Ramirez v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2017).  The so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) extended federal jurisdiction not only to class actions over which federal courts previously did not have power, but also to “mass actions.”  28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(11).  To qualify as a mass action, there must be at least 100 plaintiffs who seek to have their cases “tried jointly.”  But as Judge Vanaskie noted

On this date in 2003, the Appellate Division decided Seacoast Builders Corp. v. Rutgers, 358 N.J. Super. 524 (App. Div. 2003).  This was a relatively rare case in which the Appellate Division exercised original jurisdiction under Rule 2:10-5 to decide a discovery issue.  It was an even more rare result, since the panel ordered that documents otherwise protected by privilege be disclosed as a sanction for attorney misconduct.

This was a breach of construction contract case involving the alleged failure of Rutgers University to pay plaintiff on a multi-million dollar change

Rippon v. Smigel, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  This opinion by Judge Haas today reverses a dismissal that was based on lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and res judicata.  The main reason was the state of the motion record, which Judge Haas labeled as “sparse,” “thin,” and “meager.”  The lesson of this decision is that discovery is generally required in order to make an adequate record on which a court can decide a motion to di