X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4, No. 170 — September 3, 1996 STATE COURT CASE ARBITRATION 03-2-9943 Kevin O’Connor v. Louis T. German, App. Div. (3 pp.) The court affirms judgment confirming an amended arbitration award that required defendant to pay damages representing losses in the value of stock — which the original arbitration award ordered defendant to turn over promptly to plaintiff, but which defendant did not do — and defendant’s arguments that subsequent court orders in the matter somehow eliminated the turnover obligation are without merit. FEDERAL COURT CASES CIVIL RIGHTS 46-7-9944 Edwin Ortiz v. East Jersey State Prison, U.S. Dist. Ct. (6 pp.) The court dismisses for lack of standing plaintiff inmate’s complaint — alleging that the prison has not provided him with adequate legal research facilities and has therefore deprived him of his constitutional right of access to the courts — because the inmate has failed to specify that he has been damaged in some way, and thus has failed to present an actual case or controversy for the court to adjudicate. [Filed Aug. 5, 1996.] INSURANCE 23-7-9945 Brian D. Tinkham v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (9 pp.) Suit for breach of contract for insurer-defendant’s failure to pay the death benefit on life insurance policies is remanded on plaintiff’s motion, since, although the claims against the insurer arose under ERISA and were removable, the insurer did not choose to remove, but it was the decedent’s employer-defendant — sued in the amended complaint for negligence in handling the change of beneficiary form — which sought removal, and these are non-ERISA claims and are not removable. [Filed Aug. 5, 1996.] INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY — UNFAIR COMPETITION 53-7-9946 Zenith Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, U.S. Dist. Ct. (25 pp.) In a case alleging that defendant improperly listed patents in the FDA “Orange Book,” precipitating sham patent infringement litigation, (1) plaintiff’s claims are not pre-empted by the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied, (2) plaintiff’s state law claims — for unfair competition, abuse of process, fraud and tortious interference — are sufficient to withstand defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion, and, (3) although plaintiff has adequately pled a claim for a declaratory judgment that its generic drug does not infringe any of defendant’s patents, and that defendant’s drugs were wrongfully listed in the “Orange Book,” such that the court has jurisdiction over those claims, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on those issues is denied due to existent fact questions. [Filed Aug. 7, 1996.] —END— A Daily Reporter of New Jersey Court Decisions THIS WEEK IN THE Cigarette companies, gambling that New Jersey judges don’t think like those in Maryland and Minnesota, are suing to void the state’s contingency-fee pact with lawyers hired to take on the tobacco industry. See page 1 of the Sept. 2 Law Journal.

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.