Parul Jain sued McGraw-Hill, S&P, and two supervisors for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act plus various New York state-law claims arising from her 2005-2008 employment as Director of U.S. Credit Strategy and her June 2008 termination. The claims centered on performance reviews, oral and written warnings, a transfer of supervision, and Jain’s April 2008 request for medical leave related to a back condition. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the thirteen remaining counts. It held that Jain failed to present evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on any claim, that six counts had been abandoned, and that the FMLA and state-law allegations lacked proof of required elements such as interference, retaliation, or specific damages causally tied to the alleged torts.
The case involved the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Pike County suing Purdue Pharma and related defendants in state court, alleging that the companies violated Kentucky laws by deceptively marketing OxyContin as less addictive than other opioids, which led to increased prescriptions, addiction treatment costs, and other expenses covered by the state's Medicaid program. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction and removability under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the claims arose solely under state law without raising a substantial federal issue and that the action did not qualify as a removable class action under CAFA because it was brought by the state and county rather than a class of plaintiffs. The reasoning centered on the defendants' failure to carry their burden of proving federal subject matter jurisdiction over the state-law claims for fraud, nuisance, unjust enrichment, and related theories.
In this case, Lehman Brothers Holdings sued the Knutson defendants to enforce five guaranties they signed in connection with over $200 million in loans for Arizona apartment properties after the borrower defaulted. The defendants raised defenses including fraudulent inducement and demanded a jury trial. Lehman moved to strike the jury demand based on jury waiver clauses in each guaranty. The court granted the motion, finding the waivers enforceable because the Knutson defendants, through their attorney, had sufficient bargaining power and sophistication, the waiver language was clear and conspicuous, and identical waivers appeared in related transaction documents.
This case involved a copyright infringement claim by authors David and Jeanie Stiles against HarperCollins and the authors of The Dangerous Book for Boys, alleging that the defendants' tree house construction illustrations and design copied protected elements from the plaintiffs' books The Tree House Book and Tree Houses You Can Actually Build. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no substantial similarity between the works as a matter of law, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The decision rested on a side-by-side comparison showing that the defendants' illustrations differed in perspective, details such as the presence of human figures or screws, wood textures, and overall aesthetic feel—plaintiffs' works appearing more animated while defendants' were more utilitarian—while noting that general ideas like platform construction methods are not protectible under copyright. The court emphasized that only original expression, not ideas or unoriginal elements, receives protection.
This case involved Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. petitioning a federal district court to confirm two London arbitration awards against Transfield ER Cape Ltd. arising from a 2008 contract of affreightment for iron ore shipments, and to enforce those awards against Transfield ER Limited as an alleged alter ego. The court confirmed the awards against ER Cape under the New York Convention, rejecting ER Cape's arguments for forum non conveniens and improper venue because the respondent had been registered to do business in New York at the time of service. However, the court dismissed the claims against ER Limited, holding that the petition contained only conclusory allegations of alter ego liability that failed to meet federal pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal. The court also denied attorneys' fees, finding no bad faith by ER Cape.
This case arose from Citigroup employees' claims that the company failed to disclose its subprime mortgage exposures in offering documents for its employee stock purchase program (FA CAP), leading to purchases of Citigroup securities from 2006 to 2009. Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, plus state law claims. The court granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the Section 12(a)(2) claims were untimely, the Section 10(b) claims failed to plead scienter with particularity as required, and the state claims lacked adequate factual allegations. The decision rested on the complaint's deficiencies in timeliness, particularity, and pleading standards without reaching other defenses such as releases.