Gibbons Law Alert -

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

New Jersey Just Increased Its Campaign Contribution Limits for 2025

by Gibbons P.C. Government and Regulatory Affairs Group

On January 6, 2025

The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJELEC) announced that effective January 1, 2025, campaign contribution limits will increase for all non-gubernatorial candidate committees, political committees, continuing political committees, legislative leadership committees, and political party committees. The Elections Transparency Act (P.L. 2023, c. 30), signed into law in April 2023, requires NJELEC to adjust for inflation the contribution limits for non-gubernatorial candidates and committees every two years. The following chart provided by NJELEC shows the new contribution limits that are now in effect. This is the first time that NJELEC has adjusted for inflation non-gubernatorial candidates and committees. Contribution limits for gubernatorial elections, along with thresholds related to the Gubernatorial Public Financing Program, have been subject to inflation adjustment every four years since 1992.

Third Circuit Concludes a Job Applicant Cannot File a Discrimination Claim Under New Jersey’s Cannabis Law

by Zachary Posess and Kelly Ann Bird

Posted in Discrimination

On December 23, 2024

In a 2-1 split decision issued on December 9, 2024, the Third Circuit held that employees do not have a private right of action under New Jersey’s Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), marking the first time a court has analyzed the statute’s employment protections since its passage nearly four years ago. Statutory Background In February 2021, New Jersey enacted CREAMMA, a voluminous law regulating the legal manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of cannabis throughout the state. Among the sea of statutory provisions, CREAMMA prohibits employers from taking adverse employment action against: (1) a prospective or current employee based on the use or non-use of cannabis; or (2) a current employee based solely on a positive cannabis drug test. Yet, the law does not provide an express enforcement mechanism against employers who violate these provisions. In September 2022, the Executive Director of the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (“the Commission”) issued some guidance to employers grappling with the implementation of CREAMMA’s anti-discrimination provisions. However, the guidance provided little in the way of practical information for employers struggling to implement CREAMMA in the workplace. The Third Circuit’s Decision in Zanetich In Zanetich v. Wal-Mart Stores E., Inc., No. 23-1996, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 31051 (3d Cir. Dec. 9, 2024), the plaintiff filed a two-count...

Third Circuit Upholds Dismissal of ERISA Class Action Seeking $65 Million in Drug Rebates

by Steven Fernandez

Posted in Class Action

On December 11, 2024

On September 25, 2024, in a precedential opinion, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”), because the plaintiffs failed to allege the financial harm necessary to establish Article III standing. In Knudsen v. MetLife Grp., Inc., the plaintiffs, former employees of defendant MetLife Group (“MetLife”), alleged they were forced to pay higher health insurance premiums because MetLife retained $65 million in drug rebates. The savings from those rebates, according to the plaintiffs, should have been directed to the MetLife-sponsored benefits plan (the “MetLife Plan”). Had they been, the plaintiffs, along with a proposed class of participants and beneficiaries of the MetLife Plan, would have benefited through: (1) reducing their “ongoing contributions on account of the rebates collected by the [MetLife] Plan[;]” (2) realizing savings in their “co-pays and co-insurance for pharmaceutical benefits[;]” and (3) obtaining drug rebates “in proportion to [participants’] contributions to the [MetLife] Plan.” In July 2023, the district court granted MetLife’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), holding that the plaintiffs failed to show they were owed the drug rebates. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not establish a “concrete stake in the outcome of this lawsuit and have not pled facts...

N.J. Appellate Division Decision Underscores Need for a Hearing to Resolve Factual Disputes

by Andrew T. Alessandro

Posted in Environmental & Green Issues

On December 9, 2024

On November 14, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a decision in Beazer East, Inc. v. Morris Kearny Associates Urban Renewal, LLC, reversing the lower court which had ordered Defendant Morris Kearny Associates Urban Renewal, LLC (“Morris”) to give access to its site in Kearny (“Site”) to Plaintiff Beazer East Inc. (“Beazer”) in order for Beazer to remediate contaminated groundwater at the Site pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.1 to -23.24, and the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-1 to -31. Beazer had sought access to a portion of the Site to install two groundwater-monitoring wells. Morris denied the request, claiming that Beazer’s installation of the wells would interfere with Morris’ contractual obligation to construct site improvements and warehouses on its property in furtherance of a commercial redevelopment project. After subsequent negotiations to obtain access were unsuccessful, Beazer filed a summary action seeking access to the Site under the New Jersey Access Statute, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-16, which allows a remediating party to obtain a court order on an expedited basis permitting “reasonable access” to a property if “after good faith efforts, the person undertaking the remediation and the property owner fail to reach an agreement concerning access.” N.J.S.A. 58:10B-16(a)(1). In support of its order to show cause seeking...

Two Major Updates for New Jersey Alcoholic Beverage License Holders on Outdoor Dining Rules and New Mandatory Signage for Businesses

by Michael D. DeLoreto, Jennifer P. Smith and Alexandra Hayes

Posted in State Government

On November 26, 2024

Just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday, New Jersey has taken action on two items that impact the operations of alcoholic beverage licensees. The first action codifies the COVID-era outdoor dining and beverage service rules in statute, while the second requires certain alcoholic beverage licensees to post signs that bring awareness to the risks of human trafficking. Renewal of Outdoor Dining and Beverage Service Permits Governor Murphy signed S3608/A4866 into law on November 25, 2024, making permanent the COVID-era outdoor dining permissions for restaurants and certain alcoholic beverage retailers and manufacturers. Under the new law, the holder of a temporary expansion permit issued by the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (the “Division”) may have its temporary permit converted to an annual permit, which is renewable with the approval of local officials. Owners and operators of these businesses are permitted to use certain outdoor spaces as an extension of their business premises for the purpose of conducting sales of food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages if licensed. This includes the continued use of fixtures such as covered and uncovered patios and decks, tents, canopies, umbrellas, tables, and chairs for outdoor dining. The enactment of S3608/A-4866 brings to a close four years of temporary outdoor dining rules. Governor Murphy originally signed legislation to expand outdoor dining...

Massachusetts Supreme Court Takes a Closer Look at Wiretap Laws, Potentially Narrowing Privacy Actions

by John T. Wolak and Ravipal Singh

Posted in General Litigation

On November 25, 2024

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently issued an important ruling in Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital et al., addressing whether tracking a user’s activities on a website and sharing that data with third parties constitutes intercepting communications in violation of the state’s 1968 Wiretap Act (the “Act”). In dismissing the plaintiff’s statutory claims, the court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the legislature – and not the court – to address gaps in statutory protections related to privacy and modern tracking technologies, highlighting that as technology and any corresponding digital privacy concerns evolve, legislative frameworks must be modified to adapt accordingly. Plaintiff Kathleen Vita claimed that New England Baptist Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center violated the Act by “intercepting” communications without her consent or knowledge through the use of tracking tools on their websites. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the hospitals used third-party software to record her activity when she browsed the hospitals’ websites to obtain information about doctors, search for information about medical symptoms and other healthcare-related issues, and obtain and review medical records. The plaintiff alleged that the hospitals then shared this data with third parties that processed the data for targeted advertising campaigns tailored to the individual user’s data. The court concluded that although the web tracking practices raised...

Without Further Ado: Third Circuit Limits Discovery on Motions to Compel Arbitration

by Bassam F. Gergi

Posted in Class Action

On November 21, 2024

More than a decade after its seminal decision in Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that a plaintiff’s claims may be sent straight to arbitration, without any discovery, if there is no challenge to an arbitration agreement’s existence or validity. In Guidotti, the Third Circuit held that unless “it is apparent, based on ‘the face of a complaint, and documents relied upon in the complaint,’” that the “party’s claims ‘are subject to an enforceable arbitration clause,’” then a plaintiff should be given a chance to take “discovery on the question of arbitrability” before a motion to compel arbitration is decided under the summary-judgment standard of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because most plaintiffs who file in court craft their complaints to try to avoid arbitration, the practical result of the Guidotti decision was that many cases went to discovery before a ruling on a defendant’s motion to compel – even when discovery was unlikely to impact the outcome. The Third Circuit’s recent published decision in Young v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. limits the need for such pre-arbitration discovery. In Young, the plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Experian in the United States District Court for the District Court of New Jersey...

David J. Freeman to Co-Chair N.Y. State Bar Superfund and Brownfields Update Webinar

by Gibbons Environmental Group

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Environmental & Green Issues

On November 18, 2024

David J. Freeman will serve as Program Co-Chair for “Superfund/Brownfield Update 2024: Federal and State Environmental Law and Policy.” The program is sponsored by the Section of Environmental & Energy Law of the New York State Bar Association and will be presented as a webinar on December 5 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The program will feature presentations by representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and New York Attorney General’s Office, as well as private bar and expert consultants, regarding recent developments in the federal Superfund and New York State brownfield programs. There will also be a panel discussing the incentives and processes for the siting of renewable energy facilities on brownfield sites in New York State. The keynote speaker will be Patrick Foster, NYSDEC’s Deputy Commissioner for Environmental Remediation and Materials Management, who oversees the Divisions of Environmental Remediation (including all cleanups under New York State laws), Materials Management, and Mineral Resources, as well as NYSDEC’s Office of Sustainability. A full description of the program, and instructions as to how to register, can be found here.

District of Delaware Court Dismisses, with Prejudice, Claims Withdrawn Pursuant to Case Narrowing Order

by Christopher H. Strate and Christine A. Gaddis

Posted in Pharmaceuticals

On November 18, 2024

In Exeltis USA Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., the United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently ruled, over the plaintiffs’ objection, that claims dismissed by the plaintiffs in response to the District Court’s case narrowing order were dismissed with prejudice. Exeltis is a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving patents covering Exeltis’s SLYND® product. During the case, the court entered a case narrowing order that required the plaintiffs to reduce the number of asserted claims and the defendants to reduce the number of invalidity defenses. The parties complied with the order, and the plaintiffs then won at trial. Following trial, the plaintiffs argued that the claims dismissed pursuant to the court’s case narrowing order should be without prejudice based on “fundamental fairness.” The court disagreed, finding that fundamental fairness was best supported by the certainty that came with a dismissal with prejudice. This ruling appears to have created a split within the District of Delaware. In Ferring Pharms. Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 645 F. Supp. 3d 335 (D. Del. 2022), another Delaware Court held that claims withdrawn pursuant to the court’s case narrowing order were dismissed without prejudice. In light of the court’s ruling in Exeltis, plaintiffs in Hatch-Waxman cases in the District of Delaware should be aware of the risk that the court...

On Notice: FTC Releases Final Changes to Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Form

by Kevin R. Reich

Posted in Antitrust

On November 14, 2024

After leaving practitioners and their clients waiting for months with bated breath, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released its final changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) premerger notification form. The consensus seems to be that the proverbial bark that accompanied the amendments when they were initially published in June 2023 may have been worse than the bite taken by the final rule announced on October 10. Under the HSR Act, transacting parties whose contemplated mergers exceed certain size and dollar thresholds must submit a notification form to the FTC and to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice at least 30 days before closing so that those regulators can review the competitive effects of a deal before it is consummated. Most deals proceed to close after the 30-day waiting period with no regulatory action taken, but a small subset garner a “second request” for additional information, and a few of those wind up in litigation with regulators seeking to enjoin the deal because of its potential to harm competition in the relevant market. Proposed amendments to the form – the most far-reaching updates in more than four decades – created a stir when they were published two summers ago. As proposed, the changes worked a significant overhaul, with businesses concerned about what was perceived to...