Allen G. Schwartz

This case is a purported class action brought by current and former Sudanese residents against Talisman Energy, Inc., a Canadian energy company, and the Republic of Sudan, alleging that the defendants collaborated in oil exploration activities that involved gross human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, forced displacement, war crimes, rape, enslavement, and genocide targeting non-Muslim populations in southern Sudan. Talisman moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, lack of standing, forum non conveniens, international comity, act of state and political question doctrines, and failure to join necessary parties. The court denied the motion in full, reasoning that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged violations of international law under the Alien Tort Claims Act, that jurisdictional and justiciability barriers did not apply at this stage, and that comity and other abstention doctrines did not require dismissal given the nature of the claims and the alleged futility of pursuing remedies in Sudan.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs Scholastic, Inc. seeking an award of attorneys' fees after the court granted them summary judgment on defendant Nancy Stouffer's Lanham Act counterclaims in a trademark dispute. The court exercised its discretion to determine a reasonable fee amount, excluding all fees incurred before Stouffer filed her counterclaims on September 8, 2000. It further reduced the requested fees from two law firms due to undocumented time entries, discrepancies between initial declarations and contemporaneous records, excessive staffing across multiple attorneys and paralegals, and time spent on unrelated tasks. After these adjustments, the court awarded plaintiffs a total of $576,408.52 in attorneys' fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims by Aisin Seiki and Aisin World against Union Pacific Railroad for negligence and conversion after a rail shipment of automobile parts derailed in Arizona and was deemed a total loss. The plaintiffs had shipped the parts from Japan to Michigan under a bill of lading issued by K Line, which incorporated the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) limiting liability to $500 per package and included a Himalaya clause extending protections to subcontractors like UP. The court granted Union Pacific's motion for partial summary judgment, limiting the plaintiffs' recovery to $10,500 for the 21 packages. The reasoning was that the bill of lading's liability limitations applied to the railroad as a connecting carrier and subcontractor, regardless of disputes over whether the cargo was truly a total loss.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case was a shareholder derivative action brought in New York state court by plaintiff Hassan Nemazee against Medibuy and various other entities, alleging that controlling shareholders and board members engaged in unlawful self-dealing transactions in violation of their fiduciary duties. Defendants removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that complete diversity was absent because defendant Premier Purchasing Partners L.P. had limited partners who were New York citizens like the plaintiff. The court denied the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs and denied as moot the defendants' cross-motion to transfer venue to the Middle District of Tennessee.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Marvel Enterprises, Inc., stemming from a 1993 agreement licensing rights related to the X-Men property. Fox sued Marvel for breach of contract, copyright infringement, and trademark infringement, while Marvel filed counterclaims alleging similar breaches along with trademark dilution, unfair competition, and other intellectual property violations, primarily concerning Fox's attachment of the agreement to court filings, registration of X-Men-related domain names, and copyright registrations for derivative logos. The court granted Fox's motion to dismiss all of Marvel's counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the agreement's terms permitted the disclosures and domain registrations, that Marvel had already publicly disclosed the agreement, and that Fox's copyrights were valid even if derivative. It denied the motion for partial summary judgment on Fox's breach of contract claim due to unresolved factual issues regarding the agreement's freeze provision and potential similarities between related works. The rulings turned on contractual interpretation, prior disclosures, and copyright originality standards.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over intellectual property rights in the Harry Potter book series, with plaintiffs Scholastic, J.K. Rowling, and Time Warner seeking a declaratory judgment that they did not infringe defendant Nancy Stouffer's copyrights or trademarks, along with an injunction against her claims, while Stouffer asserted counterclaims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, dilution, and copyright infringement based on alleged similarities to her earlier works such as The Legend of Rah and the Muggles. The court granted plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and for sanctions. It determined there was no likelihood of consumer confusion regarding trademarks like 'Muggle' or character names, as Stouffer failed to show secondary meaning or actual confusion and her evidence was insufficient or contradicted. The court also found no substantial similarity supporting copyright infringement and imposed sanctions due to Stouffer's submission of inaccurate or fabricated evidence.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Joseph Francolino's habeas corpus petition challenging his 1997 New York state conviction for participating in a private carting cartel tied to organized crime, for which he received a 10- to 30-year sentence. Francolino claimed due process violations from the District Attorney's alleged selection of a pro-prosecution judge through the wiretap application process and from a jury instruction that referenced "reasonable probabilities," which he argued diluted the reasonable doubt standard. The court denied the petition, holding that the judge assignment procedure did not establish bias or violate constitutional rights to an impartial tribunal and that the jury charge, read as a whole, properly instructed on the prosecution's burden without diluting the reasonable doubt standard.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose when plaintiff Abel Obabueki sued Choicepoint under the Fair Credit Reporting Act after IBM withdrew a job offer based on a background report that disclosed a 1995 misdemeanor conviction but omitted a later dismissal order. A jury found Choicepoint negligent in its reporting procedures under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e and 1681k and awarded $450,000 in damages. The court granted Choicepoint's motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the initial report accurately reflected the publicly available conviction record and that IBM's withdrawal decision resulted from its independent conclusion that Obabueki had lied on his application form rather than from any incompleteness or inaccuracy in the report. Because causation was not established, the verdict could not stand and the request for attorney's fees was denied as moot.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorylabor & employment

The case was an antitrust action in which an American plaintiff alleged that European banks conspired to fix fees for exchanging currencies that became part of the Euro, seeking to represent a class of U.S. individuals and businesses harmed by supra-competitive fees. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and did not address the remaining issues of timeliness, failure to state a claim, or personal jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act requires a plaintiff to allege that the claimed injury arose from a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable anticompetitive effect on domestic U.S. commerce, but the plaintiff could not satisfy this standard because the relevant currency exchange occurred in Europe rather than in the United States.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Indian poultry companies (Nasik and affiliates) and U.S. defendants including Merck, Hubbard Farms, and related entities over the 1994 sale of allegedly diseased chicken breeding stock. Nasik sought to rescind a 1998 settlement agreement and recover damages under federal RICO claims as well as state-law claims for fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and related torts. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The core reasoning was that the claims arising from the settlement were subject to arbitration under the agreement's terms, while the remaining claims failed to meet pleading requirements, did not apply to the parties' commercial relationship, or lacked a sufficient connection to the forum state.

business & regulatorycriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Twentieth Century Fox's claims against Marvel Enterprises and related defendants for breach of contract, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement stemming from Marvel's licensing of rights to develop a live-action television series called Mutant X, which Fox alleged improperly drew from the X-Men comic book property licensed exclusively to Fox for theatrical films under a 1993 agreement. The court addressed Fox's motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the series' production and marketing, as well as defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It granted both motions in part and denied them in part, finding that Fox demonstrated a likelihood of success on certain contract and infringement claims while dismissing others for lack of merit or standing. The core reasoning centered on interpretation of the licensing agreement's scope, analysis of substantial similarity between the properties, evaluation of fair use in promotional materials, and assessment of irreparable harm versus the balance of equities.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved Virtual Countries, Inc., a U.S. company that registered the domain name southafrica.com, seeking a declaratory judgment affirming its rights to the name and an injunction barring the Republic of South Africa and its tourism board from pursuing claims to the name in other forums. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the action, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because South Africa, as a foreign state, was immune from suit and none of the statutory exceptions applied, including the commercial activity exception, as the Republic's conduct did not cause a direct effect in the United States. The court rejected arguments that threats or WIPO proceedings satisfied the direct-effect requirement under the 'legally significant acts' test.

federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This diversity action arose after IBM withdrew a conditional employment offer to plaintiff Abel Obabueki upon learning of his 1995 misdemeanor conviction (later vacated and dismissed under California Penal Code § 1203.4), with plaintiff alleging that IBM improperly considered the conviction and failed to provide required notices in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and that Choicepoint violated the FCRA and New York General Business Law by furnishing an incomplete consumer report to IBM. The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment and related motions to strike affirmative defenses. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing all claims against IBM on the grounds that the company had not violated the relevant statutes in considering the unsealed conviction record or withdrawing the offer, while partially addressing the accuracy and procedural requirements for consumer reports under the FCRA with respect to Choicepoint.

labor & employmentcriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved magazine and book wholesalers suing distributors and another wholesaler for alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws (including price discrimination, tying arrangements, and monopolization), contract breaches, and torts such as fraud and interference, all stemming from industry distribution practices like territorial exclusivity and returns handling. The District Court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the entire amended complaint. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead required elements for each claim, such as antitrust injury, specific conspiratorial agreements, or actionable misrepresentations, rendering the allegations insufficient as a matter of law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this case, printing companies Oriental Art and Ngan & Sons sued competing printers for copyright infringement and unfair competition, alleging that defendants copied their registered graphic design of photographs showing common Chinese restaurant dishes arranged in patterns on menus. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss. It held that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because the photographs lacked the originality required for copyright protection and were unprotectable scenes a faire, as their lighting, angles, plates, and arrangements flowed naturally from the idea of realistically depicting standard Chinese food items.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Stanislawa Sulkowska brought a Section 1983 action against a New York City police officer and the City of New York, alleging false arrest, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, and related constitutional violations stemming from her 1998 arrest and detention; after a prior ruling finding defendants liable and awarding damages, the plaintiff moved for attorney’s fees under Section 1988 and to amend the judgment for prejudgment interest. The court granted the fee motion in part, awarding a reduced amount based on the lodestar calculation after disallowing excessive, redundant, or inadequately documented hours and applying prevailing market rates for the attorneys and paralegal, and denied the motion for prejudgment interest. The decision rested on established standards for determining reasonable fees in civil rights cases, the insufficiency of documentation for certain entries, and the lack of statutory or legal basis for prejudgment interest on the claims at issue.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a contract dispute in which Wallingford Shopping, L.L.C. sued Lowe's Home Centers for damages under Connecticut law after Lowe's allegedly wrongfully terminated an agreement to purchase land at Wallingford Plaza. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment dismissing WSL's non-contract claims, including one under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). WSL moved for reconsideration of the CUTPA dismissal under Rule 59(e) and for certification of the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court denied reconsideration, finding that WSL had not identified any overlooked facts or controlling decisions and that its arguments regarding the three-part CUTPA test and intent issues had already been addressed. The court also denied certification, concluding that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation's termination because the breach of contract claim would continue regardless.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Turay v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, plaintiff Amadu Mohamed Turay sued Aetna under ERISA to recover disability benefits allegedly due under his employer's group plan after he stopped working in February 1999 due to back and coccyx pain. The court granted Aetna's motion for summary judgment, upholding the denial of further benefits after October 20, 1999. The core reasoning was that Aetna's decision rested on an independent medical exam finding Turay capable of sedentary work with restrictions, supported by MRI reports and internal reviews, and that this process was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court applied the same analysis to reject the related claim for partial disability benefits.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves Horizon Mills Corp., the owner of the trademark "SLINKY" for fabrics used in clothing and household products, suing QVC, Inc. for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution after QVC used the term "slinky" (along with "slinky knit" and "slinky fabric") to advertise stretchy women's apparel made from acetate and spandex. QVC moved for summary judgment on the ground that the mark was generic and thus not protectible. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the term was generic before Horizon's use, whether the public had appropriated it as a generic descriptor, and whether it had acquired secondary meaning, precluding judgment as a matter of law under the Lanham Act and New York law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a putative class action brought by two Florida residents who became ill during a seven-day Caribbean cruise on the Galaxy in December 1997, along with family members, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and deceptive practices under New York and Florida consumer protection statutes against Celebrity Cruises. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the negligence and contract claims and to dismiss the consumer protection claims under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), while denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification and a Rule 56(f) continuance. The core reasoning centered on the plaintiffs' inability to show causation between the cruise line's conduct and their alleged injuries or damages, failure to meet pleading requirements for fraud-based claims, lack of standing or connection to New York for the state consumer claims, and the predominance of individualized issues precluding class treatment.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory