Each November, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter are full of celebrities and friends posting pictures of their ballots at their local polling places. In this age of social media, many users share “selfies” of themselves exercising their right to vote. Inevitably, other users post comments on these pictures alleging that sharing the picture can “invalidate” the vote or is otherwise illegal. Before heading to the ballots to elect a new governor on November 7, New Jersey residents should be aware of the current state of the law. Continue reading “Ballot “Selfies” in New Jersey: Can You Instagram Your Vote?”
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently lessened the rigidity by which an innocent purchaser may be eligible for a so-called “Innocent Party Grant” to cover costs associated with the remediation of contaminated property. On September 20, 2017, the Court in Cedar Knolls 2006, LLC v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. reversed the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (“NJDEP”) attempt to limit Innocent Party Grants to natural persons, and found that an LLC may qualify as a “person” under the Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-1, et seq. (“Brownfield Act”). Continue reading “Appellate Division Clears Way for Business Entities to Receive Brownfield Innocent Party Grants When Property Is Transferred among Family Members”
Suppose there is a hit-and-run in a sparsely populated area. You are retained as counsel to represent the victim, who sustained significant property damage to her vehicle and debilitating personal injuries. After a preliminary investigation, you learn that there are no witnesses to the incident, but there is a nearby gas station equipped with video cameras that may have footage of the hit-and-run and from which you may be able to identify the other driver. The gas station refuses to share its video footage with you. At this point, you could file a “John Doe” complaint and then serve a subpoena on the gas station. But the fastest and cheapest way to obtain the video is by filing a petition for pre-suit discovery under New Jersey Rule 4:11-1. Continue reading “Pre-Complaint Discovery: An Underutilized, Underrated and Unknown Tool”
The offer-of-judgment rule and the high-low agreement are two mechanisms that exist to help litigants manage their risk in litigation. The offer-of-judgment rule, codified at Rule 4:58-1 to -6, allows a party to take a monetary judgment, or to allow a judgment to be taken against it, for a sum certain. If the offer of a claimant is not accepted and the claimant obtains a money judgment equal to or greater than 120 percent of the offer, the claimant is entitled to costs including all reasonable litigation expenses incurred following non-acceptance of the offer. See R. 4:58-2(a).
A high-low agreement is a settlement agreement that guarantees a minimum recovery for a plaintiff and limits a defendant’s exposure to an agreed upon maximum, regardless of the jury’s award. This maximum, or high-limit, is inclusive of costs and fees and it is a basic assumption of high-low agreements that the plaintiff cannot recover more than the “high-limit.”
Recently, the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed the intersection of these two risk management mechanisms. In Serico v. Rothberg, Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action for failure to diagnose colon cancer. While the matter was awaiting a trial date, Plaintiff made an offer-of-judgment to accept $750,000 from the Defendant. Defendant did not respond to the offer. The matter went to trial and while the jury was deliberating, the parties entered a high-low agreement that provided a “low” of $300,000 for the Plaintiff and limited Defendant’s liability to a “high” of $1 million. During negotiations for the high-low agreement, Plaintiff’s possible entitlement to fees under the offer-of-judgment rule (R. 4:58-2(a)) was never discussed. It was not expressly waived by the Plaintiff, no demand for waiver was made by the Defendant, and the offer of judgment was not mentioned when terms of the high-low agreement were placed on the record.
The jury then returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for $6 million, well over 120 percent of Plaintiff’s offer-of-judgment. Absent the high-low agreement, Plaintiff would have been entitled to costs and fees under the offer-of-judgment rule. However, Although the high-low agreement permitted a maximum award of $1 million. Despite this ceiling, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs, arguing that absent an express waiver, a high-low agreement does not waive a plaintiff’s right to seek sanctions under R. 4:58-2(a). Plaintiff claimed that the purpose of the Rule is “to impose financial consequences on a party [that] rejects a settlement offer” and the offer-of-judgment rule “accords judges no discretion regarding whether or not to award attorney’s fees.” The Court disagreed and the Appellate Division affirmed.
The Appellate Division explained that by entering into the high-low agreement, Plaintiff “could not recover any amount beyond the ‘high’ to which she agreed.” A high-low agreement is a contract and, like any contract, if the terms of the agreement are clear they must be enforced as written. The high-low agreement made no mention of Plaintiff’s offer of judgment and “Plaintiff did not come forward with any evidence that she preserved her rights [to attorney’s fees] under the Rule.” Although parties are always free to preserve any claim they might have, they must clearly state that intention at the time of the settlement. Unless expressly preserved, a claim for an additional amount beyond the “high-limit” is considered to be encompassed within the negotiated high-low agreement.
The recent decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division in Lopez-Montes v. Final Kote, LLC, Docket No. A-1592-14 (App. Div. Dec. 16, 2016) is instructive on the issue of how building codes and other regulations affect the liability of parties for construction site injuries. In Lopez-Montes, the plaintiff was a drywall subcontractor who was engaged to perform taping and spackling work on a construction project. The subcontractor responsible for installation of the sheetrock had previously supplied scaffolding at the job site, but no scaffolding was available when plaintiff was performing the taping and spackling work. Plaintiff stated that he objected to using a ladder due to safety concerns, but was told to use the ladder anyway. Continue reading “Appellate Division Holds OSHA Regulations Relevant in Negligence Case”
Less than a week after President Donald J. Trump took the oath of office, a public interest group brought suit against him in federal court. In Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump, No. 17-458 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2017), Plaintiff “CREW,” a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation committed to “reducing the influence of money in politics,” alleged that President Trump’s business ties create conflicts of interest that violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
President Trump’s business dealings have been the subject of intense debate since he announced his candidacy for President in June 2015. Some have questioned how President Trump can oversee and implement policy when many decisions central to that policy could directly impact—or be impacted by—his financial interests. CREW is one organization concerned with conflicts of interest that could arise as a result of the President’s role in foreign relations. In its lawsuit, CREW seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against any current and future violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Continue reading “A Standing Hurdle in the Emoluments Clause Suit against President Trump”