In this case, pro se plaintiff Jay Gusler, a firefighter, sued the City of Long Beach, its volunteer fire department, and various officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, alleging retaliation for his protected speech, association, and petitioning activities in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, along with related state claims, arising from disputes over staffing, department operations, complaints, and internal matters. The district court reviewed objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). After de novo review of the disputed portions, the court modified and accepted the report, granting dismissal of the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action in full; dismissing certain Section 1983 claims against individual defendants without prejudice; dismissing portions of the first and third causes of action based on unprotected speech or conduct; denying the motion as to the remaining claims; and granting plaintiff leave to amend specific aspects of his complaint. The reasoning centered on whether the alleged speech and petitions were protected under the First Amendment, the sufficiency of conspiracy and equal protection allegations, and the application of qualified immunity.
This case involves the SEC's civil enforcement action against Tomo Razmilovic, a former president and COO of Symbol Technologies, alleging violations of federal securities laws through financial misstatements and related misconduct. After Razmilovic refused to appear for an in-person deposition in the United States, the court entered a default judgment against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for failing to comply with discovery orders. The court then conducted a bench trial on remedies and determined that Razmilovic must disgorge approximately $41 million in ill-gotten gains from compensation, stock options, and sales tied to the fraud period, along with prejudgment interest calculated from specific dates, a $1 million civil penalty, and permanent injunctions barring him from serving as an officer or director of public companies and from future securities law violations.
Allstate Insurance sued Dr. Charles Leo Cooper, alleging he conspired with attorney Arthur Bogoraz to defraud the insurer by submitting no-fault benefit claims through Sharp Radiology, P.C., a medical professional corporation that was allegedly fraudulently incorporated and controlled by the non-physician Bogoraz in violation of New York Business Corporation Law requirements for physician ownership and operation. The claims included violations of the federal RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d)) along with New York General Business Law § 349, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment, based on an alleged agreement to split the improperly obtained insurance proceeds. On Cooper's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court dismissed only the § 349 claim and denied dismissal of the remaining claims. The court reasoned that the complaint's factual allegations, including Bogoraz's affidavit and the details of the ownership and profit-sharing arrangement, were sufficient to state plausible claims under the RICO provisions at the pleading stage.
The case involved a former student suing her school district and several officials under Section 1983, Title IX, and New York state law, claiming violations of due process and negligent supervision after she was allegedly sexually harassed and photographed following an off-campus drinking incident in April 2005. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in full. It held that the plaintiff failed to show deliberate indifference or an official policy or custom that caused any constitutional violation under federal law, and that the state-law tort claims were barred by failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The opinion also noted the absence of evidence linking school officials' actions to the harassment or to any deprivation of educational access.
This case involves a commercial lease dispute for a gasoline service station in New York, where Spa 77 G L.P. sued Motiva Enterprises LLC under diversity jurisdiction for unpaid rent, real estate taxes, repairs, and related costs after the lease term ended on June 30, 2006. Motiva had removed underground tanks but faced ongoing environmental remediation obligations due to petroleum contamination, and it also brought a third-party indemnification claim against sublessee Sergio. Spa 77 moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court awarded Spa 77 holdover rent damages for the period until Motiva satisfied key lease conditions like equipment removal and site repairs, based on the lease terms and New York law, but denied recovery for real estate taxes and certain repair costs due to insufficient evidence of actual expenses.
This case involved T-Mobile Northeast LLC's application to the Incorporated Village of East Hills and its Zoning Board of Appeals for variances and a special exception permit to install eight wireless telecommunications antennas on an existing building's rooftop along with related equipment. The Village denied the application in December 2009, prompting T-Mobile to sue under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)) and New York CPLR Article 78, alleging the denial was not supported by substantial evidence and violated federal requirements. After defendants failed to properly contest T-Mobile's factual statements, Magistrate Judge Boyle recommended granting summary judgment to T-Mobile, finding the denial lacked substantial evidence and recommending an injunction to issue the permits. With no objections filed, District Judge Feuerstein adopted the Report in full, granted the motion for summary judgment, and ordered the Village to approve the facility.