Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 67- APRIL 9, 1996 STATE COURT CASES INSURANCE — VERBAL THRESHOLD 23-2-8521 William Monteleone v. Natalie Baldwin, App. Div. (3 pp.) Since the trial court made absolutely no findings of fact and conclusions of law on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of his case, the appellate court cannot know whether dismissal was for plaintiff’s failure to produce objective credible medical evidence if injury, or for failure to show a significant impact on his life, or both, and matter is remanded for appropriate findings as required by the rules. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 25-2-8522 Ode K. Keiderling v. N.J. Dept. of Envtl. Protection, et al., App. Div. (3 pp.) Although claimant may, in fact, have been “very upset” over the denial of his claim for unemployment compensation benefits, this did not constitute good cause for his delay in filing his appeal, and the final administrative decision of the Board of Review holding that the appeal was untimely is affirmed. REAL ESTATE — CONDOMINIUMS — ATTORNEY FEES 34-2-8523 Winston Towers 300 Assn., Inc. v. Peter Graham, et al., App. Div. (2 pp.) The court erred in denying counsel fees and costs to condominium association on its successful suit against unit owners for arrearages on assessments and common charges, since the master deed provides for such fees, as long as they are reasonable. FEDERAL COURT CASES BANKRUPTCY — COPYRIGHT — TORT CLAIMS 42-7-8524 Integrated Solutions, Inc. v. Service Support Specialties, Inc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (18 pp.) Plaintiff, as the assignee of the causes of action of a now bankrupt company, does have standing to pursue the copyright claim, which was freely assignable as a matter of federal law, but does not have standing to pursue the state law causes of action, since the bankruptcy trustee’s assignment of these claims was void ab initio under New Jersey law. [For publication.] CIVIL PROCEDURE — VACATING DEFAULT 07-7-8525 U.S.A., etc. v. Gold Seal Corp., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (7 pp.) Where the communication of the withdrawal of original counsel and obtaining and substituting of new counsel were delayed by the blizzard of 1996, and new counsel promptly moved to vacate default, good cause has been shown for the delay, and, since defendants have meritorious defenses and there will be no prejudice to plaintiff, the court grants defendants’ motion to set aside default and vacate default judgment. CONSUMER PROTECTION — “LEMON LAW” 09-7-8526 Lynn Terranova v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (20 pp.) (1) Plaintiff cannot recover an amount in excess of the $50,000 jurisdictional requirement pursuant to her Lemon Law claim, since the value of the vehicle, plus fees, taxes, and other charges, totalled no more than $17,000, and an award of $33,000 in counsel fees — necessary to make up the difference — would not be reasonable. (2) Because attorneys’ fees are defined as costs under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, they are not included in calculating the jurisdictional minimum. (3) Since there are no factual disputes related to the allegations of any unconscionable commercial practices by defendant, summary judgment is granted on the N.J. Consumer Fraud Act claim. (4) Even aggregating recovery on plaintiff’s Lemon Law, UCC, and Magnuson-Moss claims, plaintiff fails to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY — TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT 53-7-8527 Benjamin Moore & Co. v. Talon Paints Products, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (16 pp.) Since the factors relied upon by this court in determining that defendant had infringed plaintiff’s product packaging trade dress were not altered by the Third Circuit in its opinion in Versa Products Co., Inc. v. Biofold Co. (Mfg.) Ltd., 50 F.3d 189 (3d Cir.), cert denied, 116 S. Ct. 54 (1995), the court will adhere to its prior ruling that defendant’s trade dress was confusingly similar to plaintiff’s, in violation of the Lanham Act, and this ruling stands irrespective of whether plaintiff may have used allegedly similar private labels, however, entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) is not appropriate at this time, due to unresolved claims which remain in the case. [For publication.] JURISDICTION — CONTRACTS 24-7-8528 Samuel Yarosh v. Beretta USA Corp., U.S. Dist. Ct. (10 pp.) Defendant’s indirect sales of its products and the distribution of its catalog and other promotional items in New Jersey through an independent company are insufficient to establish the continuing and systematic contacts necessary for general personal jurisdiction over defendant in this state, nor can plaintiff’s unilateral activity in performance of the contract between the parties satisfy minimum contacts; defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.