New Jersey
Civil Justice Institute

  • Helpful Links
  • Contact Us
  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
    • Our Mission
    • Membership
    • Our Staff
  • ISSUES & ADVOCACY
  • OUR WORK IN THE COURTS
  • NEWSROOM
  • GET INVOLVED

Fairness. Justice.
Rule of Law.

Tag Archives: New Jersey Legislature

3/7/19 – NJCJI Legislative Testimonies

March 8, 2019Issues, NewsArbitration, New Jersey Legislature, NJCJI, Statute of LimitationsNJCJI

A4972 – Arbitration Restrictions – NJCJI Testimony

A1215 – Forum Selection – NJCJI Testimony

S477 – Statute of Limitations –  NJCJI Testimony

Workers Comp Bill Would Line the Pockets of Attorneys at the Expense of Injured Workers

April 13, 2018News, Top StoriesAttorney Fees, Employment Law, New Jersey LegislatureNJCJI

Should attorneys get paid for work they didn’t do? If so, should that money come out of the pockets of injured workers? Those are the questions policy makers who voted yes on S2145 need to be able to answer.

 

On April 12, the New Jersey Senate voted to modify our state’s workers compensation system to increase the amount of money attorneys assisting injured workers can get. Unfortunately, this additional compensation will come directly out of the pockets of the victims themselves.

 

Under existing law, employers and their workers compensation insurance carriers are encouraged to act promptly to settle workers comp complaints. When payments are promptly made, the injured workers get the entire payment, and thanks to the system we have in New Jersey, often do not need to hire an attorney to assist them with their claims.

 

If a worker does decide to hire an attorney and seek additional compensation, state law limits the fee the attorney can charge his or her client to funds he or she is able to secure above and beyond what was originally offered.

 

While ensuring attorneys are fairly compensated is an admirable goal, taking money out of the pockets of injured workers is not a good way to accomplish it.

 

The existing formula fosters good public policy in several ways. It encourages prompt, good faith payments to injured employees. It also ensures that the incentives for litigating claims are aligned with the incremental benefit of the potential litigation. And by discouraging unnecessary litigation, it ensures maximum compensation for employees at a minimum cost to employers.

 

The proposed legislation, by contrast, would amend existing law to undo all of those beneficial incentives.

 

By eliminating the window of opportunity for carriers to make payments that go entirely to the injured party, this bill would weaken the carrier’s incentive to make maximum payments as quickly as possible. And it would encourage attorney involvement at an earlier stage of the process without regard to their incremental value. Tying the fees to the signing of an attorney client agreement simply incentivizes such agreements. And basing fees on total compensation means attorneys would be taking a share of money that carriers would have made absent any attorney involvement – diverting that money to attorneys instead of compensating victims.

 

We understand the desire to ensure that attorneys receive adequate compensation for their efforts – but should not come at the expense of injured workers. This legislation would undo each element of the existing, beneficial, incentive structure, to the detriment of injured employees.

 

Expanding Wrongful Death Damages Would Increase Insurance Premiums For All New Jersey Residents

April 12, 2018News, Top StoriesDamages, New Jersey Legislature, Wrongful DeathNJCJI

A bill being considered by the New Jersey Legislature would expand the range of damages that could be awarded under our state’s Wrongful Death Act. If passed into law, it would increase insurance premiums for all New Jersey residents by making lawsuits more expensive and difficult to settle.

 

S1766, which is being sponsored by Sens. Scutari and Gill, would expand New Jersey’s Wrongful Death Act to allow unlimited recovery for emotional damages. Scutari, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, refused to hear testimony before having the bill voted out of committee.

 

NJCJI president and chief counsel, Alida Kass, was quoted in the New Jersey Law Journal explaining our opposition to the bill:

 

“The existing [act] works well and already provides for fair and predictable compensation. Changing the scope of wrongful death remedies to include purely emotional damages, like mental anguish and pain and suffering, would introduce considerable uncertainty, making cases more difficult to settle, and imposing significant new risk and increased insurance premiums on all New Jersey residents…

 

“[T]he existing methodology also ensures clarity and certainty—the approach is well-established and honed through years of developing case law,” Kass said. “And by taking the purely emotional aspects out of the calculation, the methodology permits the ready valuation of cases, which is essential to reaching settlements.

 

“Changing the rules to permit awards for what is essentially unquantifiable would undo that fairness and predictability,” she said.

 

The change would also significantly increase the risk and burden on all New Jersey residents. People carry insurance because they recognize that a momentary lapse of judgment can sometimes result in tragic, completely unintended consequences. Everyone benefits from being able to insure against the financial consequences of such a tragic event. Exposing New Jersey residents to an open-ended and unpredictable risk of liability would mean a significant increase in premiums, and still no guarantee that they have adequate protection against a massive jury verdict.

 

There is no amount of money that can fully compensate for the lost life of a loved one. The best that the civil justice system can do is compensate the quantifiable losses – something the existing Wrongful Death Act already does very well. Ask for more than the system can reasonably provide, and we lose the predictability and basic fairness that we largely take for granted. The primary effect will simply be higher premiums, with a largely uninsurable risk that a momentary mistake results in life-altering financial calamity.

 

Click here to read the full NJLJ article.

 

Committees Consider Wrongful Death & Bad Faith Bills

April 6, 2018News, Top StoriesBad Faith, Damages, Insurance, New Jersey Legislature, Wrongful DeathNJCJI

NJ State HouseApril 5 was a busy day under the State House dome. While the halls were swarmed with people up in arms over vaccines and nuclear power, two other bills attracted the attention of NJCJI and our allies in the business community.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee swiftly passed a bill providing additional damages in wrongful death cases without hearing any testimony, and the Senate Commerce Committee voted to advance a bill targeting the bad faith denial of insurance claims. It would be a big deal if either one of these bills were passed into law, but the combination of the two would send our state’s insurance market into a tailspin. NJCJI is opposing them both.

 

Additional Damages in Wrongful Death Cases    

 

S1766, which is being sponsored by Sens. Scutari and Gill, would expand New Jersey’s Wrongful Death Act to allow unlimited recovery for emotional damages. Scutari, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, refused to hear testimony before having the bill voted out of committee.

 

NJCJI is opposing this legislation because the existing Wrongful Death Act works well and already provides for fair and predictable compensation. Changing the scope of wrongful death remedies to include purely emotional damages, like mental anguish and pain and suffering, would introduce considerable uncertainty, making cases more difficult to settle, and imposing significant new risk and increased insurance premiums on all New Jersey residents.

 

The Wrongful Death Act already provides compensation both for straightforward pecuniary losses like future income, as well as less tangible aspects of loss like lost assistance, care, training, advice, counsel and companionship. The existing legal guidelines ensure clarity and certainty – the approach is well-established and the case law has been honed through the years.

 

By keeping the purely emotional aspects out of the calculation, the existing methodology permits the ready valuation of cases, which is essential to reaching settlements. Changing the rules to permit awards for what is essentially unquantifiable would undo that fairness and predictability. Tasking juries with putting a dollar value on “grief” without any limit or guidance would significantly undermine predictive value of all other calculations, creating wild fluctuations in awards, and that uncertainty in valuing cases would make those cases much more difficult to settle.

 

The change would also significantly increase the risk and burden on all New Jersey residents. People carry insurance because they recognize that a momentary lapse of judgment can sometimes result in tragic, completely unintended consequences. Everyone benefits from being able to insure against the financial consequences of such a tragic event. Exposing New Jersey residents to an open-ended and unpredictable risk of liability would mean a significant increase in premiums, and still no guarantee that they have adequate protection against a massive jury verdict.

 

There is no amount of money that can fully compensate for the lost life of a loved one. The best that the civil justice system can do is compensate the quantifiable losses – something the existing Wrongful Death Act already does very well. Ask for more than the system can reasonably provide, and we lose the predictability and basic fairness that we largely take for granted. The primary effect will simply be higher premiums, with a largely uninsurable risk that a momentary mistake results in life-altering financial calamity.

 

Bad Faith Bill is Bad for New Jersey

 

Although New Jersey already has mechanisms in place that discourage insurance companies from improperly denying claims, supporters of S2144 are urging the state to do more to deter claim denials.

 

The legislation, which is being sponsored by Sens. Scutari and Gopal, would create a private cause of action for claimants who face an “unreasonable delay or unreasonable denial of a claim for payment of benefits under an insurance policy.”

 

Successful claimants would receive:

  • actual damages caused by the violation;
  • prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and all reasonable litigation expenses; and
  • treble damages.

 

On April 5, the Senate Commerce committee held a spirited debate, with Senator Cardinale observing the imbalance of the bill, which would impose treble damages on mistakes by insurance carriers but no comparable penalty on erroneous, or even false, claims made by plaintiffs. The bill was nevertheless voted out of committee.

 

While we appreciate the sponsors’ concern with encouraging fair and efficient behavior from both carriers and claimants when settling cases, expanding the availability of bad faith remedies would not improve the efficiency or fairness of claims settlements. Rather, it would make claims settlements less predictable and more expensive and distort the existing incentive structure to the particular detriment of law-abiding policy holders.

 

The challenge of regulating insurance is striking the appropriate balance of incentives. We want to ensure that policy holders are not subject to undue delay or unnecessary litigation, while at same time protecting carriers’ ability to investigate questionable claims and hold policies to terms on which they are drafted.

 

That balance is critical, because shifting too far towards deterring carriers from policing the terms of insurance contracts is not a benefit to consumers. Policies are priced according to their terms, not just as drafted, but as they are likely to be enforced. If policy limits cannot be enforced in a predictable fashion, then affordable policies with set policy limits will not be available for purchase.

 

The existing framework is designed to strike that balance. When there is no reasonable basis to dispute the claim, individual claimants can currently bring a bad faith claim to recover damages in excess of policy limits. But when carriers have a reasonable basis to dispute a claim, in other words, when the claim is “fairly debatable,” imposing fee-shifting and treble damages on mere mistakes would result in over-deterrence.

 

The goal is to distinguish errors made in good faith from claim denials that arise out of a general business practice to use litigation as a tool to drive down settlement values. Hence the regulatory oversight by the Department of Banking and Insurance, which brings bad faith actions against carriers when there has been a pattern of behavior to indicate bad faith settlement practices.

 

The individual policy holder is also not without effective remedy when he believes his insurance carrier is unfairly delaying or denying a claim. In fact, the offer of judgment rule exists for precisely such situations. The policy holder who makes a settlement offer and is ultimately vindicated by a verdict in excess of 120% of the offer is entitled, not only to damages but also to attorney fees incurred from the time the offer was made.

 

The one-sided super-penalties of S2144 would disrupt the existing balance of incentives. When insurance carriers can no longer effectively investigate and challenge potentially invalid claims, rates will go up, and it will ultimately be consumers who pay the price.

 

Double Trouble

 

New Jersey has come a long way since the days when our insurance rates far outstripped those in our neighboring states, and companies were hesitant to offer certain types of policies at all. Any change to our insurance laws must take into consideration the impact it will have on the broader market and on the legal system. The passage of either or both bills would send shockwaves through the insurance industry, and flood the courts with additional cases.

 

Employment Bills Scheduled for Vote on Monday

March 23, 2018News, Top StoriesArbitration, Employment Law, New Jersey LegislatureNJCJI

NJ State HouseSeveral employment bills will be heading for floor votes on Monday, including two of particular concern to NJCJI. The “Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act” continues to regulate much more than “equal” pay and would present a significant danger to employers who do, in fact, compensate all employees equally for equal work. S121/A1242, legislation “Concerning Discrimination” would also interfere with the enforceability of widespread employment contract provisions and run afoul of the Federal Arbitration Act.

 

Pay Equity

 

NJCJI members value all employees and do not discriminate in compensation of employees based on gender or any other protected classification. But we continue to oppose this “Equal Pay Act” as currently drafted, as it would impose a new standard that would equate different jobs according to a set of vague factors, with a risk of significant retroactive liability for employers who do not engage in discriminatory pay practices.

 

A1/S104 would change the standard for “equal pay” to a new and uncertain formulation of “substantially similar” work, as measured by similar “skill, effort, and responsibility.” This change alone will bring significant uncertainty, as it would equate entirely distinct jobs in an unpredictable way. Employers can no longer set compensation based on prevailing labor markets – paying the wages necessary to recruit suitable candidates.

 

Other states that have adopted a similar standard have recognized that common factors often account for wage disparities, such as local cost-of-living and working conditions, like risk of injury, night shift, and inclement weather. This bill as currently drafted does not permit accounting for such factors, and it is not clear how employers will fill jobs with more challenging and less-desirable working conditions without paying a wage premium.

 

But whatever the merits of such a standard going forward, the prospect of the retroactive application of that standard, with treble damages imposed on employers for failing to comply with a standard not in effect when compensation was set or paid, presents a risk of significant and inequitable liability.

 

Sponsors have indicated a willingness to mitigate the inequity of retroactive treble damages by capping the back-pay penalty at six years. However, we remain concerned that the amendment in its current form may not effectively cap the back-pay penalty at six years, given the open-ended language regarding the application of the continuing violation doctrine and discovery rule.

 

We also remain concerned that the retroactive application of treble damages does not meet standards of basic fairness, as it penalizes employers who had no reason to believe there was anything wrong with their employee compensation structure. Other states that have imposed treble damages in pay equity legislation have limited their application to “knowing or willful” violations of the law and thereby avoided the inequity of retroactive treble damages.

 

If amended to correct these particular flaws, the bill would still be the most aggressive pay equity legislation in the country. But as currently drafted, it presents a significant risk to employers who do not engage in discriminatory behavior in employment compensation.

 

Banning Nondisclosure Agreements… and Arbitration

 

Sparked by a desire to encourage greater transparency in settlement of sexual harassment claims, and concern that non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) can have the perverse effect of allowing such behavior to continue, legislation to restrict the enforceability of NDAs is also scheduled for a floor vote on Monday.

 

Unfortunately, the bill has also become a vehicle for the plaintiff’s bar, which desires a general prohibition on arbitration agreements in employment contracts. By barring waivers of “procedural rights” in employment contracts, which would include essential attributes of arbitration like waivers of jury trials, full discovery, and the like, the bill would prohibit prospective agreements to resolve employment disputes through arbitration.

 

When disputes arise in the employment context, there are two possible tracks: it can be resolved through litigation in court, or it can be resolved through arbitration. The substantive remedies are the same. But while proceeding in court will typically take years to resolve, with massive legal fees, arbitration is cheaper, faster, and more efficient.

 

By reducing legal fees and precluding class actions, arbitration also presents a challenge to the business model of the plaintiffs’ bar. As a result, we have seen an intensive anti-arbitration public relations campaign, coupled with efforts to undermine arbitration in state courts and legislatures.

 

Hostility to arbitration from those who benefit from the litigation business model is nothing new. Which is why federal law since 1925 has defended arbitration as a favored means of dispute resolution and expressly preempted efforts to undermine the enforceability of arbitration agreements.

 

This legislation would attempt to circumvent that preemption by defining state contracts to preclude arbitration agreements. But when a state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: the conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA. And the result is the same when state law prohibits essential attributes of arbitration.

 

As a practical matter, a prohibition on arbitration agreements does not benefit the average employee. Arbitration is a faster, more cost-effective way of resolving disputes, and the lower transaction costs inure to the benefit of all employees. Litigation costs, by contrast, function as a transfer of wealth from lower and middle-class employees, to more highly-compensated attorneys.

 

The New Jersey legislature’s attempt to interfere with the protections of the Federal Arbitration Act will result in protracted litigation, culminating in the legislation eventually being invalidated in federal court. And in the interim, it would impose massive litigation costs on employers and employees alike.

 

Crafting More Workable Sick Leave Legislation

March 16, 2018News, Top StoriesEmployment Law, New Jersey Legislature, Paid Sick LeaveNJCJI

Governor Phil Murphy campaigned on a promise to sign sick leave legislation. He mentioned the issue again in his budget address, urging the legislature to get a bill to his desk. And an Assembly version sponsored by Assemblywoman Lampitt was heard and voted out of the Assembly Labor Committee this week and is moving through the legislative process.

 

NJCJI has been engaged in the details of sick leave since early versions were introduced last legislative session. We have focused not on the mandate itself, but on the manner in which it is imposed and the enforcement mechanisms involved in ensuring employer compliance. By that measure, the most recent version of sick leave represents a significant improvement, though two critical flaws in the enforcement mechanism would continue to unduly infringe on workplace flexibility and expose employers to significant and unwarranted liability.

 

Steps in the Right Direction…

 

It is striking that although the vast majority of New Jersey employers already offer more generous paid sick leave to their employees than would be mandated under the bill, many such employers have nevertheless opposed this legislation since first introduced last session. Under earlier versions, the broad statutory entitlement to paid sick leave, compounded by incentivized-litigation enforcement mechanisms, would deprive those employers of the flexibility to administer their leave policies in a way that deters abuse and is consistent with the needs of their businesses.

 

The Committee Substitute of A1827, sponsored by Assemblywoman Lampitt, is a significant improvement. The bill would ensure greater clarity and predictability, by imposing an effective blanket preemption on all local ordinances to ensure one uniform statewide standard, with one standard of 40 hours of leave for all employers. It would also grant employers more flexibility in deterring abuse of sick leave policies. Employers could require pre-clearance for foreseeable sick leave on “blackout” dates, as well as documentation to confirm non-foreseeable sick leave on those dates.

 

…But More Work to be Done

 

Some flaws in the enforcement mechanism would still expose employers to a risk of unwarranted liability. But that risk, and the overall workability of the legislation, could be significantly improved with a few modest amendments.

 

First, employer flexibility in making adjustments to schedules and responsibilities must be protected. An employee’s right to use sick leave must be balanced with an employer’s need to make the necessary adjustments to ensure that the work is completed on time. But the existing definition of prohibited “retaliatory personnel action” includes not just constructive discharge, demotion, and the like – it would also bar “unfavorable reassignment.”

 

“Unfavorable” could include a less lucrative shift with worse tips, for service-industry jobs, or working on a lower-profile product for a pending product launch in the consumer-product industry. For employees who travel to client offices, it could mean the difference between working a stint in San Diego or Bismarck. For a business in trade work, it might mean the difference between a prevailing-wage project and a project that pays market wages. But employers need the freedom to make all of these adjustments – the flexibility to move employees around to ensure necessary work is completed in timely fashion is essential to a functional work place. And employers should not have to risk being dragged into court to defend such adjustments.

 

Our second concern is with the presumption for retaliation. The bill would create 90-day window during which any adverse employment action is presumed to be retaliatory, with the burden on the employer to prove that the adverse action was unrelated to the employees’ sick leave-related activity. But in addition to documented and verifiable actions like filing complaints with the Department of Labor or with the courts, the presumption would also triggered by merely speaking to another employee about their rights under the law.

 

The burden-shift to employers to essentially prove their innocence is a powerful tool that should not be granted lightly. It should not be so easily manufactured by an employee, and so prone to abuse, as a mere conversation with colleagues about sick leave. And if the presumption has been triggered, it is only fair that the employer be on notice of the risk they run in taking any action that might be considered “adverse.”

 

The critical challenge of a paid sick leave mandate is balance.

 

The shift from voluntary policies to statutory entitlement will necessarily entail some lost flexibility, even for employers who already offer sick leave. But the sponsors’ core objectives can be achieved while preserving significant employer discretion. The remaining challenge to a workable bill is ensuring that enforcement mechanisms in the bill accommodate the practical challenges of running a business, and don’t penalize employers for taking the necessary steps to ensure that work gets done.

 

NJ Senate Labor Committee Advances Ban on Arbitration Agreements in All Employment Contracts

March 9, 2018News, Top StoriesArbitration, Employment Law, New Jersey LegislatureNJCJI

This week the New Jersey Senate Labor Committee voted to release legislation that would make New Jersey the only state in the country to ban arbitration agreements in all employment contracts.

 

Much of the discussion on S121 focused on helping the victims of sexual harassment. And indeed, one element of the bill would specifically address non-disclosure agreements for discrimination or sexual harassment settlements. But the prohibition on waivers of “procedural rights” would apply to all employment contracts and would prohibit all prospective agreements to resolve any type of employment dispute through arbitration.

 

When disputes arise in the employment context, there are two possible tracks: it can be resolved through litigation in state or federal court, or it can be resolved through arbitration. The substantive remedies are the same, regardless of which mechanism is selected. But while proceeding in court will typically take years to resolve, with massive legal fees, arbitration is cheaper, faster, and more efficient. And money not spent on the legal fees associated with exhaustive court proceedings and discovery is instead available for employee compensation and business development.

 

But by reducing legal fees and precluding class actions, arbitration also presents a challenge to the business model of the plaintiffs’ bar. And as a result, we have seen an intensive anti-arbitration public relations campaign, coupled with efforts to undermine arbitration in state courts and legislatures.

 

Hostility to arbitration from those who benefit from the litigation business model is nothing new. Which is why federal law since 1925 has defended arbitration as a favored means of dispute resolution and expressly preempted efforts to undermine the enforceability of arbitration agreements. The Federal Arbitration Act mandates the enforceability of arbitration agreements, providing that they are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”

 

S121 would attempt to circumvent that preemption, essentially by defining state contracts to preclude arbitration agreements. But when a state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: the conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA. And the result is the same when state law prohibits essential attributes of arbitration.

 

In its landmark decision of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the U.S. Supreme Court cited several “obvious illustrations” of unenforceable state restrictions: agreements that fail to provide for judicially monitored discovery; that fail to abide by the Federal Rules of Evidence; or that waive a right to a jury trial. The Court explained that all such state restrictions would be invalid, as they would interfere with “fundamental attributes of arbitration” and would create a scheme “inconsistent with the FAA.”

 

S121 would attempt to impose all of these “obvious illustrations” of invalid state restrictions on all New Jersey employment contracts.

 

These state restrictions are preempted even when not limited to arbitration agreements. As Justice Kagan recently wrote for a 7-1 majority in Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark, the FAA not only preempts state efforts to directly bar arbitration, it “also displaces any rule that covertly accomplishes the same objective by disfavoring contracts that (oh so coincidentally) have the defining features of arbitration agreements.”

 

As a practical matter, a prohibition on arbitration agreements does not benefit the average employee. Arbitration is a faster, more cost-effective way of resolving disputes, and the lower transaction costs inure to the benefit of all employees. Litigation costs, by contrast, function as a transfer of wealth from lower and middle-class employees, to more highly-compensated attorneys.

 

The New Jersey legislature’s attempt to interfere with the contractual protections afforded by the Federal Arbitration Act will result in protracted litigation, culminating in the legislation eventually being invalidated in federal court. And in the interim, it would impose massive litigation costs on employers and employees alike.

 

New Year, New Legislative Session, New Governor

January 12, 2018News, Top StoriesGovernor Murphy, New Jersey LegislatureNJCJI

NJ State HouseOn Tuesday, January 9th, the 218th Legislative Session was opened for the transaction of business. Next Tuesday, the 16th, Gov.-elect Phil Murphy and Lt. Gov.-elect Shelia Oliver will be sworn in. The following is a snapshot of what we know about the changes that come along with a new session and executive.

 

The Legislature

120 Senate and Assembly members were sworn into office. The Democrats now have a majority of 54-26 in the Assembly, and 25-15 in the Senate.

 

There are nine new Assembly members and five new Senators. NJ Spotlight has a great article that introduces the new members of both houses.

 

Assemblyman Craig Coughlin replaced Assemblyman Vincent Prieto as the speaker of the lower house. Senate President Stephen Sweeney will continue to lead the Senate. Both leaders have already released their committee assignment lists:

 

Assembly Committee Assignments 

Senate Committee Assignments 

 

NJ Spotlight has another good piece on what impact some of the key appointments might have.

 

The Murphy Administration

Governor-Elect Murphy is still in the process of staffing up, and has yet to announce many specific policy priorities. We expect to hear more specifics from Murphy during his budget address in February.

 

The cabinet official we work most closely with is the Attorney General, which Murphy has nominated Bergen County prosecutor Gurbir Grewal for.

 

Time To Get To Work

During the past few years we have had success working with our friends and allies to block a number of bills that would have imposed unwarranted liability on the state’s business community, and where possible, offering amendments to accomplish core objectives while avoiding the adverse consequences of unnecessary litigation. We look forward to continuing that work with the new legislature and Governor-Elect Phil Murphy’s administration.

 

Top News Clips for December 30-January 5

January 5, 2018News, Recent NewsBusiness Climate, New Jersey Courts, New Jersey Legislature, Outrageous LawsuitsNJCJI

A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for December 30-January 5.

 

Update on New Jersey’s Legal Landscape

Jim Pytell | New Jersey Business Magazine

The year 2017 will be remembered for change. From federal changes after the first full year of the Trump administration, to the gubernatorial election of Phil Murphy and the proposed changes he will make when he is officially sworn in as the state’s 56th governor this month.

Read more.

 

Key New Jersey Cases To Watch In 2018

Jeannie O’Sullivan | Law360

High-profile New Jersey cases are poised for key developments in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court may decide on the state’s bid to legalize sports betting and the Third Circuit ponders appeals by former public officials facing prison for their roles in the infamous George Washington Bridge lane closures.

Read more.

 

9 Reasons You Can Expect 2018 To Be Another Crazy Year In Jersey Politics

Jonathan D. Salant | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

After back-to-back big political years that saw Donald Trump elected president and Phil Murphy elected governor, what will 2018 do for an encore? Anyone who knows Jersey politics will expect something crazy to happen. Or lots of crazy things to happen because, well … it’s Jersey politics.

Read more.

 

Christie Bridgegate Lawyer Tapped As Interim U.S. Attorney For N.J.

Thomas Moriarty | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has tapped Craig Carpenito, a white-collar defense and securities lawyer who represented outgoing Gov. Chris Christie in matters related to the “Bridgegate” lane-closure scandal, as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor on an interim basis.

Read more.

 

Ex-Indianapolis Employee Files ‘Chronic Body Odor’ Lawsuit

AP

Indianapolis is being sued by a former courts official who alleges that she was fired after she installed air freshers to combat a co-worker’s body odor.

Read more.

 

Securities Suit Filings at Historically High Levels During 2017

Kevin LaCroix | The D&O Diary

More securities class action lawsuits were filed in 2017 than in any year since 2001, in significant part because of the substantial number of federal court merger objection lawsuit filings during the year. But even disregarding the merger suits and looking only at the traditional securities lawsuits, the number of lawsuit filings was at the highest level since at least 2004.  While the elevated numbers of lawsuit filings is noteworthy, it is the litigation rate – that is, the number of securities suits relative to the number of public companies – that is most significant. According to my estimate, the litigation rate during 2017 was at all-time record levels.

Read more.

 

Follow @NJCivilJustice on Twitter for even more news.

 

Top News Clips for November 4-10

November 10, 2017News, Recent NewsNew Jersey LegislatureNJCJI

A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for November 4-10.

 

N.J. Election Results 2017: How the Dramatic Legislative Races Shook Out

S.P. Sullivan and Brent Johnson | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

On the same night their party took back the governor’s office, Democrats easily retained their control of the New Jersey Legislature, as well.

Read more.

 

 

With Murphy Win, Democrats Back in Charge and Facing a Daunting Task

Ryan Hutchins | Politico New Jersey

Democrats don’t have Chris Christie to blame anymore. With Tuesday’s election of Phil Murphy as New Jersey’s 56th governor, the weight of the state’s mountainous problems — from an underfunded pension system to a crumbling transportation network — falls squarely on the shoulders of the state’s Democratic legislative majority and a man who says he can get the state’s economy moving again.

Read more.

 

 

Follow @NJCivilJustice on Twitter for even more news. 

 

Posts navigation

← Older posts

Newsletter Sign Up




© 2022 NJCJI. All rights reserved.

Follow us on:

  • twitter
  • linkedin

TWITTER FEED TWITTER FEED

  • https://t.co/DlWbCRFBea, Jul 1
  • https://t.co/xl0stnCZfj NJCJI President Anthony Anastasio testified this week about the implications of NJ Senate… https://t.co/o55d5pA29b, Jun 24
  • https://t.co/x2z9vrW707 Thank you to @PPAGInc, @GenovaBurns, and @PBWTLaw for your support of the 2022 Spring Event!, Jun 21
  • Institute for Legal Reform Releases Update on Third-Party Litigation Funding https://t.co/UQDqeUQ712, Apr 15
  • The American Tort Reform Association issued a report about the National Association of Attorneys General. https://t.co/14sYVCKPrY, Apr 8

    QUICK CONTACT



    Please enter the code as shown below

    captcha

    New Jersey Civil Justice Institute | 112 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608 | office: (609) 218-6331 | info@civiljusticenj.org