Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: New Jersey Law

Law Division Holds Unfiled Discovery Protected From Common-Law Right of Access

by

Posted in General Litigation

On May 29, 2013

The Law Division in a to-be-published opinion in Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP v. New Jersey Department of Law & Public Safety, Division of Law, recently held that public policy does not favor access to unfiled discovery in public sector litigation under New Jersey’s common-law right of access. Plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs for failure to comply with the Open Public Records Act, (“OPRA”), and the common-law right of access in refusing to provide plaintiff with copies of unfiled transcripts of expert depositions in environmental litigation brought by the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”). Because the transcripts in their entirety had not been filed with the Court, NJDEP denied plaintiff’s OPRA request on privilege and confidentiality grounds.

New Jersey Appellate Division Takes “Hands-Off” Approach to Contractual Breaches of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

by

Posted in General Litigation

On May 21, 2013

In Sun Pharmaceutical Industries v. Core Tech Solutions, New Jersey’s Appellate Division affirmed a Trial Court order dismissing plaintiff’s claims that defendants had breached their contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. The decision is notable because it sheds light on the definition of “good faith” in the context of a preliminary agreement, an area where there is little New Jersey precedent.

Insurers Doing Business in New Jersey are Being Increasingly Precluded from Arbitrating Out-of-State

by

Posted in Insurance

On April 19, 2013

In Allied Professionals Insurance Co. v. Jodar, New Jersey’s Appellate Division affirmed a trial court order denying enforcement of an arbitration choice-of-forum provision in a medical malpractice insurance contract. The decision is notable because it broadly interprets prior Appellate Division case law, reaches a contrary result to a recent Law Division case where the issue went unchallenged, and paves the way for further extension of the result.

New Law Places Stricter Limits on Shareholder Derivative Suits

by

Posted in General Litigation

On April 3, 2013

On April 2, 2013, Governor Christie signed A-3123, which revises New Jersey’s law concerning shareholder derivative proceedings under N.J.S.A. § 14A:3-6. According to the New Jersey Corporate and Business Law Study Commission, the purpose of this new law is to preclude derivative lawsuits that impose excessive and unnecessary costs on New Jersey corporations. The law applies to both derivative proceedings brought on behalf of a single shareholder and shareholder class actions against a corporation or its directors that arise out of a breach of duty imposed by New Jersey statutory or common law.

Recent Developments Under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act

by

Posted in General Litigation

On January 16, 2013

New Jersey courts decided a trio of cases last month that shine a spotlight on the State’s Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”), which governs the disclosure of government records when requested by members of the public. These opinions — the holdings of which are summarized below — serve as important guideposts for practitioners litigating OPRA-related matters.

New Jersey Supreme Court Tolls Filing Deadlines Due to Impact of Hurricane Sandy

by

Posted in General Litigation

On November 13, 2012

In light of the wide-ranging and destructive impact of Hurricane Sandy, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that October 29, 2012, through November 16, 2012, shall be deemed the same as legal holidays for purposes of computing filing deadlines under the court rules and any statutes of limitations. Thus, any New Jersey state court filing that would otherwise be due between October 29, 2012, and November 16, 2012, will be deemed timely if filed on Monday, November 19, 2012.

Third Circuit Deflates Run-Flat Tire Class Action Against BMW and Bridgestone

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On September 21, 2012

In Marcus v. BMW of N. Am, LLC, et al., the Third Circuit vacated an order certifying a class of owners and lessees of various model-year BMW vehicles equipped with run-flat tires, finding the class definition impermissibly vague, the proposed class not ascertainable, and otherwise rejecting certification on numerosity and predominance grounds. Although the Court remanded for further proceedings, it will likely be very difficult for the plaintiff to have a class certified in light of the Court’s directives for the necessary proof.

New Amendments to New Jersey Court Rules Will Make Orders Denying Arbitration Immediately Appealable

by

Posted in Appellate

On August 13, 2012

The amended Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey will take effect on September 4, 2012. Among the more important amendments are those concerning a party’s ability to appeal an arbitration order. Typically, only final orders that conclude a litigation as to all parties and all issues are immediately appealable. But, as a result of amendments made in 2010, the current version of Rule 2:2-3(a) expands the notion of a final order in the context of orders compelling arbitration, providing that “an order compelling arbitration, whether the action is dismissed or stayed, shall also be deemed a final judgment of the Court for appeal purposes.” The New Jersey Supreme Court in GMAC v. Pittella, 205 N.J. 572 (2011), expanded that Rule still further by holding that “orders compelling or denying arbitration are deemed final and appealable as of right as of the date entered.” To implement that decision, Rule 2:2-3(a) has been amended to state that “any order either compelling arbitration, whether the action is dismissed or stayed, or denying arbitration shall also be deemed a final judgment of the Court for appeal purposes.” An amendment to Rule 2:9-1(a) will permit the Trial Court to retain jurisdiction, pending appeal, over other parties and claims that remain in that court.

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Finds Franchisee’s Felony Conviction is Not a Valid Basis for Immediate Termination of a Franchise Agreement Under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act When the Crime is Not “Directly Related to the Business Conducted Pursuant to the Franchise”

by

Posted in General Litigation

On August 9, 2012

All franchisors and distributors should be aware of a June 27, 2012, decision in which the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reaffirmed the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act’s (“FPA”) strong policy of protecting the rights of franchisees and limiting a franchisor’s ability to terminate a franchise agreement without first providing 60 days written notice — even in the face of a franchisee’s felony conviction — so long as that conviction is not “directly related to the business conducted pursuant to the Franchise.” In International House of Pancakes, LLC, et al. v. Parsippany Pancake House Inc., Civil Action No. 12-03307 (WJM) (MF), the District Court denied International House of Pancakes’ (“IHOP”) request for a preliminary injunction enforcing IHOP’s termination of Defendant Parsippany Pancake House, Inc.’s (“Pancake House”) franchise and prohibiting Pancake House from continued use of IHOP’s logos and other marks. IHOP terminated the franchise, effective immediately, after learning that Pancake House’s president and majority owner pleaded guilty to the crime of endangering the welfare of a minor, and admitted during his plea hearing to having engaged in sexual conduct with a minor, a felony. IHOP ended Pancake House’s franchise based upon language in the franchise agreement providing for immediate termination if the franchisee is convicted a felony. Pancake House countered that the...

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories