In this case, former counsel for the plaintiffs in a prior trade secret lawsuit moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to modify protective orders and injunctions that required him to destroy copies of confidential S documents and barred their disclosure. The movant sought permission to reveal the documents to the Patent Commissioner, claiming they showed public use that would bar patentability of a related application owned by the defendants. The court denied the motion, holding that the movant failed to demonstrate the requisite grievous wrong or compelling public interest to justify altering the final injunctions, particularly where the original plaintiffs' interests aligned with any public concerns and no new facts warranted relief. The decision rested on the high bar for modifying injunctions established in Swift & Co. v. United States and the absence of any showing that the public interest was endangered.
In Heit v. Weitzen, purchasers of Belock Instrument Corporation's common stock and debentures sued the company and its officers, alleging that annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC and sent to shareholders materially overstated assets and income due to overcharges on government contracts, in violation of sections 12(2) and 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act, sections 9(e), 10(b), and 18(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, related rules, and common-law principles. The plaintiffs sought damages for purchases made at allegedly inflated prices between 1964 and 1965, asserting both individual and class claims. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that the complaint failed to state a federal claim because the reports at issue were not "filed" with the SEC as required under section 18(a) of the 1934 Act and related regulations, and that without a viable federal claim there was no pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
The case involved a claim by Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. against Charlton Publications alleging that the defendants' publications falsely implied that Tarzan stories were written by Edgar Rice Burroughs or connected to the plaintiffs, thereby misleading the public about their source. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth count of the complaint. The reasoning was that such a motion should be denied unless no relief could possibly be granted under any provable facts, and the allegations of false representation regarding the source of goods could support a claim, consistent with Supreme Court precedents recognizing state authority to prevent consumer confusion.
The case involves plaintiffs seeking to enjoin the IRS from collecting admitted 1960 federal income tax debts owed by plaintiff Eric H. Paige, to declare unspecified IRS regulations unconstitutional, to recover $180 allegedly converted by a revenue officer, to compel acceptance of a proposed payment plan, and to remedy claimed violations of Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights arising from lien filings and collection actions. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that suits for injunctions against tax collection are barred by 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) absent a showing that the government cannot establish its claim, declaratory relief regarding federal taxes is prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 2201, refund claims require prior administrative filing under § 7422(a), tort claims are excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), and mandamus to force acceptance of a taxpayer's terms is unavailable.
This admiralty case arose from the 1961 collapse of Texas Tower No. 4, an offshore radar platform, which killed six U.S. Air Force members; their representatives sued multiple engineering firms and contractors for negligence and breach of warranty under the Death on the High Seas Act and New York law. The court addressed exceptions to the libel challenging timeliness, among other issues. It held that the two-year limitations period runs from the date of death rather than the date of the alleged wrongful acts or omissions, making the December 1961 filing timely. The court overruled the exceptions on that ground, permitted the claims to proceed, and certified the statute-of-limitations ruling for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
In Livingston v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., a union sought to compel the post-consolidation successor company Wiley to arbitrate issues including seniority rights, pension contributions, job security provisions, severance pay, and vacation pay under a collective bargaining agreement originally made with Interscience Publishers. The court denied the union's motion to compel arbitration. The core reasoning was that the union failed to initiate or pursue the multi-step grievance procedures set out in the contract as a condition precedent to arbitration, thereby abandoning any grievances, even though the consolidation occurred for bona fide business reasons rather than to evade the agreement.