In the recently decided case of Flynn v. Flynn, a New Jersey appeals court was faced with whether to apply New Jersey or Pennsylvania child support law regarding a parent’s obligation to an eighteen-year-old full-time college student. Although Flynn was fact-specific due to the parties’ prior legal entanglements, the decision explores the substantial differences between Pennsylvania and New Jersey with respect to child support.
Although New Jersey lawmakers cancelled a vote on an adult-use recreational cannabis bill recently, medical cannabis use gained some support following a ruling from the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey that an employer’s failure to accommodate medical marijuana use by an employee constituted a valid basis for an employment discrimination claim.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an opinion earlier this year lending support to those interested in seeking patents related to cannabis. GW Pharmaceuticals, a U.K. company focused on therapeutic cannabinoids, walked away with a partial win concerning a patent that involved the use of cannabinoids to treat epilepsy.
Domestic violence exists and is real, and unfortunately, is common. This blog is not meant for the traditional domestic violence victim. The rights of true victims are rightly met with protections from the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, which allow for the implementation of a Final Restraining Order that prohibits contact and the presence of the perpetrator away from the victim.
Instead, this blog is to recognize that not all domestic violence complaints (referred to as Temporary Restraining Orders) are based on legitimate allegations warranting permanent relief with a Final Restraining Order and, moreover, have been used “as a sword as opposed to a shield” by purported “victims” at times notwithstanding the incredible burden Final Restraining Orders carry.
Final Restraining Orders in New Jersey, unlike in other states, are permanent. Many people understand the main purpose of a Final Restraining Order from its name’s literal interpretation, namely, that it keeps one person from being in the presence of or contacting the other person.
A New Jersey state jury hit Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp with nearly $1.5 million in net damages over a former company executive’s claims that she was fired in retaliation for whistleblowing. The jury in turn rejected the pharma company’s stance that the employee had been properly terminated for violating company policies.
In a 7-1 votes, the jury awarded $1,816,040 to Min Amy Guo in her whistleblower suit, in which she alleged that she was fired from Novartis for raising concerns in 2012 that a potential cancer drug study for Afinitor by the pharmaceutical distribution company McKesson Corp was possibly a kickback to McKesson to help sell the medicine.
On March 20, 2019, the Massachusetts Securities Division, Enforcement Section (the “Division”) filed a complaint against an investment adviser located in Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the firm’s two owners and financial professionals “gambled away millions of dollars in client assets through high risk bets on the oil and gas market.” This author vehemently disagrees with the Division’s complaint and the message it sends to the industry.
Confidential settlement agreements reached between employers and employees resolving claims of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment may not be so secret anymore.
On March 18, 2019, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Senate Bill 121, which amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12 (“NJLAD”), by declaring unlawful and unenforceable any provision in any employment contract or settlement agreement concealing, or attempting to conceal, details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment. Furthermore, and perhaps even more concerning to employers, the amendment prohibits the contractual waiver of any substantive or procedural rights or remedies relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation or harassment.
Despite the fact that family courts are trending towards making divorce filings public records, there are certain documents that should not, and cannot be disclosed. The most important of these are evaluations that are conducted in custody disputes.
A California appeals court recently ruled that the Los Angeles attorney representing singer Paul Anka’s ex-wife, Anna, in a custody battle acted “maliciously” and ” recklessly” when she disclosed information contained in a confidential custody evaluation from a prior case during a deposition.
On March 4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court resolved a longstanding split among the circuit courts concerning what exactly the copyright registration prerequisite to filing a copyright lawsuit means – whether an application to register is sufficient or an actual issued registration is required. The Supreme Court chose the latter holding that a copyright owner must first obtain a copyright registration certificate from the Copyright Office before filing a copyright infringement suit.
To be or not to be vested—that is the question. Well, at least that was the question considered by a New Jersey appeals court in the recent decision of M.G. v. S.G.
Otherwise stated, the question concerned whether a stock award which was issued to an employee prior to a divorce filing but which was vested after the divorce complaint was filed be subject to equitable distribution between the parties. Continue Reading Stock Awards in Divorce Revisited