X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 109 – JUNE 7, 1996 FEDERAL COURT CASES CIVIL PROCEDURE 07-7-9150 Glen J. Flora v. Sheriff Edward J. Webster, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (5 pp.) The court grants defendants’ motion to dissolve temporary restraints — which were obtained ex parte by plaintiff before this action’s removal to federal court — since, even though interlocutory state court orders are transformed by operation of 28 U.S.C. 1450 into orders of the federal court to which the action is removed, it does not confer immortality on the state court order, which by its terms has expired. CONTRACTS — ASSIGNMENTS 11-7-9151 Intrex Corp. v. Ingenieurburo Deisenroth, U.S. Dist. Ct. (6 pp.) Because the facts surrounding defendant’s termination of a contract and the circumstances of an assignment to plaintiff are intensely disputed, summary judgment cannot be granted to defendant, and the court’s earlier ruling that plaintiff could not compel arbitration was not res judicata on the issue of either the assignment’s validity or on plaintiff’s ability to pursue this action. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 53-7-9152 M&R Marking Sys. Inc. v. Top Stamp Inc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (20 pp.) (1) Although the plaintiff has established that four of defendant’s five challenges to a design patent’s validity are likely to fail, the plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that defendant’s obviousness challenge will fail, therefore plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and its request for a preliminary injunction against defendant is denied as to the design patent, however, (2) plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success with respect to a mechanical patent, and a preliminary injunction is granted as to that aspect of the case. LABOR/EMPLOYMENT — HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT 25-8-9153 Carol Aman, et al. v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., Third Cir. (36 pp.) (1) Plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence so that a reasonable jury could conclude that their working environment was pervaded by discriminatory “intimidation, ridicule and insult” and that the behavior directed toward them was part of a “complex tapestry of discrimination” when examined in conjunction with comments made by management and other employees; therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted dismissing their hostile environment claim. (2) Plaintiffs’ claims of constructive and retaliatory discharge also were erroneously dismissed, however, (3) judgment for defendant on plaintiffs’ unequal pay claims is affirmed. NEGLIGENCE — STEVEDORES 31-7-9154 Rafael Diaz v. St. Marcos Marmonera, M.V., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (7 pp.) In a case brought under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, where a stevedore’s employee — unloading cars from defendant’s vessel — was injured while riding in a van that was used to return him to the vessel from the parking lot where the unloaded cars were stored, the court grants defendant’s summary judgment motion since the accident was caused by a steel plate which was placed by the stevedore on the ramp over which the van was driven, and defendant had no duty to maintain or inspect this plate. TAXATION 35-7-9155 Michael H. Watts, et al. v. I.R.S., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (20 pp.) (1) Although plaintiffs’ complaint names the Internal Revenue Service and three of its employees as defendants — in a case seeking relief and damages from certain federal tax liens or levies — the action is essentially one against the United States, and is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity since no specific waiver of that immunity is applicable. (2) Insofar as this suit seeks to cancel or release the liens, the federal court is without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain such claims, and, since plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the remaining claims, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. [For publication.] WRONGFUL DEATH — DIVORCE 40-7-9156 Betty Murphy Barber v. N.J. Tpke. Auth., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (20 pp.) Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case for the wrongful death of her ex-husband is granted, since plaintiff has no standing to collect damages in this action, and her conclusory allegations relating to her alleged “re-marriage” to the decedent — shot by a state trooper — do not raise genuine issues of material fact to defeat summary judgment, and, as to her civil rights claims, she cannot prevail because a litigant is not entitled to recover damages based upon deprivations of another person’s civil rights.

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.