Figueroa v. City of Camden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the “NJLAD does not contain the express language required to waive the State’s immunity from suit in federal court” (quoting Bennet v. Atlantic City, 288 F. Supp. 2d 675, 683 (D.N.J. 2003))
• dismissing NJLAD aiding and abetting claims where the complaint only stated “blanket assertions” against defendants without alleged specific conduct
• dismissing LAD aiding and abetting claims where the complaint only stated “blanket assertions” against defendants without alleged specific conduct
• categorizing an allegation as a “bald assertion” where the allegation, without even a shred of support, rose to the level of absurdity and did not even come close to approaching “plausibility”.
• granting motion to dismiss CEPA claim where “the meeting that was the source of the alleged retaliation took place in ‘early 2006,’ before Defendant Davis was appointed the COO of Camden” and implemented the supposedly retaliatory hiring freeze

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).