Moon v. Breathless, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2017).  At least since 2014, when the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014) (discussed here), New Jersey law has been clear that contractual arbitration clauses must explicitly state that a party is waiving a jury trial as to statutory claims in order to be effective when that party

Jones v. Morey’s Pier, Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2017).  Under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, a tort plaintiff who fails to timely serve a notice of tort claim on a public entity is barred from suing that entity.  Until today, the Supreme Court had never decided whether a failure of a defendant who wishes to assert a claim for contribution or common law indemnification to timely serve a tort claim notice bars those types of claims.  Lower courts had split.  Today,

In re Accutane Litig., 2017 WL 3138003 (App. Div. July 25, 2017).  [Disclosure:  I argued for the successful plaintiffs in one of these two consolidated appeals, the one that involved the NJPLA.]  The New Jersey Product Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-4 (“NJPLA”), creates a presumption, which the Supreme Court has labeled a “virtually dispositive” “super-presumption,” that a manufacturer’s warning regarding a drug is adequate if that warning has been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration.  The Supreme Court and the Appella