This case involved Hong Kong-based companies in liquidation suing defendants in U.S. federal court to recover over 35 million dollars in alleged loans and for breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming the court lacked diversity jurisdiction because Hong Kong corporations are not citizens of a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). The court denied the motion, reasoning that the UK citizenship of the court-appointed liquidators, who control the litigation, determines jurisdiction, as the United Kingdom is a recognized foreign sovereign.
In Laterza v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., five former door-to-door magazine subscription sales agents sued publishers and circulation companies under the civil provisions of RICO, alleging a nationwide scheme of extortion, mail and wire fraud, and mind control tactics that deprived them of promised wages and benefits in the cash field subscription industry. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within twenty days, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plead a distinct racketeering injury under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) separate from the harms caused directly by the predicate acts of fraud and extortion. The decision reasoned that merely alleging injury from the underlying predicate offenses does not satisfy RICO's requirement of harm flowing from the pattern of racketeering activity or its investment in an enterprise. The court also noted that the summary judgment motion was premature and directed plaintiffs to support any future filings with admissible evidence.
This case involves a claim under the Veteran’s Reemployment Rights Act where plaintiff Nicholas J. Micalone, a training specialist at the Long Island Railroad and member of the New York National Guard, alleged unlawful termination after resigning to fulfill military duties in August 1978. The court decided that the defendant LIRR violated the Act by failing to reinstate the plaintiff upon his return from service, awarding him $92,611.46 in back pay and ordering reinstatement. The reasoning centered on the fact that the plaintiff's resignation was necessitated by his military orders, he properly applied for reemployment within the required time, and the employer had no valid basis to deny his rights under the statute despite work demands during that period.
This case involves an antitrust dispute under Section 1 of the Sherman Act between Richard Barr, president of a producers' trade association, and the Dramatists Guild along with some of its officers. Barr alleged that the Guild conspired to fix minimum prices and terms for licensing plays through its standard Minimum Basic Production Contract. In response, the defendants filed a contingent counterclaim asserting that producers, including major theater owners, had conspired to suppress compensation paid to playwrights. The court addressed a motion to dismiss or stay the counterclaim, ultimately denying it after determining that the Dramatists Guild satisfied the associational standing requirements under the Hunt test to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of its members.
This case involved a claim for salvage services by the owners and charterers of the containership S.S. Sealand Venture against the owner of the tugboat Patrice McAllister. After the tug encountered severe storm damage including a fire, steering issues, and water ingress while escorting the ship from Jacksonville to a dry dock in New Jersey, the ship diverted course to provide a lee, stood by overnight, and assisted the tug into the nearest port of refuge at Cape Henry. The court applied the Blackwall factors to determine that the ship's actions contributed to the tug's safe arrival and awarded $75,000 in salvage plus $38,055.31 in operating expenses incurred during the service period from March 2 to March 4, 1980, for a total of $113,055.31, while denying the claim for lost earnings due to insufficient proof. The decision rested on findings that both vessels faced substantial peril in one of the worst storms in a century, with the ship exposed to rudder damage and the tug at risk of foundering.
In this diversity case, plaintiff Seymour Sprayregen sued American Airlines for permanent hearing loss allegedly caused by pressure changes during a flight descent while he had a head cold, claiming the airline failed to warn passengers of such risks; his wife joined with a derivative claim. The court ruled on the airline's motion for summary judgment, finding that airlines owe passengers a high degree of care but do not have a duty to warn of hazards that depend on individual passenger conditions like a head cold, as developing and maintaining comprehensive warnings would be impractical and burdensome. However, the court denied the motion because factual questions remained regarding whether the airline was negligent in other ways in operating the plane during descent.