Nicholas H. Politan

In United States v. Scarfo, the defendants faced federal charges of illegal gambling and loansharking after the FBI, acting under search warrants, installed a Key Logger System on a computer in their business office to capture keystrokes and decrypt an encrypted file containing alleged evidence. The defendants moved to suppress the recovered evidence and sought discovery of details about the KLS technology, arguing it may have violated Title III wiretap laws by intercepting communications during modem use. After an in camera review of classified information under the Classified Information Procedures Act, the court found that the KLS operated only locally on the hard drive and did not intercept wire communications, leading it to deny the suppression motion. The court granted discovery in part by ordering production of an unclassified summary affidavit but denied full disclosure of the classified KLS details.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Bio-Technology General Corp. against Duramed Pharmaceuticals after Duramed filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of the oral contraceptive Mircette. The '724 patent, owned by BTG and licensed to Organon for Mircette, claims a contraceptive regimen with a specific sequential order of estrogenic and progestin compounds. The court granted Duramed's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, holding that neither literal infringement nor infringement under the doctrine of equivalents occurred because Mircette and the generic product administer the compounds in the reverse order from that required by the patent claims. The court reasoned that the claim language and specification expressly limit the invention to the recited order of administration, and that using multiple packages does not satisfy the claim limitations. The decision rested on claim construction as a matter of law, without need for expert testimony on disputed facts.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case concerns a copyright dispute in which Dam Things from Denmark sought a preliminary injunction against Russ Berrie & Co. to prevent alleged infringement of troll doll designs, importation of infringing products, and related representations. The plaintiff’s original U.S. copyrights had been invalidated in 1965 for lack of proper notice but were restored in 1996 under 17 U.S.C. § 104A. The court examined the validity of the restored copyrights, substantial similarity between the designs, and various defenses including unclean hands and differences in the dolls. It concluded that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits because the restoration statute applied and evidence supported copying by the defendant.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Yvette Bradley suing the United States, Customs Service, and individual officers after being subjected to a luggage search and pat-down at Newark Airport upon returning from Jamaica, alleging racial and gender discrimination as well as an unreasonably intrusive search violating her constitutional rights. The court treated the defendants' motion as one for summary judgment and granted it, finding no violation of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment or other rights. The core reasoning was that border searches are subject to lower standards of suspicion, the officers had reasonable suspicion based on her attire and origin country, the pat-down was not excessively intrusive, and there was no evidence of discriminatory policy or practice.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case is a civil forfeiture in rem action in which the U.S. government seized over $8 million from bank accounts of a Brazilian currency exchange company and a related entity, alleging the funds were proceeds of drug trafficking and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 981. Claimants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause regarding some seized funds and for other relief, without first filing an answer or responding to interrogatories as required by Supplemental Rule C(6). The court held that claimants must comply with Rule C(6) by filing a verified claim and then serving an answer (and responses to interrogatories) before pursuing dispositive motions, and therefore dismissed the claimants' motions without prejudice while granting the government's cross-motion to compel an answer.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a claim by the FDIC, as receiver for the failed City Federal Savings Bank, against National Union Fire Insurance under a financial institution bond for approximately $19 million in losses from additional loans made to the troubled Port Liberte' construction project. The FDIC alleged that bank executive George Mikula dishonestly concealed negative information about the project from the bank's board, leading to the loans that were never repaid. The court granted National Union's motion for summary judgment, holding that the bond did not cover the losses because its terms required the employee to have acted with the intent to obtain a financial benefit for himself, and the evidence showed Mikula had no such intent beyond normal employment incentives. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact on this element and noted that the bond's language was narrowly tailored to exclude coverage in these circumstances.

business & regulatory

The case concerns a structured settlement agreement arising from a 1987 motorcycle accident, under which plaintiff Kirkpatrick was to receive periodic payments funded by an annuity issued by one of the defendant insurers. In 1999, Kirkpatrick sought to assign a portion of those future payments to plaintiffs Legal Asset and Settlement Funding in exchange for a lump sum, but the defendants refused to honor the assignment absent compliance with Connecticut General Statute § 52-225f, which mandates court approval of such transfers after a best-interests determination. The plaintiffs brought a declaratory judgment action claiming the statute violated the Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause, and Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as related state-law provisions, by regulating out-of-state transactions and applying retroactively. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion, holding that the statute was constitutional, applied only prospectively to post-enactment transfers, and properly governed the assignment at issue.

business & regulatorycivil rightsfederal powerproperty

In C.N. v. Ridgewood Board of Education, parents of three minor students sued the Ridgewood Board of Education and school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a voluntary anonymous survey administered to middle and high school students violated the students' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as FERPA and PPRA, because it contained invasive questions on topics such as family relationships, sexual attitudes, drug and alcohol use, and criminal behavior, and because parents received inadequate notice and no written consent was obtained. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, closing the case. The decision rested on findings that the survey was administered anonymously with multiple prior notifications to parents emphasizing its voluntary nature, that no individual student responses were identified or disclosed, and that the PPRA's prior written consent requirement did not apply in the manner claimed by plaintiffs.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who purchased vehicles financed through retail installment contracts assigned to First Bank, with claims that they were overcharged for extended warranties and insurance without proper disclosure. After dismissing the federal Truth in Lending Act claim, the court addressed whether TILA preempted the remaining New Jersey state law claims, including those under the Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, and the Holder Rule in the Retail Installment Sales Act. The court decided that federal law preempts the state Holder Rule, resulting in dismissal with prejudice of all claims against First Bank. The core reasoning was that TILA section 1641(a) limits assignee liability in a manner that conflicts with the broader liability imposed by the state rule, requiring preemption under the Supremacy Clause to avoid inconsistency.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved an appeal from a magistrate judge's denial of pro hac vice admission for attorney Marvin Barish to represent plaintiff Matthew Kohlmayer in a Federal Employers' Liability Act suit against Amtrak. The district court affirmed the denial, holding that Barish's history of uncivilized and unprofessional conduct in prior cases—including reprimands, mistrials, and wasted judicial resources—justified the decision despite his good standing in the Pennsylvania bar and lack of formal disciplinary sanctions. The court reasoned that local rules permit consideration of an applicant's character and record of civility, which are distinct from violations of professional ethics rules that would trigger formal discipline, and that pro hac vice admission is not automatic even for out-of-state attorneys in good standing. It rejected stricter standards from other circuits requiring conduct rising to disbarment level and emphasized case-by-case evaluation of patterns of unacceptable behavior.

procedure

This case arose from dozens of class actions and individual lawsuits against American Family Enterprises alleging that its sweepstakes mailings misled consumers into believing they had won large cash prizes they did not receive. After the company filed for Chapter 11 reorganization, the District Court consolidated the MDL proceedings with the bankruptcy case and conducted a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement and plan. The court confirmed the debtors' First Modified Joint Plan of Reorganization, finding that it complied with the requirements of Bankruptcy Code sections 1128 and 1129, that notice was adequate, that the settlement was fair and reasonable, and that objections raised at the hearing were either untimely or without merit. The ruling resolved all claims against AFE and related parties through the bankruptcy process.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs Amberson Holdings LLC and Amberson, Inc. suing defendants Westside Story Newspaper and related parties for trademark infringement related to the use of "West Side Story" in their newspaper title and domain name "westsidestory.com". The defendants, based in California, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction in the New Jersey federal court. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, reasoning that the defendants lacked sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey, as their only connection was a hosting server there, and exercising jurisdiction would violate due process by offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved The Star-Ledger newspaper's motion to quash a federal grand jury subpoena seeking a redacted audio tape of a 1997 interview with Gary Grieser, a participant in a real estate fraud scheme known as land flipping, which had already led to indictments and guilty pleas by appraisers and others. The newspaper argued that the First Amendment provided it with a qualified privilege to withhold the tape as part of its news-gathering process. The court denied the motion to quash, holding that any such privilege must yield to the grand jury's broad investigatory authority under the Fifth Amendment when the government demonstrates a legitimate need for the evidence. The decision followed the government's submission of a Schofield affidavit satisfying the Third Circuit's test for grand jury subpoenas and noted that the information sought was non-confidential and from a self-identified source.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

This case involved a post-conviction motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) by Ceverilo Chambers, who had pled guilty to drug offenses after a tractor-trailer loaded with marijuana and cocaine was seized at the border; he sought return of property including a tractor-trailer, a Toyota Corolla, papers, keys, and a wallet taken by DEA agents. On remand from the Third Circuit, the district court held a hearing that Chambers did not attend and considered an uncontested government affidavit showing the property had been forfeited, released to a repossession company, destroyed, or returned. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, finding the government no longer possessed the items, had properly disposed of them based on the undisputed record, and that no other remedies were available or pursued. The decision noted that any potential claim for damages would be time-barred by the statute of limitations.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

The case involved Constable Terminal Corporation, a debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, seeking to challenge and obtain refunds for allegedly over-assessed real property taxes paid to the City of Bayonne for the years 1991 through 1994. Constable had not filed timely tax appeals under New Jersey state law before commencing its adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court granted partial summary judgment to Bayonne, holding that it lacked authority under 11 U.S.C. § 505(a)(2)(B) to adjudicate refund claims that were untimely under state law. On appeal, the district court affirmed, interpreting the statutory requirement of a "properly requests" refund to mean compliance with applicable state filing deadlines, and noting that the Bankruptcy Code does not preempt those deadlines or create an exception for offsets against government claims.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a trademark dispute over the name "The Drifters" for a musical group, in which plaintiff Marshak sued defendant Treadwell for infringement of his federal registration acquired in 1976 and Treadwell asserted fraud in obtaining the registration along with her own counterclaim for infringement. After a jury trial, the court addressed post-trial motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59, denying Marshak's motions and granting Treadwell's in part. The jury found that Marshak's registration was obtained by fraud through an assignment from former singers who lacked ownership rights, that Treadwell had abandoned her rights around 1976 due to discontinued regular U.S. performances, and that Marshak had acquired common-law rights through continuous use since the 1970s. The court's decision rested on evidence of the original group's management history under the Treadwells, the circumstances of the 1976 assignment, and the requirements for proving fraud and abandonment under the Lanham Act.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over ocean carriage of jute bags from Bangladesh to Honduras under a bill of lading issued by Sea-Land Service, Inc. to Ace Bag & Burlap Co., Inc. After the goods arrived in Honduras, Sea-Land followed orders from local customs authorities to move the containers to a bonded warehouse without requiring presentation of the original bill of lading, after which the goods disappeared and Ace Bag was never paid. Ace Bag sued Sea-Land for improper delivery, but the court granted Sea-Land's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court reasoned that Sea-Land had effected proper delivery under the bill of lading and applicable federal law (49 U.S.C. § 80110) by transferring the goods to a person entitled to possession pursuant to mandatory Honduran customs procedures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between Cityside Archives, Ltd., a storage company, and Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center (supervised by defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation) over the storage of medical records and x-rays. After a trial, the court found that defendants breached the agreement only as to the transfer of certain Pierce records but not regarding the Lincoln x-rays, and it entered judgment for Cityside on that limited basis. The current motions concerned amending the judgment, awarding attorney's fees to plaintiff's counsel, and relieving counsel. The court granted the motion to amend the judgment, granted in part and denied in part the request for attorney's fees (limiting them to time spent on the successful Pierce records claim under a reasonableness standard), and dismissed the motion to be relieved as counsel as moot. The core reasoning applied principles from Hensley v. Eckerhart to reduce fees based on the plaintiff's partial success and counsel's failure to provide itemized billing focused solely on the prevailing issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves the City of Newark seeking to block the State of New Jersey from removing Edward Dunham as Acting Fire Chief under a 1980 consent decree that addressed racially discriminatory employment practices in New Jersey fire departments. The court granted the City's motion for an injunction, restraining enforcement of the Merit System Board's November 1998 decision that Dunham lacked the required five years of supervisory experience. The core reasoning was that the decree obligated the parties to develop revised, nondiscriminatory job standards and tests for the Fire Chief position, but years of delay meant removal based on the old pre-decree criteria would undermine the decree's purpose. The court also ordered a timeline for the State and United States to complete job analyses and selection procedures for fire chief and related positions.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case was a class action securities fraud lawsuit against American Home Products Corporation and its officers, alleging they made false or misleading statements about the safety of the weight-loss drug Redux (and its precursor Pondimin) while knowing of links to heart-valve damage, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, thereby inflating AHP's stock price. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice and the pendent state-law claims without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the amended complaint failed to plead facts with particularity giving rise to a strong inference of scienter under Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA—neither through motive and opportunity nor strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness—and that certain alleged omissions were not materially misleading.

business & regulatoryprocedure