Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Search

  • LISA LOMBARDI VS. ANTHONY A. LOMBARDI (FM-11-0113-11, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0350-21 Appellate April 3, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DEVON A. JACKSON (13-01-0094, 13-03-0837, 15-02-0279, 15-02-0338, 15-03-0582 AND 16-01-0016, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0430-21 Appellate April 3, 2023
  • IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF STIPO JURIC, DECEASED (P-000164-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2025-21 Appellate April 3, 2023
  • BEST HORTICULTURAL SERVICES, INC. VS. TOWNSHIP OF MARLBORO (L-1640-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2310-21 Appellate April 3, 2023
  • JEFFREY SANTANA VS. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC (L-3156-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2433-21 Appellate April 3, 2023 Summary A-2433-21      Plaintiff filed a products-liability complaint against defendant, alleging the invisible tooth aligners he purchased on-line damaged his teeth and resulted in lasting injuries.  Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, citing an arbitration provision that was embedded in the first of three hyperlinked underlined documents that appeared in different colored font.  The hyperlinked document, entitled "Informed Consent," included not only the arbitration agreement but also explanations of the benefits and risks of using the aligners, representations by plaintiff regarding his oral health, and his consent to the treatment.  Users could not proceed to open an account and order the aligners unless they clicked on a box next to the three hyperlinked documents, "I Agree," and another button, "FINISH MY ACCOUNT."       The Law Division denied defendant's motion, relying extensively on our recent decision in Wollen v. Gulf Stream Restoration & Cleaning, LLC , 468 N.J. Super. 483 (App. Div. 2021).  The court reversed, drawing distinctions between the "browsewrap" agreement at issue in Wollen , and the "clickwrap" agreement in this case.   See, e.g. , Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc. , 244 N.J. 30, 55 n.2 (2020) ("Contracts that require 'that a user consent to any terms or conditions by clicking on a dialog box on the screen in order to proceed with the internet transaction' are sometimes called 'clickwrap' agreements," and "are 'routinely enforced by the courts.'"   Skuse , 244 N.J. at 55 n.2 (first quoting Feldman v. Google, Inc. , 513 F. Supp. 2d 229, 236 (E.D. Pa. 2007); and then quoting HealthPlanCRM, LLC v. AvMed, Inc. , 458 F. Supp. 3d 308, 334–35 (W.D. Pa. 2020)). Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CARLOS GREEN (15-10-2268, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1158-19 Appellate April 4, 2023
  • In the Matter of the Alleged Failure of Altice USA, Inc., to Comply with Certain Provisions of the New Jersey Cable Television Act and the New Jersey Administrative Code (086408) (Statewide) A-2/3-22 Supreme April 3, 2023 Oral Argument A-2/3-22 A-2/3-22 Audio for A-2/3-22 Close Summary A-2/3-22 Section 543(a)(1) of the Cable Act does not preempt the proration requirement in N.J.A.C. 14:18-3.8. The regulation does not regulate “rates for the provision of cable service,” but rather prevents cable companies from charging for cable service that customers have cancelled. The regulation does not set the “rate” that companies can charge. It simply protects cable users from paying for service they no longer want. Furthermore, contrary to Altice’s alternative argument, neither Altice nor its predecessor sought or received a BPU waiver from prorating cable bills. Close
  • DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION, ET AL. VS. GEORGE HARMS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ET AL. (L-2394-16, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1484-20 Appellate April 4, 2023 Summary A-1484-20 Plaintiff Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission (Commission) is a bi-state entity created by an interstate compact between the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and approved by the United States Congress.  In this matter, arising out of a construction project to replace the Scudder Falls Bridge that connects the two states, the court considered whether the Commission was authorized to approve, use, and enforce a project labor agreement (PLA) as a mandatory requirement in its bid specifications.   This mandate required all bidding contractors and subcontractors to enter into a PLA with certain named unions affiliated with the local building and construction trades councils, recognizing those unions as the sole and exclusive bargaining representatives of the bidder's project workforce. Defendant George Harms Construction Co. was prevented from bidding on the project because it was a party to a collective bargaining agreement with United Steel Workers (USW), which was excluded from the PLA.  Harms threatened to seek an injunction if the Commission did not add USW as a signatory union to the PLA. Only one company bid on the project, submitting a bid $69 million over the projected cost of the project and $71 million more than Harms' projected bid. The Commission sought a declaratory judgment permitting it to award the contract, including the PLA, to the successful bidder.  Harms answered and asserted numerous counterclaims, including a violation of competitive bidding laws.  The trial court dismissed the complaint as moot (the project was completed during the litigation) and granted summary judgment to the Commission on the counterclaims. The court preliminarily determined the issue was not moot because of the importance of interstate compacts and the high likelihood that the Commission would use a PLA in a future contract. The issue, then, was whether the Commission had the authority under its compact to approve and use a PLA in its bidding process.  The compact itself is silent on PLAs.  Therefore, the panel looked to the two states' treatment of PLAs. The court engaged in an extensive analysis of the case law and legislative history in New Jersey and Pennsylvania regarding PLAs.  Currently New Jersey has a statute governing PLAs, N.J.S.A. 52:38-1 to -7.  Pennsylvania does not have any legislation.  The case law, emanating from the Commonwealth Court disfavors PLAs unless the project involves "extraordinary circumstances" and the PLA treats union and nonunion contractors evenly.  Therefore, New Jersey and Pennsylvania do not have parallel or substantially similar state legislation or common law regarding the use of PLAs. The court concluded the Commission did not have the power to create and authorize use of the mandatory PLA for its project because: (1) there is no express authority for unilateral action in the compact; (2) New Jersey and Pennsylvania have not enacted complementary or parallel legislation and do not have similar common law on PLAs; and (3) the Commission has not consented to exercise of single-state jurisdiction. The court affirmed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment complaint, albeit for different reasons than articulated by the trial court.  The court reversed the dismissal of the counterclaims and remanded to the trial court. Close
  • NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. NJIT PATROL OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, ET AL. (C-000123-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0741-21 Appellate April 4, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAQUAN DALLAS (15-08-0948, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1536-21 Appellate April 4, 2023
  • DCPP VS. A.V.-C., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.S.V.C. (FG-06-0011-22, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1796-21 Appellate April 4, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SAHIL KULGOD (15-04-0231, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2151-21 Appellate April 4, 2023
  • V.A. VS. C.M., JR. (FD-06-0002-18, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2217-21 Appellate April 4, 2023
  • DCPP VS. S.M.F AND R.J.W., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF D.R.-J.W. (FG-20-0016-21, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3694-21 Appellate April 4, 2023
  • East-West Funding v. 339 River Road Holdings, LLC, et als F-691-22 Trial March 31, 2023
  • United States Fire Insurance Company v. Machane of Richmond, LLC OCN-L-1465-20 Trial March 31, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DEVANTE C. MIMS (19-08-1058, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2297-20 Appellate April 5, 2023
  • ANTONIO OLIVEIRA, ET AL. VS. TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH, ET AL. (L-4258-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3630-20 Appellate April 5, 2023
  • IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF E.S-D. (SOCC-00053817, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0324-21/A-0750-21/A-0975-21/A-2368-21 Appellate April 5, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LEWIS F. NORWOOD (17-10-0523, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1533-21 Appellate April 5, 2023