These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from the the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed:
NEWS BRIEFS:
A Year of Controversy: NJ Judges Face Disciplinary and Legal Issues With Mixed Results in 2024
From social media posts to pension disputes, New Jersey’s judiciary faced a year of sharp contrasts, marked by significant wins and losses for the state’s judges.
Find Joy in Practicing Law with NJICLE
Learn how joyfulness and empathy practices will make you a more effective lawyer and litigator in this special NJICLE seminar on Dec. 30. The program will help you prevent burnout, develop empathy for clients, improve colleague relations and handle pressure and ethical dilemmas with clarity and compassion. Register here.
First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company UCB has sued to protect its patents for a Parkinson’s drug after an India-based company attempted to file an FDA application to create a generic version.
Only a Few Days Left – Meet the Dec. 31 MCLE Deadline with NJICLE
Don’t delay! The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s award-winning seminars can help you meet the mandatory CLE deadline. NJICLE offers live and virtual seminars, and on-demand videos and programs to satisfy your diversity and ethics credits. Check it out here.
A former Navy Seal and associate fired from McCarter & English one year ago is accusing the firm of discrimination and creating a hostile work environment.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – December 26, 2024
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CIVIL RIGHTS | EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Andreula v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Nutley, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her New Jersey Law Against Discrimination retaliation action. Plaintiff teacher alleged retaliation for serving as a witness in an investigation arising from a complaint made by another teacher against Principal Restel. Two months after her interview, plaintiff was involuntarily transferred to another school to teach fifth grade, which was a grade she had never taught. That transfer was blocked by a trial court. She claimed a pattern of retaliatory actions and disparate treatment, including having her emails ignored by her principal, not receiving student test scores, being subjected to a sham investigation, having her teaching partners frequently rotated and being subjected to disparate treatment with respect to district’s mask wearing policy. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e) and Rule 4:6-4(b). Motion court agreed with defendants and dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint against the Board finding no adverse employment action and dismissed the individual claims under a theory of aiding and abetting based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff argued she did establish a prima facie claim of retaliation and trial court erred in holding qualified immunity applied and she provided sufficient facts to show the theory of aiding and abetting applied. Court reversed the dismissal of the claims against the Board and principal, finding plaintiff sufficiently alleged a pattern of retaliatory conduct that could constitute an adverse employment action. Court affirmed the dismissal of claims against other individual defendants but noted that such dismissals should be without prejudice.
CONTRACTS
Reuther v. TKF Prop. Mgmt. & Constr. Serv., LLC, Superior Court Law Division, Judge Cagan. Plaintiffs Eleanor, Devin, and Kimberly Reuther moved for summary judgment against defendants Inlom LLC and others, alleging breach of contract and related claims. The procedural context involved multiple motions for summary judgment and dismissal of counterclaims, with oral arguments heard on September 13, 2024. In a 2011 contract, amended in 2012, Eleanor and Daniel Reuther agreed to sell property to Inlom LLC, contingent on subdivision approval and potential annexation of a parcel to Lot 3, owned by Devin and Kimberly Reuther. Plaintiffs’ complaint asserted claims of breach of contract, fraud, and negligence, asserting that Inlom failed to fulfill contractual obligations, such as annexing the parcel and connecting utilities. The court, referencing its prior decision, found that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by waiver, estoppel, and laches, as they had accepted payment for a four-lot subdivision and knew only an easement was granted. The court dismissed the complaint against defendants with prejudice, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and denied Inlom’s request for attorneys’ fees under the frivolous litigation statute. Additionally, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss defendant TKF Property Management & Construction Services, LLC’s counterclaims and cross-motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues regarding claims of slander of title and tortious interference.
CONTRACTS | EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Mecaj v. Sussex County Cmty. Coll., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff Dr. Ludmilla Mecaj appealed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Sussex County Community College and other defendants, dismissing her claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff, an adjunct professor at SCCC from 2012 to 2019, claimed she was entitled to a 30% commission on tuition from international students she recruited, based on an alleged oral agreement with SCCC’s president and board members. However, no formal contract was signed, and she was compensated for her recruiting work through stipends and expense reimbursements. The parties disputed whether plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of additional compensation and whether SCCC was unjustly enriched by her recruitment efforts. The trial court found no genuine issues of material fact, determining that plaintiff’s expectation of a 30% commission was unsupported due to the lack of a formal contract and board approval of any such arrangement, and that her damages claim was speculative as she presented no evidence of comparable compensation paid by other colleges or universities. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s findings, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims. The court also held that plaintiff was equitably estopped from claiming additional compensation, as she had accepted the stipends and reimbursements without reservation, and SCCC relied on this acceptance as fulfillment of their obligation.
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Cosgriff v. Bd. of Review, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed the decision finding her ineligible for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. Plaintiff worked as a part-time food service worker at a senior assisted living facility and left her job in April 2020, requesting a leave of absence due to COVID-19 concerns. She did not consult a medical professional and no one in her household tested positive for COVID-19 prior to her request. She filed for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits and received them in April 2020 until a determination of ineligibility in October 2020 was made. Director of Unemployment and Disability Insurance found she left her position voluntarily, was ineligible for benefits and requested refund of the benefits received. Appeal tribunal affirmed the decision after three hearings. Board modified the decision, nullifying the portion finding plaintiff ineligible under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a),1 but affirming the finding of ineligibility under Section 9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES Act. Board found plaintiff liable for the refund. Plaintiff argued Board erred in concluding she was ineligible for CARES Act benefits. Court affirmed. Court agreed with the Board’s determination and noted defendant did not meet the statutory criteria for PUA benefits because her decision to stop working was not one of the COVID-19 related reasons delineated under the CARES Act.
FAMILY LAW
Slanovec v. Carroll, Superior Court Chancery Division, Judge Fisher. Defendant Robert Carroll filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff Barbara Slanovec. Plaintiff alleged that defendant, her brother, and his co-defendant Maia Modebadze alienated their mother Margaret Carroll’s affections, impacting plaintiff’s relationship with her mother. Plaintiff claimed that defendants’ actions, including false statements, hindered her relationship with their mother, Margaret, who resides in New Jersey, while plaintiff and defendant live in Pennsylvania and Florida, respectively. Plaintiff’s complaint included counts for “visitation and access,” “prima facie tort,” and “defamation.” Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims did not constitute valid causes of action, particularly focusing on the alleged alienation of Margaret’s affections. The court considered whether Margaret was an indispensable party, if the Heart Balm Act barred the claim, and if equitable relief was warranted. The court found that Margaret, as an autonomous individual entitled to manage her personal relationships, should be included as a party to the case, as her rights and desires could be affected by any injunctive relief granted. The court also considered whether the Heart Balm Act, which abolished certain alienation claims related to marriage, applied to this parent-child relationship. The court concluded that the Act did not expressly bar plaintiff’s claims, as they did not involve a marital relationship. However, the court acknowledged the novelty and uncertainty of plaintiff’s claims, suggesting they might represent a new or evolving legal doctrine. Despite doubts about the claims’ viability, the court denied the motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiff to proceed beyond the pleading stage. The court emphasized the need for Margaret’s inclusion as an indispensable party and highlighted the potential challenges in crafting injunctive relief that respects all parties’ rights and relationships.