Stanley R. Chesler

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.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

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.

immigration

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.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Omar v. Mueller, a husband and wife sued federal officials to obtain a writ of mandamus compelling USCIS to decide their joint I-751 petition to remove conditions on the husband's permanent residence and his N-400 naturalization application, which had been pending for years due to an incomplete FBI name check. The I-751 petition was approved during the litigation. The court dismissed the entire action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the I-751 claim was moot and that no jurisdiction existed over the naturalization claim under the mandamus statute, the APA, or the INA because there was no clear nondiscretionary duty to act within a set time, administrative remedies had not been exhausted, and the statutory prerequisites for district court review (such as a post-examination 120-day delay) had not been met.

immigrationprocedure

This shareholder derivative suit alleged that directors of SFBC International, Inc. (now PharmaNet Development Group) breached their fiduciary duties through mismanagement of the company's clinical testing operations, including unethical practices that endangered trial participants, falsified reports, conflicts of interest with review boards, and failure to address FDA citations. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1. It concluded that pre-suit demand on the board was futile because the complaint's allegations raised a reasonable doubt that a majority of directors could act disinterestedly, as they faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability for the described misconduct.

business & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

This case is a consumer fraud class action filed in New Jersey state court by plaintiff Ira Hirschbach against NVE Bank and related defendants, alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in the pricing, advertising, and renewal of certificates of deposit at below-market rates after initial terms. Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The court first dismissed with prejudice a later-added claim under the Truth in Savings Act, finding no private right of action after its 2001 repeal and that any earlier claim was time-barred. It then held that the remaining state-law claim did not arise under federal law and that CAFA jurisdiction was unavailable under the local controversy exception, because the bank is a New Jersey entity, a substantial majority of the class members are New Jersey citizens, and the case lacks interstate character or overlapping parallel actions. Accordingly, the court remanded the action to the Superior Court of New Jersey for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involves a tax dispute in the bankruptcy of G-I Holdings Inc. over the 1999 distribution of cash and Treasury bonds from a limited partnership interest, which the government claims triggered taxable gain under IRC §731(c) and §1001. The debtors sought transitional relief from §731(c) on the grounds that a 1994 amendment to the partnership agreement constituted a binding contract predating the statute. The court granted the government's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the debtors' cross-motion, holding that the plain language of the transitional relief provision did not apply to the 1994 amendment because it was not a contract to acquire or increase an interest in a partnership in a manner that satisfied the statutory requirements. The decision relied solely on the unambiguous text of the statute without considering legislative history or extrinsic evidence.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a pro se plaintiff whose I-485 application for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status had remained pending with USCIS for nearly three years pending completion of post-9/11 background checks. She sued various federal officials seeking mandamus and other relief to compel adjudication of the application and to recover alleged damages from the delay. The court examined its subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the APA, and related statutes, focusing on whether the defendants owed her a clear, nondiscretionary duty to process the application within a reasonable time. After reviewing the governing regulations that permit adjudication to be held in abeyance during ongoing investigations, the court concluded no such ministerial duty existed and therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a dispute between a long-term employee and his employer over the conversion of a traditional defined benefit retirement plan to a cash balance plan, with the plaintiff alleging multiple violations of ERISA. The court addressed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It granted the motion as to Counts One and Two, dismissing with prejudice the claims that the plan reduced the rate of benefit accrual on the basis of age under ERISA § 204(b)(1)(H) and related backloading provisions, based on the statutory meaning of benefit accrual rate as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit. It also granted dismissal without prejudice on Counts Three and Four alleging improper plan amendments and lack of required notices. The court denied the motion as to Count Five, allowing the claim for breach of fiduciary duty through material misrepresentations to proceed.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act, where Celgene and Novartis alleged that Teva's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with a Paragraph IV certification constituted willful infringement of their patents. Teva moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the willful infringement claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the artificial act of infringement created by the Hatch-Waxman Act for jurisdictional purposes cannot support a finding of willful infringement. The reasoning is that the Act allows pre-market challenges to patents without actual infringement occurring, and willful infringement requires more than this technical violation, though other claims or exceptional case fees under Section 285 might still apply.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal by multiple law firms representing asbestos tort claimants in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy from bankruptcy court orders requiring compliance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019. The bankruptcy court directed the firms to file detailed statements disclosing their client representations, including any co-counsel, consultant, or fee-sharing arrangements, after motions by insurers involved in related coverage litigation. The district court reviewed challenges to the orders, including motions for reconsideration and stays, and addressed questions of standing and the bankruptcy court's authority to enforce the rule against participating counsel. The court upheld the disclosure requirements as consistent with Rule 2019's purpose of monitoring committees and representations in the case.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a federal prisoner serving a sentence for crack cocaine distribution who sued Church & Dwight, the maker of Arm & Hammer baking soda, claiming the company should have added warnings that using the product with cocaine to manufacture crack is illegal and punishable. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that manufacturers have no duty under New Jersey law to warn about the criminal misuse of products intended for lawful purposes, as citizens are charged with knowledge of the criminal laws and the misuse here was foreign to the product's intended use. The claim was also time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury products liability actions.

torts & liability

In Heindel v. Pfizer, Inc., two Pennsylvania consumers who took prescription NSAIDs Celebrex and Vioxx for osteoarthritis pain sued the manufacturers, alleging they suffered economic injuries because the companies failed to publicize clinical studies showing potential risks, even though the plaintiffs experienced no physical harm and obtained relief from the drugs. The plaintiffs brought claims under New Jersey and other states' consumer fraud statutes, for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and for injunctive relief requiring revised marketing and labeling. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in full. It held that the claims lacked merit under Pennsylvania law, that the absence of any injury precluded recovery on any theory, and that the plaintiffs could not establish the required causation between the alleged nondisclosure and their claimed losses under consumer fraud statutes.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

This case concerns Synaptic Pharmaceuticals' lawsuit against MDS Panlabs alleging infringement of patents covering cloned human receptor genes, cells expressing those receptors, and assays using the receptors to test compound binding for drug discovery. MDS moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, arguing that its testing services, many performed abroad by an affiliate, did not violate U.S. patent laws. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and analyzing issues such as the territorial scope of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including whether foreign performance of patented processes or importation of results constitutes infringement.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Montgomery Academy v. Kohn, the defendant Carolyn Kohn moved to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel, Diane K. Weeks, Esq., from representing the Academy in a lawsuit against Kohn and others. The court granted the motion after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Weeks had engaged in multiple meetings with Kohn during which confidential information regarding Kohn's role as trustee and the Academy's pension plan investments was shared. The core reasoning was that these interactions created circumstances where Kohn reasonably believed Weeks represented her interests or both parties, making continued representation of the Academy against Kohn an impermissible conflict due to the risk of using that information.

procedure

This case involved a contract dispute between Whitlock Packaging Corp., which purchased two beverage cooling tunnels from Precision Diversified Systems, Inc. (PDS), and PDS after the equipment failed to meet performance specifications and caused production downtime. The parties agreed to submit the issue of the failure's cause to an independent engineering firm, Luciano Packaging Technologies, whose report favored Whitlock and triggered contractual remedies including repairs and adjusted payments; PDS challenged the report's validity as an arbitration award. The court granted Whitlock's cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, denied PDS's motion to confirm, granted PDS summary judgment on damages, and denied a trial on damages. The reasoning centered on the arbitrator's qualifications and impartiality under the Federal Arbitration Act, the parties' contractual agreement to be bound by the third-party determination, and the absence of grounds to modify or vacate the award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who purchased land in Ringwood, New Jersey, obtained subdivision approval, and then applied for rezoning from R-40V Residential to R-40 Residential; after the Planning Board declined to recommend approval and the Borough Council denied the application following hearings, plaintiffs sued the borough alleging violations of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights (and an implied equal protection claim) based on alleged bias by officials and favoritism shown to another developer. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that plaintiffs had no protected property interest in a rezoning decision, that any such interest would not support a substantive due process claim because the denial was not arbitrary or irrational, and that the equal protection claim failed under rational-basis review because the council's decision rested on legitimate considerations such as drainage, traffic, erosion, and the absence of supporting expert testimony.

propertycivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over the assignment of a commercial lease for a retail space in a New Jersey shopping center. Michaels Stores, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment construing the terms of its lease assignment from Castle Ridge L.T., Inc. to determine whether it complied with the lease's assignment provisions, particularly Section 14.1(g) allowing assignment to a purchaser of substantially all assets and liabilities without landlord consent. Rag Shop Wayne, Inc. moved to intervene as a defendant, claiming an interest in the lease and property that could be affected by the outcome. The court granted the motion for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), finding that Rag Shop had a protectable interest that might be impaired by the litigation and that its interests were not adequately represented by the existing defendants due to differing positions on the lease interpretation.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory