Sun Chemical Corporation v. Fike Corporation (082815)(Statewide) (A-89-18;

Sun Chemical Corporation v. Fike Corporation (082815)(Statewide) (A-89-18; 082815)

The Court answers the certified question in the affirmative. A CFA claim alleging express misrepresentations -- deceptive, fraudulent, misleading, and other unconscionable commercial practices -- may be brought in the same action as a PLA claim premised upon product manufacturing, warning, or design defects. It is the nature of the claims brought, not the nature of the damages sought, that is dispositive of whether the PLA precludes the separate causes of action. In other words, the PLA will not bar a CFA claim alleging express or affirmative misrepresentations.

MICHAEL BANDLER VS. LANDRY'S INC., GOLDEN NUGGET ATLANTIC CITY, ET AL. (L-0026-16, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-5064-17T3)

MICHAEL BANDLER VS. LANDRY'S INC., GOLDEN NUGGET ATLANTIC CITY, ET AL. (L-0026-16, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-5064-17T3)

The sole issue presented in plaintiff's appeal from the grant of summary judgment to defendants is whether the Casino Control Act, which grants the Division of Gaming Enforcement authority to regulate gaming-related advertising, N.J.S.A. 5:12-70(a)(16), preempts plaintiff's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and common law claims alleging a casino hotel falsely advertised a poker tournament. Based on its review of the two statutes, and relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's test for determining preemption of the CFA in Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management Corp.,

EDISON BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, ET AL. (L-3666-19,

EDISON BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, ET AL. (L-3666-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0320-19T1)

A municipal board of education (BOE) challenged the grant of a use and bulk variances by a local zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) to permit construction of multi-family residential structures. The BOE alleged it had standing to bring the suit because the additional families would further tax an already overcrowded school district. In addition, the BOE argued that the ZBA violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21, because it failed to include on its meeting agenda any item reflecting its intention to adopt a memorializing resolution. The trial court rejected these arguments, and this court affirmed.

The court concluded that the BOE lacked standing, because it was not an "interested party," N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4, based on a generalized claim that more families might overburden the school district. The court also concluded that the ZBA did not violate the OPMA, because it included the particular meeting as a "special meeting" on its annual published notice of meetings. See Witt v. Gloucester Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 94 N.J. 422, 433 (1983) (holding that "[p]ublication of an agenda . . . is required only in those instances where no annual notice has been provided in accordance with N.J.S.A. 10:4-18

Carol Crispino v. Township of Sparta (083171) (Sussex County & Statewide) (A-16-19;

Carol Crispino v. Township of Sparta (083171) (Sussex County & Statewide) (A-16-19; 083171)

The expert report relied on by the Township did not apply any reliable methodology to assure that the assessment allocating the costs among the properties was “in proportion to and not in excess of the benefits conferred,” as required by N.J.S.A. 58:4-12(d)(1) and other statutes. The Court is constrained to invalidate Sparta Township Resolution 6-1, which imposes a special assessment on plaintiffs’ properties to recoup the costs of the dam restoration project. The Township must pass a resolution allocating costs based on a valid methodology in accordance with the applicable statutes and relevant case law.

Bank Leumi USA v. Edward J. Kloss (083372)(Statewide) (A-32-19

Bank Leumi USA v. Edward J. Kloss (083372)(Statewide) (A-32-19; 083372)

The Court answers the certified question in the negative. A party who files a successful motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is not precluded by the entire controversy doctrine from asserting claims in a later suit that arise from the same transactional facts.

Christian Mission John 316 v. Passaic City (083487) (Tax Court & Statewide) (A-33-19

Christian Mission John 316 v. Passaic City (083487) (Tax Court & Statewide) (A-33-19; 083487)

It was error to grant summary judgment because, construing all inferences in Christian Mission’s favor, there is evidence that the property might have been used in a manner that could satisfy N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6’s actual use requirement -- storage of religious items and/or other church-related activities at the property before construction began, during construction, and as of the valuation date in 2012.

Gloria Colon v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC (083154) (Union County & Statewide) (A-7-19;

Gloria Colon v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC (083154) (Union County & Statewide) (A-7-19; 083154)

The NJAA may apply to arbitration agreements even if parties to the agreements are exempt under section 1 of the FAA. Therefore, the parties in both Colon and Arafa are not exempt from arbitration and their arbitration agreements are enforceable. In Arafa, the arbitration agreements are enforceable under the NJAA. In Colon, the arbitration agreements are enforceable under either the FAA or the NJAA, which will be determined by the trial court upon remand when it resolves whether the employees in that case were transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce.