...
Jan
16
Jan
10
“Confusing,” “Contradictory,” and “Obscure” Provision of Consumer Contract Claimed to Mandate Arbitration is Held Not to Do So
Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Jan 10, 2019 in Class actions, Consumer protection, Contract interpretation, Effect of decisions by other courts, Judges, Standards of review, Supreme Court of New Jersey | 0 comments
...
Jan
8
Murray v. Comcast Corp., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). In this employment case, the issue was whether the Law Division had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a motion for reconsideration. On June 9, 2017, the Law Division granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff mailed in a motion for reconsideration on July 20, 2017, 41 days after the order as to which reconsideration was sought, and the Law Division did not receive that motion until July 26, 2017, 47 days after the order compelling arbitration. On November 16, 2017, the...
reader