New Jersey Attorney Law Review Blog

    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