The Supreme Court has granted certification in two new cases.  The first is yet another matter involving whether and when consumer disputes can be forced into arbitration.  That case (actually, two consolidated cases) is Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp.  The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Were defendants entitled [to] the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaints based on the arbitration provisions of the sales contracts under the circumstances presented?”  In a published opinion reported at 454 N.J. Super. 260 (App. Div. 2018) and summarized here, the Appellate Division ruled that it was error to dismiss in favor of arbitration. read more

In re Accutane Litigation, ___ N.J. ___ (2018).  [Disclosure:  I argued this appeal, together with co-counsel, on behalf of the plaintiffs.  The opinions expressed in this post are mine alone, and are not attributable to or necessarily reflective of the views of other counsel for plaintiffs in the matter.]  Two months after the Supreme Court barred the experts for plaintiffs in this Multi-County Litigation who claimed that Accutane caused their Crohn’s Disease, striking the death knell for several thousand such cases, the Court yesterday doomed 532 more cases, granting summary judgment to defendants in all of them. read more

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two cases.  These are the first grants (Nos. A-1 and A-2) of the current Term. read more

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