Noreen Kemether, Esquire and Ana Ciobanescu, Esquire of MOODK’s New Jersey Office were recently successful in having United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey, J. Brendan Daygrant their motion to enforce a class-action wage claim settlement. The lawsuit involving the class-action settlement was brought by several former employees of the insured mortgage lending company, its current sole owner and former prior half-owner in the company, alleging failure to pay overtime wages. Judge Day issued a 41-page Opinion detailing why the proposed settlement agreement should be enforced.  Unbeknownst to the Court and all other parties in the class-action case,  the co-defendant former half-owner, at the moment the settlement in the class-action case was being placed on the record before Judge Day, filed a separate lawsuit in Superior Court against the insureds for breach of the agreement between the insureds and the co-defendant relating to the sale of the co-defendant’s sale of his half of the mortgage lending company to the insured. The settlement agreement preserved the right by all defendants in the class-action to file claims and assert defenses against one another (including the defense of the Entire Controversy Doctrine)  that were not related to settlement payment made in the class action. The former half-owner objected to this settlement provision and refused to sign the settlement agreement as drafted. As a result of Judge Day’s ruling, the insured, through separate counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the Superior Court breach of contract action based on the Entire Controversy Doctrine.

Robin Sammer Behn, Esquire and Torri Yeargins, Esquire of MOODK’s New Jersey office obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a premises liability case stemming from alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiff due to a defective sidewalk. MOODK’s attorneys were able to show that their client was the owner of a residential property adjacent to the sidewalk, which Plaintiff did not have evidence to dispute. MOODK’s attorneys argued that under New Jersey law their client did not have a duty maintain the adjacent sidewalk and thus the client could not be held liable. They further argued that Plaintiff had failed to produce an expert report showing that the sidewalk was defective. The Superior Court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of MOODK’s client resulting in a complete dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against him.