Robert Workman Sweet

This case concerns a school social worker who alleged that her employer, BOCES, and individual supervisors retaliated against her for reporting a teacher's alleged inappropriate conduct with a student and for submitting a FOIL request, through actions including verbal and written admonishments, denial of a part-time after-school position and summer work, removal from a conference presenter role, failure to discipline coworkers, email review, and a job transfer. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed most claims for lack of evidence showing causation between the protected speech and the alleged adverse actions or because certain actions did not qualify as adverse employment actions, but it found a triable issue of fact regarding the denial of the part-time position and personal involvement by at least one supervisor, precluding qualified immunity on that claim.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

This case involves a dispute between Longacre Master Fund, Ltd. and ATS Automation Tooling Systems Inc. over an assignment of ATS's creditor claims in the Delphi Automotive bankruptcy, specifically regarding whether certain bankruptcy court objections and proceedings impaired the claim and entitled Longacre to repayment, damages, or indemnification under their agreement. The court granted ATS's converted motion for summary judgment on all counts and denied Longacre's cross-motion for summary judgment on its first, fifth, and seventh causes of action. The core reasoning was that the assignment agreement allocated the risk of unknown information to the buyer, the bankruptcy actions did not constitute an impairment of the claim or breach of ATS's representations and warranties as defined in the contract, and ATS lacked the requisite knowledge of any conditions affecting the claim's validity at the time of the assignment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Plair v. City of New York, a pre-trial detainee at Rikers Island alleged that correction officers assaulted him after a verbal dispute with another inmate, resulting in broken jaws, and then denied him medical care for 19 hours, leading to surgery and extended detention beyond his release date; he brought Section 1983 claims against the City, supervisory officials, and individual officers. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissing the Monell claim against the City while allowing other claims to proceed and granting leave to amend. The core reasoning was that the complaint contained only conclusory allegations of a municipal policy or custom of staff brutality and failed to plausibly link the isolated prior incidents at RNDC to the plaintiff's specific injury, as required under Monell and Twombly/Iqbal standards.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns plaintiffs who established self-directed IRAs through contracts with defendants Principal Financial Group and Principal Trust, directed investments into a Ponzi scheme, and subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging twenty-six claims for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and ERISA violations under federal and state law. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that certain federal ERISA claims failed because plaintiffs were not participants or beneficiaries under an employee benefit plan, while other contract, negligence, and fiduciary duty claims under state law and federal IRA requirements could proceed based on the terms of the standardized agreements and alleged duties to hold assets and avoid commingling. The decision applied choice-of-law analysis favoring the plaintiffs' home states and assessed the adequacy of pleadings regarding the scope of custodial responsibilities.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involves two nonprofit organizations, the Alzheimer's Foundation of America and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association, each alleging that the other misused trademarks and caused donor confusion through the handling of charitable donations, including checks intended for one party but deposited by the other. The Foundation brought claims under the Lanham Act for false designation and unfair competition, along with New York state law claims for dilution, deceptive practices, conversion, unjust enrichment, and related torts, while the Association asserted Lanham Act trademark infringement and dilution claims plus state claims for libel, fraud, and tortious interference. On dueling motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court denied dismissal of the Lanham Act and related claims but granted dismissal of the UCC, conversion, libel, and unjust enrichment claims, as well as all claims against Northern Trust, finding insufficient factual allegations for those counts while determining that the trademark and confusion allegations stated plausible claims. The court granted leave to amend within 20 days.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The USPA Parties sought a declaratory judgment that they could license and sell fragrance products bearing marks including "U.S. POLO ASSN.," the Double Horsemen Trademark, and "1890" without violating the Lanham Act or New York common law regarding trademark infringement, dilution, or unfair competition with respect to the PRL Parties' Polo Player Logo and "POLO" marks. The PRL Parties counterclaimed for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition under federal and state law and moved for injunctive relief. After a trial, the court denied the requested declaratory judgment and granted a permanent injunction to the PRL Parties. The decision rested on findings that the PRL marks were strong and distinctive in the fragrance market, that the USPA marks and trade dress created a likelihood of consumer confusion, and that the USPA Parties had adopted their marks with intent to benefit from PRL's goodwill.

business & regulatory

Plaintiffs, owners of multifamily housing projects receiving HUD Section 8 project-based assistance under long-term HAP contracts from the late 1970s, challenged HUD's application of uniform physical condition standards and inspection procedures under the REAC regulations promulgated in 1998 and 2000. They alleged that these standards constituted new rules adopted without proper notice and comment, violated their HAP contracts by imposing additional obligations, and improperly risked contract termination after failed inspections. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. It reasoned that the REAC regulations were validly issued after notice and comment, any new claims about an undefined REAC Protocol were untimely and futile, and the plaintiffs failed to establish viable claims under the relevant statutes or contract terms.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

This case involves claims by BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation, its parent BNPP, and Deutsche Bank against Bank of America arising from BoA's role in administering a mortgage origination and funding facility involving Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. and Ocala Funding, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that BoA breached multiple contracts, including the Base Indenture and Security Agreement, by improperly transferring funds, failing to segregate collateral, and violating other duties after defaults occurred. The court partially granted BoA's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissing claims for breach of the Depositary Agreement, Custodial Agreement, and March 2009 Letter due to lack of standing, as well as indemnification claims and those tied to notes issued before July 20, 2009, while allowing claims under the Base Indenture, Security Agreement, and for breach of fiduciary duty to proceed. The decision rested on close analysis of the specific contractual language governing standing, duties, and permitted actions in the facility documents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether the New York City Department of Education provided a free appropriate public education to an autistic student under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act by offering an adequate Individualized Education Program for the 2008-2009 school year. The parents sought reimbursement for the student's private placement at the McCarton School after rejecting the DOE's proposed public program. The court found that the IEP was inadequate because it lacked a required functional behavior assessment and behavioral intervention plan, failed to properly evaluate the student's needs based on available data from the private school, and did not address interfering behaviors or group learning capabilities. Applying the Burlington/Carter test, the court held that the public placement was inappropriate, the private placement was appropriate, and equitable factors favored the parents due to their full cooperation. It therefore reversed the State Review Officer's decision, reinstated the Impartial Hearing Officer's ruling, and granted the parents' request for reimbursement.

civil rights

This case involves long-running disputes between Stan Lee and Marvel Enterprises over rights to comic book characters like Spider-Man and the X-Men, stemming from Lee's employment agreements and a 2005 settlement that dismissed Lee's breach of contract claims with prejudice. SLMI, a company co-founded by Lee that later faced bankruptcy and internal disputes, sought under various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate the 2005 dismissal, intervene as plaintiff, substitute for Lee, file an amended complaint, and unseal documents from the case. The court denied all motions, reasoning that SLMI's interests had been adequately represented in related prior actions like Abadin v. Marvel, that res judicata barred relitigation, that the unsealing request was moot due to prior discovery production, and that the efforts improperly sought to circumvent other courts' orders. The opinion emphasizes the difficulty of achieving finality amid conflicting claims to the characters' rights.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case consolidates securities fraud, shareholder derivative, and ERISA claims against Bear Stearns and related defendants arising from alleged misstatements about the company's subprime mortgage exposure, risk management practices, asset valuations, liquidity, and compliance with accounting and banking regulations in the period leading to its 2008 near-collapse and acquisition by JPMorgan. The court denied the motions to dismiss the securities claims against the Bear Stearns defendants and auditor Deloitte, finding the complaints adequately pleaded material false statements, scienter through motive, opportunity, and recklessness, and loss causation. It also allowed ERISA fiduciary breach claims to proceed on allegations that plan fiduciaries failed to disclose material information or protect participants from losses in company stock. However, the court granted dismissal of the derivative complaint, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing under the fraud exception to the contemporaneous ownership rule and failed to plead demand futility under Rule 23.1 with respect to the JPMorgan board.

business & regulatoryprocedurelabor & employment

The case was a civil enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Thomas Rittweger arising from his role in marketing and selling Credit Bancorp's Insured Credit Facility Program to investors through allegedly fraudulent representations. Rittweger moved for declaratory judgment to stop the civil case based on his parallel criminal conviction and restitution order, while the SEC moved for summary judgment on claims under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, seeking a permanent injunction, disgorgement, and civil penalties. The court denied Rittweger's motion and granted the SEC's, holding that the undisputed facts established the violations and that the relevant securities transactions occurred in the United States, satisfying the domestic application requirements of Morrison v. National Australia Bank.

business & regulatorycriminal law

In Reed Construction Data Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., competing providers of construction project information alleged that McGraw-Hill used contractors posing as customers to gain unauthorized access to Reed's subscription database over several years, leading to claims including misappropriation of confidential information, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, violation of New York General Business Law § 349, and civil RICO violations with conspiracy. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the RICO claims and the GBL § 349 claim but denied dismissal of the misappropriation and tortious interference claims. For the GBL claim, the court reasoned that the statute requires acts directed at consumers with public harm, which was not sufficiently alleged in this business dispute between competitors. The RICO claims failed under the distinctness rule requiring a separate enterprise, as noted in the opinion's analysis.

business & regulatorycriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a contract dispute between professional boxer John Ruiz and boxing promoter Sauerland Event GmbH over payment of Ruiz's $1,053,200 purse from a WBA heavyweight title bout. Ruiz claimed Sauerland breached the Bout Agreement and WBA Rules by deducting German withholding taxes from the purse, while Sauerland argued the bid was gross and taxes should be deducted. The court granted Ruiz's motion for summary judgment and denied Sauerland's cross-motion, awarding Ruiz $222,225.20 plus interest and costs. The decision rested on collateral estoppel, as the parties had submitted the tax issue to the WBA for resolution, the WBA ruled the purse must be paid net of taxes, and both sides had a full opportunity to present arguments in that proceeding.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Denese Shervington moved for reconsideration of a January 7, 2010 opinion that had dismissed her Fifth Cause of Action alleging the Village of Piermont was negligent in hiring, training, retaining, and supervising defendant John Angelis. The court denied the motion because it was filed 30 days after the opinion, which exceeded the time limit under Local Rule 6.3, and found that law office failure in monitoring the docket did not constitute excusable neglect. However, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and the court's inherent authority, it withdrew the portion of the prior opinion that had held the allegations of negligent training and supervision inadequate, after determining that the opinion contained a factual error regarding the dates of letters submitted to the Village. The court reasoned that it had discretion to correct a clear error to prevent manifest injustice even when a motion is untimely.

procedure

This case concerns petitioner Christian Viertel's application to appeal in forma pauperis from the district court's denial of his motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him in a 1997 civil action filed by Burda Media to recover damages from Viertel and related defendants. The underlying default judgment was entered in 2000 after service attempts under the Hague Convention, and Viertel's repeated challenges to the judgment based on claims of improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction had previously been rejected by the district court and affirmed by the Second Circuit. The court denied the in forma pauperis application because Viertel's proposed appeal lacked merit under the objective good-faith standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), as his jurisdictional arguments had already been considered and rejected.

procedure

In this case, an inmate at Orleans Correctional Facility sued several prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they confiscated a $55.98 class-action settlement check from his incoming mail, withheld legal documents, and disciplined him for receiving it in violation of his First Amendment right of access to the courts. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the mail interference actually hindered his access to the courts or caused an actual injury, and that the claims against supervisory defendants lacked sufficient allegations of their personal involvement. The court allowed the plaintiff leave to replead within forty days.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Touchtunes sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity regarding several Arachnid patents on computer jukebox technology, and Arachnid counterclaimed for infringement of claims in five patents related to displaying advertisements and operating in a user-attract mode. Following a Markman hearing, the court construed disputed claim terms based on their ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, read in the context of the full patent specification and prosecution history. For example, the court construed the term 'adapted for' as requiring 'physical modification of a structure specifically for the use as further set forth in the claim,' rejecting a broader interpretation that would render the term meaningless. The constructions drew primarily from intrinsic evidence, including amendments made during patent prosecution to clarify the invention.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Federal Insurance Company (Chubb) sued defendants Distinguished Properties Umbrella Managers, Inc., Distinguished Programs Insurance Brokerage LLC, and the Distinguished Programs Group, LLC, alleging negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of an implied-in-fact contract. The claims arose after the defendants notified Chubb of a personal injury lawsuit involving a property that had previously been deleted from coverage under a commercial umbrella insurance policy issued by Chubb in 2003, leading Chubb to investigate and ultimately pay $1,125,000 to settle the underlying suit in 2007. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding that the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims were barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations and that the implied contract claim failed because an express insurance policy governed the parties' obligations regarding claim reporting and defense, precluding any conflicting implied contract. The court reasoned that all factual allegations were accepted as true but that the complaint did not state plausible claims under the relevant legal standards.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves the SEC's civil action against Pentagon Capital Management PLC, Lewis Chester, and a related fund, alleging they engaged in illegal late trading and market timing of mutual funds with broker-dealers and orchestrated a deceptive scheme. The court addressed a motion in limine seeking to admit congressional testimony by former SEC Enforcement Director Stephen Cutler describing the agency's investigation into widespread mutual fund abuses. The court granted the motion and held the testimony admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), reasoning that it constituted a public report containing factual findings from an investigation conducted pursuant to the SEC's statutory authority, with relevance objections left open for later determination.

business & regulatoryprocedure