Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr.

12 Citing cases

  1. Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr.

    215 N.J. 265 (N.J. 2013)   Cited 83 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that assessment of whether party to arbitration agreement has waived that remedy must focus on totality of circumstances, including whether party's litigation conduct resulted in prejudice to other party

    The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order. Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 425 N.J.Super. 48, 39 A.3d 909 (App.Div.2012). After noting the presumption against waiver of an arbitration agreement, the panel stated: “The key to determining waiver is the absence or presence of prejudice to the party objecting to the arbitration.

  2. Suzanne's Specialties, Inc. v. Am. Sugar Ref., Inc.

    DOCKET NO. A-2588-11T3 (App. Div. Apr. 10, 2013)

    Without question, "'a waiver will preclude the enforcement of a contractual provision to arbitrate.'" Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 425 N.J. Super. 48, 56 (App. Div.) (quoting Spaeth v. Srinivasan, 403 N.J. Super. 508, 514 (App. Div. 2008)), certif.

  3. Sae Power Inc. v. Avaya Inc.

    DOCKET NO. A-3834-12T3 (App. Div. Mar. 14, 2014)

    But with Cole[v. Jersey City Medical Center, 425 N.J. Super. 48 (App. Div. 2012), aff'd as modified by, 215 N.J. 265 (2013),] one of the considerations that Cole is talking about is you don't start arbitrating after one side gets to do extensive discovery. And while there's morediscovery to be done here, document production and interrogatories that produce hundreds of thousands of pages of documents is substantial.

  4. Salinas v. N.J. Re-Ins. Co.

    DOCKET NO. A-5866-11T1 (App. Div. Jun. 19, 2013)

    Plaintiff maintained that he had a contractual right to UIM arbitration. Defendant objected to the motion and argued that plaintiff waived his right to UIM arbitration relying on Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center, 425 N.J. Super. 48 (App. Div. 2012), certif. granted, 212 N.J. 198 (2012).

  5. Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr.

    52 A.3d 176 (N.J. 2012)

    Karen Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center, Liberty Anesthesia Associates, LLC, Jersey City Medical Center, Liberty Anesthesia Associates, LLCLower Court Citation or Number: 425 N.J.Super., 48, 39 A.3d 909 Disposition: Granted.

  6. Wilmington Tr. v. Zarour

    No. A-1386-21 (App. Div. Jul. 14, 2023)

    Furthermore, res judicata is an affirmative defense that is waived if not timely presented in a responsive pleading. R. 4:5-4; see Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 425 N.J.Super. 48, 57 (App. Div. 2012). Moreover, the claims here were not previously adjudicated on their merits.

  7. Margalit v. Woods Restoration Servs., LLC

    DOCKET NO. A-1057-11T1 (App. Div. Jul. 18, 2013)

    Rule 4:5-4 requires that "[a] responsive pleading shall set forth specifically and separately a statement of facts constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense[.]" Although the failure to set forth an affirmative defense in a responsive pleading may constitute a waiver of that defense, see Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 425 N.J. Super. 48, 57 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 212 N.J. 198 (2012), this "rule of pleading" is not an "absolute mandate."

  8. Columbia Bank v. Hamilton Props. Assocs., L.P.

    DOCKET NO. A-5885-11T3 (App. Div. Jul. 3, 2013)

    However, the interpretation of a contract is ordinarily a legal question for the court, which is subject to de novo appellate review. Kieffer v. Best Buy, 205 N.J. 213, 222 (2011); Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 425 N.J. Super. 48, 56 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 212 N.J. 198 (2012).

  9. Lerner v. Heidenberg

    DOCKET NO. A-0686-12T1 (App. Div. May. 2, 2013)

    Ibid. This case is also plainly distinguishable from Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 425 N.J. Super. 48 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 212 N.J. 198 (2012).

  10. Ragan & Ragan, P.C. v. Winberry Realty P'ship

    DOCKET NO. A-2730-11T4 (App. Div. Apr. 10, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Likewise, we review de novo a trial court's legal interpretations and its construction of arbitration clauses. See Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center, 425 N.J. Super. 48, 56 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 212 N.J. 198 (2012); Alfano v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 393 N.J. Super. 560, 573 (App.