Maryanne Trump Barry

This case involved a shareholder class action against Ultralife Batteries, Inc. and related defendants alleging violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on statements in a May 1998 stock offering registration statement and prospectus. The plaintiffs claimed that the documents contained material misrepresentations regarding the company's 9-volt lithium battery production capacity, ability to meet increased demand from an Oregon smoke detector law, and related financial projections. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), holding that the challenged statements were not false or misleading when made and that the complaint failed to plead particularized facts showing any actionable omissions or inaccuracies. The court further noted that boilerplate allegations of fraud were insufficient and that no statements were made claiming the company could immediately scale production beyond stated facility limits.

business & regulatory

In Pryzbowski v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., the plaintiff sued her primary care physicians and medical group for negligence, alleging they failed to timely obtain HMO approvals for an out-of-network neurosurgeon to perform complex back surgery, resulting in prolonged pain and injury. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the claims. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding any breach of duty by the physicians in making referrals and seeking approvals, with the remaining claims dependent on that negligence finding. The opinion also addressed ERISA preemption issues affecting the state-law claims against the HMO and providers.

healthcaretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case arose from the death of Scott Tofano during a 1996 encounter with three Ramsey police officers who responded to a report of a disturbed man in a parking lot; Tofano, who appeared agitated and was behaving erratically, resisted efforts to detain him for disorderly conduct and a mental health evaluation, leading to a struggle in which officers used force including tackling and pepper spray. His wife sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and under New Jersey common law, and sued the Borough for failure to train. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that the officers' actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances given Tofano's size, resistance, and the unsecured handcuff. It further concluded there was no basis for municipal liability and declined to exclude the plaintiff's expert testimony.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Kristy Lemke's claims against her former employer International Total Services, Inc. and supervisor Dan Richards for gender discrimination and related violations under Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, stemming from a 1997 geographic reorganization of districts in the Eastern Division that reduced her territory and led to the end of her employment. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the reorganization was based on legitimate business reasons such as efficiency and improved management structure, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment and alleged the changes were pretextual and motivated by gender bias. The court granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiff's, finding no genuine issue of material fact because plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that the stated reasons were false or that discrimination was the real motive. The court also rejected plaintiff's additional claims, including for unequal pay and intentional infliction of emotional distress, due to insufficient supporting evidence.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Biovail, a Canadian pharmaceutical company, sued Hoechst and related defendants alleging antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and breach of a 1995 settlement agreement arising from a terminated joint venture to develop a once-daily diltiazem drug (Tiazac) to compete with Cardizem. The dispute centered on whether Hoechst fulfilled obligations under the settlement and an FTC consent decree by providing Biovail a right of reference to FDA pharmacology and toxicology data, and on alleged anticompetitive conduct such as statements to regulators and third parties that impeded Biovail's product approvals and marketing. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the complaint's allegations of concerted action, specific intent to monopolize, and injury to competition were sufficient to state plausible Section 1 and Section 2 claims, and that the contract and related state-law claims were adequately pleaded.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case concerns Margaret Kelly Michaels' civil lawsuit against prosecutors, investigators, and a psychologist alleging that their investigation and prosecution of her for child sexual abuse violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. Michaels had been convicted on numerous counts, spent five years in prison, and had her conviction reversed by the New Jersey Appellate Division and Supreme Court on grounds that the child interviews were improper and likely unreliable, after which charges were dismissed. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the assistant prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity for core prosecutorial functions such as presenting evidence to grand juries and that the investigators and psychologist were entitled to qualified immunity. The core reasoning was that the defendants' actions fell within protected official functions and that, given the state of the law and practices surrounding child abuse investigations in 1985, they did not violate clearly established rights.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Jose Velasquez, a lawful permanent resident since 1960, was detained without bond by the INS in December 1998 based on a 1980 drug conviction for which he had received probation. He filed a habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention under INA § 236(c), arguing it could not apply retroactively to him because he had been released from criminal custody over a decade before the provision's 1998 effective date. The court granted the petition, holding that the statutory phrase 'when the alien is released' limits mandatory detention to those released from incarceration after the statute took effect, as confirmed by the plain language and consistent prior judicial interpretations of similar provisions in AEDPA.

immigrationcriminal law

The case concerned the Securities and Exchange Commission’s civil enforcement action against Joseph and Constance Pignatiello, former officers of Aqua Buoy Corporation (later Chester Holdings), for alleged violations of federal securities laws through misstatements in financial filings and press releases about the value of five acquisitions made in 1991. The court granted the SEC’s motion for summary judgment against the defendants, finding them liable for preparing and signing documents that overstated the value of the acquired assets in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The core reasoning rested on undisputed evidence including internal communications, auditor testimony, and the defendants’ admissions regarding their roles in the filings, which demonstrated that the valuations used did not comply with accounting standards and that the defendants were responsible for the misleading statements.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a legal permanent resident from Jamaica who had lived in the U.S. for 27 years and faced deportation based on a 1990 guilty plea to a drug offense near a school. He had applied for a discretionary waiver of deportation under former INA §212(c) before the 1996 AEDPA amendments rendered such waivers unavailable for controlled-substance convictions, and the BIA applied the new restrictions retroactively per the Attorney General's guidance. The district court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241, holding that AEDPA §440(d) does not apply retroactively to waiver applications that were pending when the statute was enacted, and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.

immigration

This case involved wireless providers AT&T Wireless, BANM, and Nextel challenging the Zoning Board of Adjustment of Ho-Ho-Kus's denial of variances needed to build a 125-foot monopole, antennas, equipment shelters, and fencing on borough-owned land zoned for residential use. The Board had conducted extensive hearings and rejected the application, finding that existing cellular service was adequate, the site was inappropriate due to congestion and required bulk variances, and the structure would cause significant visual harm and reduce property values. The district court denied the providers' summary judgment motion and granted the Board's, concluding that the denial did not violate Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because it was not based on unreasonable discrimination or an effective prohibition of service, and state-law variance standards were properly applied given that the use was not inherently beneficial.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

The case involved several New Jersey multi-employer health and welfare trust funds suing leading tobacco companies and their agents, alleging systematic fraud, misrepresentations about smoking risks and nicotine addiction, manipulation of nicotine levels, and related misconduct that increased participants' tobacco-related injuries and the funds' healthcare costs; the funds asserted claims including fraud, federal RICO, antitrust violations, breach of special duty, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and under 12(b)(7) for failure to join necessary parties. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing the majority of the claims but allowing limited portions of the RICO, fraud, and antitrust counts to proceed under the lenient Conley v. Gibson standard that accepts well-pleaded allegations as true and draws inferences in plaintiffs' favor. The court also held that participants, employers, and insurers were not necessary parties under Rule 19(a).

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a dispute between automobile dealer Liberty Lincoln-Mercury and manufacturer Ford Motor Company over reimbursement rates for repairs performed under Ford's optional Extended Service Plans (ESPs). Liberty sought summary judgment to require Ford to pay retail rates for ESP repairs under New Jersey's Automobile Warranty Reimbursement Act (N.J.S.A. 56:10-15), arguing that ESPs qualify as warranties covered by the statute. Ford cross-moved for summary judgment, contending that ESPs are separate service contracts not subject to the Act, so the lower rates in the parties' Sales and Service Agreements apply. The court denied Liberty's motion and granted Ford's, holding that ESPs are not warranties because they are optional contracts sold for additional consideration separate from the new vehicle purchase, unlike the standard limited warranty included at no extra charge. The decision rested on the statutory text and distinctions between warranties and service contracts under New Jersey law.

business & regulatory

This case involved plaintiff Aircraft Inventory Corporation's claims against defendant Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from an alleged oral agreement in 1994 to purchase a used Cessna Citation III aircraft for $3.1 million as part of a larger trade-in deal. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that both claims failed as a matter of law. The court granted the motion, holding that the statute of frauds under the UCC barred enforcement of the unwritten sales contract because the plaintiff's letter of intent did not constitute a sufficient confirmatory writing or satisfy the merchant's exception, and that promissory estoppel could not override the statute of frauds on these facts. The core reasoning focused on the lack of a signed writing indicating a binding agreement and the absence of circumstances justifying equitable enforcement despite the formal requirements for commercial sales of goods.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Benjamin Blackburn, a former UPS employee terminated in 1994, who sued UPS and a supervisor under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), alleging he was fired for whistleblowing about potential policy violations and possible antitrust issues. UPS maintained that the termination resulted from Blackburn’s violations of the company’s anti-nepotism, favoritism, integrity, and accountability policies. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. It reasoned that Blackburn failed to show a genuine issue of material fact on whether he reasonably believed UPS was engaging in unlawful conduct at the time of his complaints, as his references were vague and non-specific, and his later affidavit contradicted his deposition testimony and could not be considered.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Porsche AG and Porsche Cars North America seeking a preliminary injunction against Liquid Glass Enterprises, a seller of car care products, to stop the use of Porsche trademarks and the trade dress of Porsche vehicles like the 911 in Liquid Glass's magazine advertisements and promotional videos. The court granted the preliminary injunction. It found that Porsche was likely to succeed on its claims of trademark infringement and dilution because the ads prominently featured Porsche marks and vehicles alongside suggestive imagery in a manner that created a likelihood of consumer confusion as to sponsorship or affiliation. The court rejected arguments that disclaimers would suffice to prevent confusion or that the uses qualified as fair use, noting prior cease-and-desist correspondence and the irrelevance of disclaimers to dilution claims.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case arose from a multi-year fraudulent scheme in which insurance agent Mark Weisman submitted false policy loan and withdrawal requests in policyholders' names, causing plaintiffs Guardian Life Insurance and New England Mutual Life to issue checks that he then forged and deposited into his account at Midlantic Bank. Plaintiffs sued Midlantic (the depository bank) and the drawee banks for conversion and related claims under New Jersey's Uniform Commercial Code after discovering the forgeries. The court granted summary judgment to the drawee banks as unopposed and to Midlantic in part, but denied it in part on the ground that UCC § 3-405's faithless-employee/fictitious-payee defense did not bar recovery because the majority of the forged indorsements were not substantially similar to the named payees. The reasoning centered on the UCC's allocation of loss for forged indorsements to the first bank that accepts the instrument when the statutory exception requiring a substantially identical indorsement is not met.

business & regulatorycriminal lawtorts & liability

This case involved a pro-life volunteer who sued under the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) after receiving threatening phone messages from the defendant. The plaintiff worked with Birthright, an organization offering pregnancy counseling, referrals, and support services, and the defendant left messages warning that pro-life volunteers would be killed if they did not stay away from abortion clinics. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the FACE claims, awarding $10,000 in statutory damages. It reasoned that the statute covers threats against anyone providing reproductive health services, including non-medical counseling and referrals, and that the undisputed facts established the defendant's intent and the threatening nature of the calls. The court also dismissed unrelated claims against unnamed defendants.

abortioncriminal law

The case arose from Margaret Michaels' malicious prosecution and §1983 claims against Essex County stemming from her 1988 conviction on 115 counts of child sexual abuse, which was later reversed due to improper child interviews by county prosecutors, with all charges dismissed in 1994. The County moved for summary judgment on the complaint, asserting no respondeat superior liability for the prosecutorial defendants, and on crossclaims seeking a declaration that the State of New Jersey must indemnify and defend those defendants. The court granted summary judgment to the County on the complaint, holding that under New Jersey precedents like Cashen v. Spann, prosecutors act as agents of the State, not the County, when handling criminal investigations and prosecutions. On the crossclaims, the court examined the New Jersey Tort Claims Act and related statutes, concluding that the State bears responsibility for indemnification and defense of the prosecutors as state agents while noting an unresolved practical anomaly in allocating costs between the State and County.

criminal lawcivil rightstorts & liability

In Ramadan v. Chase Manhattan Corp., plaintiff Susanne Ramadan sued Chase and Hyundai under the Truth in Lending Act after purchasing a car and extended warranty in 1993, alleging that the financing documents failed to accurately disclose that only a portion of the $998 warranty fee was paid to a third party while the rest was retained by the dealer as a commission. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the suit was filed more than one year after the transaction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that TILA's one-year filing deadline under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) is a jurisdictional time limit that cannot be equitably tolled by claims of concealment, as it is an integral part of the statute creating the right of action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from Margaret Kelly Michaels' claims against Newark and other defendants for malicious prosecution and constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, following the reversal of her 1988 conviction on multiple counts of child sexual abuse due to improper investigative interviews of the child witnesses. Newark moved to remand the action to state court or, alternatively, to dismiss the complaint on grounds including the statute of limitations, noncompliance with the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, and failure to state a claim. The court denied remand but granted dismissal as to Newark, holding that the complaint failed to allege facts showing Newark's involvement in the prosecution or any basis for municipal liability under § 1983, while also rejecting certain Tort Claims Act challenges; the dismissal was without prejudice to allow amendment within thirty days.

criminal lawcivil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure