The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Monmouth County) today granted a motion to dismiss filed by the Firm, in partnership with its co-counsel Sidley Austin LLP and Liberty Institute, on behalf of their pro bono clients The American Legion, The American Legion Department of New Jersey, and The American Legion Matawan Post 176, dismissing a lawsuit brought by the American Humanist Association challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance under the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution. In its 21 page decision, the Court adopted the Firm’s arguments in their entirety, and concluded that equal protection principles are not violated when students voluntarily recite the Pledge containing the words “under God,” finding these words to be “as interwoven through the fabric of the Pledge of Allegiance as the threads of red, white and blue into the fabric of the flag to which the Pledge is recited,” and that “as a matter of historical tradition, the words ‘under God’ can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words ‘In God We Trust’ from every coin in the land, than the words ‘so help me God’ from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787.”
Fishkin Lucks secured a voluntary dismissal with prejudice today of a Section 1983 action brought against our client, The Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case was brought by a former DRBA employee who alleged, among other things, that DRBA police officers violated her civil rights in connection with their investigation of allegations that she stole money from the DRBA. The dismissal was the product of admissions we secured through aggressive discovery, and followed our filing of a motion for summary judgment dismissal of all claims.
The New York Appellate Division (Second Department) affirmed today the dismissal of racketeering and conspiracy claims against the Firm’s client, Banco Popular North America, in connection with its financing of a $23M real estate project in Brooklyn, New York. The Second Department agreed with the Firm’s arguments before the trial court, finding that plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead several elements of their RICO and conspiracy claims.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the Supreme Court of New York (Kings County) (Demarest, J.). Following a hearing, the Court granted the Firm’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims alleging that the Firm’s banking client engaged in fraud in connection with its financing of a failed luxury condominium in Brooklyn, New York. The Court agreed that all of plaintiffs’ claims in the action either were or could have been brought in a prior foreclosure action between the parties, and were thus barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Monmouth County) granted Fishkin Lucks LLP’s motion on behalf of its pro bono clients, The American Legion, The American Legion Department of New Jersey, and The American Legion Matawan Post 176, to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the American Humanist Association against the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance under the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution. Fishkin Lucks has now filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, arguing, among other things, that the law providing for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge is constitutional in that it does not discriminate against any class of citizens. The motion is presently scheduled for a hearing on October 23.
A copy of The American Legion’s press release can be found here and some recent media coverage of this victory can be found here.
The Supreme Court of New York (New York County) (Coin, J.) granted today the Firm’s motion to dismiss a nursing and home attendant firm’s complaint against our client , a national insurer, for failure to state a claim, and thirteen cross-claims brought by the estate of an insured alleging, inter alia, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of distress and wrongful death. The Court agreed with each of the Firm’s arguments to dismiss the Complaint, including that CPLR 3211(d) does not afford a right of discovery to a plaintiff who fails to make a “sufficient start in showing that it may have a claim and that its position is not frivolous,” as well as the Firm’s arguments that were dispositive of the estate’s cross-claims. The Court agreed, inter alia, that the cross-claims were founded in contract and could not be considered a basis for tort given the absence “of a legal duty independent of the contract itself [having] been violated,” the contract did not create a fiduciary duty, and the estate did not allege “conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency” to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
