In re New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation, ___ Fed. Appx. ___ (3d Cir. Sept. 6, 2018).  [Disclosure:  I am among the plaintiffs’ leadership team in this matter].  In this hotly-contested class action case, which began in 2012, plaintiffs alleged that the numerous defendants participated in a scheme to rig municipal auctions of tax sale certificates.  Plaintiffs ultimately reached settlements with all defendants totaling $9.59 million, plus certain discounts on redemption of the tax sale certificates.  The District Court granted final approval of the settlements, and one objector appealed.  The District Court ordered her to post an appeal bond of $10,000, which covered (among other things) administrative expenses incurred during the pendency of the appeal.  The objector appealed that ruling too. read more

In re Hendrickson, ___ N.J. ___ (2018).  This first Supreme Court opinion of the current Term is by Justice Albin.  The opening paragraphs of his ruling concisely and completely describe what the case is about, what the result is, and why (though the rest is worth reading as well).  Here are Justice Albin’s words: read more

The House Judiciary Committee, by a voice vote, advanced the Judiciary Reforms, Organizational and Modernization Act of 2018, known as “the Judiciary ROOM Act.”  The bill number is H.R. 6755.  Among many other things, along with adding new District Judges in a number of Districts (including three in the District of New Jersey– hooray!) and requiring that all federal judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, undergo periodic medical examinations, the Judiciary ROOM Act requires the phase-in of live streaming of oral arguments in the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal.  There is an exception for cases where the courtroom is closed. read more

Palisadium Managemen Corp. v. Borough of Cliffside Park, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2018).  This opinion by Judge Accurso involved an appeal from decisions of the Tax Court that rejected plaintiff’s challenge to tax assessments on its properties.  There was a cross-appeal by the defendant Borough, which related to the Tax Court’s rejection of the Borough’s cost approach for valuing the property.  The Tax Court did not accept plaintiff’s reliance on a cost approach either.  Furthermore, the Tax Court “found such flaws in [plaintiff’s] expert’s adjustments to comparable sales, including those relying on a ‘paired sales’ analysis, that it rejected his opinion of value based on a comparable sales approach.”  There was thus no evidence in the record on which the Tax Court could independently determine value, so the court affirmed the assessments. read more

Vorchheimer v. The Philadelphian Owners Association, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2018).  Today’s opinion by Judge Bibas focuses on what is “necessary” for purposes of the Fair Housing Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. §3604(f).  That section prohibits discrimination against any person in housing, and defines “discrimination” as including “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” read more

Taksir v. The Vanguard Group, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2018).  As relevant to this appeal, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. §78bb (“SLUSA”), states that “[n]o covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any party alleging — (A) a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security.”  Plaintiffs sued Vanguard for allegedly misrepresenting the fee that defendant charged plaintiffs to buy and sell securities, asserting a Pennsylvania statutory claim and a breach of contract claim. read more

This is a very difficult post to write.  Michael E. Patunas was my colleague at Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC for more than fifteen years.  He was my partner for a good portion of that time.  Mike died, too young, on August 30, 2018. read more

Balducci v. Cige, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2018).  This opinion by Judge Nugent today affirmed a trial level decision, after a plenary hearing, that voided a retainer agreement between the defendant attorney and the plaintiff client for defendant to bring suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”).  Such cases are normally handled on a contingency, but the agreement at issue here went well beyond that.  Every attorney, even those who do not handle LAD or other contingent matters, can learn from this opinion, which tackles ethical and other issues related to attorneys’ fees and retainer agreements.  That’s all I’ll say.  Take some time out of what for many will be a long holiday weekend and read it. read more