The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has affirmed a Domestic Violence Restraining Order which had been levied against a husband in the midst of a divorce. The decision, captioned, E.D.B. v. D.S. for privacy reasons, came about when the wife discovered the husband had placed an iPad in their shared home office and an iPhone under his bed in order to monitor his wife’s activities when he was not home. The couple was in the process of a divorce prior to this discovery, but was still living together in the same house with their children.
Last week, the NFL sought to end the political controversy surrounding some players kneeling during the national anthem by enacting a policy fining teams if players kneeled during the Star-Spangled Banner.
Under the new policy, players could stay in the locker room while the national anthem of the United States is played. Shortly, thereafter, players wrongfully asserted that the new policy violates their First Amendment protection of “freedom of speech.”
The problem with the players’ constitutional argument is that the Constitution only applies to “State actors.” The state action requirement stems from the fact that the constitutional amendments protecting individual rights are mostly phrased as prohibitions against government action. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War, made most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.
When a project involves the construction of public works, or other improvements to a municipal, county, or a state property, a payment bond is typically posted by the general contractor for the project. This is required as lien claims are typically disallowed whenever project involves a state, county or a municipal property.
Stark and Stark, along with its co-counsel Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gillin-Schwartz, have filed a class action on behalf of thousands of potential female class members against the New Jersey Department of Corrections (“NJDOC”), over the intolerable conditions at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women (“EMCFW”).
NJDOC is a public entity that maintains an annual budget of roughly $1 billion; approximately 8,000 employees; 13 correctional institutions; and nearly 23,000 state-sentenced offenders housed in prisons, county jails, and community halfway houses. NJDOC is responsible for the day-to-day operations, supervision, and management of EMCFW. In 2017, EMCFW had an operational capacity of 846 persons and an average daily population of 659. The daily expense per inmate was $202.15, and the yearly per capita was $73,785.00.
EMCFW, formerly known as the Clinton Correctional Facility for Women, is located at 30 Route 513, in Clinton, Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Opened in 1913, EMCFW was named after one of the first female correctional superintendents in the United States. According to the official NJDOC website description, EMCFW “houses state-sentenced female offenders. The prison provides a campus-like setting with housing units and various support buildings. In terms of security designation, there are two compounds – minimum and maximum/medium. There is a third housing compound for inmates with varying classifications of special mental health needs. Programming includes counseling as well as education and vocational opportunities.” EMCFW is the only women’s correctional facility in New Jersey, providing custody and treatment programs for female offenders 16 years of age and older.
For decades, there has been a recognized and documented environment of rampant and unchecked sexual assault and harassment of female inmates by prison employees, agents and administrators, as well as other inmates, throughout state and federal corrections systems. Continue Reading Stark & Stark is Once Again at the Forefront of Protecting Women at Risk in Sexually Abusive Environments
The termination of a shareholder’s employment may constitute oppression under N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7(b)(1)(c). That is because a person who holds a share in a closely held corporation often does so “for the assurance of employment in a closely-held corporation in the business.” Muellenberg v. Bilkon Corp., 143 N.J. 168, 180-181 (1996). That is because, a shareholder may have a “reasonable expectation” of continued employment. See, Brenner v. Berkowitz, 134 N.J. 488, 508 (1993).
When representing the minority, it is important to develop why the employee/shareholder had a reasonable expectation of continued employment. Of course, when representing the corporation or majority, counsel should present evidence that the employee/shareholder did not have a reasonable expectation of continued employment.
In State, County, or Municipal projects, payment bonds are typically required of the general contractor, as the commercial Construction Lien Law is inapplicable to these projects. Copies of the payment bond are always provided to the relevant government agency, as well as to all direct subcontractors or suppliers with whom the general contractor has directly contracted.
This blog will explore the possibility of probating a copy of a Decedent’s Will if the original document cannot be located. Typically, the County Surrogate will only accept for Probate an original of a Decedent’s Last Will and Testament. If for some reason an original of a Decedent’s Will cannot be located, a party may apply to the Court to Probate a copy of the Decedent’s Will.
This week, Massachusetts-based pizza chain Bertucci’s filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Delaware (seeking joint administration under case No. 18-10894). Bertucci’s operates 59 stores, 29 of which it plans to reject.
According to The Wall Street Journal, an affiliate of Chicago-based investment firm Right Lane Capital LLC has agreed to purchase the chain’s assets, but that bid will be tested at a bankruptcy-court supervised auction.
In virtually every industry, contracts are the instruments which govern the relationship between two entities that wish to conduct business. As such, it is helpful to know the basics as to what constitutes a binding contract to provide materials or services.
Today, Claire’s Stores, Inc., along with seven affiliates and subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Delaware (Case No. 18-10584). Claire’s is a well-known specialty retailer of teen and young women jewelry, accessories, and beauty products, as well as ear piercings at local malls, based in Cook County, Illinois.
Back in January 2018, I included them on my list of Retailers to Watch for a Bankruptcy Filing in 2018.
According to Court pleadings, the company negotiated a restructuring support agreement and plan term sheet with an ad hoc group of its first lien noteholders and is seeking approval of up to $135 million in DIP financing.
The company lists 92 stores to close, on top of the 100 that it closed last year. Still, Claire’s indicates that it intends to operate the remaining 1,600 Claire’s and Icing brand stores through a restructuring.