The case involved Susan Lindauer, who was charged with conspiring to act and acting as an unregistered agent of the Iraqi government, as well as engaging in forbidden financial transactions with that government between 1999 and 2004. Multiple mental health professionals determined that Lindauer was mentally incompetent to stand trial due to delusions of grandiosity and paranoia. The government moved under Sell v. United States to compel administration of psychotropic medication to restore her competency, but Lindauer opposed the motion. After a hearing, the court denied the motion, finding that the government had not met its burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that involuntary medication was substantially likely to succeed in rendering her competent without interfering side effects, and possibly that important government interests were at stake.
In Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, former employees sued their employer alleging that the company's cash balance pension plan violated ERISA by improperly calculating lump-sum distributions, accrued benefits, and engaging in age discrimination. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim but granted the motion as to the second, third, and fourth claims, dismissing those. The court reasoned that the plan did not violate ERISA's requirements for benefits after normal retirement age because participants continued to receive pay and interest credits without forfeiture, and certain statutory provisions did not apply or were not breached.
This case involves ongoing federal litigation over insurance coverage for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex on September 11, 2001. The insured parties filed a state court declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that their Conceptual Framework redevelopment agreement would not adversely affect recovery rights under the property insurance policies or constitute an impermissible assignment. Royal Indemnity Company moved in federal court to enjoin the state action under the All Writs Act, claiming it would interfere with the federal proceedings and pending summary judgment motions and appraisal. The court denied the motion, ruling that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal injunctions against state proceedings except in three narrow exceptions, none of which applied, and that concurrent jurisdiction over related claims does not alone justify interference. The opinion stresses that doubts should be resolved in favor of permitting state courts to proceed.
This case involved a dispute over whether a new redevelopment agreement for the World Trade Center, known as the Conceptual Framework, would impact the plaintiffs' rights to recover under property insurance policies for the site's destruction on September 11, 2001. The plaintiffs filed suit in New York state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Framework did not constitute an impermissible assignment reducing their insurance recovery. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the jurisdictional provisions of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the action did not fall within the limited subject matter jurisdiction granted by that federal statute.
In this case, plaintiff Carlo Novella sued Westchester County and the New York Carpenters’ Pension Fund alleging that the fund violated the terms of its pension plan by calculating his disability pension using two different benefit rates based on a break in covered service. The court had previously granted Novella summary judgment on his claim that this practice was an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the plan. On the pending motion for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, the court found that the proposed class of disability pensioners affected by the dual-rate calculation satisfied the requirements of commonality, typicality, adequacy, and Rule 23(b)(1), and after resolving a discovery dispute and balancing factors including geographic dispersion, financial resources, and ability to pursue individual suits, also met the numerosity requirement, leading the court to certify the class.
This case involves insurers seeking a declaratory judgment that they owe no coverage under Media Special Perils policies for a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against defendants in California federal court. Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the New York action in favor of a related pending California action or to transfer it there. The court granted dismissal without prejudice, finding that plaintiffs filed the action to preemptively secure New York law by racing to the courthouse before defendants were aware of the coverage dispute. The decision rested on the timing and purpose of the filing rather than on the merits of coverage or the underlying copyright claims.
