Saul Ewing LLP

Add to Favorites

Attorneys, Business Law Attorneys, Corporation & Partnership Law Attorneys

Be the first to review!

CLOSED NOW

Tomorrow: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

(973) 286-6700Call

Add Website

Map & DirectionsDirections1037 Raymond BlvdNewark, NJ 07102 Write a ReviewWrite Review

Is this your business?

Customize this page.

Claim This Business

Hours

Regular Hours

Mon - Fri:	9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Places Near Newark with Attorneys

Jersey City (7 miles)
Elizabeth (9 miles)
Union (9 miles)
West Orange (9 miles)
Montclair (11 miles)
Hoboken (11 miles)
New York (14 miles)
Clifton (14 miles)
Passaic (14 miles)
Livingston (14 miles)

More Info

Extra Phones: Phone: (973) 643-4520
Neighborhood: Newark Central Business District
Categories: Attorneys, Business Law Attorneys, Corporation & Partnership Law Attorneys, Criminal Law Attorneys, Personal Injury Law Attorneys, Real Estate Attorneys

Gallery

Be the first to add a photo!

Reviews

Hi there!
Be the first to review!

Click to Rate

Details

Phone: (973) 286-6700

Address: 1037 Raymond Blvd, Newark, NJ 07102

People Also Viewed

View similar Attorneys

Suggest an Edit

Saul Ewing LLP

Money Laundering
To meet our legal and regulatory obligations, such as our obligations under ‘know your customer’ or anti-money laundering rules...
Hit and Run
An individual in an insurance subrogation matter stemming from a hit-and-run accident where the car that fled the scene was identified as belonging to our client. We convinced opposing counsel that our client had sold the car for cash prior to the hit-and-run and to dismiss him from the case.

Business and Corporate Law

Corporate Law

Land Use and Zoning

Immigration Law

Removal Defense

Personal Injury
Should the district court’s class certification order be stayed pending appeal? Following a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff applied for and was granted short and then long term disability benefits. The plaintiff had separately filed a civil action against the other party involved in the accident that resulted in the plaintiff receiving monetary compensation. The defendant sought reimbursement of the LTD benefits paid. The plaintiff originally agreed to pay the defendant a portion of the settlement, but then filed suit on the basis that the plan permitted the defendant to obtain reimbursement only for “Other Income Benefits” and that personal injury recoveries were not within the plan’s definition of “Other Income Benefits.” After filing suit, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which was granted. The defendant appealed the class certification ruling and sought a stay of the District Court’s order. The defendant contended that, absent a stay, there would be confusion among the current class members if the class was decertified on appeal, that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources, the failure to grant a stay would cause irreparable harm without causing harm to the plaintiff or class and there was a high likelihood of success on the merits. In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court considered the following four factors: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. The Court agreed that a stay was unlikely to harm the plaintiff or class, but held that the balance of the factors weighed against a stay. The motion was, therefore, denied.

View All Services

Provided by