Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CALLARI v. REHAU INC.

June 29, 1998

ELIZABETH CALLARI, Plaintiff,
v.
REHAU INCORPORATED, Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: POLITAN

LETTER OPINION

 ORIGINAL ON FILE WITH CLERK OF THE COURT

 Re: Elizabeth Callari v. Rehau Incorporated

 Civil Action No. 98-1464 (NHP)

 Dear Counsel:

 This matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court heard oral argument in this matter on May 26, 1998. For the reasons explained more fully below, defendants motion is DENIED.

 DISCUSSION

 I. Standard of Review

 When a court decides a 12(b)(6) motion, all allegations in the Complaint must be taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 636 n.3, 64 L. Ed. 2d 572, 100 S. Ct. 1920 (1980). If it is clear from the record that plaintiff has not alleged a cognizable claim as a matter of law or fails to allege sufficient facts to support the claim, then the complaint should be dismissed. See Smilecare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 L. Ed. 2d 513, 117 S. Ct. 583 (1996); see also Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). The purpose of Rule 12 is to allow trial courts to terminate lawsuits "that are fatally flawed in their legal premises and destined to fail, and thus to spare litigants the burdens of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity." Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 988 F.2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

 II. New Jersey Family Leave Act

 At issue in this motion is the breadth of the New Jersey Family Leave Act's definition of "employer." Defendant contends that it is not an "employer" within the meaning of the Act because it does not employ fifty or more people within the State of New Jersey.

 The relevant provision of the Family Leave Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11B-3(f), provides:

 
"Employer" means a person or corporation, partnership, individual proprietorship, joint venture, firm or company or other similar legal entity which engages the services of an employee and which . . . ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.