Cases
Duane Sykes v. George Harms Construction Company, Inc.
Categories: Worker’s Compensation
The Appellate Division upheld a Worker’s Compensation Order denying petitioner medical and temporary benefits for injuries allegedly suffered in the course of his employment.
After a hearing, the Worker’s Compensation Judge found that based on the configuration of the excavator there was no opportunity for the petitioner’s head to have contacted the back of the cab…, rejecting the petitioner’s conjecture that the jolting of the excavator caused him to strike his head.
Concluding that there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the petitioner suffered the impact that he thinks he did to cause the injury to the shoulder and back the Judge found that the competent evidence in the record actually refuted it.
The Appellate Division’s review of the Worker’s Compensation holding is decidedly deferential and is limited to whether the findings made could have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record. The Appellate Division found that the petitioner presented no reasons to them to disturb the judge’s careful findings and thorough explanation of his reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s arguments.
Categories: Dismissal of Complaint
United States District Court Noel Hillman dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint due to not only their intentional delay of the case for nearly two years but also their demonstration of nothing but contempt for the Court’s Order. The Court noted their abject failure to produce their Rule 26 Disclosures shows a meaningful disinterest in litigating the matter and therefore, no lesser sanction than dismissal was warranted.
Categories: 4th Amendment Seizure, State Created Danger
Plaintiff’s paramour shot himself when Officer Troxell knocked on the door of the apartment where the paramour was and announced himself. Plaintiff filed suit on her own behalf and as administrator of her paramour’s estate, claiming Troxell and others involved violated the Constitution as well as a variety of state and federal statutes. All of the claims were dismissed by the District Court and the Plaintiff appealed. In the Appeal, the Third Circuit found that the District Court Judge was largely correct in its disposition of the case, but gave the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint with regard to one claim pertaining to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Court held that Troxell’s actions in knocking on the door and announcing himself was not a “seizure” so as to implicate a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court further found that Troxell’s actions did not cause a state created danger, specifically finding that his actions did not lack a degree of culpability that “shocks the conscience”. Any decision that the officers would have made at that time was not free from risk to the decedent, the other occupants of the apartment or the officers. Troxell’s actions were not a disregard of risk; rather, they involved a disagreement over how to manage it. Finally, the Court found that the Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to plead a compensable claim under the ADA. Finding that the ADA generally applies when police officers make an arrest, the Court held that the Plaintiff did not allege deliberate indifference by the Municipality and as such she would not be entitled to relief. Rather, the Plaintiff relied on general allegations that the Borough has a history of violating the civil rights of residents offering only hazy support for the same. Despite this, the Court found that the Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to cure her defects, amend her complaint and perhaps salvage her ADA claim against the Borough.
Jaffrey v. Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office, et al
Categories: Younger Abstention
After being charged with numerous acts of sexual misconduct, the Plaintiff sued alleging violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the defendants on the ground of Younger abstention and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Finding that the District Court correctly concluded that the three (3) requirements for Younger abstention were met: there were ongoing state criminal proceedings in the Superior Court of New Jersey that are judicial in nature; the state proceedings implicate the important state interest in prosecuting criminal behavior; and the state proceedings provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to raise federal constitutional defenses to prosecution. The Court further found that the prosecution was not undertaken in bad faith and there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting federal intervention.
B&M Auto Salvage and Towing, LLC., et. al. v. Township of Fairfield, et. al. (Opinion)
Category:
Due Process, Tortious Interference, Negligent Retention and Supervision
Terms:
Due Process, Tortious Interference, Negligent Retention and Supervision
Summary:
The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the US District Court alleging that a delay in the
Township of Fairfield’s issuance of an annual business license resulted in the Plaintiffs being unable
to close the sale of their business by the closing date established in the agreement of sale. The
Plaintiffs asserted claims for deprivation of substantive and procedural due process rights, as well as
state lay claims for negligent retention and supervision of an employee (deputy clerk) and tortious
interference with their contract of sale. In this Opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
Category:
Application for Business License
Terms:
Qualified Immunity; Law Enforcement Officers; Unlawfully Arrested
Summary:
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging it was denied a business license to operate an adult entertainment facility because the facility was a club where female performers dance partially covered, in violation of the First Amendment. United State District Court Judge Joseph E. Irenas granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that the Board Members denied the Plaintiff’s application for the business license on content-neutral grounds, the insufficiency of Plaintiff’s evidence concerning “continuous use”.
Category:
Equal Protection
Terms:
Violation of Equal Protection; Civil Conspiracy; Violation of Due
Process; Retaliation
Summary:
U.S. District Court decision regarding mining operation that claimed
the Township’s Planning Board was conspiring against them. Summary
Judgment was granted for the Defendant, but the Court noted that the
Equal Protection Claim and Civil Conspiracy Claim could be amended to
cure pleading deficiencies.
Gourley v. Township of Monroe (Brief)
Category:
Interlocutory Appeal
Terms:
Preliminary Injunction; Flooding
Summary:
Appellate Division Brief in Opposition to Motion to Leave for Appeal
regarding preliminary injunction.
Jeffrey P. Sarvas, Esquire (Article)
Category:
Litigation Hold
Terms:
Anticipation of Litigation
Summary:
Article regarding the Litigation Hold Requirements.
Pomykacz v. Borough of W. Wildwood (Brief)
Category:
Spoliation
Terms:
Fraudulent concealment; Photographs
Summary:
U.S. District Court Brief in Support of Motion to Seek Leave to Amend
Answer to include Counterclaim for Intentional Spoliation of Evidence
and Bad Faith and Negligent Spoliation regarding the destruction of
photographs.
Schirmer v. Penkethman (Opinion)
Category:
False Arrest; Malicious Prosecution
Terms:
Probable Cause
Summary:
U.S. District Court decision regarding Plaintiff-teacher accused of
inappropriately touching several students. Ultimately, the charges
were dismissed and the teacher alleged false arrest and malicious
prosecution. Summary Judgment was granted for the Defendants.
Macnow v. The City of Brigantine (Memorandum of Decision)
Category:
Quantum Meruit
Terms:
Quiet Title; Trespassing; Inverse Condemnation
Summary: N.J. Superior Court decision regarding Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as to Count III, alleging entitlement to compensation for the City’s use of Plaintiff’s property via a storm water drain pipe. The Court found that there was no contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, and the Defendant’s Motion was granted as to Count III.
El Aemer El Mujaddid v. Brewer, et. al. (Interoffice Memorandum)
Category: Pro Se Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Appointed Counsel
Terms: Pro se Plaintiff, Court Appointed Counsel, Tabron factors
Summary: This interoffice memorandum explores the following question, “[u]nder what circumstances can a pro se plaintiff have court-appointed counsel in a civil proceeding?” The memorandum is a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the case law relevant to the aforesaid question.
William Gaughan v. Deptford Township Municipal Utilities Authority (Opinion)
Category: Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA)
Terms: Retaliation; whistleblower; adverse employment action
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, against the Defendant for a CEPA claim, alleging that he was improperly and unlawfully suspended and had disciplinary charges filed against him in retaliation for him complaining about unlawful conduct of a fellow employee. Summary Judgment was granted in the Law Division, and the Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division’s ruling, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish the first and fourth elements of a CEPA claim: (1) reasonable belief that the employer’s conduct was in violation of a law, rule, or clear mandate of public policy, and (4) the whistleblowing activity was causally connected to the adverse action.
William A. Reed, Jr., et. al. v. Borough of Palmyra, et. al.
Category: Due Process Claim
Terms: Substantive Due Process, Municipal Ordinance Enforcement, Certificate of Occupancy, Protected Property Interest; Government Action
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, against the Borough of Palmyra and the Borough’s Mayor and Housing Official asserting substantive due process claims. The Plaintiff’s claim related to the Borough’s enforcement of a municipal ordinance related to inspection of residential properties and the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for residential properties. The Hon. Noel S. Hillman, U.S.D.J., granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that the Plaintiff failed to exhibit sufficient evidence of both elements of a substantive due process claim: (1) deprivation of a protected property interest, and (2) that a state actor acted with a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience.