07-2-5704 Telecenter, Inc. v. Siebenberg, App. Div. (per curiam) (3 pp.) This matter arises out of a default judgment against defendant Kenneth Siebenberg, entered on April 18, 2005. Although Siebenberg was aware of the judgment at the time it was entered, he did not file a motion seeking to vacate the judgment until May 8, 2008. That motion was denied by order dated July 15, 2008. Siebenberg filed a motion for reconsideration on August 4, 2008, but it was withdrawn. A second motion for reconsideration was filed on October 16, 2008, by which time the twenty-day period for filing such a motion had expired. The motion for reconsideration was denied by order dated December 9, 2008. Siebenberg appeals. The appellate panel affirms the order. As Judge Waldman correctly observed, Siebenberg waited three years before moving to vacate the default judgment, and offered no explanation for the delay.
20-2-5705 Rod v. Gidley, App. Div. (per curiam) (13 pp.) Plaintiff David M. Rod appeals from a final order reconsidering and reinstating provisions of an order entered on August 1, 2008; awarding defendant Donna M. Gidley, formerly known as Donna M. Rod, $500 in counsel fees; and denying plaintiff's request for a plenary hearing. The reinstated provisions of the earlier order set child-support arrears at $18,660 through July 28, 2008; directed the Probation Department to establish an account and collect the arrearages as well as weekly child support in the amount of $240 per week; required plaintiff to pay fifty percent of the eldest child's college expenses and related costs; reimburse $1,216.50 to defendant, which was one-half of the initial deposit paid to the college; reimburse defendant for his share ($438.60) of uncovered medical expenses; maintain life insurance; and reimburse defendant for $2,000 of counsel fees and costs in connection with her enforcement action. Here, the appellate panel affirms, rejecting plaintiff's argument the Family Part judge erred in denying his post-decision request for a plenary hearing and in requiring him to pay one-half of his daughter's college expenses.
20-2-5706 Madden v. Madden, App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Finding that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration of a prior order which granted enforcement relief against her and effectuated the terms of prior orders regarding sale of the marital home and defendant's obligation to pay a portion of a home equity loan, the panel affirms the denial.
24-2-5707 Talented IT, Inc. v. Data Group, Inc, App. Div. (per curiam) (18 pp.) This appeal questions whether an Illinois temporary help service firm will be denied access — as a plaintiff — to New Jersey's courts for enforcement capacity of indebtedness if it has not registered pursuant to the Private Employment Agency Act. Answering that question in the affirmative, the appellate panel thus reverses partial summary judgment granted to plaintiff following the trial court's striking of defendant's affirmative defense based on plaintiff's unregistered status, and remands for the entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint.
25-2-5708 Patterson v. Board of Review, App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) The decision of the Board of Review finding that appellant is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she voluntarily resigned her full-time position with her employer so that she could obtain social security benefits is supported by credible evidence in the record and is affirmed since she admitted before the Appeal Tribunal that she would have resigned even if she had known that no part-time work was available. Her claim on appeal that she would not have resigned if she had known that part-time work was not available is not supported by the record and review of the agency's decision is limited to the record before it.
33-2-5709 Salazar-Linden v. Board of Education of the Borough of Holmdel, App. Div. (per curiam) (13 pp.) Appellant Michel Salazar-Linden claims her tenure rights were violated when the Board of Education failed to rehire her after her termination effective June 30, 2007. Salazar-Linden appeals from a final decision of the Commissioner of Education affirming the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluding that her petition was time-barred by N.J.A.C. 6A:3- 1.3(i). The appellate panel affirms, finding the Commissioner's determination that the 90-day period ran from the April notice of the Board's decision not to renew Appellant's contract was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that appellant did not meet her burden of demonstrating that compelling public interests are implicated in her case or provide a reasonable basis for relaxing the 90-day rule.
34-2-5710 1404 Washington Street, LLC v. Riggins, Inc., App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Although declining to impose on defendant-seller a specific duty of notice regarding the change in language restricting the use of the property from that in the contract of sale and that inserted into the deed, as did the trial court, the panel affirms the trial court's reformation of the deed to conform to the language of the contract, relying on the duty of fair dealing as a basis of requiring that language reflect the stated intent of the parties.
35-2-5711 Demuth v. State of New Jersey, Division of Taxation, App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) The appellate panel rejects plaintiff's challenge to the retroactive application of the higher rates implemented by the 2004 amendment to N.J.S.A. 54A:2-1, to income received prior to the amendment's passage. The question presented is whether retroactive application of the amended statute to these transactions was unconstitutional or manifestly unjust. Here, plaintiff's sales of this stock were always taxable events. The only question is the amount of the tax to be paid. Another factor to be considered is the length of the period in which the statute would be applied retroactively - here, a relatively short period of six months. The panel affirms an order entered by the Tax Court granting the Division of Taxation's motion for summary judgment.
24-7-5712 Edelman v. Croonquist, U. S. Dist. Ct. (Goodman, U.S.M.J.) (11 pp.) After noting such factors as where defendant's children attend school and where she maintains a membership in a synagogue, the court finds that defendant has met her burden of establishing that she is domiciled in California, notwithstanding that she owns a home in New York, and there is, therefore, diversity of citizenship between the parties and plaintiffs' motion to remand this action alleging slander to state court is denied. Because the court finds that the addition of one plaintiff does not defeat diversity, it does not decide whether that party was fraudulently joined. [Filed October 20, 2009]
24-7-5713 Delaney v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (Thompson, U.S.D.J.) (7 pp.) In this putative class action alleging that gift cards sold by defendant violated New Jersey's Gift Card Statute and its Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, removed to federal court by defendant pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, the court finds that since removal, evidence that the putative class is smaller than originally estimated has been discovered and must be considered. Since it indicates that plaintiff cannot recover CAFA's requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy of $5,000,000, plaintiff's motion to remand is granted. [Filed October 21, 2009-
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
25-7-5714 O'Neill v. Potter, Dist. Ct. (Wigenton, U.S.D.J.) (4 pp.) Defendant requests that the Court vacate that part of its order denying summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff's harassment and hostile work environment claims. Rejecting Defendant's argument that the Court relied on inadmissible hearsay testimony in making its decision, the Court denies Defendant's motion. [Filed October 22, 2009]
26-7-5715 Mt. Holly Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mt. Holly, Dist. Ct. (Hillman, U.S.D.J.) (31 pp.) Plaintiffs are low-income residents of the Mount Holly Gardens neighborhood, who object to a redevelopment plan because they are being removed from their homes, which are being replaced with new, higher-priced market rate homes. Plaintiffs claim that defendants—the Township of Mt. Holly, its manager and mayor, the construction company selected to undertake the redevelopment, Keating Urban Partners, LLC, and Triad Associates, Inc. violated Plaintiffs' rights under the federal Constitution; the New Jersey State Constitution; the Fair Housing Act; the Civil Rights Act; the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination; and the New Jersey Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. Here, defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted in part, denied in part, and continued in part. All counts are dismissed without prejudice as to Kathleen Hoffman, in her official capacity as township manager, and Jules Thiessen, in his official capacity as mayor. [Filed October 23, 2009]
56-7-5716 Einhorn v. M.L. Ruberton Construction Company, Dist. Ct. (Irenas, U.S.D.J.) (29 pp.) The cross motions for summary judgment raise one central issue in this ERISA action; under a theory of successor liability, may defendant Ruberton be held liable for delinquent contributions to the employee benefit plans administered by plaintiff Einhorn. Generally, at common law, when one company sells or transfers all its assets to another, the successor company does not embrace the liabilities of the predecessor. The only exception that might apply here is the mere continuation/de facto merger exception. The record does not support a finding that Ruberton was a continuation of Statewide, and a reasonable fact finder could only conclude that Ruberton's acquisition of Statewide's assets was not a de facto merger. The Court concludes that Ruberton may not be held liable as a successor to Statewide. Accordingly, no exception to the common law rule of non-liability applies, and Ruberton's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Einhorn's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. [Filed October 26, 2009]
50-7-5717 Garber v. Pharmacia Corp., U. S. Dist. Ct. (Thompson, U.S.D.J.) (5 pp.) In this securities fraud action, the court denies plaintiffs' motion to vacate an earlier order sealing materials with respect to certain documents appended to a motion for summary judgment whose entire basis was that the statute of limitations had already run, finding that the documents, which were internal communications among various persons working for defendant corporation concerning marketing strategy and other internal business decisions and were not publicly available, were irrelevant to the court's decision-making process on the motion and were, therefore, not part of the "judicial record" and not subject to the public access doctrine. [Filed October 20, 2009]
