Renee Marie Bumb

This case concerned whether the Moorestown Township Board of Education violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by refusing to evaluate a student with disabilities or develop an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) while he attended a private school, unless his parents first re-enrolled him in the public district. The parents, who had previously removed the child from public school due to concerns over progress, sought an IEP to assess if the district could provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) before deciding on re-enrollment. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the district had an independent obligation under IDEA to conduct evaluations and offer a FAPE, including preparing an IEP, for any eligible child residing in the district regardless of private enrollment status. The court reasoned that federal regulations require local education agencies to locate, identify, evaluate, and make FAPE available to all children with disabilities in their jurisdiction, including those in private schools whose parents might seek public placement, and that refusal based on enrollment status was inconsistent with these duties. The court granted partial summary judgment to each side on related claims.

civil rightsfederal power

This case involved a union representing Conrail maintenance workers challenging arbitration awards by the National Railroad Adjustment Board that dismissed claims over the railroad's use of non-union contractors for track work in several states. The disputes stemmed from an implementing agreement required by the Surface Transportation Board as part of its approval of the Conrail merger, which allowed certain contracting out without union notice. The union argued the Board had jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act and sought to vacate the awards for merits review, while Conrail contended the STB held exclusive authority. The court denied the union's summary judgment motion and granted Conrail's cross-motion, holding that the claims required interpretation of the STB-mandated agreement and thus fell outside NRAB jurisdiction.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In this civil rights action, plaintiff Larry Peterson alleges that after serving 18 years in prison for a 1989 felony murder and aggravated sexual assault conviction, he was wrongfully convicted based on fabricated witness statements, overstated forensic hair analysis by a state police scientist, and prosecutors' failure to investigate exculpatory leads or act on exonerating evidence. The defendants, including Burlington County prosecutors, investigators, and the forensic expert, moved for summary judgment asserting absolute and qualified immunity. The court partially granted the motion, holding that qualified immunity protected the forensic scientist's testimony and some investigative actions, while absolute prosecutorial immunity shielded certain charging and trial-related conduct but not post-conviction efforts to oppose DNA testing or other exoneration motions; disputed factual issues regarding fabrication and intimidation prevented full dismissal.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a slip-and-fall negligence claim filed by plaintiff Jo-Anna Lynn Martin against Wal-Mart in New Jersey state court. Wal-Mart removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 solely because the plaintiff refused to stipulate to damages below that threshold. The court raised the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte and determined that the removal notice failed to meet the required burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. The court therefore remanded the case to state court, emphasizing that a plaintiff's refusal to cap damages does not affirmatively demonstrate that the amount in controversy satisfies the statutory requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a dispute over the assignment of roofing work on a public community center construction project governed by a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) under New Jersey law. Local 27 claimed that Donnelly and Sambe breached the PLA and related agreements by subcontracting the work to Local 623, a non-signatory union, instead of Local 27. The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' summary judgment motions, holding that the PLA remained binding on the contractors despite an NLRB ruling awarding the work to Local 623, because the PLA acts as a master agreement superseding other contracts and creates enforceable obligations under state law. The core reasoning was that Donnelly created conflicting obligations but remains liable for breaching the PLA, with potential damages to be determined.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case involved European sheet music distributors suing a U.S. distributor for copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act, alleging that the defendant unlawfully exported sheet music to Europe in violation of the plaintiffs' exclusive European distribution licenses. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked statutory standing. The core reasoning was that the Copyright Act does not reach the alleged distribution, which occurred abroad, absent any domestic predicate act of infringement within the United States.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns AstraZeneca's request for a preliminary injunction against Apotex in a patent inducement claim involving the labeling of a generic drug submitted through an ANDA under FDA rules. The court focused on whether Apotex had the specific intent to induce infringement, noting that Apotex copied AstraZeneca's label language including downward titration instructions but made limited efforts to propose or pursue non-infringing alternatives after FDA rejected changes. Testimony showed Apotex added emphasis to twice-daily dosing and contacted the FDA informally about options but did not file formal appeals, suitability petitions, or a 505(b)(2) application for a different strength. The court determined this conduct demonstrated the requisite intent, and combined with prior findings on other injunction factors, granted the preliminary injunction.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case concerned AstraZeneca's patents covering methods and kits for once-daily nebulizer administration of budesonide to treat pediatric asthma with its PULMICORT RESPULES product. AstraZeneca sought to block Apotex from marketing a generic version, arguing that Apotex's proposed FDA label would induce infringement by instructing once-daily dosing. The court examined whether Apotex's label demonstrated the specific intent necessary for induced infringement, taking into account FDA class-labeling rules, the label's dosage recommendations, and related procedural matters such as extension of a temporary restraining order.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

Douglas Strong, a federal inmate convicted of bringing in illegal aliens, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons' decision to limit his pre-release placement in a residential re-entry center to six months. The BOP based its determination on internal guidance implementing the Second Chance Act of 2007, which amended 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621 and 3624 to allow up to twelve months of such placement based on an individualized assessment of factors like reintegration needs. The court concluded that the BOP's guidance improperly restricted placements in a manner inconsistent with the statute's text and was not entitled to deference. As a result, the court granted the writ and remanded the case to the BOP for a fresh determination of Strong's placement.

criminal law

In Brandt v. Monte, an involuntarily committed psychiatric patient sued state hospital staff and officials, alleging that the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication—first under an emergency declaration and later through a non-emergency review process—violated his constitutional rights. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability, while defendants cross-moved for summary judgment primarily on qualified and sovereign immunity grounds. The court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' motion in part, finding that sovereign immunity barred damages claims against state officials in their official capacities and that qualified immunity or other defenses applied to some individual-capacity claims, while allowing certain procedural due process issues to proceed. The decision rested on the distinction between emergency and non-emergency medication procedures under established precedent like Rennie v. Klein, the absence of evidence showing deviations from professional standards sufficient for summary judgment, and Eleventh Amendment protections. The court also addressed standing for injunctive relief, concluding that the specific circumstances did not demonstrate a likelihood of future harm.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

Sean Washington filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1996 New Jersey state convictions for conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of purposeful or knowing murder, and possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, for which he received a life sentence with 60 years of parole ineligibility. The district court dismissed the petition with prejudice, finding no basis for relief on the four grounds raised, which included claims of unfair trial due to admission of a witness's prior inconsistent statement, prosecutorial misconduct involving undisclosed information about a witness, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and cumulative errors. The court reasoned that the state courts' rulings were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under AEDPA, that factual findings were entitled to a presumption of correctness, and that certain claims were procedurally barred or not properly presented in the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a petition by the NLRB under Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act seeking to enjoin Sheet Metal Workers Local 27 from continuing its lawsuit against contractor E.P. Donnelly, Inc., in a related action over work assignments on a public construction project governed by a Project Labor Agreement. The dispute arose after Donnelly assigned roofing work to another union not party to the PLA, prompting Local 27 to pursue arbitration and litigation to enforce its claimed rights under the agreement, while Donnelly faced an unfair labor practice charge. The court denied the petition for injunctive relief, holding that the Board had not shown reasonable cause to believe Local 27 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) by prosecuting the suit and that such relief was not just and proper because it would not prevent frustration of the Act's purposes. The decision turned on the distinction between the pending lawsuit and any underlying jurisdictional dispute already addressed by the Board, along with the unresolved factual question of whether Donnelly breached the PLA.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case was a trademark dispute between Primepoint, LLC, a New Jersey payroll processing company using the registered 'Primepoint' mark since 2000 for financial and payroll services, and PrimePay, Inc., a competing provider of similar payroll, tax, and related services under marks such as 'PrimePay' and 'PrimeTax.' Primepoint moved for summary judgment on claims arising under the Lanham Act, including allegations of infringement and potential counterclaims regarding mark validity or family-of-marks protection. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding insufficient evidence that PrimePay had established consumer recognition of a family of marks and applying the multi-factor likelihood-of-confusion analysis while noting Primepoint's registered mark and limited marketing reach.

business & regulatory

This case involves a high school teacher who reported a harassing phone call from students to school administrators and police, and later was not selected for a coaching position. The plaintiff sued the school board and principal under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment violations, and common law negligence, claiming retaliation for his report. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff's speech did not address a matter of public concern and thus was not protected, there was no causal link to the adverse employment action, and the other claims lacked merit.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rightstorts & liability

In Caldwell v. CVS Corp., plaintiff Rahim Caldwell sued CVS after a store manager accused him of shoplifting while shopping, alleging that CVS employees discriminated against him, racially profiled him, unlawfully touched and detained him, forced him to show his belongings, denied him information, and violated his Thirteenth Amendment rights by not apologizing. The District Court granted CVS's motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court reasoned that constitutional claims under the Thirteenth Amendment and Section 1983 require state action, which is absent against a private corporation like CVS, and that the complaint's allegations were too vague and conclusory to satisfy even the lenient pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs. Additional claims, such as failure to apologize, stated no recognized cause of action under federal or state law.

civil rights