OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. Before the Court are plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the reasons expressed below, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment will be denied, and defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Edison Lima, Jr., was employed by Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx") and was a participant in the Federal Express Corporation Short Term Disability Plan ("the Plan")....
OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. This case concerns plaintiff's claims that the defendant insurance company, American Hardware Mutual Insurance Company, is equitably estopped from denying his entitlement to Underinsured Motorist Insurance ("UIM") coverage and, if not, whether he is entitled to coverage under a policy issued to his employer. Presently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. 1 For the reasons expressed below, plaintiff's motion will be...
OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court by way of a motion [Doc. No. 85] for summary judgment by Defendants Gilberto Morales and Isidoro Reyes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court has considered the parties' submissions and decides this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons expressed below, Defendants' motion will be granted. I. JURISDICTION In his amended complaint [Doc. No. 49], Plaintiff...
OPINION DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, District Judge. Jason Fuller filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenging his post-removal-period detention at Essex County Correctional Facility, where he is being held in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") without a bond hearing. This Court will summarily dismiss the Petition because Mr. Fuller has not alleged facts showing that he has been detained for more than six months after the beginning of...
OPINION SALAS, District Judge. Pending before this Court are the parties' cross motions for partial summary judgment. (D.E. Nos. 59, 60). The issue is whether the capitalized cost reduction payments ("CCR") paid by Plaintiffs W. Dana Venneman ("Venneman") and Theodore Collins ("Collins") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") at the inception of their automotive leases constitute rent paid in advance under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"), codified at 50 U.S.C.A.App. 535(f). Under...
OPINION JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Brenda L. St. Jean brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), seeking review of a partially favorable final decision issued by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The Commissioner granted Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. ("the Act"), for the period of September 23, 2009, through...
OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), to review the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income ("Social Security benefits") under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 401, et seq. The issue before the Court is...
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. This matter having come before the Court on the motion of defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. ("Electrolux") for reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) 1 , of the Court's denial of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims regarding defective ice makers in their Electrolux refrigerators; and Defendant arguing that the Court erred when it did not find that the New Jersey plaintiffs' fraud and implied warranty claims...
OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. In this qui tam action, plaintiff Steve Greenfield claims that defendants violated the federal False Claims Act, as well as twenty-four state and city statutes regulating false claims. Presently before the Court is the motion of defendants to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. For the reasons expressed below, defendants' motion will be granted, but plaintiff will be granted leave to re-file his claims should he choose to do so. BACKGROUND Greenfield...
OPINION JOSEPH E. IRENAS, Senior District Judge. This is a deprivation of rights case arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 1 Plaintiff Thomas Suchocki ("Suchocki") asserts that Defendants Sergeant Chris Gilcrest ("Gilcrest"), the Paulsboro Police Department, and the City of Paulsboro ("Paulsboro") violated his civil rights during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest. Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated below, this Motion will be granted....
OPINION JOSEPH E. IRENAS, Senior District Judge. This is a patent infringement suit. 1 Plaintiff Artemi's patented device is the Spacemaker, which is a hook with a strap attached. The Spacemaker is used to increase the number of clothes hangers that can be hung on a single rail. Defendant Safe-Strap designed and sells a similar product, the Hanger-Under, which Artemi asserts infringes its patent. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Artemi's Motion to Dismiss four of Defendant Safe-Strap'...
ORDER NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for default against the State of New Jersey for $300,000. And, it appearing that: 1. Plaintiff filed a complaint against several defendants, including the State of New Jersey. 2. A summons was issued to the State of New Jersey and returned executed on June 14, 2012, and the Court's docket noting a response due date of July 5, 2012. 3. On February 11, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for entry of...
OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Contemporary Graphics and Bindery Inc.'s motion [Doc. No. 17] for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and decides this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons expressed below, Defendant's motion will be granted. I. JURISDICTION Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant...
OPINION JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge. This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket Item 58). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion will be denied as to Defendant Gibb, and granted as to Defendants Lopez, Zickefoose, and Turner-Foster. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background Although Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, at the time he submitted his complaint on...
OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. Presently before the Court is the Motion [7] of Defendant State Trooper J. B. Zyskowski to dismiss the Complaint against him alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND This matter was originally opened to the Court by Plaintiff Victor L. Harris's submission of a civil rights complaint asserting claims arising out of the...
OPINION JOEL A. PISANO, District Judge. Petitioner Michael A. Pero, III ("Petitioner"), a prisoner formerly confined at Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey, 1 has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The respondents are Warden John Duffy and the Attorney General of New Jersey. For the reasons stated herein, the Petition shall be denied. I. THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS This matter involves a prisoner's request for trial pursuant...
OPINION CHESLER, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Anita Holley, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1383(c)(3), 405(g), seeks review of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration's ("the Commissioner") decision denying her application for Social Security Disability Benefits. Plaintiff argues that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence and should be reversed. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, this Court finds the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial...
OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on the pending motion for relief from this Court's September 25, 2002 Consent Decree or alternatively to reopen the case and intervene by non-parties Richard Marolda, Sherry Marolda, Rigi Holdings, LLC and Marolda Farms, Inc. (hereinafter "Maroldas" or "Marolda Litigants"). [Docket Item 22.] Several insurance companies have intervened and filed opposition to the Maroldas' motion. The government has also filed...
OPINION ROBERT B. KUGLER, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the motions (Docket entry nos. 17 and 19) of Petitioner, Timothy Adams, seeking relief from judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), with regard to this Court's July 21, 2011 Opinion and Order (Docket entry nos. 15 and 16) dismissing Petitioner's habeas petition, filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241, for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed his motions on or about January 7, 2013 and July 17, 2013, respectively....
OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), to review the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying the application of Plaintiff for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income ("Social Security benefits") under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 401, et seq. The issue before the Court is...
