New Jersey Attorney Law Review Blog

In Freeman v. Corzine (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Nos. 08-3268 and 08-3302, December 2010), the plaintiffs – two New Jersey wine enthusiasts, a New Jersey couple seeking access to more Kosher wines, and a California winery – brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Jerry Fischer, New Jersey’s Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control, alleging that several aspects of New Jersey’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (“ABC Law”) infringe on the dormant Commerce Clause in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  The suit challenged the constitutionality of parts of New Jersey’s alcohol beverage control laws permitting certain New Jersey farmers and wineries to bypass wholesalers and sell directly to retailers and consumers. Currently, out-of-state wineries must exclusively go through wholesale distributors to sell their products in New Jersey, but in-state vineyards can sell to customers directly in on-site tasting

According to the unanimous decision published by the New Jersey Supreme Court on January 26, 2011, the parents of a teenage girl did not commit child abuse by slapping their daughter and taking a portion of her part-time wages to pay family bills.  New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. P.W.R. (A-79-09, January 26, 2011).  The Court found the state Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS") lacked sufficient evidence to remove the teenager (Alice) from her father and stepmother’s home in 2008, and  vacated the abuse and neglect judgment against her stepmother (Pam). DYFS removed the girl from the home after her grandfather reported the parents for taking her earnings from her part-time job and "slapping her around." A DYFS worker also found the home was without heat and authorized an emergency removal. The father told a DYFS representative that his wife (Pam) had slapped his daughter (Alice) once two years earlier, and that part

Attention Bloggers!   In a case that could have far-reaching effects on online commentary in the media, the NJ Supreme Court heard arguments today on whether a blogger from Washington state is protected by New Jersey’s so-called shield law concerning her writings about out Freehold-based Too Much Media Inc. ("TMM"), a maker of software used by many adult entertainment websites to track sales.    According to the court filings, the blogger Shellee Hale, a former Microsoft employee and a private investigator, maintains she was working as a journalist in 2008 when she set out to investigate organized crime infiltration of the online porn industry.  Hale created a website under the domain name  Pornafia.com (which now forwards to shellehale.com) to report her findings, and even planned to publish a book on the subject.  Hale chose not to publish any articles on  her website  (Pornafia.com) because she claims TMM principals threatened her.  However, she pos

Assume the following scenario:  A client consults with a NJ bankruptcy lawyer about filing a bankruptcy case.  During the course of their initial meeting, the client discloses that one of his largest creditors recently filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey (“NJ Court”) accusing him of engaging in fraud, and that he failed to respond to the lawsuit which resulted in the Court entering a judgment by default (or default judgment) against him for $200,000 predicated on fraud.. “How does this default judgment affect my bankruptcy case?,” the client asks the lawyer. The lawyer explains that while bankruptcy will discharge or wipe out most unsecured debts that the Bankruptcy Code provides a remedy for creditors to challenge the discharge of a particular debt grounded in fraud.  To secure an exception to discharge, the Bankruptcy Code requires the creditor to file a separate lawsuit (called an adversary proceeding) in the Bankruptcy Court challenging the di

  Argues Chief Justice did not have power to fill vacant seat In an unprecedented move that jolted New Jersey's legal community, on December 10, 2010 New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto announced that he will abstain from the New Jersey Supreme Court's decisions claiming that the Court's Chief Justice, the Honorable Stuart Rabner, did not have the constitutional power to appoint a temporary justice (appeals court Justice Edwin Stern) to temporarily fill a vacant seat on the seven-member Court.  The dispute stems from a controversy that has been boiling since May 2010 when Republican New Jersey Governor Christie refused to renominate Democratic-appointed Justice John Wallace to the Court and, instead, nominated Anne Patterson, a Morristown attorney and a Republican. Democratic legislative leaders charged that Governer Christie's action was unparalleled and Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney (D-Gloucester) declared the upper house

    In a 4-2 vote, New Jersey's Supreme Court in The Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v. Nina Wells (A-86-09) held that a tea-party group can't continue with its effort to recall U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez. The group, amongst Menendez's critics, argued that the states have the power to regulate recall efforts because the U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue. Specifically, the tea party group maintained that an amendment to New Jersey's state constitution later implemented by statute provides for the recall of any elected official “in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress.” The Judges sided with lawyers for the New Jersey Democrat, who said a recall would violate the U.S. Constitution. Menendez is up for re-election in 2012. According to news reports, the Committee says it will be appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The facts and procedural history of the case are as follows:   In 1993, New Jersey voters approved an amendment to the S

The following appeals were recently added to the docket of the New Jersey Supreme Court.   We will report the outcome of these decisions when the the Court publishes their opinions, which could take 4 to 6 months or more. A-34-10 O Builders & Associates, Inc. v. Yuna Corp. of NJ d/b/a Baden Baden Restaurant (066490) Did the prior consultation between the defendant and plaintiff’s attorney create a conflict that required the attorney to be disqualified from representing plaintiff in this litigation? Certification granted 10/28/10 A-27-10  Peter Risko v. Thompson Muller Automotive Group t/a Hammonton Chrysler Jeep Dodge (066502) In this wrongful death case arising from a slip-and-fall, did the cumulative effect of plaintiff’s attorney’s comments during summation, including telling the jury that they would be “ignoring the law” if they had an issue with “a million dollar case,” violate the prohibition against suggesting a verdict? Leave to appeal granted 10/2

In a case of first impression, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of negligence claims brought against securities brokerage firm Merrill Lynch, finding that Merrill Lynch owed no duty of care to third parties who claimed the company should have policed its customer's account for fraud.  Frederick vs. Smith, et als. , Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket A-1620-09T2 (November 9, 2010). In this case the plaintiffs alleged that defendant Maxwell Baldwin Smith (Smith) convinced them to invest in Healthcare Financial Partnership (HFP), a fictitious entity.  As part of the fraud, Smith instructed plaintiffs to convey the invested funds to an account that he maintained with Merrill Lynch.  Plaintiffs were not Merrill Lynch clients, yet Merrill Lynch accepted payment directly from the plaintiffs and the funds were deposited into Smith's account.  In support of their negligence claims, plaintiffs alleged that Smith convinced them to inve

Share | In Moore v. Woman to Woman Obstetrics & Gynecology , a New Jersey appellate court ruled that arbitration is a valid forum for resolution of disputes between doctors and their patients. The court found that some patient-physician agreements to arbitrate are enforceable, but enforceability will be determined based on whether certain substantive and procedural requirements have been met. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:  The Plaintiffs Monica and Kevin Moore are the parents of Koral Moore, who has Down Syndrome. Due to Monica's age, her pregnancy was considered high risk. Her doctor, defendant Lisa Vernon, M.D., practicing with defendant Woman to Woman Obstetrics & Gynecology, L.L.C., referred Monica to defendants Carlos Fernandez, M.D., and Premier Perinatal, L.L.C. (Premier).  During Monica's first appointment with Dr. Fernandez at Premier, an ultrasound was to be administered due to her high-risk pregnancy.  The receptionist gave

Share | A class-action lawsuit filed by Century 21 franchisees against Century 21 Real Estate Corp. and parent company Cendant is moving forward following a decision of the NJ Appellate Division. In August 2010, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Robert J. Brennan certified a class of current and former Century 21 franchisees in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and other claims against their franchisor, Century 21 Real Estate Corp., as well as its parent company, Cendant Corp.  Currently, Century 21 is owned by Cendant spin-off Realogy Corp. Following Judge Brennan's ruling, Cendant asked the New Jersey Appellate Division to reconsider the class certification decision.  On October 15, 2010 , the appellate court announced it would not hear the appeal, thus clearing the way for the case to go to trial. According to the lawsuit, Cendant failed to provide the level of services to Century 21 franchisees required by their agreements. Additionally, the lawsuit cl

As one recent New Jersey appeals decision confirms, the Internet can serve as a valuable tool  for trial attorneys and litigants to research information about potential jurors.   The concept of "Googling" someone's name has now become part of New Jersey trial practice.   In Carino v. Muenzen, M.D. , No. 5491-08, 201 N.J. Super. LEXIS 2154 (Aug. 30, 2010), the appeals court determined that the trial court erred in prohibiting the plaintiff's lawyer from conducting Internet research on potential jurors at the counsel table.  More specifically, the Carino court reasoned that there is nothing that "requires attorneys to notify the court or opposing counsel in advance of their intention to take advantage of the internet access made available by the Judiciary." Id. at *26. The Carino court determined that the fact that plaintiff's counsel "had the foresight to bring his laptop computer to court, and defense counsel did not, simply canno

In a precedential ruling issued on August 5, 2010, Singer Management Consultants Inc. v. Milgram, No. 09-2238, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - the appellate tribunal to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey - held that New Jersey will have to pay the legal fees for a music promoter that sued the State to stop it from enforcing its "truth-in-music" law. The Third Circuit held that the promoter, Live Gold Operations, Inc. (“Live Gold”), which accused the State of violating its constitutional and trademark rights, was a prevailing party in the underlying litigation thus triggering the fee-shifting statute requiring the State to reimburse the promoter for its attorneys’ fees. The full reported decision can be found here . The United States District Court initially dismissed the case and denied fees, finding the case moot because the State did an about-face once it became clear it would lose the case. Thus, the promoter, Liv

A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision serves as a wake-up call to part-time municipal court judges and the law firms which employ them:  Do not use the law firm’s checking account to make political contributions. In In the Matter of Philip N. Boggia , Judge of The Municipal Court, (D-118-08)(July 27, 2010), the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (“ACJC”) found by clear and convincing evidence that Philip N. Boggia, a part-time municipal court judge for the Borough of Moonachie, NJ and a practicing lawyer who is partner in his own law firm, violated Canon 7A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules 2:15-8(a) (5) and (6) of the New Jersey Court Rules because his law firm made political contributions to several local Democratic organizations. Canon 7A(4) of the NJ Code of Judicial Conduct states that “[A] judge shall not . . . solicit funds for or pay an assessment or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or purchase tickets for politic

While we normally do not report on United States Supreme Court decisions, we feel that the Court's recent decision issued on June 17, 2010 involving a public employee’s expectation of privacy concerning text messages merits discussion in view of our coverage of a recent NJ Supreme Court decision involving an employee's rights to privacy in Yahoo e-mails sent over the workplace computer.    http://newjerseylawreview.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html   In a unanimous decision issued on June 17, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Ontario, California v. Quon ventured into the privacy rights of public employees who transmit and receive text messages through government-owned electronic communication devices.   In this particular case, the Court held that a California police department’s search of one of its police officer’s sexually explicit text messages sent and received through his department-issued pager did not violate the officer’s 4th Amendment constituti