This case involved a former employee's claims against his former employer's pension plan and related entities under ERISA, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by providing inaccurate information about pension credits and failing to furnish a summary plan description. The plaintiff sought equitable relief to determine his disability status and temporarily reform the plan to allow benefits based on his years of service. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The reasoning centered on the absence of any material misstatement, as the pension statement included limiting language about estimates, the plaintiff was aware of the collective bargaining agreement affecting credits, and he did not qualify for benefits under the plan's plain terms, making any reliance unreasonable.
This case involves U.S. and Israeli citizens suing the Swiss bank UBS AG under the civil provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act after their husband and father was killed in a 2004 Hamas bus bombing in Jerusalem. The plaintiffs alleged that UBS aided terrorism by continuing to process wire transfers totaling about $25,000 from a designated Hamas fundraising entity in Switzerland to a West Bank organization shortly before the attack. UBS moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, forum non conveniens, unconstitutionality of the ATA as applied, and insufficient pleading. The court granted the motion only as to the first count (aiding and abetting murder or physical violence) and denied it on all other grounds, allowing the claims for providing material support to a terrorist organization and collecting or transmitting funds for terrorism to proceed.
The case involved Bravado International Group Merchandising Services, Inc. and Bravado International Group Limited, holders of exclusive licenses to sell merchandise bearing the trademarks and logos of musical performers such as Korn and Guns N’ Roses, suing Ninna, Inc., Heyclick, Inc., and related corporate and individual defendants for distributing unauthorized bootleg merchandise. After obtaining a temporary restraining order, seizure order, and preliminary injunction, plaintiffs secured defaults against most defendants for failing to answer the complaint alleging trademark infringement and related claims. The magistrate judge recommended entry of default judgment against the defaulting parties, and the district judge adopted the report and recommendation in full, directing plaintiffs to settle a judgment on notice while referring the remaining defendant for pretrial proceedings.
The case involved a parent, A.H., seeking review of a State Review Officer decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that upheld the New York City Department of Education's offer of a public school placement for her child J.H., who has learning disabilities, and denied reimbursement for private school tuition at the Mary McDowell Center for Learning during the 2007-2008 school year. The plaintiff claimed the proposed individualized education program (IEP) was inappropriate and sought reversal, declaratory relief, tuition reimbursement, and fees, while the DOE defended its compliance with IDEA requirements for a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted and denied portions of each motion after reviewing the factual record, including evaluations, the IEP process, and procedural safeguards. The core reasoning centered on whether the DOE's IEP met statutory standards for tailoring services to the child's needs and providing adequate notice and due process opportunities.
The case arose from an incident on May 16, 2003, in which plaintiff Aaron Wong alleged that defendant James Mangone and several New York City police officers used excessive force, falsely arrested him, denied him medical treatment, and maliciously prosecuted him, along with related claims of racial discrimination and conspiracy under federal civil rights statutes. Wong sued the individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1981, and 1985; the officers then brought third-party claims against the City of New York for legal representation and indemnification. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing certain claims while allowing others to proceed based on the existence of disputed material facts and the applicability of qualified immunity and indemnification rules under state law.
In Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc., plaintiff Yvonne Fleming, an African-American woman formerly employed as Director of Human Resources and Payroll, sued her employer and two supervisors under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law, alleging race discrimination, a race-based hostile work environment, and retaliation. The defendants moved for summary judgment after discovery. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims, finding that many incidents were time-barred, that the plaintiff had not suffered a material adverse employment action, that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, and that there was insufficient evidence linking any protected activity to an adverse action.