Mitchell Harry Cohen

In Sandom v. Travelers Mortgage Services, Inc., former Vice President Vanessa Sandom alleged that her employer TMS and several executive supervisors discriminated against her on the basis of sex by denying her equal title, salary, benefits, and commissions compared to male employees, subjected her to sexual harassment after she disclosed her pregnancy, eliminated her responsibilities upon return from maternity leave, and terminated her in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge. She asserted claims under Title VII for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge, the federal Equal Pay Act, and New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the CEPA claim because precedent established that retaliation for filing an EEOC charge is not actionable under the statute, dismissing the sexual harassment claim for failure to raise it in the EEOC charge, but denying dismissal of the remaining Title VII retaliation claim and Equal Pay Act claim as to the individual defendants because they shared a sufficient identity of interest with the named corporate employer and exercised operational control.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a lender liability action brought by Tuxedo Beach Club Corp. and its president against City Federal Savings Bank alleging breach of contract, fraud, and related torts for the bank's failure to provide promised additional funding for a condominium construction project after an initial loan was made. After City Federal failed and the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was appointed receiver under FIRREA, the RTC intervened and the court considered motions including partial summary judgment and dismissal. The court held that claims based on oral promises or side agreements are barred by the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) because they were not properly documented in the bank's records, but indicated that consumer fraud claims might proceed if supported by a qualifying written agreement.

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liability

The case involved a New Jersey resident suing Florida-based medical providers for negligence and medical malpractice allegedly occurring during her birth in Florida in 1970. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens, while the plaintiff sought transfer to a Florida federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court found no personal jurisdiction over the defendants in New Jersey but held that transfer was inappropriate because the claim would be time-barred under Florida law and its statute of limitations policies. Accordingly, the court granted the motions to dismiss and denied the transfer request.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a defamation lawsuit brought by Michael Donio against Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Harvey for statements made to a newspaper about Donio's guilty plea to distributing child pornography. After the case was removed to federal court and the United States substituted as defendant under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, the government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the United States is immune from liability for defamation claims, and Harvey was acting within the scope of his employment when making the statements.

procedurefederal powertorts & liabilitycriminal law

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Tuxedo Beach Club Corporation and Edmund C. Wideman, III against City Federal Savings Bank for failing to provide additional funding for a condominium development project. After the bank was placed into receivership under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) with the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) appointed, the defendant sought a 180-day stay of the proceedings to allow for administrative claims processing. The court granted the stay, holding that despite ambiguous statutory language, the legislative history of FIRREA indicates that claimants must exhaust administrative procedures before continuing judicial actions, requiring a 180-day period for the receiver to process claims.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a patron at Harrah’s Marina Hotel Casino who allegedly swallowed glass chips from a complimentary alcoholic beverage served at a gaming table, leading to claims of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability against the casino operator. The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant on the express warranty claim, finding no evidence of any affirmation, promise, description, or sample regarding the beverage. It denied summary judgment on the implied warranty and strict liability claims, reasoning that the drink was served as part of the casino's business operations to encourage gambling, making strict liability applicable even without a formal sale because the defendant was better positioned to ensure the safety of the glassware and the policy of strict liability supports imposing costs on those creating the risk.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a breach of franchise contract dispute between New Jersey plaintiffs and an Arizona defendant over termination of a 1986 agreement granting an exclusive territory for an electronic graphics and printing business. Plaintiffs filed suit in New Jersey state court alleging fraudulent inducement and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Franchise Practices Act, while the defendant sought to enforce the agreement's arbitration clauses requiring proceedings in Arizona under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court granted the defendant's motion to stay the federal proceedings pending arbitration in Arizona and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to stay arbitration or compel it in New Jersey. It reasoned that the Act applies to this interstate commerce contract and mandates enforcement of the arbitration provisions, with doubts about waiver resolved in favor of arbitration, though it stayed rather than dismissed the case to allow for potential later proceedings if arbitration is found waived.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This breach of contract case involved plaintiffs Tuxedo Beach Club Corp. and Edmund C. Wideman III suing defendant City Federal Savings Bank for failing to provide agreed-upon funding for a 68-unit condominium construction project, leaving the half-built site vulnerable to damage. After the Office of Thrift Supervision appointed the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) as receiver for the failed bank under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), the RTC moved for a 90-day stay of the proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(12). The court denied the stay, reasoning that the RTC had already had two months to review the matter, the litigation had not yet advanced, and imposing a stay would cause unnecessary economic waste and irreparable harm to the project in a manner inconsistent with the statute's purpose of allowing the receiver reasonable time to orient itself without mandating delay in all circumstances.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a contract dispute between Associated Business Telephone Systems Corp., which installed and managed a telephone system at the Sheraton O’Hare Hotel owned by Greater Capital Corp., and the hotel’s owners, involving billing disagreements that escalated into claims of breach of contract and conversion by the plaintiff, along with counterclaims by the defendants. Following a jury trial, verdicts awarded the plaintiff over $1.37 million in compensatory damages against Greater Capital and $400,000 in punitive damages against individual defendants Mark and Steven Cohn, while finding no cause of action on the counterclaims. The defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or remittitur, primarily challenging the sufficiency of evidence, the award of punitive damages, and alleged trial errors under Illinois law, which governed the agreement. The court denied the motions, concluding that the verdicts were adequately supported by the record, that punitive damages were permissible alongside compensatory awards, and that no prejudicial errors justified overturning the results or ordering a new trial or reduction in damages.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a challenge under the Social Security Act to the Secretary of Health and Human Services' final determination of the onset date of disability for awarding disability insurance benefits to plaintiff Joseph T. McAdams, who alleged disability due to recurring blood clots and related mental impairments starting February 11, 1984. After multiple administrative hearings and remands, the Appeals Council modified an ALJ's recommended onset date of February 14, 1984, to a later date of December 20, 1984, based on combined physical and mental impairments. The court reversed the Secretary's decision and directed an award of benefits reflecting the earlier onset date. The core reasoning was that the Secretary applied erroneous legal standards, the determination was against the substantial weight of the competent medical evidence, and further administrative proceedings would be unfair and unnecessary.

healthcarefederal power

This case involves former employees of a bankrupt Atlantic City casino suing their employer for violating the federal WARN Act by failing to provide 60 days' notice before a permanent shutdown of operations, breaching contracts for promised retroactive pay benefits, and violating the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the WARN Act and contract claims but granted it on the wage law claim. The reasoning was that the employees qualified as affected workers under WARN since the casino closure was a plant closing with no expectation of recall, the conservator appointed by regulators did not assume employer status or WARN obligations, and retroactive benefits did not meet the statutory definition of wages under state law.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a union's claim under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act against a casino operator for laying off employees without 60 days' advance notice after the New Jersey Casino Control Commission ordered gaming operations to cease. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that a state-appointed conservator had assumed the role of employer and any associated WARN obligations upon appointment. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the conservator exercised only limited regulatory oversight and did not continue or control day-to-day business operations, so the original operators remained responsible for providing the required notice.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In this case, Boardwalk Regency Corporation, owner of Caesars casino, sued Dr. Sheldon Karabell in New Jersey state court to recover exactly $50,000 in unpaid gambling markers after he lost that amount in about 80 minutes. Karabell, a Pennsylvania resident, removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, prompting the plaintiff to move for remand on the ground that the amount in controversy did not meet the statutory threshold. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 the amount in controversy must exceed $50,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and a complaint seeking precisely $50,000 falls short of that requirement. The decision rested on the well-pleaded complaint rule and precedent establishing that the jurisdictional amount is strictly construed, with the removal having occurred after the effective date of the 1988 amendment raising the threshold from $10,000.

procedurefederal power

This case involves a New Jersey casino operator suing a Pennsylvania resident for $43,000 in unpaid gambling markers plus related benefits, originally filed in New Jersey state court. The defendant removed the action to federal court and moved to transfer it to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, prompting the plaintiff's motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction. The court granted the remand, holding that it lacked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy fell below the $50,000 threshold applicable to actions removed after May 18, 1989. The decision rested on the statutory requirement that federal courts possess original jurisdiction at the time of removal, which was not satisfied here regardless of the parties' citizenship.

procedure

The case concerned competing breach of contract claims between Camden Iron, a scrap metal seller, and Bomar, a buyer, arising from two November 1986 agreements for the sale of thousands of tons of steel scrap under FOBST terms. Camden alleged Bomar supplied an unseaworthy vessel incapable of proper loading, while Bomar counterclaimed that Camden unilaterally refused to perform and caused vessel detention damages. After a bench trial, the court assessed witness credibility, trade usages in the maritime industry, and UCC rules on contract formation, modifications, and substitute performance to determine whether valid contracts existed and which party bore responsibility for nonperformance.

business & regulatory

The case involved GNOC Corp., operating as the Golden Nugget casino in Atlantic City, suing defendant Shmuel Aboud to recover an alleged $28,000 unpaid gambling debt from his February-March 1985 stay. Aboud counterclaimed against the casino and third-party defendant doctors for $250,000 in gambling losses plus punitive damages, alleging negligence, over-service of alcohol, pressure to gamble while intoxicated, and medical malpractice in prescribing narcotics without examinations. The casino moved for partial summary judgment on respondeat superior liability, punitive damages, and ordinary negligence, while the doctors sought to dismiss punitive claims against them. The court denied all motions, reasoning that material factual disputes remained in the record and that issues such as scope of employment, ratification, and the doctors' conduct required jury resolution at trial rather than decision as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involves plaintiffs Teresa and Warren Schroeder suing Boeing for injuries Teresa sustained in an accident on a Boeing plane while working as a flight attendant. Warren seeks damages for loss of consortium, but the injury occurred before their marriage, though they were engaged and married soon after. The court, bound by New Jersey law from Mead v. Baum, held that a loss of consortium claim requires the parties to be married at the time of the injury, and thus granted the motion to dismiss Warren's per quod claim.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

In this products liability case, plaintiff Francis LaRose, a New Jersey sign maintenance worker, sued multiple defendants including Reece Supply Co. after suffering severe injuries when a defective aerial ladder truck he was using collapsed. Reece, a Texas-based company, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing it had no minimum contacts with New Jersey and had not purposefully availed itself of the forum. The court found that Reece lacked sufficient contacts, rejecting the stream-of-commerce theory because Reece operated as a local distributor whose sales territory did not include New Jersey and any involvement in the sale was indirect. Accordingly, the court held there was no in personam jurisdiction and transferred the claims against Reece to the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerns a construction dispute over the McKinley Apartments complex in Atlantic City, New Jersey, financed in part by the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency. Berel, the general contractor, sued owner Sencit for breach of contract seeking payment for unapproved change orders and extra work, while Sencit, architect Sullivan, and others brought related claims; Berel and Sullivan also asserted direct claims against the Agency in contract and tort. The Agency moved to dismiss those claims, and Berel moved for partial summary judgment against Sencit. The court analyzed whether an implied contract or third-party beneficiary relationship existed between Berel and the Agency, the applicability of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act to the tort claims, and the contractual obligations among the parties under the various agreements.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case is a personal injury lawsuit brought by Violet Irene Nebel against the owners of the Airport Motor Inn after she and her husband were robbed at gunpoint and knife-point in their motel room in Atlantic City, New Jersey, resulting in Mr. Nebel being shot. The plaintiffs alleged negligent security, including failures to provide working door locks, security patrols, perimeter fencing, surveillance cameras, and warnings about prior robberies. At trial, the jury found the defendants negligent but determined that this negligence was not a proximate cause of the incident and injuries, leading to a judgment of no cause for action. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, arguing that the jury's proximate cause finding was against the weight of the evidence presented by their security expert and other witnesses. The court analyzed the motion by reviewing the trial evidence, the jury instructions on proximate cause, and precedents on negligent security claims, emphasizing the high bar for overturning a jury verdict on weight-of-the-evidence grounds.

torts & liabilityprocedure