Joseph A. Greenaway jr

This case involves a citizen suit brought by environmental organizations against PPG Industries under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), alleging that the company's past operations at a chrome production facility in Jersey City contributed to hexavalent chromium contamination that may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. The defendant moved for summary judgment, abstention, or a stay, primarily arguing that a prior state court Consent Judgment between PPG and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection resolved the issues and barred the federal claims. The court denied the motion in full. It reasoned that the Consent Judgment did not constitute a statutory bar to the RCRA citizen suit under 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(2)(C), that principles of full faith and credit and res judicata did not apply due to jurisdictional requirements, and that abstention was not warranted on the facts presented.

environmentprocedure

In United States v. Crandell, the defendant moved to suppress a handgun recovered during a police stop and frisk in a housing project, initiated by an anonymous tip describing a man matching his appearance carrying a weapon. The court determined that Crandell was seized under the Fourth Amendment when officers approached, stopped him, and surrounded him while stating their intent to conduct a pat-down. Because the anonymous tip did not provide reasonable suspicion and the encounter was not consensual, the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, tainting the recovered evidence as its fruit and requiring suppression.

criminal lawgunsprocedurecivil rights

This case involves an employment retaliation claim brought by plaintiff Douglas Palmer against his former employer UMDNJ and supervisor Dr. Esrig under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act, along with related state common-law claims for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference. Plaintiff alleged he faced retaliation, including negative references to a prospective employer, after reporting improper medical billing practices. The federal district court addressed a motion to remand the case to New Jersey Superior Court after removal. The court granted the remand motion and sua sponte remanded the entire action, holding that the well-pleaded complaint rule precluded federal-question jurisdiction because the state-law claims did not present a substantial federal issue and counterclaims could not create removal jurisdiction.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a commercial dispute in which Petri Paint ordered SKINO #2, an anti-skinning agent, from OMG Americas but received a mislabeled drum containing a different calcium dryer product instead. Petri used the incorrect chemical in its polyurethane manufacturing process, leading to defective products, customer complaints, and claimed damages including lost reputation and business. Petri sued OMG on claims including strict liability, breach of warranties, negligence, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On OMG's motion for summary judgment to limit remedies based on its invoice terms and conditions, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after reviewing the formation of the sales contract, the conspicuousness of any limitations, and relevant UCC provisions on warranty and damages.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves Vincent Campanello, a contract employee assigned to the Port Authority, who was arrested and charged in 2005 with theft and receipt of stolen property after retaining emergency equipment he had obtained for post-September 11 site visits; the charges were subsequently dismissed in municipal courts due to prosecutorial non-compliance with discovery. Campanello sued the Port Authority and several officers alleging malicious prosecution and related claims. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court granted the motion in part, holding that certain malicious prosecution claims against the Port Authority were barred by the one-year statute of limitations under N.J. Stat. Ann. 32:1-163 and that claims against the individual officers failed because the dismissals were not terminations in the plaintiff's favor on the merits, and denied the motion in part as to any remaining timely claims.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involves Nancy Anderson, formerly Vice President of Human Resources at DSM Pharmaceuticals Inc., who was terminated after objecting to a new reporting structure and taking FMLA medical leave following related stress and health issues. Anderson sued the defendants alleging breach of contract and FMLA violations tied to her at-will employment and the circumstances of her dismissal. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Core reasoning centered on Anderson's inability to establish a prima facie case for certain claims like those under the ADA, her failure to properly plead others, and the existence of factual disputes regarding whether her FMLA leave was improperly considered in the termination decision.

labor & employment

In Sasonov v. United States, a permanent resident from Uzbekistan petitioned for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after pleading guilty to bribery of a public official, arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of the plea and by neglecting discovery and other aspects of representation. The court granted the petition and vacated the guilty plea, finding that the attorney's performance fell below professional standards and that the petitioner would not have entered the plea if properly informed of the risk of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). The reasoning centered on the attorney's explicit assurances that the conviction would not affect immigration status, combined with his lack of investigation into the case facts, which deprived the petitioner of informed decision-making regarding the plea agreement.

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs against pharmaceutical companies after the FDA issued a Class I recall for Digitek digoxin tablets due to potential overdose risks from manufacturing defects. The plaintiffs sought an emergency order requiring the defendants to provide urgent notice to class members and physicians, preserve evidence related to the recall, and appoint temporary interim class counsel. The court denied the motion, applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which directs that matters involving regulatory oversight by agencies like the FDA should first be handled by those agencies to ensure uniformity and expertise in public health and product safety issues. The FDA was already actively monitoring the recall and had determined that additional notices would not benefit public health and might cause confusion.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

This case involves parents of a young child with autism who challenged a school district's proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming it failed to provide a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment and offered inadequate applied behavior analysis services compared to prior early intervention supports. After the parents rejected most of the IEP and sought reimbursement for private services while requesting a due process hearing, an administrative law judge granted the district's motion to dismiss without a hearing. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the parents' motion and denied the district's, applying a modified de novo review standard to the administrative record as required in IDEA cases. The court determined that the parents were entitled to proceed on their reimbursement claims because the administrative dismissal was improper and the proposed IEP did not meet IDEA requirements.

civil rights

The case involved Elena Kestelboym challenging the denial of her naturalization application by USCIS, which cited lack of good moral character based on alleged misrepresentations during her prior adjustment of status. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1429, arguing that pending removal proceedings barred the court's review. The court denied the motion, holding that § 1429 only prohibits naturalization against those with a final finding of deportability and does not strip district courts of their authority under § 1421(c) to conduct de novo review of naturalization denials when removal proceedings are merely pending. The court reasoned that interpreting the statute otherwise would allow the government to evade judicial review by initiating removal proceedings at will.

immigrationprocedure

This case involved two fifth-grade students in the Bayonne School District who wore buttons protesting the district's mandatory uniform policy; the buttons featured the phrase "No School Uniforms" overlaid on a historical photograph of what appeared to be the Hitler Youth. The school district sent letters to the students' parents threatening suspension if the buttons were worn again, asserting that the images were objectionable and did not constitute free speech. The students' parents filed suit alleging a violation of the First Amendment. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a reasonable probability of success on the merits under Supreme Court precedent from Tinker v. Des Moines, as there was no evidence that the speech would materially and substantially disrupt the school.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved defendant Ronald Crandell's motion to suppress a handgun recovered during a police stop and frisk conducted after an anonymous tip described a black male with dreadlocks and blonde tips, wearing a tan shirt and blue jeans, carrying a gun in the small of his back. The court decided that the anonymous tip was insufficient to establish the reasonable suspicion required for a Terry stop and frisk, violating the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore granted the motion to suppress the evidence. The core reasoning was that the tip lacked any indicia of reliability, such as predictive details for corroboration or information about the tipster's veracity, and that the officers' prior knowledge of the defendant and the area's reputation did not cure these deficiencies, aligning with precedents like Florida v. J.L.

criminal lawproceduregunscivil rights

The case involved former Wal-Mart employees who alleged that the company, along with maintenance contractors, violated RICO by hiring illegal immigrants to underpay wages and by engaging in related immigration violations and money laundering as predicate acts of racketeering. The court granted Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss both the substantive RICO claim (Count One) and the RICO conspiracy claim (Count Two) under Rule 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to plead distinct RICO persons and enterprises, that the alleged predicate acts did not proximately cause the plaintiffs' injuries, and that no valid claim of involuntary servitude was stated, rendering further amendment futile.

immigrationcriminal lawlabor & employment

In Haesler v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., participants in an employer-sponsored pension plan sued the plan sponsor and administrator, alleging four violations of ERISA: that the plan illegally ceased benefit accruals due to age, backloaded pension accruals, provided a normal retirement age benefit that was less than the early retirement benefit, and breached fiduciary duties by failing to write and administer the plan in compliance with ERISA. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. After directing the plaintiffs to submit hypothetical illustrations demonstrating the alleged violations, the court found that the submissions compared only portions of the plan's calculation formula rather than the plan as a whole and did not show any ERISA violations. The court granted the motion and dismissed all counts, concluding that the plaintiffs could prove no set of facts entitling them to relief.

labor & employment

This case involves multiple motions for appointment as lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud class action against Able Laboratories and its officers, alleging material misrepresentations about the company's operations, financial results, and FDA approvals for generic drugs, which led to stock price declines after product recalls and compliance reviews. Under the PSLRA, the court evaluated competing movants based on their financial losses during the class period and other factors for adequacy and typicality. The court appointed the Institutional Investor Group (formed by DERP and Deka) as lead plaintiff, with combined losses of approximately $1.72 million, and their counsel as co-lead counsel, because they held the largest financial interest among timely filings and demonstrated ability to represent the class cohesively. Upham's larger claimed losses were disregarded due to submission of a revised certification after the mandatory 60-day deadline. The opinion emphasizes that institutional investors combining post-filing does not inherently disqualify them if they can supervise litigation effectively.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs Aventis and related entities seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants Barr, Teva, Ranbaxy, and Amino from marketing or manufacturing generic fexofenadine hydrochloride, the active ingredient in Allegra, on grounds of infringement of several method patents and one process patent. The court denied the injunction after finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Defendants raised substantial questions about patent validity, including obviousness-type double patenting between the method patents and an earlier patent, as well as whether the claimed benefits of the methods were inherent in prior art uses of fexofenadine. The court applied the four-factor test for preliminary relief and concluded that the validity challenges could not be shown to lack substantial merit, precluding the injunction regardless of other factors.

propertybusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved a dispute between competing advertising service providers where IQ Group claimed that Wiesner Publishing infringed its copyrights on email advertisements for insurance companies by removing IQ's logo and hyperlinks before redistributing the ads, and also violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) under 17 U.S.C. § 1202. The court granted Wiesner's motion for summary judgment on the DMCA claims, concluding that Wiesner had not violated the statute, but denied Wiesner's request to limit IQ to a single statutory damages award and denied IQ's cross-motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and related damages. The core reasoning was that conflicting evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to the authorship and validity of IQ's copyright registration for one advertisement, rebutting the presumption of validity and precluding summary judgment on the infringement claims.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved undocumented immigrant plaintiffs who worked as janitors at Wal-Mart stores nationwide and alleged they were exploited through an enterprise involving the company and its maintenance contractors. Plaintiffs brought claims under RICO for a pattern of racketeering activity tied to immigration violations and labor exploitation, the FLSA for unpaid wages and overtime, section 1985 for conspiracy to violate civil rights, and various common law claims. The court granted Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss the RICO and section 1985 claims but denied it as to the FLSA and common law claims. Dismissal of the RICO claims rested on insufficient allegations of the required elements for racketeering and enterprise, while the wage-related claims were adequately pled.

immigrationlabor & employmentcriminal lawcivil rights

This case is a patent infringement suit in which Aventis Pharmaceuticals and related plaintiffs sued generic drug makers for infringing five patents on solid fexofenadine formulations sold as Allegra and Allegra-D. Defendants sought summary judgment on their counterclaim that claims 1 and 2 of the '872 patent are invalid as anticipated by prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and that the remaining patents are not infringed. The court had previously granted summary judgment of non-infringement on three of the patents and, after a Markman hearing, construed claims 1 and 2 of the '872 patent as not requiring a separate intragranular disintegrant. The opinion sets out the standards for summary judgment and for finding anticipation by a single prior art reference that discloses every claim limitation, either expressly or inherently, and addresses whether the asserted prior art patents meet that test.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Travelodge, a hotel franchisor, and its former franchisee Honeysuckle Enterprises and guarantor Ryan Richardson over obligations and payments under a 2001 license agreement for operating a Travelodge in Branson, Missouri. Travelodge sought summary judgment on its claims for recurring fees and related breaches, while defendants countered that they were induced into the agreement by fraudulent misrepresentations about reservation system benefits and lost business reports. The court denied summary judgment on Travelodge's claims in Counts 2, 4, and 6 and on five of defendants' counterclaims, but granted it on two counterclaims, applying New Jersey law and finding genuine issues of material fact on issues including the parol evidence rule, integration of the agreement, and elements of fraudulent inducement. The core reasoning examined the license agreement's terms, the effect of pre-contract negotiations and the UFOC disclaimer, and whether factual disputes precluded judgment as a matter of law.

business & regulatory