Twenty-First Century Rail Corp. v. New Jersey Transit Corp., ___ N.J. ___ (2012). This case involved an effort to disqualify counsel in a construction case for a conflict of interest under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 (“RPC 1.9″). The Law Division denied disqualification. In a published opinion, reported at 419 N.J. Super. 343 (App. Div. 2011), and discussed
Walker v. Giuffre, 209 N.J. 124 (2012). In Walker and Humphries v. Powder Mill Shopping Plaza, two different Appellate Division panels had each ruled that restrictive principles governing attorneys’ fee awards under federal fee-shifting statutes, as expressed in Perdue v. Kenny A., ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1662 (2010), were to be applied to fee awards under New Jersey’s fee-shifting statutes such as the Consumer Fraud Act (implicated in Walker<
Allen v. V and A Bros., Inc.., 208 N.J. 114 (2011). The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. (“CFA”), makes liable any “person” who violates the CFA. In this case, a unanimous Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Hoens, held that owners, officers or employees of corporate defendants who take sufficient affirmative action can be liable individually for violations of regulations promulgated under the authority of the CFA. The decis
reader