This case concerns a dispute between the law firm Bond, Schoeneck & King and the Oneida Indian Nation over the scope of attorney's fees owed under a retainer agreement from prior land claim litigation against New York counties. The court reviewed a magistrate judge's report recommending that the firm receive only $5,174.54 from the $57,494.54 monetary damages recovered, and addressed the firm's objection seeking a larger fee based on the value of a casino and other benefits derived from the legal principle established in the case. It denied a motion to strike the firm's objection for not being filed under seal, finding the filing error accidental and without bad faith. The court concluded that the retainer agreement limited fees to the monetary amount recovered in the judgment and rejected the firm's expansive interpretation that would include non-monetary benefits such as business operations or trust land decisions.
This case involved The Ayco Company, a financial services firm, seeking a preliminary injunction against two former employees, Wolfgang Frisch and Stefan Oglevee, who resigned in May 2011 to join competitor UBS Financial Services. Ayco alleged that the defendants breached non-compete clauses in their employment agreements, misappropriated confidential client information and trade secrets, and engaged in unfair competition. The court granted the preliminary injunction, enforcing the ninety-day non-compete periods and prohibiting use or disclosure of Ayco's confidential information through August 2011. The decision rested on findings that Ayco was likely to succeed on the merits of its contract and trade secret claims under New York law, that the non-compete clauses were reasonable and enforceable, and that the balance of equities favored injunctive relief to protect Ayco's client relationships and proprietary data.
This case involved a patent infringement suit by Canadian trust Advanced Fiber Technologies against Wisconsin corporation J & L Fiber Services, alleging that J & L's V-Max screen cylinders used in pulp screening infringed AFT's reissued U.S. Patent No. RE 39,940 (a reissue of the earlier '072 patent) directed to screen plates and manufacturing methods. J & L denied infringement, asserted invalidity and unenforceability of the patent, and sought declaratory judgment, while both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity along with a motion for claim construction. The court construed disputed terms such as "screening medium," "wedgewire," "means for releasably connecting," and attachment methods like riveting or shrink-fitting, then applied those constructions to find certain dependent claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and to grant summary judgment of non-infringement on the remaining claims due to absence of literal infringement or equivalence. Core reasoning rested on the patent specification, prosecution history, prior art references such as the Johnson Screens Brochure and Gillespie patent, and the requirement that claims must be definite and supported.
This case involves a challenge by Grace Cornell to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, based on her multiple medical conditions including hernias, respiratory issues, musculoskeletal problems, and mental health disorders. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court vacated the Commissioner's finding of no disability and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The decision was based on the determination that the administrative law judge's analysis improperly overlooked treating physician opinions, conducted a flawed credibility assessment, and failed to adequately account for the combined effects of the plaintiff's impairments by not consulting a vocational expert.
In Johnson v. Astrue, plaintiff Marc W. Johnson sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits, claiming disability due to severe hearing loss and tinnitus that prevented him from continuing his work as a music teacher. The court vacated the Commissioner's determination that Johnson was not disabled and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ failed to properly establish at step five that Johnson had transferable skills for other work or the residual functional capacity for medium work, particularly not accounting for his nonexertional limitations and advanced age in the vocational analysis.
James Roat brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits based on alleged mental impairments including depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full and remanded the Commissioner's decision for further administrative proceedings. The court found that the ALJ had not adequately considered the medical opinions and other record evidence concerning the severity of Roat's impairments, his credibility, or his residual functional capacity, and that additional development of the record on his mental health conditions was required before a final determination.