In Tahisha Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC (077125) (A-69-15), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a used car dealership’s knowing refusal to cooperate with plaintiffs’ arbitration demands, filed in reasonable compliance with the parties’ agreement, amounts to a material breach, barring the breaching party from later compelling arbitration.
The decision stemmed from two separate litigations involving a used car dealership’s dispute resolution agreement (“DRA”). Plaintiffs had separately purchased used cars from two used car dealerships (operating under the same name), which turned out to be lemons. Plaintiffs’ respective efforts to file an arbitration before the AAA were met by the dealer’s refusal to advance its arbitration fees, and the AAA’s subsequent dismissal of the petition. Efforts to file in court were met by motions to dismiss in favor of arbitration, which the lower courts granted. Ultimately, a joint action was filed, and the lower court directed the plaintiffs to attempt to refile before the AAA, and dismissed their complaint with prejudice. An appeal was taken, and the Appellate Division affirmed. Continue reading “Supreme Court Finds Waiver of Right to Arbitrate by Failure to Pay In Tahisha Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC”
In a March 16, 2017 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative consumer class action against Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC. In this action, plaintiffs alleged that the labeling on defendant’s “Rita” malt beverages (including Bud Light Lime-a-Rita) was misleading and asserted claims for false advertising, omission, and breach of warranty under California law. Plaintiffs alleged that use of the word “Light” was misleading because the products contained considerably more calories and carbohydrates per ounce than other Budweiser products. The Ninth Circuit was called upon to review the District Court’s dismissal of the action with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).
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).
Blank Rome Partner 
Any company doing business abroad is subject to the long reach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). Small or privately-held companies, just like large or public companies, are subject to the criminal specter of the FCPA. The operative inquiry is whether the company is operating and/or transacting any type of business abroad with the government, government owned entities, or involving foreign officials—either directly, through joint ventures, or indirectly, through agents. A foreign official also includes employees of entities owned by the government. 
Restrictive covenants are common in many industries. Under New Jersey and Pennsylvania law, a defendant may be liable for tortious interference with a restrictive covenant only if it has actual knowledge of the contract with which it allegedly interferes. In Acclaim Systems, Inc. v. Infosys, Ltd.,
Our society is becoming increasingly paperless. As a result, our courts are constantly confronting factual scenarios that could not be contemplated ten years ago. In the latest example, the Third Circuit recently affirmed the enforceability of a non-compete agreement posted online. ADP, LLC v. Jordan Lynch, No. 16-3617 (3d Cir. Feb. 7, 2017).
The New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted Section 142 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law (1971) as the test going forward to determine which State’s statute of limitations applies when there is a conflict between those laws. The Court’s opinion in McCarrell v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., No. A-28-15 (Jan. 24, 2017), authored by Justice Albin, “completes the conversion from governmental-interest standard to the Second Restatement” for tort cases. The Court began that conversion in its opinion in P.V. ex rel. T.V. v. Camp Jaycee, 197 N.J. 132 (2008). The Court believes that its holding will “guide judicial discretion toward more predictable and just outcomes.” 
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.