This case involved a class action settlement resolving ERISA and RICO claims against Continental Group, Inc., where plaintiffs' counsel sought attorneys' fees that included a risk-enhancement multiplier. The court determined that the Supreme Court's restrictions on such enhancements in City of Burlington v. Dague did not apply because the fees were drawn from a common fund ultimately borne by the plaintiffs rather than paid directly by the defendants as statutory fees. The core reasoning was that statutory fee awards are designed to make plaintiffs whole without penalizing defendants for the strength of their defenses, but common-fund recoveries should replicate marketplace contingency arrangements by compensating counsel for risks assumed, efforts expended, and results achieved, allowing the requested enhancement.
This case concerns plaintiff Vincent Landano's FOIA request to the FBI for investigative files on his 1976 murder conviction, which he sought to support a state-court claim that prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence. The government withheld material under FOIA Exemption 7(D) on the ground that it came from confidential sources, including eyewitnesses and state law-enforcement agencies. Following the Supreme Court's rejection of any categorical presumption that information supplied during a criminal investigation is confidential, the district court applies the factors identified by the Court—chiefly the character of the crime and the source's relation to it—to decide whether an inference of implied confidentiality is warranted in each instance. The court notes that once the government makes the required showing, the requester may rebut the inference, and it proceeds to evaluate the remaining withholdings under this standard.
The case concerned an employee who was terminated for poor performance without the employer following the progressive discipline procedures detailed in its employee handbook and policy manual, leading to claims for breach of an implied employment contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and emotional distress. The court addressed the employer's motion for summary judgment, focusing on whether disclaimers in the handbook, manual, and a signed statement of employment relationship were sufficient to negate any implied contract under New Jersey law. The analysis centered on precedents like Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, evaluating if the disclaimers were clear and prominent enough to prevent employees from reasonably expecting enforceable disciplinary procedures, while also noting that poor performance was listed only for progressive discipline and not immediate termination. The court further examined whether the documents created a factual issue precluding summary judgment on the contract claims.
The case involved four former officers and employees of a subsidiary of CityFed Financial Corp. seeking a preliminary injunction or summary judgment to compel the company to advance their attorneys' fees and defense costs in a related lawsuit brought by the Resolution Trust Corporation, based on CityFed's bylaws requiring indemnification and advancement of expenses. The court denied the motion. It reasoned that CityFed's limited assets, which faced claims far exceeding their value due to the savings and loan crisis, created a risk of irreparable harm to other creditors if funds were advanced without guaranteed repayment, especially given evidence of potential misconduct by the plaintiffs that could ultimately bar indemnification; this outweighed the plaintiffs' hardship in funding their own defense in the interim, and equitable considerations in insolvency favored protecting the limited fund for valid claims.
Schering Corporation, a manufacturer of pioneer drugs including non-systemically effective drugs, brought suit against the FDA to challenge its 1992 regulation defining bioequivalence for abbreviated approval of generic drugs under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Schering argued that the FDA exceeded its authority by replacing the statutory term absorption with the broader concept of availability at the site of drug action, rendering the abbreviated process inapplicable to drugs that do not rely on systemic absorption. The FDA countered that the statutory definitions create a safe harbor rather than exclusive criteria, permitting additional methods to demonstrate bioequivalence while still ensuring safety and efficacy. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, addressing standing under the Administrative Procedure Act and principles of statutory interpretation in the context of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
In NeoRx Corp. v. Immunomedics, Inc., NeoRx alleged that Immunomedics infringed its '868 patent on processes for labeling antibodies with radioactive isotopes by using those methods in eight cancer imaging and therapy products under development. Immunomedics sought summary judgment on the infringement claims, asserting that all challenged activities fell within the safe harbor exemption of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) because they were reasonably related to generating data for FDA submissions required for product approval. The court examined the scope of the exemption, the nature of Immunomedics' preclinical studies, IND filings, clinical trials, and foreign regulatory efforts, and concluded that the activities were covered by the statutory protection, granting summary judgment to Immunomedics. The core reasoning was that Congress enacted the provision to shield regulatory compliance work from patent liability, provided a sufficient nexus existed between the work and FDA data requirements.