-put provision (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)) functions as an automatic injunction preserving the status quo educational placement throughout administrative and judicial proceedings, including appeals, without requiring the usual preliminary injunction analysis.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection sued Exxon Mobil Corporation in state court under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, seeking cleanup and removal costs plus damages for alleged injuries to natural resources from discharges at sites in Bayonne and Linden. Exxon removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), asserting that certain World War II production activities occurred under federal direction, and alternatively under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) based on admiralty or federal enclave jurisdiction. NJDEP moved to remand, and after considering timeliness and the statutory requirements for removal, the court granted the motion and returned the case to New Jersey Superior Court.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved whether the estate of a deceased qui tam relator under the False Claims Act could recover a percentage of a government settlement and attorney's fees after the relator filed a complaint alleging false claims to the government but died before resolution. The court decided that both the relator's share of the recovery and the claim for reasonable attorney's fees survived his death. The core reasoning was that, under federal common law, the FCA action is remedial rather than penal, as supported by Supreme Court precedent in Cook County v. Chandler emphasizing the compensatory and incentive aspects of the qui tam provisions and treble damages, along with legislative history promoting relator participation. The court distinguished contrary precedent and found the attorney's fees provision similarly remedial as reimbursement for initiating the action.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns applications by prevailing plaintiffs Interfaith Community Organization and ECARG for an award of attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and litigation costs against Honeywell under Section 7002(e) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act following a judgment on their RCRA citizen-suit claims. The court applied the lodestar method—multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate—to calculate the award, while examining issues including whether the two plaintiffs' fee requests were duplicative for the same work, whether New Jersey or Washington D.C. rates should apply, and whether the claimed hours were reasonable. The court reasoned that only non-duplicative, reasonably incurred fees and costs could be shifted to the defendant, consistent with precedent requiring prevailing parties to exclude redundant or excessive time from their petitions.

environmentprocedure

This case concerned an action by community and citizen plaintiffs against Honeywell International and other defendants to compel remediation of chromium ore processing residue contamination at Study Area 7, a former disposal site in Jersey City, New Jersey, adjacent to the Hackensack River. After a bench trial, the court found that the site presented an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment due to the presence of toxic hexavalent chromium throughout the COPR waste deposited by Mutual Chemical Company of America from 1895 to 1954. The court held that the appropriate remedy was excavation, removal, treatment of the hazardous material, and restoration with clean fill, and determined that Honeywell, as the corporate successor to Mutual, was liable for performing the remediation and bearing the associated costs under CERCLA and related statutes.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

In this Bivens action, plaintiff Patricia Hurn, an African-American woman, alleged that U.S. Customs officials at Newark Airport subjected her to an improper pat-down and strip search upon her return from Jamaica, violating her rights to equal protection, freedom from unreasonable searches, privacy, and due process, and also asserted related tort claims under the FTCA. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. It held that the searches were lawful because Customs officials had reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances, including the plaintiff's cash ticket purchases, lack of a passport, a TECS record flagging her as a credit-card-fraud suspect, apparent nervousness, loose clothing, and her ability to afford the trip despite working through a temporary agency. The court further found no evidence of discriminatory animus and concluded that the officials acted within their broad discretion to conduct border searches.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

This case concerns an environmental cleanup action brought by Interfaith Community Organization and other plaintiffs against Honeywell International, Inc., the Grace defendants, Ecarg, Inc., and others, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to address chromium ore processing residue contamination at Study Area 7 in Jersey City, New Jersey, stemming from operations by Mutual Chemical Company. The opinion resolves multiple pending motions, including cross-motions for summary judgment on the defendants' third amended cross-claims involving issues of liability, statutes of limitations, contribution, and defenses under state law, as well as requests for a stay in a consolidated action, application of law of the case, and reconsideration of a prior opinion. The court granted the Grace defendants' motion for partial summary judgment dismissing Honeywell's cross-claims, granted a stay of proceedings in the related Hackensack Riverkeeper matter, denied several other summary judgment motions by the parties, partially granted and denied Honeywell's motion, denied the law-of-the-case application, and upon reconsideration reversed itself in part on certain prior rulings.

environmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by the Interfaith Community Organization and individual plaintiffs seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to require cleanup of chromium ore processing residue contamination at Study Area 7, a site in Jersey City, New Jersey, under CERCLA and related state and federal laws. The contamination originated from waste generated by a chromate chemical facility formerly operated by a Honeywell predecessor, with portions of the site owned or connected to defendants including the Roned Realty companies. On the Roned defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in full as to Roned Realty of Union, Inc., dismissing it from the case due to lack of any connection to the site. As to Roned Realty of Jersey City, Inc., the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiffs' primary claim and certain Honeywell cross-claims but granted it on other cross-claims and the Grace defendants' contribution claim, based on the extent of Roned-JC's ownership interest and potential liability for the contamination.

environmentprocedure

This case involves a citizen suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) brought by Interfaith Community Organization and individual plaintiffs against Honeywell International and other defendants, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to require cleanup of chromium contamination at the Roosevelt Drive In site in Jersey City, New Jersey. The court addressed motions concerning standing and liability, denying Honeywell's motion to dismiss the RCRA claim for lack of standing, granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on standing, and denying the joint motion by Interfaith and the Grace Defendants for partial summary judgment establishing Honeywell's liability as a matter of law. The court's decision on standing rested on its review of the parties' submissions and the requirements of RCRA's citizen suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972, which allows actions against contributors to solid or hazardous waste that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment. The denial of the liability motion left factual issues regarding Honeywell's contribution to the contamination unresolved for further proceedings.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a motion by defendant American Cyanamid to disqualify the law firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis from representing plaintiff Rohm and Haas in consolidated actions arising from hazardous waste contamination at the Picillo site in Rhode Island. The parties had previously been jointly represented by Deming Sherman in earlier liability proceedings and had participated together in negotiations over cleanup costs with other responsible parties. American Cyanamid argued that the Schnader firm’s current representation created a conflict because of its access to confidential information from the prior joint work. The court denied the disqualification motion, holding that an actual conflict existed but that American Cyanamid’s undue delay in raising the issue amounted to a waiver of its right to seek disqualification.

procedureenvironment

This case involved a challenge by several couples, with one spouse in long-term care, to New Jersey Medicaid policies that treated Community Spouse Annuity Trusts (CSATs) as countable resources for eligibility determinations, leading to denials of coverage for institutional care costs. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the state's treatment of the trusts violated federal Medicaid law under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p et seq., that the state failed to promulgate required undue hardship waiver procedures, and that requiring the state to be named first remainder beneficiary was impermissibly restrictive. The court denied the motion in full, relying on prior findings that the state's policy was a permissible construction of federal law consistent with HCFA guidelines, that equitable estoppel and rulemaking claims did not support relief, and that any potential violations regarding waivers or beneficiary designations did not warrant immediate intervention. The decision emphasized that the trusts were properly included as resources and that plaintiffs had not shown entitlement to the requested declarations or injunctions.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a motion to remand an action filed in New Jersey state court by the Caldwell Trucking PRP Group against Caldwell Trucking Company and related defendants. Plaintiffs sought contribution for costs incurred in settling government claims and cleaning up a contaminated site, asserting seven counts under state statutes such as the New Jersey Spill Act and common-law theories including restitution and nuisance. Defendants removed the matter to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, contending that count III effectively presented a federal CERCLA claim. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the well-pleaded complaint rule controlled and that plaintiffs had relied exclusively on state law, so no federal-question jurisdiction existed to support removal.

environmentprocedure