This case involved a products liability action originally filed in Missouri state court by 99 plaintiffs from multiple states against Bayer entities, alleging injuries from the drug Trasylol. Defendants removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the eight non-diverse plaintiffs from Indiana and Pennsylvania had been fraudulently misjoined with the others to defeat complete diversity. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, finding that the claims satisfied joinder standards under Missouri and federal rules because they shared common questions of law and fact arising from the same series of transactions, so fraudulent misjoinder was not established and diversity jurisdiction was absent. The court denied the request for attorney fees and costs, concluding that the removal had an objectively reasonable basis given the MDL context and existing case law on the doctrine.
This case involves defendants charged with perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) and conspiracy based on allegedly false testimony given during a suppression hearing presided over by Judge Altonaga. The government sought to introduce Judge Altonaga's testimony to establish the materiality element of the perjury counts, while defendants moved in limine to exclude it. Defendants argued that such testimony would be unduly prejudicial under Rule 403, improperly delve into the judge's mental processes, and invade the jury's role in determining materiality under an objective standard. The government countered that the judge was uniquely positioned to address materiality and that any prejudice was minimal. The court analyzed these competing arguments, relevant case law on judicial testimony, and the distinction between objective materiality and subjective influence before resolving the motion.
The case involves the SEC's motion to hold defendant Jamie L. Solow in civil contempt for failing to comply with a 2008 final judgment that found him liable for securities fraud violations involving inverse floating rate collateralized mortgage obligations and ordered him to pay over $6 million in disgorgement, interest, and penalties. The court determined that Solow was in contempt after evidence showed he had transferred assets, including securities accounts and real estate, to his wife and established an offshore trust shortly before and after the judgment to avoid payment obligations. The core reasoning was that the disgorgement order serves the public interest in securities law enforcement, Solow's asset dissipation demonstrated willful noncompliance rather than inability to pay, and nominal payments made did not satisfy the judgment.
This case involved the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition challenging state and federal permits issued for construction of the West County Energy Center power plant and an associated natural gas pipeline in Palm Beach County, Florida. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, NEPA, and RICO statutes, claiming improper project segmentation, inadequate environmental review, conflicts of interest in state approvals, and harm to protected species and waters. The court granted multiple defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint, including those from the Army Corps of Engineers, Florida DEP, State of Florida, and private parties, while denying others as moot. Dismissal rested on plaintiffs' failure to state viable federal claims under applicable statutes and procedural rules, with the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law issues.
The case concerned defendants' motion for taxation of costs after the district court dismissed plaintiffs' federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court interpreted the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1919, which authorizes an award of just costs when a suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, rather than under Rule 54(d) applicable to prevailing parties after a merits judgment. It awarded defendants $1,682.29 in deposition and copying costs that it deemed just and recoverable but denied recovery of late fees or interest on unpaid bills.
This case is a class action brought by current and former participants in United States Sugar Corporation's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) against the company, its directors, officers, a controlling shareholder, and the plan trustee, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of ERISA arising from the alleged undervaluation of plan shares by failing to account for a third-party acquisition offer. The court addressed five motions to dismiss the thirteen-count consolidated complaint. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing Count IV without prejudice on ripeness grounds while permitting other claims to proceed after accepting the plaintiffs' factual allegations as true at this stage and rejecting arguments for complete preemption or failure to state a claim on the remaining counts.