Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

On May 1, 2017

Since its original enactment in 1976, New Jersey’s Spill Compensation and Control Act (commonly known as the Spill Act) has been amended no fewer than ten times. The New Jersey Supreme Court had to grapple with that complicated history in its recent decision in NL Industries, Inc. v. State of New Jersey, No. A-44-15. Reversing the 2015 opinion of the Appellate Division, on which we have already written, the Court held that while the original statute made New Jersey subject to Spill Act liability by including the State in the definition of a “person,” subsequent amendments that (among other changes) expanded some portions of the statute to cover pre-enactment discharges did not “clearly and unambiguously” abrogate the State’s sovereign immunity for pre-enactment activities. As a result, the State can never face Spill Act liability associated with its discharges that occurred before the statute’s effective date of April 1, 1977. The case concerned the remediation of a contaminated site on the shoreline of Raritan Bay with an estimated cleanup cost of $79 million. Development plans for the area in the 1960s led to a proposal to construct a seawall. At least some of the material used in the seawall, which was completed in the early 1970s, allegedly consisted of furnace slag from a lead smelting facility operated...

21st Century Cures Act Lands in Federal Budget Blueprint

by David J. Pascrell and Michael D. DeLoreto

Posted in Healthcare

On April 27, 2017

President Trump’s proposed FY 2018 Budget (a/k/a the “skinny budget”) presented a departure from his predecessor’s proposed annual budgets – namely a $54 billion increase in defense and military spending paired with corresponding cuts to virtually every other federal department. But one area President Trump did not cut was the implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), which also happens to be one of the last bills signed into law by then-President Obama. The FY 2018 budget blueprint proposes to appropriate $1.1 billion towards the Cures Act’s implementation in the upcoming fiscal year. The Cures Act strives to expedite the discovery, development, and delivery of new treatments and cures. Those in the medical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical industry should look to the Cures Act as the potential game-changer that the bipartisan sponsors of the law hoped it would be. Not only does the Cures Act provide the National Institute of Health with significant new funds to speed up research into diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s, but it also attempts to speed up the process by which new treatments are reviewed and approved by the FDA. The Cures Act also focuses on changes to the treatment of mental health and substance abuse. The reforms included in the Cures Act create a new Assistant Secretary for...

Turning Back the Clock: NJ Appellate Division Holds That ISRA De Minimis Quantity Exemption Still Available Following Withdrawal of NFA

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Environmental and Green Issues

On April 26, 2017

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently announced several interesting holdings regarding the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”), N.J.S.A. 13:1K-6, et seq. In R&K Associates, LLC v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Docket No. A-4177-14T1, the Court held that a former owner of an industrial site may apply for an exemption from the ISRA process even when the former owner has not owned the site for many years and elected to not pursue the exemption in the past. The case concerned the final decision of the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) denying a De Minimis Quantity Exemption (“DQE”) under ISRA to the former owner of the subject industrial site. ISRA is the New Jersey law which generally requires owners of industrial sites to remediate on-site environmental contamination or expressly assume responsibility for remediation prior to transferring an ownership of the site. A DQE under ISRA allows an owner of an industrial site to avoid the requirements of ISRA where only trivial amounts of hazardous substances were used on-site. The case has an extensive procedural history with three appeals and numerous DEP actions, beginning with DEP’s withdrawal of a 1997 No Further Action (“NFA”) letter to the former owner. When the former owner sold the site in 1997, it submitted a Preliminary Assessment Report (“PAR”)...

Third Circuit Decides Good Faith Belief of FMLA Abuse Justifies Termination

by Richard S. Zackin

Posted in Family Leave

On April 18, 2017

There are occasions when an employer becomes concerned that an employee on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA” or “the Act”) is using the leave for purposes not authorized by the Act. That situation was presented in Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, a recently issued opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. There, the Court held that an employer’s good faith belief that an employee was abusing his authorized FMLA leave constituted sufficient grounds on which to terminate the employee. The case provides valuable guidance as to how employers should proceed in such situations. The Facts Frederick Capps worked as a dough mixing machine operator for Mondelez Global (“Mondelez”). Because of a blood flow condition, Capps underwent bilateral hip replacement. At times thereafter, he suffered from severe leg pain and was continuously recertified approximately every six months for intermittent FMLA leave for his condition. On the evening of February 14, 2013, Capps was arrested for driving under the influence and spent the night in jail. He had not reported to work that day having called Mondelez’s FMLA message line complaining of leg pain. On August 7, 2013, Capps pled guilty to a DUI charge and spent 72 hours in jail immediately following the guilty plea. The company did not have a policy...

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Class Action Plaintiffs Can Ring Their Own “Death Knell” Bell

by Caroline E. Oks

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 18, 2017

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument last month on the issue of whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice. The case comes to the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Baker v. Microsoft Corp. In Baker, a putative class of owners of Microsoft Corporation’s (Microsoft) Xbox 360® video game console filed suit, alleging that the console suffered from a design defect that gouged game discs. Microsoft opposed Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. The District Court denied certification, citing comity considerations and relying on the class certification denial in a similar case. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a 23(f) petition for interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. The Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice, with the express purpose of obtaining immediate Ninth Circuit review of the District Court’s denial of class certification. Plaintiffs filed an appeal from the final judgment, challenging the denial of class certification. On appeal, Microsoft argued that the Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction because a voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not sufficiently affect the merits of the substantive claims to constitute an appealable final judgment. However, the Ninth Circuit had previously rejected a similar argument in...

NJ Legislative Budget Committees Receive Fiscal Updates

by Michael D. DeLoreto

Posted in State Legislative and Budget Matters

On April 7, 2017

The Legislature received testimony regarding State revenues earlier this week. In separate appearances before the Assembly Budget Committee and the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, the State Treasurer and the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) testified regarding the revenue picture for the current fiscal year (FY 2017), and the anticipated revenues for the upcoming fiscal year (FY 2018). The OLS reported to the Committees that incoming revenues for FY 2017 are currently forecasted to be $228 million less than expected. However, the 2016 financial market rally and estimated tax payments by high-income earners suggest that FY 2017 revenues could push closer to the originally forecasted amounts. A more accurate revenue forecast will be available in May, after the April tax filing deadline passes. For FY 2018, both the Executive Branch and the OLS have similar projections for growth in the upcoming fiscal year. The Executive Branch anticipating growth that is only 0.6 percent higher than the OLS. While a small percentage amount, this still results in a difference of $212.9 million between the Executive Branch and OLS revenue estimates. The OLS Tax and Revenue Outlook can be accessed here. The State Treasurer’s testimony to the Assembly and Senate Budget Committees can be found here. In all, the State of New Jersey faces another tight fiscal...

U.S. Supreme Court Requires Schools to Provide a Special Needs Student More Than a “De Minimis” Education

by Mary Frances Palisano

Posted in General Litigation

On April 5, 2017

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling in Endrew F., et al. v. Douglas County School District RE-1. In a decision that will have far-reaching implications in the area of special education, the Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) “requires that students with disabilities be provided with an educational program that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” In 1982, the Supreme Court determined in Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley that the IDEA requires that every child be provided with a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”). The Rowley Court did not, however, adopt a standard for determining whether a child is receiving a sufficient educational benefit to satisfy this mandate. Rather, the Court stated that a child has received a FAPE if the Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) provides an education program “that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits,” and otherwise limited its analysis to the facts of the Rowley case. Endrew F., an autistic child, was enrolled in a public school and educated pursuant to an IEP. In 4th grade, Endrew’s parents expressed displeasure with his progress and challenged the...

Another TCCWNA “Website” Terms & Conditions Class Action Dismissed

by Joshua S. Levy

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 3, 2017

Over the last year – and as we have previously reported – online retailers have repeatedly been targeted by threatened or filed class actions, premised on their website terms and conditions purportedly containing unlawful terms that violate the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”). Many of these cases have been dismissed by trial courts on state law grounds and, in federal court actions, for failure to demonstrate “injury in fact,” a fundamental requirement for Article III standing. Continuing this trend, the District of New Jersey recently dismissed yet another website terms and conditions class action grounded in the TCCWNA, Hite v. Lush Internet Inc. In Hite – as in so many of these lawsuits – “Plaintiff visited Defendant’s website . . . and purchased one of Defendant’s cosmetic products.” Yet, she “[d]id not allege she has any claim about the product that she purchased, such as fraud, product liability or tort.” Instead, “[h]er quarrel [was] with the provisions of the terms of use of the website” in that she “generally allege[d] that the exculpatory clauses contained in the Terms of Use violate . . . the TCCWNA because they unlawfully disclaim all tort liability.” Chief Judge Simandle dismissed the case, however, holding that “Plaintiff has not alleged an injury sufficient to confer standing...

Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Data Privacy Class Action on Article III Standing Grounds

by Michael R. McDonald and Joshua S. Levy

Posted in Class Action Defense

On March 31, 2017

Since the United States Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins in May 2016, lower courts have struggled to consistently determine whether a plaintiff has standing to sue in federal court, which, as the Spokeo court explained, “requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” That is, even when Congress has made something unlawful and authorized an award of statutory damages for the unlawful act, the mere violation of that law is not itself sufficient to confer standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. But precisely what is required to demonstrate sufficient “injury” under Article III remains unclear after Spokeo, especially in the data-breach and data-privacy contexts. In Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., however, a unanimous Seventh Circuit decision, authored by Judge Posner, held that the defendant’s possible failure to comply with a requirement contained in the Cable Communications Policy Act (requiring the destruction of personally identifiable information (“PII”) if the information is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected) did not afford the plaintiff Article III standing to sue for violation of the statute where his personal information was not released or disseminated in any way. The plaintiff in Gubala had subscribed to Time Warner cable services in 2004, which required him to...

The Metadata Minefield – New Jersey’s Amended Rules of Professional Conduct Provide Ethical Guidance

by Phillip J. Duffy

Posted in Policies and Handbooks

On March 28, 2017

Every electronic document contains metadata – hidden, electronically stored information (ESI) which reveals details surrounding its creation, typically including the document’s creator and the date and time the document was created and edited, among other things. Much of this metadata may be innocuous, but some – for example, the identity of every individual who opened or edited a document, or even tracked changes – may reveal privileged and confidential attorney client communications or work product that was not meant to be visible to or seen by the other side. This, in turn, generates issues of concern for lawyers entrusted with preventing disclosure of such confidential information and for those who receive it. Following the recommendations of its Commission on Ethics 20/20, the American Bar Association (ABA) recently amended the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) to address these issues and provide guidance to lawyers in both situations. In the wake of the ABA amendments, the New Jersey Supreme Court examined these issues, soliciting input from, among others, the Special Committee on Attorney Ethics and Admissions (Special Ethics Committee) and the Working Group on Ethical Issues Involving Metadata in Electronic Documents (Working Group), and rendering Administrative Determinations on the Reports and Recommendations of both groups. The New Jersey Supreme Court largely adopted the groups’ recommendations (which...