Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

gTLDs Pose New Threats in Cyberspace

On March 16, 2012

On January 12, 2012, ICANN, the Internet’s domain name registration watch dog, began accepting applications for new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) to add to those already in existence, including .com, .net, .biz and others. Under the new scheme, any company can apply for a gTLD, thereby expanding the domain name system (DNS). Ultimately, this expansion will change the Internet forever. Each new gTLD poses an incremental risk for trademark owners who are already under heavy assault in cyberspace from cybersquatting (registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark owner), brandjacking (assuming the online identity of another entity for the purposes of trading on another’s brand equity), and typosquatting (registering URLs with common misspellings) by those seeking to generate illicit profits. According to the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA), cybersquatting already costs trademark owners more than $1 billion each year due to lost sales, lost goodwill, and increased enforcement costs. However, with a major increase in gTLDs, many corporations fear an expansion in expensive litigation to enforce their brands and trademarks.

New Jersey Appellate Division Finds That a Demand for Arbitration or Mediation Constitutes the “First-filed” Action for Comity Purposes

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in General Litigation

On March 15, 2012

In CTC Demolition Company, Inc. v. GMH AETC Management / Development, LLC, et al., the Appellate Division recently found in a to-be published opinion that a party’s demand for contractually-mandated arbitration or mediation may constitute the “first filed” action for purposes of a comity analysis. The “first filed rule” typically surfaces where parties have engaged in a “race to the courthouse,” filing similar lawsuits in different jurisdictions that they perceive to be most friendly to their cause. Based on traditional principles of comity, the rule provides that “a New Jersey court should not interfere with a similar, earlier-filed case in another jurisdiction that is capable of affording adequate relief and doing complete justice,” Sensient Colors, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., but allows for certain exceptions, such as where “the presence of special equities may lead a court to disregard the traditional deference paid to the first-filed action.”

The Extension of the Permit Extension Act is on the Move, To Be Reviewed Today By Assembly Appropriations Committee

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Environmental and Green Issues / Transactional Real Estate and Leasing

On March 12, 2012

About two months ago, several NJ Legislators, including State Senator Paul Sarlo (Bergen/Passaic) and Assemblyman Ronald Dancer, proposed bills that would amend the 2008 “Permit Extension Act.” Designed to give developers breathing room in the sluggish economy by extending the validity of development approvals, Proposed Bill S743 (the “Bill” or “S743”) is gaining traction and is moving through the necessary legislative committees. On March 5, 2012, S743 passed by a vote of 4-0 by the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. The Bill is scheduled to go before the Assembly Appropriations Committee on March 12, 2012.

Victory for Accountants: Accountant Third-Party Liability Based on Third-Party’s Access to Accountants’ Work Product Arises Only When Accountant is Explicitly Informed at Outset of Engagement that Third Party Will Rely on Accountant’s Work

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in General Litigation

On March 12, 2012

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held in Cast Art Industries, LLC v. KPMG LLP that the scope of accountant liability contained in the Accountant Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25(b)(2)(a), is restricted to clients and third parties who the accountant knew at the start of engagement would have access to the accountant’s work product. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25(b)(2) identifies three circumstances when an accountant may be liable to a third party, including when the accountant “knew at the time of the engagement by the client, or agreed with the client after the time of the engagement” that the accountant’s work product would be made available to the third party. The Appellate Division held that an accountant retained to conduct an audit could be liable to a third party who received and relied on the audit so long as the accountant knew at some point during the engagement that the third party would rely on the audit.

NJDEP Finalizes Waiver Rule

by Paul M. Hauge

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On March 9, 2012

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) announced on March 8 that it had finalized a new waiver rule that will permit the department to relax environmental rules in certain limited circumstances. The new rule, which grew out an executive order from Governor Christie that called upon state agencies to apply “common sense principles” in implementing and enforcing legal requirements, will be formally published on April 2, 2012 and will become effective on August 1, 2012.

In re Staats: Two-Year Time Limit for Reissue Applications

by Thomas J. Bean

Posted in Patent

On March 9, 2012

In In re Staats, a Federal Circuit panel including Judges Dyk, O’Malley and Reyna found that the requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 251 for filing broadening reissue application within two years of patent issuance is met once a first broadening reissue application has been filed within that time period, and that subsequently-filed and broadening continuation applications based on the first broadening reissue application need not be filed within the two-year period. In reaching this decision, the Federal Circuit interpreted and affirmed a ruling made by its predessor court, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) in In re Doll.

The Southern District of New York and the District of Delaware Restore Order to a Chaotic Post-Stern Landscape

by Brett S. Theisen

Posted in General Litigation

On March 7, 2012

Recently, the Southern District of New York and the District of Delaware have issued Amended Standing Orders resolving some of the uncertainty arising from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Stern v. Marshall last term by expressly permitting bankruptcy courts to hear and issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in those matters where they lack the constitutional authority to issue final judgments.

Healthcare System and its CEO Held Not Liable by New York District Court for Wage Claims at Single Hospital in the Hospital System

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Wage and Hour

On March 7, 2012

The issue of whether a hospital system (operating over 25 facilities) and its Chief Executive Officer can be held liable for wage claims by workers employed at a single entity within the system was decided by the Eastern District of New York in Wolman v. Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc. Applying traditional tests to assess “joint employer” liability, the District Court concluded that plaintiffs did not plead the basic elements in the complaint to hold the hospital system and its CEO liable for alleged unpaid wages. The Court reached a similar conclusion regarding several underlying claims — failure to compensate employees for meal periods and for time spent pre- and post-shift — based on plaintiffs’ inadequate pleadings.

NJ Department of Labor Re-Adopts Inside Sales Exemption

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Wage and Hour

On March 6, 2012

Effective February 21, 2012, the inside salesperson exemption was re-adopted by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL) as part of the Administrative Exemption contained in New Jersey’s wage and hour laws. When the NJDOL adopted the so-called “white collar” exemptions for Administrative, Executive, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer employees as contained in the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) in September 2011, it eliminated this long-recognized exemption. As we previously reported, the NJDOL later admitted that the elimination of this exemption was inadvertent and proposed regulations to reinstate it.

Taking the Plunge: Judge Peck Issues First Decision Endorsing Computer-Assisted ESI

by Phillip J. Duffy

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On March 2, 2012

Late last year, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, one of the most prominent judicial thought leaders in e-discovery, wrote an article entitled Search, Forward in which he opined that computer-assisted ESI review “should be used where it will help ‘secure the just, speedy and inexpensive’ (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1) determination of cases”, but he forecast that lawyers awaiting a judicial opinion endorsing predictive coding might have “a long wait.” As it turns out, the wait wasn’t very long at all; on Friday, February 24, 2012, less than 6 months after the publication of his article, Judge Peck himself issued the first judicial opinion approving the use of predictive coding “in appropriate cases.”