Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

On September 9, 2013

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, LLC ruled that “intertwined” parties and claims alone are insufficient to compel arbitration on grounds of equitable estoppel. The plaintiffs in Hirsch purchased two securitized Med Cap notes worth $550,000 through a financial advisor representing broker-dealer Securities America, Inc. (“SAI”). They ultimately lost their investment after an SEC investigation indicated that Med Cap was a Ponzi scheme. Pursuant to an arbitration clause in their purchase applications, plaintiffs initiated FINRA arbitration proceedings against SAI and the financial advisor. In tandem with their arbitration claims, plaintiffs filed a civil action against their accountant EisnerAmper, LLP—who had recommended the financial advisor—and Amper Financial Services, LLC (“AFS”) of which the financial advisor was managing partner and 50% shareholder. EisnerAmper and AFS impleaded SAI for indemnification and contribution. In response, SAI moved to compel arbitration, despite the fact that plaintiffs had not agreed to arbitrate claims with either EisnerAmper or AFS. EisnerAmper and AFS joined in SAI’s motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court granted.

The Case for Getting Aggressive with Workplace Bullies

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Policies and Handbooks

On September 6, 2013

You have heard about bullying on the playground but, did you know it has moved into the workplace? Bullying is now an important employee relations issue for businesses and employers must be aware of the problem and address it. In their recent article published by The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel entitled “The Case For Getting Aggressive With Workplace Bullies,” Kelly Bird and Lindsay J. Jarusiewicz focus on the following concerns: What is workplace bullying? How can workplace bullying impact employers and employees? Are there any laws against workplace bullying? How can employers address the issue?

The Limited “Refund” Remedy Under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Does Not Apply to Violations of the Home Improvement Practices or Home Improvement Contractor Registration Regulations

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Construction Litigation / Contract Claims

On September 6, 2013

The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) provides powerful remedies that can be used by aggrieved parties to a construction contract. While the treble damages and attorneys’ fees remedies have traditionally received greater attention by parties and the courts, the CFA also references a refund remedy in N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-2.11, -2.12 that aggrieved consumers have relied upon to seek refunds of amounts paid under construction contracts that violated the CFA, particularly where they had not been able to demonstrate an ascertainable loss entitling them to treble damages. However, the recent Appellate Division decision in Logatto v. Lipsky effectively eliminates the availability of the refund remedy in virtually all CFA cases, including cases arising out of construction contracts, as well as those involving alleged violations of the Home Improvement Practices and Home Improvement Contractor Registration regulations.

GAO Report Fails to Make it “Open Season” on Trolls

by Thomas J. Bean

Posted in Patent

On September 4, 2013

We have reported frequently in the past on IP law developments relating to so-called Nonpracticing Entities, or NPEs, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act’s mandate that the Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) conduct a study on the consequences of patent litigation by NPEs. On August 22, the GAO issued its 54-page Report, “Intellectual Property: Assessing Factors That Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality” (hereafter, “Report”). In view of the GAO’s mandate, some of the Report’s findings are surprising.

A New Jersey Federal Court Holds that the Stored Communications Act Applies to “Wall Posts” on Facebook

by Richard S. Zackin

Posted in Privacy and Data Security

On September 4, 2013

The Federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (“SCA”), makes it unlawful to, among other things, “intentionally access[] without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided.” Violators are subject to imprisonment and fines, and the statute expressly authorizes a civil action for damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fees. A federal court in New Jersey has now held that the statute may apply to those who access information posted by a Facebook account holder on his or her Facebook “wall.” The defendant-employer in the case, Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. (“MONOC”), was able to avoid liability under the SCA because the plaintiff could not establish that her employer violated the “without authorization” component of the statute. Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. But the case puts employers on notice that they must tread carefully in this area.

Appellate Division Finds a Six Year Statute of Limitations Applicable to New Jersey Spill Act Claims

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On September 4, 2013

In what is a potential game changing decision, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, in Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil Company, et al., Docket No. A-0313-11T3 (App. Div. Aug. 23, 2013) recently held that the six year statute of limitations applicable to property damage claims is applicable to private claims pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act.

NLRB Judge Finds Class Waiver Provision in Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Violates NLRA

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Labor

On August 29, 2013

Last week, a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) found that a Missouri cellphone retailer violated the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”) by requiring, as a condition of employment, its sales representative employees to enter into arbitration agreements mandating that all employment disputes be subject to individual arbitration. In doing so, the ALJ rejected the employer’s argument that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), supported enforcement of the arbitration agreement. In American Express Co., the Court held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), even when the plaintiff’s cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim is prohibitively expensive.

Prejudgment Interest on Claims for Consequential Damages for Breach of Contract are not Recoverable as of Right Under Pennsylvania Law

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Construction Litigation / Contract Claims

On August 27, 2013

Parties often specify in their construction contracts what amounts are recoverable for various events of breach. These provisions can impact not only the award of damages, but also whether amounts should be added to the award for recovery of prejudgment interest under Pennsylvania law. In Cresci Construction Services, Inc. v. James H. Martin, the Pennsylvania Superior Court considered the circumstances under which recovery of prejudgment interest is mandatory as opposed to discretionary. In that case, the plaintiff contractor brought suit against the defendant homeowner, and the homeowner counterclaimed for breach of contract.

Cancellation of Claims by USPTO During Reexam is Binding in Pending District Court Infringement Litigation

by Charles H. Chevalier and Christopher H. Strate

Posted in Patent

On August 26, 2013

Last month, the Federal Circuit addressed the question of “whether, under the reexamination statute, the cancellation of claims by the PTO is binding in pending district court infringement litigation.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13484, at *13 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2013). The Federal Circuit interpreted the reexamination statute to have a binding effect on concurrent litigation, and thus terminated a pending litigation where the same patent claims were cancelled during reexamination. Id. at *43. Accordingly here, the Federal Circuit held that the PTO’s invalidity decisions trump the prior district court ruling.

Can You Find Me Now?: New Jersey Supreme Court Says Police Need a Warrant to Access Location Information From a Cell Phone

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On August 23, 2013

“Advances in technology offer great benefits to society in many areas. At the same time, they can pose significant risks to individual privacy rights.” So begins the recently-issued unanimous decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Earls, in which the Court found that “cell-phone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location information” and, therefore, under the New Jersey Constitution, “police must obtain a search warrant before accessing that information.” Coming at a time when the public’s attention is particularly focused on the tension between technology and privacy, this opinion represents a groundbreaking new rule of law on the constitutional limits of new methods of tracking and surveillance. (See also the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in United States v. Jones and the New York Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor.) With this unprecedented decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court becomes the first state supreme court to find a constitutionally-protected privacy right in the location of a personal cell phone.