What is the status of currently pending litigation against YAZ® manufacturers?

no picture

Studies have shown that the ingredients contained in YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® (including the synthetic progestin, drospirenone), have been linked to various forms of internal organ damage (including gallbladder damage), as well as deep vein thrombosis, or blood clots. These blood clots can form in the deep veins of the legs, pelvis, or arms causing extreme pain. It has been found that if the clot dislodges it can lead to sudden, and many times fatal, stroke, heart attack, myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism.

 

Within the past month, a large number of cases against Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturers of YAZ® and Yasmin®, have been designated as Mass Tort or Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) cases. Mass Tort cases (in State courts) and MDL’s (in federal courts) are methods of organizing and managing cases involving the same or similar injuries and common defendants, in an expedient, cost-effective manner that better enables the plaintiffs to pursue their claims. The Mass Tort cases will be consolidated for case management and discovery purposes before Judge Moss in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The MDL cases will be consolidated for case management and discovery purposes before the Judge Herndon the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

 

Stark & Stark’s Mass Tort/Pharmaceutical Litigation Team pursues claims throughout the nation against drug manufacturers, so they can be held accountable when the drugs they market are proven to be defective or cause catastrophic injury to the people who use them. If you feel you have experienced any side-effects from taking YAZ® or Yasmin® (or the generic brand, Ocella®, which is marketed and distributed by Barr Laboratories), you can contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort/ Pharmaceutical Litigation attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against the YAZ®, Yasmin® or Ocella® manufacturers.

Builders, Contractors and Homeowners: Beware Insurance Carriers Are Delegating Construction Deficiencies Coverage

no picture

Construction Litigation Group Chair, Donald B. Brenner, and Litigation Shareholder, Thomas J. Pryor, authored the article Builders, Contractors and Homeowners: Beware Insurance Carriers Are Delegating Construction Deficiencies Coverage for the October 19, 2009 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal.


The article discusses a recent trend in New Jersey in which builders and homeowners are left without insurance coverage for property damage caused by substandard work performed by subcontractors. Due to the recent rise in bankruptcies and business failures, denying homeowners insurance coverage would leave homeowners without any avenue of recourse.
 

You can read the full article online here.
 

Constitution Law: Right to Privacy - Expungements

no picture

In Nunez v. Pachman, the Appellate Division recently discussed the section of the Expungement Statute which prohibits the disclosure of any information relative to the records, proceedings or any other related documents once an event is expunged.  In Nunez v. Pachman, the Appellate Division explained that the litigation privilege will not permit the disclosure of any expunged arrest or proceeding.  Moreover, the Court hinted that a private party may potentially possess a cause of action for damages should a disclosure cause harm to this party.  This reaffirms the section of the Expungement Statute which prohibits the disclosure of any expunged records once an expungement is granted.
 

Title to Cemetery Plots - Not So Scary!

no picture

Goblins and ghosts.  Eerie graveyard scenes.  With Halloween coming, cemeteries always take on some added  interest. New Jersey cemeteries are governed by the "New Jersey Cemetery Act, 2003."  N.J.S.A. 45:27-1 et seq.  Under the Act, a cemetery is defined as "any land or place used or dedicated for use for burial of human remains or disposition of cremated human remains...."  N.J.S.A. 45:27-2.

 

General supervision and regulation of all cemetery companies and their property, equipment and facilities is exercised by a 10 member New Jersey Cemetery Board.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-1 While many historical cemeteries exist in New Jersey, any cemetery established after December 1, 1971 must be owned and operated only by a governmental entity, religious organization or a cemetery company organized in accordance with the New Jersey Cemetery Act.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-6.  Those cemetery companies organized after December 1, 1971 must be nonprofit corporations N.J.S.A. 27-7(a).

 

Before selling grave sites, cemetery companies are required to survey or map out that part of the cemetery where graves exist, showing the location of the graves with roadways, paths and building areas as the cemetery company directs.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-16(b).  The map shall be kept at the cemetery's office and made available for inspection by owners of the interment spaces.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-17 (b) & (c).

 

The Cemetery Act also requires a cemetery company to keep records of the owner of each interment space that has been conveyed by the company and each transfer of an interment space to which the company has consented.  A transfer of an interment space is not complete until it is recorded on the books of the cemetery company and any required fees paid.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-19(b).

 

The conveyance document for the interment space shall include the actual amount paid for the space, a description of the space sufficient to indentify it, the dimensions of the space and any other information that may be required by the New Jersey Cemetery Board. N.J.S.A. 45:27-19(c).

 

Conveyances issued by a cemetery company shall indicate whether the company is transferring title to the interment space or only a right to burial in the space. N.J.S.A. 45:27-28(a). Subject to certain restrictions, the owner of an interment space has the right to transfer that space, or an interest in that space, to any person.  The transfer shall be effective on recordation by the cemetery company of the transfer.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-28(b).

 

Once human remains have been buried in a grave or crypt, transfer of title can be made by the owner by will, if specifically identified in the will; otherwise, title will pass first to the surviving spouse and the owner's children, if any, per stripes, as equal tenants in common.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-28 (c)(1)(a).  If an owner leaves a surviving spouse, and has children from a prior marriage or relationship, then those children and the surviving spouse shall be owners of the grave or crypt as tenants in common.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-28(f).

 

Transfer of ownership of an existing grave or crypt containing human remains can also be made to an existing co-owner or to an heir at law of the person buried in the space.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-28(c)(2) & (3).

 

When there are two or more owners of an interment space, each owner's interest may only be transferred by that owner or such owner's authorized representative.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-29(a)(1).  Co-owners may also designate one or more of the co-owners to represent them by filing a written notice of such designation with the cemetery company.  N.J.S.A. 45:27-29(b).  In such event, the cemetery company shall follow the direction of the representative as to interment in the space.  If no such representative is designated, the cemetery company may rely on the direction of any of the co-owners of the space.

 

Title to cemetery plots is not such a scary topic, so don't be spooked by the subject!

Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on FINRA Expulsion

no picture

Stark & Stark Employment Group Chair, Thomas B. Lewis, was quoted in the October 19, 2009 Wall Street Journal article, COMPLIANCE WATCH: Expulsion Shows Risks Of Outside Accounts.

 

The article discusses the recent expulsion of Miguel A. Chavez by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The expulsion comes as a result of Chavez's association with firms that sell securities after he opened an outisde account and did not inform his employer of the account. Mr. Lewis states that brokers who are contemplating a job change may want to move their assets to another brokerage if they anticipate a dispute about money owed for a signing or retention bonus, which are typically secured by promissory notes.

 

You can read the full article oline here. (PDF)

Modification of Alimony and Child Support in a Poor Economy

no picture

It has just been reported that the unemployment rate in New Jersey is approaching 10%, the highest it has been in decades.  It has also been reported that divorce filings are down in this period of recession, presumably because couples cannot afford to split up.  The same does not appear true, however, for modification motions.
 

At the time of a divorce, alimony and child support are based on the parties' incomes.  If there is a substantial change in circumstance after the initial support is set, such as the loss of employment due to no fault of your own (i.e., layoffs, plant and store closings, corporate bankruptcies), you may wish to file an application with the court, called a motion, to decrease your support obligations.
 

In any modification case, the burden of proof to establish a substantial change in circumstance is on the party seeking change.  It is not prudent to run into court on the heels of losing your job without having taken the steps necessary to prove your case.  A court must not only weigh the payor spouse's circumstances in deciding when, if, how much and for how long support obligations should be modified, it must also take into consideration the effect any modification will have on the payee spouse, including the children.
 

In seeking modification, the payor spouse must file a certification with the court setting forth the facts which would convince a court to modify support.  You must attach  proof to that certification which captures the time and effort you put into finding another job.  Copies of letters and resumes sent by email or snail mail to companies looking for employees is a start.  Most job seekers these days will post their resume on employment websites such as monster.com or careerbuilder.com, but this does not quantify the effort made.  Keeping a log of prospective employers who contact you with the date and synopsis of the conversation or copy of email responses is better proof.  Copies of rejection letters, if an employer bothers to send one, are also helpful.  The log should include dates and outcomes of interviews, any employment offers made, and reasons why an offer was not accepted.  Any hard evidence that would support the log is a must.
 

In addition, the supporting spouse should certify as to efforts made in reviewing local newspapers and trade or industry journals for employment opportunities.  Obtaining a headhunter and documenting all job leads, interviews and rejections is also suggested.  Many times the prior employer will offer laid off employees time with a counseling or other firm as part of their severance package.  All of this information must be pooled together, with supporting proof and made part of any certification accompanying a motion for modification.
 

In searching for employment, it may no longer be acceptable to apply for jobs only in your residential area, or only in your specific field.  If expanding your job search in these ways bears no fruit, then accepting a decrease in pay may be the only option available if you have been in the market for a period of time with no results.
 

If a party does accept a job with lesser pay after a diligent search, it will be much easier to deal with a motion for modification of support.  If the proofs are there as to the efforts made for a comparable job to your prior employment, and you have not been able to obtain comparable employment given the state of that industry, then the court will rely on the lesser income in modifying support, absent evidence undermining the payor spouse's proofs.
 

If, on the other hand, you have not made a zealous effort and have just accepted a job making lesser pay without proving your effort, then a court may not modify your support payments.
 

The New Jersey Appellate Division set forth factors which the trial court should  consider in a case dealing with a career change and lesser income.  These factors include: the reasons for the career change (both the reasons for leaving the prior job and the reasons for choosing the new job); disparity between prior and present earnings; efforts to find work at comparable pay; the extent to which the new career draws or builds upon education, skills and experience; the availability of work; the extent to which the new career offers opportunities for enhanced earnings in the future; age and health; and the former spouse's need for support.
 

As one can glean from the above suggestions, a motion to modify support based on job loss should not be filed quickly, even though you may want and need fast relief.  While courts are now considering motions to modify support based on job loss much more quickly than they have in the past, you must still present a compelling case.

Tags:

Defendants in NuvaRing® Litigation Files Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims

no picture

As we have discussed in previous posts, NuvaRing®, the combined contraceptive vaginal ring that is supposed to provide month-long birth control, is currently involved in a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Recently, defendants filed numerous motions to dismiss certain plaintiff’s claims for failure to provide a timely or complete “Plaintiff Fact Sheet” (also known as a “PFS”). In pharmaceutical cases with Mass Tort or Multi-District Litigation designations, plaintiffs are required to submit a detailed PFS. The PFS requires the plaintiff to supply medical, liability and general background information within a specified time period, usually subject to periodic updating and revision. The PFS is instrumental in permitting both parties, as well as the Court, to choose bellwether cases for case specific discovery and trial. While defendants’ counsel invariably submit that a broad PFS is especially crucial to determine the defenses to a particular plaintiff’s claims, plaintiffs’ counsel must make certain that the PFS is sufficiently circumscribed so as not to be particularly burdensome to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, there is a constant tension between the parties as to the timing and content of the PFS’s, usually culminating in similar protracted motion practice throughout the litigation.

Dissipation of Marital Assets

no picture

In New Jersey divorce cases, all property accumulated during the marriage (whether real estate, cash, bank accounts, investment accounts, retirement plans and personal property) is subject to equitable distribution.
 

But what happens if an asset is no longer in existence or spent down by the time a Divorce Complaint is filed as a result of one spouse’s spending?
 

A Court can determine whether a spouse has dissipated marital assets and therefore should have the obligation to pay that money back.  However, a careful analysis must be conducted.
 If the spending has been used to pay marital debt or to fund vacations or for some other marital purpose, the Court will not find that dissipation has occurred.  On the other hand, if a spouse sends money to his or her family over the objection of the other spouse, or if a spouse spends money frivolously for his or her own purposes while contemplating a divorce, a court may find that dissipation has occurred.
 

The following factors should be considered when deciding the issue of dissipation:
(1) the proximity of the expenditure to the parties’ separation, (2) whether the expenditure was typical of expenditures made by the parties prior to the breakdown of the marriage, (3) whether the expenditure benefitted the "joint" marital enterprise or was for the benefit of one spouse to the exclusion of the other, and (4) the need for, and amount of, the expenditure.
 

While not an easy thing to prove, dissipation of marital assets is an issue to be raised in some divorce cases.

Tags:

New Rule Eliminates Need for Personal Information on Divorce Court Documents

no picture

Under the new Rules 1:38-7 Confidential Personal Identifies must be redacted from all documents filed with the Court except a Case Information Statement, its attachments, and the Confidential Litigant Information Sheet. Litigants now must certify to the Court that no such identifiers are being filed outside of the afore referenced documents.
 
Personal Identifiers include:

  • Social Security Number
  • Drivers License Number
  • Vehicle Plate Number
  • Insurance Policy Number
  • Active Financial Account Number
  • Active Credit Card Number

You can however refer to an account by last 4 digits if necessary to distinguish from another account. What this means: Get out your black sharpie and mark up those docs before submitting them to the Court.

Tags:

Case Information Statements and Your Divorce

no picture

Perhaps one of the most valuable documents in any divorce case is a Case Information Statement (CIS).  A CIS sets forth each party’s income, assets, liabilities, the marital standard of living, and current monthly budget.  A fully completed CIS gives the Court a clear picture of that party’s financial situation, which is imperative in calculating child support and alimony.  While drafting a Case Information Statement is time consuming, it’s value should not be underestimated.
 

Pursuant to Rule 5:5-2 of the New Jersey Court Rules, a Case Information Statement must be filed by each party within twenty days after the filing of an Answer or an Appearance.  In addition, a CIS must be filed in all family actions which in there is an issue as to custody, support, alimony, or equitable distribution.  This includes pendente lite and post-judgment motions.
 

All too often, attorneys and litigants do not spend the time and effort necessary to prepare an accurate CIS.  Some do not take the time to fill out the marital budget, which is a necessary to determine the marital lifestyle in alimony cases.  In such a case, the Court may draw inaccurate conclusions and thereby make an unfavorable award.  When it comes to Case Information Statements, it is prudent to include as much information as possible for the Court to utilize in making a determination.
         

Another common mistake with Case Information Statements occurs when the monthly budgets are grossly inflated.  Especially in cases where alimony is an issue, because alimony is based on the parties’ incomes and their expenses.  Thus, the party seeking alimony may be tempted to inflate their monthly budget with the expectation of receiving an increased alimony award.  However, an unrealistic monthly budget will damage the party’s credibility with the Court, which may also lead to an unfavorable result.
 

In a recent Appellate Division Case, the Court emphasized just how important it is for the Court to have a clear picture of the parties’ financial circumstances.  In Lombardo v. Lombardo, the Husband filed a post-judgment motion to reduce and/or eliminate his alimony and child support obligations, and the Trial Court held a plenary hearing to determine whether a substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the parties’ divorce.  The Husband demonstrated that he was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy following the divorce, and as a result if his disability, his income substantially declined from the income he was earning at the time of the divorce.  However, during the plenary hearing, the Husband failed to testify regarding his expenses and assets, and did not enter his Case Information Statement into evidence.  The Court did not have information regarding his expenses, debts, and assets. 
   

Following the plenary hearing, the Trial Court denied the Husband’s application for a reduction in alimony, and the Appellate Division affirmed.  Although the Husband successfully demonstrated a reduction in his own income, he failed to demonstrate a reduction in his ability to pay because of the missing financial information, which was contained in his Case Information Statement.  Had the Husband presented testimony about his financial situation, or simply entered his completed CIS into evidence, the result of the plenary hearing may have been much different.

Tags:

The Railroad Retirement Act: Partition of TIER II Annuity Benefits

no picture

This is the sixth and final installment of a six-part blog series focused on the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA). You can read the full series here.
 
ERISA does not apply to RRA annuities. Thus, the railroad Retirement Board (RRB)will accept a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) only if it provides for an annuity partition that is valid under the RRB’s regulations.  However, a QDRO is not required to effect an annuity partition if appropriate language is incorporated into the divorce decree or court-approved property settlement agreement.

If you or your spouse have been railroad employees and thus may be eligible for a RRA annuity, it is strongly recommended that you speak to a legal professional to ensure that these unique benefits are properly accounted for and distributed incident to a divorce.

Tags:

Retrofitness Sued By New Jersey Fitness Club Owners

no picture

Model A Fitness of Boonton, New Jersey has sued Retrofitness for fraud, consumer fraud, breach of contract, and violations of New Jersey’s Franchise Practices Act. Retrofitness Enterprises and Retrofitness Corp. owns, operates and franchises body building, health and fitness facilities under the “Retrofitness” trademark. The Retrofitness lawsuit is being watched by franchisors and franchisees alike.

 

Retrofitness franchises have been steadily increasing in number over the last few years.  Back in November 2005, Retrofitness entered into a license agreement with Model A’s owners for the development of a facility in Boonton, but Model A alleges in its Complaint filed in New Jersey Superior Court that Retrofitness’ principal, Eric Casaburi, enticed them into the license agreement through a series of false promises and misrepresentations, and then attempted to coerce them into signing a franchise agreement on far less favorable terms for the owners.  When the owners refused, Retrofitness terminated the license agreement and, according to the Complaint, opened a new location up the street which unfairly competed with Model A. 

 

The case is being watched because it raises significant issues under the Franchise Practices Act, and also because it will test the applicability of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act generally to franchises.  The Complaint filed in New Jersey Superior Court can be viewed online here.

Want an Antidote to the Economic Doldrums? Start by Improving Your Lease Agreement!

no picture

Although the downturn in the economy has brought many obstacles to small business owners, it has also created opportunities that can provide leverage to foster growth and financial security for the future.   An important example of this is the give-and-take that occurs between landlord and tenant in the negotiation of new commercial leases and the renegotiation of existing ones.  Indeed, a carefully drafted, and well thought out lease agreement can serve to protect and enhance the viability of a business. 
   

In order for lease negotiations to produce the right opportunities, a business owner must develop a full understanding of its own purposes in entering into the lease, the landlord’s actual or likely positions on “big picture” issues relating to the proposed deal and, in addition, the nature and extent of the proposed uses and operations within the leased space.  This is a prerequisite to negotiations.  Of course, a business owner should also be prepared to come to the table with an open mind and a willingness to compromise and consider creative alternatives.  In such instance, the business owner may succeed in cultivating a (or improving an already positive) relationship with the building owner, as well as furthering and protecting commercial interests.  For example, a tenant with a new business may be willing to expose itself to greater liability in the event of a default by signing a personal guarantee, for example, in exchange for some up-front assistance from the landlord, such as rent concessions during the first year of the term or contributions toward the cost of fitting out the interior of the premises.  In these financial challenging and legally tumultuous times, business owners should give special consideration to safeguarding your rights in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy and in the event condemnation or destruction of the premises.  Having the ability to assign freely your interests in a lease, especially to a newly formed or reorganized business entity and sublet or otherwise transfer those interests are also of paramount importance.   In any event, by being flexible and creative, the business owner stands to create an agreeable lease arrangement and, by the same token, the financial stability that this creates will also advance the long-term interests of the landlord. This is especially true in multi-tenant environments where the stability of one business owner contributes to the stability of another and creates a commercially attractive neighborhood. 
   

It is undeniable that the economic downturn has had a considerable effect on tenancy rates in Central New Jersey and elsewhere.  If you are a business owner who has managed to survive the recession, and you are looking for leaseable space, you should take advantage of the opportunities available in the current “tenant’s market.”   No matter the size of your business, as a tenant today, you don’t necessarily have to accept a lease as proposed by a landlord or sit on an existing lease that is ripe for renegotiation.  Similarly, landlords can take affirmative steps to hold onto existing tenants and attract new ones by providing incentives and by being flexible, in the negotiating process. 
   

Whatever your interests or purposes may be, business owners should take their leases seriously, especially now, given the real potential for securing favorable new deals and restructuring existing ones.  Business owners who fail to do so or who enter the fray unprepared and without the proper tools risk losing an opportunity and, quite possibly, jeopardizing their business - a lesson that some small businesses, unfortunately, have already learned.  Indeed, given the complexities inherent in preparing and negotiating a commercial lease (many of which have not been detailed here), business owners would be well advised to seek legal counsel before entering into any such agreement.

Small Business Owners Need to Plan for Tax Increases in 2011

no picture

Adam J. Siegelheim, member of Stark & Stark's Business & Corporate and Franchise Groups, authored the article Small Business Owners Need to Plan for Tax Increases in 2011 for the September 2009 edition of Mercer Business Magazine.

 

The article discusses the differences, and advantages, between an S Corporation and a C Corporation. Mr. Sigelheim points out that although S Corporations currently receive tax breaks which were put in place by former President Bush, President Obama’s proposed budget for 2011 does not include the renewal of these tax cuts, and therefore, in the future it may be more profitable to operate as a C Corporation. 

 

You can read the full article online here.

Canine Custody in New Jersey Divorce Proceedings

no picture

In a decision of fist impression a New Jersey court has awarded shared possession of a six year old pedigree pug named Dexter to a former couple who bought the dog for $1,500 while were engaged and living together.
 

In Houseman v. Dare, the court gave each party five weeks of time with Dexter and alternating holidays, with the party having physical custody responsible for Dexter's veterinary bills including cremation expenses in the event of his death. The court hoped that in such unfortunate circumstances the responsible party would agree to share his ashes.
 

The decision follows up an New Jersey appeals court ruling that pets, unlike furniture, household goods and other types of personal property, have a subjective value that transcends monetary factors. At the same time, it should be noted that the court declined to apply a "best interests of the pet" standard as would apply to child custody cases
 

I have at times  handled so-called "pet custody" as part of a divorce, although the court in Houseman declined to use the word "custody", opting instead for "possession".  Regardless of the language, there is no doubt that pets are often considered  "members of the family" instead of mere objects and that courts are starting to acknowledge their unique and special status.

Tags:

Key Legal Considerations when Buying an Existing Business, Buying a Franchise, or Starting a Business From Scratch

no picture

Cary S. Kvitka, member of Stark & Stark’s Business & Corporate and Franchise Groups, will present a seminar entitled, Key Legal Considerations when Buying an Existing Business, Buying a Franchise, or Starting a Business From Scratch, for the Greater Princeton Area SCORE. The seminar will be held Wednesday October 21, 2009 from 6:45 – 8:45 PM at the Princeton Public Library.
 

The seminar will discuss the legal implications, benefits and detriments of buying an existing business, buying a franchise, and starting a business from scratch.  Mr. Kvitka will also address the issues which commonly arise with new businesses, including how to structure the transactions, due diligence, intellectual property issues and how to negotiate a commercial lease.

 
To register for the seminar, contact SCORE at: info@scoreprinceton.org, or by phone at 609-393-0505.