This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in an adversary proceeding arising from a real estate development dispute, where a homeowners association sued developers for negligent design and construction, and the developers filed third-party claims against an architectural firm for contribution and indemnity. The bankruptcy court dismissed the third-party complaint with prejudice for failure to submit an affidavit of merit as required by N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-27. The district court reversed, holding that the third-party claims were unaccrued pass-through claims for contribution and indemnity that had not yet accrued because no judgment had been entered against the third-party plaintiffs. Under controlling New Jersey precedent in Highland Lakes, such claims are exempt from the affidavit of merit requirement until the primary claims accrue, and the third-party complaint contained no independent causes of action that would trigger the statute.
Baljit Singh, an Indian citizen who overstayed his visa, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by DHS/ICE after a final removal order, claiming the detention was not statutorily authorized and violated Fifth Amendment due process because there was no significant likelihood of removal to India in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court summarily dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding that Singh had not met the threshold required by Zadvydas v. Davis to shift the burden to the government. The core reasoning was that Singh provided no facts beyond the passage of time and his own cooperation to establish good reason to believe removal was unlikely, so 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorized continued detention.
This case involves a dispute among shareholders of Federal Business Centers, Inc., a closely held Subchapter S corporation, where the Sery plaintiffs sought summary judgment on counterclaims filed by the company and other shareholders. The counterclaims alleged that the Serys breached fiduciary duties and contractual obligations by attempting to sell or transfer their shares to an unqualified buyer, which would terminate the corporation's Subchapter S tax status, along with related claims for misrepresentation, tortious interference, breach of confidentiality, and indemnification. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the contract, misrepresentation, tortious interference, and confidentiality counterclaims, finding insufficient evidence of damages or no contractual duty to preserve S status, but denied summary judgment on the fiduciary duty and indemnification claims due to unresolved factual issues and dismissed those without prejudice. The core reasoning centered on the lack of admissible evidence supporting several counterclaims and the absence of a binding contractual obligation or ripe dispute regarding common-law duties in the context of a potential share transfer.
This case is a putative class action under ERISA Section 502 brought by a former Conexant employee against the company and alleged plan fiduciaries, claiming losses to participants in the company's 401(k) retirement savings plan from imprudent investments in Conexant stock and related misrepresentations or nondisclosures during the class period following a problematic corporate acquisition. After the Third Circuit reversed an earlier dismissal for lack of standing, the district court addressed the renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part by dismissing the imprudent investment claims insofar as they concerned the pre-amendment plan, dismissing the misrepresentation/nondisclosure claim entirely, and dismissing certain co-fiduciary monitoring claims against non-director defendants, while denying the motion as to the remaining claims. The decision rests on application of ERISA fiduciary standards to the defined-contribution plan structure and the specific allegations regarding investment options and disclosures.
This case concerns a civil lawsuit brought by StayInFront, Inc. and NAP Associates against Warren Tobin, Tobin Family Limited, Matthew Young, and Employment Associates Limited alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with contract arising from a stock purchase and severance agreements. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final default judgment. It awarded $1,307,535.67 in compensatory damages, holding Tobin and Tobin Family Limited jointly and severally liable for the full sum (including consideration paid under the agreements and attorneys' fees from related New Jersey and New Zealand actions) while limiting Young and Employment Associates Limited's joint and several liability to the attorneys' fees portion. The court denied the request for punitive damages against Young and Employment Associates Limited, finding no additional damages beyond the fees already awarded. The case was closed following entry of the judgment.