Plaintiffs General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and General Nutrition Investment Company sued defendants General Vitamin Centers, Inc. and Nayma Cheema for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, unfair competition, and dilution under federal and New York law, alleging unauthorized use of the GNC mark. After defendants failed to appear or respond, the clerk entered default, and plaintiffs moved for default judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, issuing a permanent injunction against defendants' use of the marks, and awarding $9,740.04 in attorney fees and costs. The district judge reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full, entering default judgment accordingly.
In Price v. City of New York, a pro se plaintiff sued the City and its Department of Correction under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that defendants failed to reasonably accommodate his permanent partial disability from work-related injuries by providing a closer parking pass and that they retaliated against him for requesting accommodations. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the retaliation claim with prejudice for lack of alleged facts showing a causal connection between protected activity and adverse action. It denied dismissal of the discrimination claim, finding it timely based on an EEOC intake questionnaire filed within the 300-day period and that the complaint plausibly alleged a qualifying disability and defendants' failure to accommodate it.
The case involved the European Community and other plaintiffs suing RJR Nabisco for alleged violations of RICO and common-law torts related to the defendants' cigarette sales practices. After the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, the court dismissed the RICO claims on the grounds that the RICO statute does not apply extraterritorially. With no federal claims remaining, the court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under diversity because the European Community does not qualify as a foreign state, leading to dismissal of the entire action.
In this case, plaintiff Pretty Girl, Inc., which has operated clothing stores under the 'Pretty Girl' name since 1985 and registered the trademark in 2010, sued defendant Pretty Girl Fashions, Inc. for opening a similar retail clothing store in Queens using the name 'Pretty Girl Fashions' without permission. Plaintiff alleged trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and related state law claims, and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the defendant's use of the name. The court granted the injunction after applying the five-factor test from eBay and Salinger, finding that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits due to a high probability of consumer confusion between the stores, irreparable harm from the ongoing infringement, inadequate legal remedies, a balance of hardships favoring plaintiff, and no disservice to the public interest.
This case involves defendant Vincent Basciano, charged in a superseding indictment with racketeering conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, firearm possession, and related crimes tied to his alleged role as acting boss of the Bonanno organized crime family, with the government seeking the death penalty for the murder of Randolph Pizzolo. The court addressed dozens of pretrial motions in categories including general pretrial issues, discovery, and penalty-phase matters, ruling that the motions are granted in part and denied in part. The core reasoning relies on prior rulings that double jeopardy does not bar the charges, assessments of relevance and reliability for evidence and aggravating factors in the penalty phase, and limitations to avoid waste of time or confusion while allowing the jury to consider appropriate context from Basciano's prior convictions.
St. John's University sued former professor Sanford Bolton, former graduate student Spiridon Spireas, and their company Hygrosol, alleging that the defendants concealed patentable inventions developed from research conducted at the university between 1991 and 1993, to which the university claimed ownership under its policies, and that Bolton and Spireas later obtained four patents on liquisolid systems and assigned them to Hygrosol for licensing. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), arguing failure to state a claim and insufficient particularity in pleading fraud, along with statute-of-limitations defenses. The court denied the motions, finding that the university had adequately alleged facts supporting its claims of concealment and that equitable tolling applied due to the defendants' alleged nondisclosure, which prevented the university from discovering its potential causes of action earlier.
