In Ballard v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., plaintiff Diane Ballard, a former HSBC employee, sued under Title VII after the New York State Division of Human Rights found that HSBC had discriminated against her on the basis of race and retaliation, awarding her damages that were upheld on appeal; she sought a federal declaratory judgment that she was a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter. HSBC moved to dismiss, arguing that no federal action for fees alone was permitted without a full federal merits lawsuit. The court denied the motion, holding that Title VII’s statutory scheme incorporates state administrative proceedings, that a right-to-sue letter authorizes a fees-only federal claim when the plaintiff has prevailed in those proceedings, and that federal jurisdiction exists for such an action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).
Plaintiff Desabio sued the manufacturers of a Trident ceramic hip prosthesis, a Class III medical device approved by the FDA through premarket approval, alleging state-law claims for negligent design and manufacture, breach of express warranty, and res ipsa loquitur after the device allegedly caused pain and grinding following implantation. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing the claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to further amend the negligence claim to reference FDA standards and granted the motion to dismiss in full. It held that the state claims were expressly preempted under 21 U.S.C. § 360k because they would impose requirements on the device that were different from or in addition to the federal requirements imposed through the FDA's premarket approval process.
This case involved New York homeowners who refinanced their mortgage and purchased title insurance from the defendant, alleging they were overcharged by $327 because they qualified for a 50% discount under the insurer's filed rate schedule but did not receive it. The plaintiffs brought claims for money had and received, unjust enrichment, a violation of RESPA § 8(b), and a violation of New York General Business Law § 349, seeking to proceed as a class action. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the RESPA claim, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to allege any fee splitting between the insurer and a third party as required to state a claim under that provision. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.
In this case, pro se plaintiff Ronald Davidson, an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous current and former New York State Department of Corrections employees. He asserted twelve claims alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, primarily concerning alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs (such as pain management, allergies, asthma, vision, and diet), exposure to second-hand smoke, privacy issues during sick call, interference with inmate grievances, and related matters. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. The district court conducted a de novo review and accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in full, granting the motion in part (dismissing claims against certain supervisory defendants for lack of personal involvement and other claims for insufficient evidence) and denying it in part (allowing remaining claims to proceed), while scheduling a status conference.
This criminal case involved charges against multiple members of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, under a superseding indictment alleging one count of RICO conspiracy, one count of Hobbs Act extortion conspiracy, six counts of attempted Hobbs Act extortion, and RICO forfeiture. The defendants were accused of operating a criminal enterprise from 1997 to 2007 that used violence, threats, and intimidation to extort wages, benefits, jobs, and business decision rights from Western New York construction contractors and non-union workers. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the indictment, but the district court set aside that recommendation, granted the government's objections, and denied the motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that the indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of the offenses, that the charged conduct involved wrongful extortion not protected by labor exemptions under United States v. Enmons, and that challenges based on vagueness, strictissimi juris review, and other grounds lacked merit.
In United States v. Peters, the defendant moved for a partial stay of a criminal forfeiture order regarding an undeveloped parcel of land (Lot 26) pending his appeal. The court applied a four-factor test to evaluate whether to grant the stay: likelihood of success on appeal, potential depreciation of the asset, the asset's intrinsic value to the defendant, and maintenance costs. The first factor slightly favored a stay because the appeal was not frivolous, but the other three factors weighed against it due to risks of depreciation, lack of unique value to the defendant, and government expenses. Balancing these, the court denied the motion to stay the forfeiture.