Freda L. Wolfson

The case involved plaintiff Ryan Hart, a former college football player, suing defendant Electronic Arts, Inc. for using his likeness and identity in several NCAA Football video games without permission, asserting a right of publicity claim under New Jersey law on behalf of himself and similarly situated athletes. EA moved to dismiss the complaint or alternatively for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the First Amendment. The court converted the motion to one for summary judgment and granted it in favor of EA. The court reasoned that, on the facts presented, EA's First Amendment right to free expression in creating the interactive video games outweighed Hart's right of publicity.

free speechproperty

The case concerned a putative class action by consumers Mark Maniscalco and Walter Huryk against Brother International Corporation alleging that BIC concealed two design defects in its MFC 3220C multi-function machines—print-head failures producing a “Machine Error 41” message and excessive ink purging—thereby violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. BIC moved for summary judgment. After a choice-of-law analysis, the court held that the NJCFA did not apply because the alleged omissions occurred outside New Jersey and the conduct was most closely connected to the plaintiffs’ home states; it therefore granted the motion and dismissed the sole remaining claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc. (JAFI) and Rutgers University arising from a terminated exclusive license agreement authorizing JAFI to sell Rutgers' patented asparagus varieties. JAFI alleged that Rutgers fraudulently obtained patents, engaged in monopolization through the license, and pursued improper royalty and plant return demands, bringing federal and state RICO, antitrust, and Declaratory Judgment Act claims. The court granted Rutgers' motion to dismiss the RICO claims with prejudice for lack of statutory standing and failure to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), while dismissing the antitrust and DJA claims without prejudice; it denied JAFI's motion to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint but granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint with additional factual support. The core reasoning centered on accepting the complaint's allegations as true but finding them insufficient to plead the required elements, particularly for RICO predicates tied to patent fraud and for antitrust claims involving the scope of the license agreement after patents expired.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

In this case, brand-name drug manufacturers sued generic drug applicants for infringing one patent listed for Asacol® after the generics filed ANDAs under the Hatch-Waxman Act, but did not assert a second related patent. The generics responded with counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of invalidity or non-infringement for both patents. After the brand-name plaintiffs provided a covenant not to sue on the second patent, they moved to dismiss the corresponding counterclaim. The court granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that the defendants lacked Article III standing because the covenant eliminated any actual controversy redressable by a declaratory judgment on that patent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Chulsky v. Hudson Law Offices, PC, plaintiff Marjorie Chulsky brought a putative class action against a law firm and its attorney after they purchased her consumer credit card debt and filed a state court collection suit, alleging that the purchase violated New Jersey's Professional Services Corporation Act as an ultra vires act. The claims were asserted under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), and the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warrant and Notice Act (TCCWNA), with an additional assertion of individual liability against the attorney. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the NJCFA and TCCWNA claims but denied dismissal of the FDCPA claim, finding that the federal claim was adequately pled under the Twombly standard while the state claims did not meet the required elements or were otherwise barred. The decision turned on the sufficiency of the allegations regarding the debt purchase and collection practices, without resolving the merits of whether the purchase was permissible.

business & regulatory

This case involves third-party health plan payors suing pharmaceutical companies Janssen and Johnson & Johnson for allegedly engaging in a fraudulent scheme to promote the off-label use of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal, seeking damages under federal and New Jersey RICO statutes as well as various state laws for the costs of unnecessary prescriptions. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a cognizable injury under RICO, did not sufficiently plead the elements of mail and wire fraud with particularity, and could not establish causation or reliance for the state law claims.

criminal lawhealthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Chulsky v. Hudson Law Offices, PC, the plaintiff challenged a law firm's purchase of her defaulted credit card debt and its subsequent state court collection action, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warrant and Notice Act on the grounds that such debt purchases were an ultra vires corporate act prohibited by the Professional Services Corporation Act. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and further argued that the individual attorney defendant could not be held liable. The court granted the motion as to the NJCFA and TCCWNA claims but denied it as to the FDCPA claim, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts that could support a violation under the FDCPA while the state claims failed for other reasons such as lack of a private right of action or applicability. The decision emphasized that discovery was needed to determine the precise nature of the firm's debt collection activities.

business & regulatory

The case concerned constitutional challenges by issuers of travelers checks and stored value cards to New Jersey's Chapter 25, which amended the Unclaimed Property Law to shorten the presumptive abandonment period for travelers checks from fifteen to three years and to establish custodial escheat rules for stored value cards. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement, raising claims under federal preemption, the Contract Clause, the Takings Clause, the Commerce Clause, and related doctrines. The court granted the injunction in part, barring enforcement of the place-of-purchase presumption and retroactive application to issuers with existing contracts requiring redemption solely for merchandise or services. The decision rested on analysis of the likelihood of success on the Contracts Clause and other constitutional claims, while denying broader relief and rejecting certain immunity and abstention arguments.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

Plaintiff Nicholas Cosmas sued American Express Centurion Bank under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state tort claims, alleging that the bank improperly continued reporting a business credit card debt on his personal credit report after a state court judgment determined he was not personally liable for the debt. The court had previously granted summary judgment on some counts and now addressed the remaining state-law negligence and malicious conduct claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on those claims, finding them preempted by the FCRA's provisions governing furnishers of credit information, which displace state tort actions arising from the reporting of information to credit agencies. The reasoning centered on the broad preemptive language in 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F) and the statutory scheme limiting liability for such reporting activities.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned MEMO Money Order Co.'s challenge to New Jersey's 2010 amendment (Chapter 25) to its Unclaimed Property Act, which shortened the presumptive abandonment period for money orders from seven years to three years and capped monthly dormancy fees at $2. MEMO sought to enjoin enforcement, arguing that the retroactive changes violated the Contract Clause, Takings Clause, and Substantive Due Process by requiring it to remit substantially more funds to the state than under prior law. The court denied the state's motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment immunity and abstention grounds, and also denied MEMO's request for injunctive relief. It held that the shortened period and fee limits were rationally related to the legitimate state interest in returning unclaimed property to owners and did not substantially impair contractual rights or effect an unconstitutional taking.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is a putative class action by former part-time and full-time bus drivers and aides against Rick Bus Company, asserting claims under the FLSA, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and state common-law theories for alleged failures to pay full wages, including through improper rounding of time and denial of overtime. Defendant moved to strike the class allegations under Rule 12(f), and plaintiff Danbury cross-moved for conditional certification of the FLSA overtime claim. The court denied both motions without prejudice, reasoning that the defendant's briefing did not clearly identify which claims it sought to strike, did not apply the proper standard for evaluating FLSA collective actions, and left unaddressed whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over the state-law claims under De Asencio v. Tyson Foods. The court also noted potential difficulties in satisfying the similarly-situated and commonality requirements across the differing part-time and full-time subclasses.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case was a putative class action by Ryan Hart against Electronic Arts, Inc. alleging that the company used his likeness without consent in NCAA Football video games for the years 2004, 2005, and 2009, asserting claims for invasion of privacy by appropriation of likeness (right of publicity), violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The right of publicity claim was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend, while the remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice, because the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the elements of those claims under New Jersey law.

torts & liabilityfree speechproperty

In this case, Lloyd's sued its insurance coverholder Walnut for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence, alleging that Walnut violated their Binding Authority Agreement by issuing policies to bars, taverns, and nightclubs and failing to include required Assault and Battery exclusions or follow inspection protocols. Walnut moved to dismiss the negligence claim for Lloyd's failure to timely file an affidavit of merit under New Jersey's AOM Statute. The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted Lloyd's cross-motion for nunc pro tunc compliance, finding that the claim involved alleged deviation from professional standards in the insurance field but that equitable considerations and substantial compliance with the statute permitted late filing.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved elderly plaintiffs residing in assisted living facilities who were denied immediate participation in New Jersey's home- and community-based services Medicaid waiver program and sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Supremacy Clause, alleging violations of the federal Medicaid Act's financial eligibility and asset transfer rules. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Medicaid provisions created no enforceable rights under section 1983 and that the court should abstain under the Younger doctrine. The court denied the motion, concluding that the relevant Medicaid provisions conferred individually enforceable rights and that abstention was not warranted because the administrative proceedings were not coercive in the required sense. The opinion details New Jersey's Medicaid application process through county boards and administrative appeals, as well as the specific asset transfer issues raised by the plaintiffs' applications.

healthcarecivil rightsfederal power

This case is a putative class action securities lawsuit brought by lead plaintiff Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System against PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. and two of its executives. The complaint alleges that during the class period from November 2007 to October 2008, the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by misrepresenting the company’s financial figures, particularly its contractual backlog, and concealing serious operational problems, thereby inflating the stock price; the executives are also alleged to have violated the related control-person liability provision in Section 20(a). The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) for failure to plead the elements of a securities-fraud claim with the required particularity. The court granted the motion, dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, and allowed the plaintiff thirty days to file a further amended complaint, primarily because the allegations did not sufficiently plead scienter or loss causation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Mr. Burns, a lawful permanent resident from Jamaica, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his detention without bond in immigration proceedings, where he faced removal based on a 1990 New Jersey conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon and a controlled substance. The court granted the petition, ruling that he was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The decision turned on the statute's text requiring custody upon release from criminal custody after the provision's 1998 effective date, which did not apply to Burns given the timing of his pre-1998 conviction and subsequent releases.

immigrationcriminal law

In Coastal Outdoor Advertising Group, LLC v. Township of Union, a sign company sued a New Jersey township after its applications to erect large off-site billboards were denied under an ordinance that banned signs promoting goods or services not offered at the sign's location. The plaintiff alleged the former ordinance violated the First Amendment by favoring commercial speech, being content-based, lacking procedural safeguards, and imposing unconstitutional fees, along with state law claims, and sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the township amended the ordinance, the plaintiff did not challenge the new version but continued claims regarding the old one. The court granted summary judgment to the township on all counts, holding that Coastal lacked standing on its First Amendment, Equal Protection, and procedural due process claims for failure to show redressability, since unchallenged size and height limits would still prohibit the signs, and that the fee claim was not properly briefed.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

In Arcand v. Brother International Corp., plaintiffs alleged that Brother laser printers displayed false 'toner empty' messages when usable toner remained, forcing consumers to buy replacements prematurely and causing economic harm; they brought claims for fraudulent concealment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, trespass to chattels, and conversion. The court granted BIC's motion to dismiss, rejecting the NJCFA claim for failure to allege an ascertainable loss and dismissing the fraudulent concealment claim without prejudice, while dismissing the trespass and conversion claims with prejudice. The reasoning centered on the absence of pleaded damages under the consumer statute, insufficient facts to support common-law fraud elements, and the economic loss doctrine barring the property tort claims in this commercial context.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns homeowners Zeev and Bracha Rothschild's breach-of-contract, bad-faith, and New Jersey Insurance Trade Practices Act claims against Foremost Insurance after a total fire loss to their property. The Rothschilds held concurrent policies with Foremost ($187,425 limit) and Quincy Mutual ($154,500 limit) totaling $341,925 in coverage; the insurers prorated payment according to each policy's share of that total, and Foremost paid $103,645.39 (55 percent of the $250,800 loss). The court granted the Rothschilds summary judgment on the contract claim, holding that Foremost's "other insurance" clause required payment of its proportionate share of the actual loss rather than a capped percentage of its own policy limit, and ordered an additional $34,836.25; it denied the bad-faith claim and dismissed the ITPA claim for lack of a private right of action.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case, Pro Sports Inc., a New Jersey corporation that manufactures sporting equipment including certain umpire chest protectors, filed a declaratory judgment action against Joseph West, a Florida resident and owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,530,966, seeking rulings that its products do not infringe the patent and that the patent is invalid. West moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) or improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), arguing insufficient contacts with New Jersey. The court denied the motion, holding that it had specific personal jurisdiction over West because his prior enforcement efforts—including cease-and-desist letters to other New Jersey companies and a 2006 patent infringement lawsuit filed in the District of New Jersey involving the same patent—established minimum contacts related to the claims. The court further found venue proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events, including the manufacture and sale of the accused products, occurred in New Jersey.

business & regulatoryprocedure