The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it has granted review in two new cases.  The first is Willner v. Vertical Reality, Inc.  The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Among other issues, was plaintiff entitled to attorney’s fees and costs from defendant ASCO Numatics, Inc. under the offer of judgment rule, R. 4:58-2, where the liability apportioned to ASCO Numatics, Inc. did not exceed the offer of judgment?”  In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division’s grant

L.C. v. M.A.J., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  In Cho v. Trinitas Regional Medical Center, 443 N.J.  Super. 461 (App. Div. 2016), discussed here, Judge Espinosa wrote an opinion that stated emphatically that a motion in limine right before trial that seeks dismissal or summary judgment is not only unauthorized under the Court Rule

Sauter v. Colts Neck Volunteer Fire Co. No. 2, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  The Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14 (“CEPA”) protects “employees who report illegal or unethical work-place activities.”  CEPA defines an “employee” as one who “performs services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or other remuneration.”

After a series of unfortunat