Criminal Law Library Blog
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:
After Costco Digs in Its Heels on DEI, What Could Go Wrong?
While reports of U.S. employers scaling back their committment to diversity, equity and inclusion have been all over the news, a much smaller group of businesses has decided to stay the course.
Capitol Report: Commerce Committee Moves Bills on Insurance Premiums, LLCs and More
Read this week’s Capitol Report for an update on several bills the NJSBA is monitoring in the state Senate. The bills address consumer contracts, LLCs and PIP coverage for basic auto insurance policies. Read the full report here.
Local Firms Are Getting ‘Bird’s-Eye Views’ of the Eagles Super Bowl Parade
Expect absolute chaos in Philadelphia on Valentines Day—not because the city is full of couples enjoying the holiday, but because the city will be filled to the brim with rabid Eagles fans celebrating the team’s Super Bowl victory.
Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way to Speak at NJSBA Black History Month Celebration
The Minorities in the Profession Section of the NJSBA invites the legal community to celebrate Black History Month at a free event on Feb. 19. Experience this inspiring presentation of Black history with opening remarks from New Jersey Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way, musical performances and a spotlight on this year’s Black History Month essay contest winners. Register here.
Former Third Circuit Judge Becomes Director at Richards Layton
Kent Jordan, who recently retired from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, has joined Richards, Layton & Finger as a director, the firm announced Wednesday.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – February 13, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CONTRACTS | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE | EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Jennings v. Simmons, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her minority shareholder oppression complaint. Plaintiff served as Senior Vice President for defendant technology company formed in 2014. Plaintiff alleged she was promised a salary and a ten percent equity stake in the company. An employment agreement required an equity buy-in which plaintiff satisfied by way of salary reduction over a two-year period. It was undisputed that plaintiff never received the promised annual salary and defendant company never issued plaintiff share certificates or K-1s. Plaintiff and deceased former principal of company had a physical confrontation in 2017 in which he pushed and pinned plaintiff to the ground. Former principal misrepresented the incident to police and plaintiff was charged with assault. TRO judge found former principal assaulted plaintiff, lied to police and terminated her from company. Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against defendants seeking to recover unpaid wages, redeem a ten percent equity share in company and asserting minority shareholder oppression and company mismanagement. Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference. Trial court denied plaintiff’s request to appoint a receiver or special fiscal agent for company because there was nothing to manage since company had been dissolved. Trial court also found the employment agreement was a “sham” arrangement and had expired. Trial court further found it could not calculate the value of plaintiff’s ten percent equity interest due to the lack of evidence. Trial court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claims, finding no proof of duty or breach of that duty, and rejected plaintiff’s efforts to pierce the corporate veil. Trial court also found deceased former principal was guilty of minority shareholder oppression but that finding did not “spill over” to other defendants. Court affirmed and agreed company was defunct with no assets, making the appointment of a receiver unnecessary. Court also found no basis to pierce the corporate veil or appoint an expert to value plaintiff’s shares since company had no positive value.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Husaeen v. Muslim Ummah Trust, Inc., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment to defendants and the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint concerning the propriety of an election to defendant nonprofit organization’s board of directors. Plaintiffs, who were founding board members, alleged that the election committee improperly invalidated votes based on a misinterpretation of N.J.S.A. 15A:6-4, which committee argued disqualified candidates who had already served six years on the board. Fourteen of the fifteen board members participated in the vote for new board members but election committee invalidated the votes of six members. Trial court found nothing in the “plain language of N.J.S.A. 15A:6-4 that prevented any of the former [b]oard members . . . from being elected to the new [b]oard . . . so long as the election is consistent with the organization’s bylaws.” While the statute imposed a maximum term of six years for a particular board member, it did not limit the number of terms such member could serve. Trial court concluded that any mistake regarding the invalidation of votes did not present a justiciable issue, since the invalidated votes would not have changed the election outcome. Plaintiffs argued trial court should have addressed the alleged misinterpretation of the statute and the improper invalidation of votes. Court agreed N.J.S.A. 15A:6-4 did not impose term limits on members of a nonprofit corporation’s board of directors but found genuine issues of material fact regarding the board’s decision to invalidate votes and remanded. Court also noted there was not enough information in the record to find the invalidation of the votes was inconsequential.
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farah, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Rey Olsen, a non-party, appealed the trial court’s order denying his motion for an emergency stay of eviction and to vacate a foreclosure judgment against defendant James Farah. In 2008, defendant executed a promissory note for $924,415 with Washington Mutual Bank, secured by a mortgage on his Chatham property. After Washington Mutual went into receivership, plaintiff JPMorgan Chase acquired the note and mortgage. Defendant defaulted in 2010, leading to foreclosure proceedings in 2014 that culminated in a final judgment in 2020 for $1,442,701.38. The judgment ordered the sale of the property and foreclosed all equity of redemption. Defendant’s subsequent motions to dismiss and vacate were denied, and the property was sold to plaintiff at a sheriff’s sale in 2022. In 2023, defendant assigned a 20% interest in claims against plaintiff to Olsen, who then moved to vacate the foreclosure judgment, arguing a statute of limitations defense and seeking relief under Rule 4:50-1. The trial court found the foreclosure complaint timely and Olsen’s arguments unmeritorious, denying his motion and request to stay eviction. On appeal, the court determined Olsen lacked standing, as he was not a party to the original litigation and had not applied for intervention. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision without addressing the merits of Olsen’s appeal.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Driesse, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentencing following a jury trial for attempted murder. Driesse drove a friend to a secluded area where he allegedly threatened her with a gun, claiming it was an attempt to recreate a scene from a television show to dissuade her from suicide. Defendant claimed that he believed friend was suicidal due to emotional issues relating to her relationships and sexuality, and asserted he was trying to instill in her a desire to live by showing her what it felt like to be close to dying. Defendant was indicted on multiple charges, including attempted murder and unlawful possession of a weapon. The jury found defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon and terroristic threats, while acquitting him of other charges. On appeal, defendant claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial, improper application of the Graves Act, and errors in the trial court’s assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors during sentencing. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding no violation of defendant’s right to a speedy trial as the COVID-19 pandemic provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and defendant was not prejudiced by the delay, noting that he waited until the eve of trial to file his speedy trial motion. The court further upheld the denial of a Graves Act waiver, finding that the prosecutor appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors. Finally, the court also determined that the trial court’s sentencing was within guidelines. However, the court remanded the case for the removal of an improperly applied aggravating factor from the judgment of conviction.
DAMAGES | GOVERNMENT
Wiggins Plastics, Inc. v. County of Passaic, Superior Court Law Division, Judge Del Sardo. The County of Passaic and the Passaic County Board of Commissioners moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the fourth count of plaintiffs Wiggins Plastics, Inc. and Knickerbocker Bed Company’s second amended complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that material factual disputes remained and that the motion was premature due to incomplete discovery. The case arose from damages allegedly caused by negligent acts related to a bridge replacement project contracted by the county to Assuncao Brothers, Inc., following Hurricane Ida. Plaintiffs asserted a vicarious liability claim against the county for the contractor’s actions. Defendants argued that the New Jersey Tort Claims Act immunized the county from vicarious liability for acts of independent contractors. The court found that under the TCA, public entities are not liable for the actions of independent contractors. Plaintiffs conceded that Assuncao was an independent contractor and failed to identify any applicable exception or specific facts to establish vicarious liability. The court concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the fourth count, as plaintiffs did not demonstrate a nondelegable duty or present facts to preclude summary judgment.