Walsh v. Defenders, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2018).  The “local controversy” exception to federal jurisdiction over putative class actions under the so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d) (“CAFA”), requires certain uniquely local cases that were filed in state court and removed by defendants to federal court to be remanded back to state court.  This opinion by Judge Greenberg (no relation) clarifies the scope of that exception, which until now had been the subject of only one other Third Circuit decision, Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2009) [Disclosure: I was co-counsel for one of the defendants in Kaufman]. read more

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two more cases.  In Zimmerman v. Sussex County Educational Services Commission, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Did the defendant-employer violate the tenure rights of plaintiffs, part-time teachers, by substantially decreasing their work hours under the circumstances presented?”  In an opinion reported at 453 N.J. Super. 464 (App. Div. 2018), the Appellate Division reversed a decision of the Commissioner of Education that plaintiffs were not protected by the Tenure Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 et seq., and remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings, including the creation of a more complete record. read more

Chief Justice Rabner has issued the General Assignment Order for 2018-19.  It is available here.  The Appellate Division lineup again features Judge Messano as Presiding Judge for Administration and Judge Sabatino as Deputy Presiding Judge for Administration.  Those two judges, as well as Judges Simonelli, Koblitz, Alvarez, Fisher, Yannotti, and Fuentes, will serve as Presiding Judges for the eight Parts of the Appellate Division.  Judge Reisner, who had been a Presiding Judge of a Part previously, is now shown as a member of Judge Alvarez’s Part D. read more

Chief Justice Rabner has announced the elevation of three judges to the Appellate Division.  Two of them, Judges Firko and Natali, have been serving on temporary assignment to the Appellate Division since April 16, 2018, as discussed here.  The third judge, Judge Stephanie Ann Mitterhoff, has been sitting in the Civil Division, Essex County, since she was appointed to the bench by Governor Christie in 2014.  Judge Mitterhoff is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and Rutgers-Newark School of Law.  Before taking the bench, she was in private practice at Bramnick, Rodriguez, Mitterhoff, Grabas & Woodruff in Scotch Plains. read more

MTK Food Services, Inc. v. Sirius America Ins. Co., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2018).  In McCarrell v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 227 N.J. 569 (2017), discussed here, the Supreme Court adopted section 142 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws.  That section calls for the use of a “substantial interest” test to resolve conflict of laws questions involving statutes of limitations.  At the time, at least in the mass tort context in which McCarrell was decided, defense interests worried that the new rule would inevitably favor plaintiffs who sough to apply New Jersey law, while the plaintiffs there (McCarrell was part of the Accutane Multi-County Litigation, a long-running mass tort matter) stated that the result would sometimes favor plaintiffs and sometimes defendants.  This opinion, in a legal malpractice matter, applied McCarrell in favor of defendants and against the application of New Jersey law. read more

Harz v. Borough of Spring Lake, ___ N.J. ___ (2018).  The New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2 (“NJCRA”) is, in general, the New Jersey analog to the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983.  In Tumpson v. Farina, 218 N.J. 450 (2014), a referendum case that was discussed here, the Supreme Court found a violation of the NJCRA and awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs.  [Disclosure:  My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, represented the defendants in that matter].  Today, the Court faced another NJCRA case and, distinguishing Tumpson, rejected the NJCRA claim. read more

Carroll v. E One, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2018).  Near the start of his opinion in this case, Chief Judge Smith observed that “[a]ttorneys’ fees and costs are typically not awarded when a matter is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.”  But in this case, the District Court did award such fees and costs.  On plaintiffs’ appeal, the Third Circuit held that such an award is permitted in “extraordinary circumstances,” which Chief Judge Smith stated “include a litigant’s failure to perform a meaningful pre-suit investigation, as well as a repeated practice of bringing meritless claims and then dismissing them with prejudice after both the opposing party and the judicial system have incurred substantial costs.”  Those factors were present here. read more

The Supreme Court has added one more case to its docket.  That case is State v. Camey, in which the Court granted leave to appeal.  The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Was DNA evidence from defendant’s buccal swab admissible pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine?”  The Law Division denied the State’s motion to admit defendant’s DNA evidence under the inevitable discovery doctrine.  The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal, and a two-judge panel, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, affirmed that ruling.  The Supreme Court, in turn, granted leave to appeal and will have the final say. read more