Today’s seminar, which was sponsored by the NJSBA Appellate Practice Committee, took up the important topic of the record on appeal.  Judge Messano, who headed up the panel, began by stating that the panel hoped actiually to make this topic interesting.  He and the other presenters, who included Judges Lihotz and Cuff (Ret.), as well as representatives of the Supreme Court and Appellate Division Clerk’s offices, succeeded.

Aided by a PowerPoint presentation, the panel began from Rule 2:5-4, w

Ramirez v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 852 F.3d 324 (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