Sunday, March 15, 2015
BRIAN ROYSTER VS. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE, ET AL.
Plaintiff asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213, and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14. We held that the doctrine of state sovereign immunity barred the ADA claim, even though defendants did not seek dismissal of the claim on this basis until they filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We also concluded that plaintiff's job responsibilities did not preclude him from asserting a CEPA claim and he presented sufficient evidence for the jury to consider this claim. But we reversed the judgment on the CEPA award and remanded for a new CEPA trial because the jury instructions were fatally flawed.
PAUL AND BARBARA MILLER VS. BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOAN SERVICING, L.P.
Reaching the same conclusion as our colleagues in Arias v. Elite Mortg. Grp., Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (2015), we hold the federal Home Affordable Modification Program's (HAMP) preclusion of private causes of action would not prevent a borrower from pursuing state law claims arising from the breach of an underlying temporary contractual arrangement pending the lender's review under the HAMP guidelines, rejecting the trial judge's reliance on unreported opinions by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to the contrary.
Summary judgment was affirmed, however, because plaintiffs' deposition allegations of timely payment, which were otherwise unsupported by documents referenced but never produced, were insufficient to defeat the business record produced by the lender showing a failure to comply with the terms of the temporary payment agreement. 03/05/15
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES VS. P.C. A-1045-14T4(NEWLY PUBLISHED OPINION FOR MARCH 4, 2015)
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES VS. P.C.
A-1045-14T4(NEWLY PUBLISHED OPINION FOR MARCH 4, 2015)
Defendant P.C. appeals from a Family Part order determining she neglected the emotional needs of her teenaged daughter O.B. (Olivia). At the commencement of a fact-finding hearing on the complaint filed by the Division of Youth and Family Services
(the Division) concerning conduct by B.C., defendant's former husband, the trial judge suggested sua sponte the facts "could rise" to support a finding of neglect against defendant, even though the Division's complaint had not alleged substantive allegations that she had abused or neglected Olivia. Following an adjournment, although the Division's complaint was not amended, the same judge presided over the reconstituted fact-finding hearing reviewing the conduct of both defendant and B.C. We conclude this was error and reverse.03/05/15
IN THE MATTER OF DECEMBER 9, 2014 SPECIAL SCHOOL ELECTION
The Lower Cape May School District is a limited purpose school district educating students in grades seven through twelve who reside in the Borough of West Cape May (West Cape May), the City of Cape May (Cape May) and the Township of Lower (Lower). Cape May sought to withdraw from the regional school district. Accordingly, a special school election was scheduled pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 to afford the voters of Cape May and the constituent districts the opportunity to vote on whether Cape May should be permitted to withdraw. However, the statute is silent as to whether Cape May or the regional school district should bear the cost of the special election. As a matter of first impression, we conclude that N.J.S.A. 19:60-12 obligates the regional school district to pay the cost of the special school election to determine Cape May's proposed withdrawal from the Lower Cape May School District. 03/04/15
STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY VS. NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
In an inter-company arbitration between insurers over contribution for PIP benefits, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-11, all issues, including disputes over coverage, are to be decided by the arbitrator. Given the purpose of the no-fault law to expedite the resolution of PIP disputes, we infer that the Legislature intended to permit summary actions to enforce arbitration under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-11. Hence, the trial court properly allowed plaintiff to proceed by order to show cause, filed pursuant to Rule 4:67-1(a). 03/04/15
DELRAY HOLDING, LLC AND BAY DOCK HOLDINGS, LLC VS. SOFIA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT AT SOUTH BRUNSWICK, LLC, A-0203-13T3
DELRAY HOLDING, LLC AND BAY DOCK HOLDINGS, LLC VS.
SOFIA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT AT SOUTH BRUNSWICK, LLC,
Members of and investors in two LLCs lacked standing as individuals to pursue claims that belonged to the LLCs and that had been settled in other litigation, notwithstanding the individuals' characterization of the claims as tortious interference with their investment agreements with the LLCs. 03/02/15
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION VS. CHERRY HILL MITSUBISHI, INC., ET AL. A-2899-13T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION VS. CHERRY HILL MITSUBISHI, INC., ET AL.
In a summary proceeding filed by the State seeking to remove encroachments from its right-of-way pursuant to N.J.S.A. 27:7-44.1, the named defendants filed a counterclaim against Department of Transportation officials for monetary damages resulting from the alleged violation of their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws, recovery for unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. We find that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars recovery because there is no cognizable property interest in the activity in these circumstances, nor any basis in the record for injunctive relief. The New Jersey Contractual Immunity Act, N.J.S.A. 59:13-3, waived sovereign immunity only for express contracts or contracts implied in fact, not for a contract implied in law which might support defendants' claim for unjust enrichment. The counterclaim is dismissed in its entirety. 02/26/15