34-2-8143 Kanter v. Scharf, App. Div. (per curiam) (11 pp.) Plaintiff Sidney Kanter appeals from an order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After the entry of the judgment of foreclosure on the property at issue in the Chancery Division, vesting defendant Malcolm Scharf with absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance in fee simple, Sidney sought to obtain a judgment in the Law Division subverting and superseding that judgment. Sidney concedes that he was aware of the foreclosure proceeding in the Chancery Division and knew he had a right to intervene. He chose not to. Plaintiff denies that his action was an attack on the final judgment of foreclosure, claiming that judgment only divested the “named defendants.” This argument ignores the plain language of the judgment which covers any interest that may have passed to Sidney through various quitclaim deeds. The appellate panel rejects plaintiff’s argument that the Law Division has jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment establishing his interest in the property at issue, and affirms the order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
14-2-8144 State v. D.P.H., App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Defendant, who in 2011 pled guilty to a pre-1985 sexual assault on his then less than six-year-old daughter, appeals the imposition of notification and registration requirements pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2 and community supervision for life pursuant to 2C:43-6.4. Because Doe v. Poritz held that registration and notification requirements are remedial, not punitive, and State v. Schubert determined that CSL is punitive, the panel concludes that the sex offender CSL requirement imposed on defendant is a punitive measure and constitutes punishment for purposes of ex post facto analysis and it therefore vacates the imposition of CSL on him but affirms the imposition of the registration and notification requirements contained in Megan’s Law. 
01-7-8145 Jones v. Astrue, Dist. Ct. (Linares, U.S.D.J.) (11 pp.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s appeal seeking review of a final determination by the Administrative Law Judge denying her application for Supplemental Security Income Benefits (“SSI”) in part. The Court finds that the ALJ erred at Step Three of her disability analysis by failing to properly consider Plaintiff’s impairments in combination before proceeding to Step Four, and by failing to adequately compare the combination of Plaintiff’s severe impairments with the Commissioner’s Listings to determine medical equivalence. Accordingly, the Court remands the case for a detailed analysis by the ALJ of the evidence and specifically, an explanation of her determination that the combination of plaintiff’s impairments does not medically equal any of the listed impairments. [Filed November 5, 2012]
21-8-8146 Democratic-Republican Organization of New Jersey v. Guadagno, Third Cir. (Fuentes, C.J.) (2 pp.) The court affirms the District Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive and declaratory relief, finding that the District Court properly applied the applicable balancing test and correctly concluded that (1) plaintiffs had failed to provide any support for their claim that the ballot placement provisions in New Jersey law burdened their independent candidacies; (2) New Jersey’s interest in maintaining a manageable ballot sufficiently justified its statutory scheme; (3) plaintiffs failed to establish that prohibiting them from referencing the names of the state’s political parties in their ballot slogan impermissibly burdened their First Amendment rights; and (4) the State’s interest in avoiding voter confusion justified the ballot slogan limitation. [Filed November 5, 2012]   
24-7-8147 SalandStacy Corp. v. Freeney, Dist. Ct. (Hammer, U.S.M.J.) (14 pp.) In this action arising out of a two-page term sheet executed by plaintiffs and defendant Roof Group LLC under which plaintiffs were to manage a restaurant in Los Angeles, and plaintiffs’ termination after issues with funding arose, the court determines that venue would be proper in the proposed transferee district and considers the Jumara private and public interest factors and concludes that on balance, they strongly favor transfer. It therefore grants Roof Group’s motion to transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a). [Filed November 5, 2012]
25-7-8148 Bratek v. TD Bank, Dist. Ct. (Kugler, U.S.D.J.) (7 pp.) Defendant moves to dismiss the second amended complaint of plaintiffs, formerly employed as customer service representatives at defendant’s call center, which asserts claims of age discrimination. The court denies the motion, finding that although plaintiffs have failed to plead properly the prima facie elements of a claim for disparate treatment discrimination based on a theory of wrongful termination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination because they do not allege which individuals replaced them nor do they allege the age of any such persons, the SAC does allege facts in support of a disparate treatment claim based on a reduction-in-force theory that are sufficient to state a claim to relief plausible on its fact. [Filed November 5, 2012]