Jason R. Schmitz
Jason R. Schmitz' practice focuses on litigating disputes ranging from complex product liability cases to insurance coverage disputes. He has successfully represented and defended international and domestic manufacturers of industrial, consumer, sports recreation, construction, material handling, energy and automation products. Mr. Schmitz has also represented owners, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry as well as professionals in the medical, architectural and legal industries.
In addition to litigating on their behalf, Mr. Schmitz has guided his clients through times of crisis including product recalls, product failures with potential business interruption, and regulatory investigations.
Mr. Schmitz has written on a variety of topics, including New Jersey Construction Law and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Prior to entering active practice, he served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Peter E. Doyne, Assignment Judge, Bergen County.
New Jersey State Bar
Purdue University, B.A. 1998
Seton Hall University School of Law, J.D., 2001
New Jersey Bar Association
Bergen County Bar Association
Justice Morris Pashman American Inn of Court
Defense Research Institute
Clerkship, Hon. Peter E. Doyne,
Superior Court of New Jersey, 2001-2002
Ellis v. Siemens Enterprise Network, Inc., Slip Copy, 2008 WL 724278 (D. N.J., Mar. 17, 2008)
Vaccaro v. HJC America, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75315 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2007
Recent Client Victories
Summary judgment on behalf of telecommunications manufacturer: A Federal District Court held that plaintiff’s expert failed to sufficiently support plaintiff's design or manufacturing claims and that our clients’ installation contract did not include the systematic repairs that plaintiff alleged our client should have performed.
Summary Judgment on behalf of wrecker component manufacturer: A Federal District Court accepted Mr. Schmitz’s argument that the third-party plaintiff failed to adequately support his claims against our client, a component manufacturer, with admissible expert testimony.
Summary judgment on behalf of helmet manufacturer: The Court adopted Mr. Schmitz’s argument and held the plaintiff's expert was offering a mere "net opinion" unsupported by the scientific method, barred the expert, and granted summary judgment for his client.