Leonard D. Wexler

In this case, plaintiff Candace Harper sued her former employer, Government Employees Insurance Company, seeking overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law, claiming she was not exempt from overtime requirements. After denying the defendant's summary judgment motion, the court addressed the defendant's appeal of a magistrate judge's order granting conditional certification of a collective action. The district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, holding that the correct legal standard was applied by requiring only a modest factual showing that potential class members were similarly situated, based on shared duties, use of the same manuals and programs, and exemption status. The court rejected the argument for a stricter standard due to partial discovery completion, noting that the first stage of the two-step certification process under Second Circuit precedent applies until full discovery is done.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by a plaintiff, after his acquittal on murder charges, against Nassau County and Village of Hempstead police officers and municipalities. The plaintiff alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of rights to remain silent and to counsel, and conspiracy, plus related state-law claims. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants. It reasoned that the acquittal alone does not show lack of probable cause or police misconduct, that witness credibility was a jury question, and that the plaintiff offered only bare allegations without evidence that officers knowingly framed him.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Plaintiff Joseph Greco, a former Verizon employee, sued Verizon, his union (Communication Workers of America, Local 1104), and former coworkers in state court, asserting state common-law tort claims including intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, assault, and libel per se based on alleged workplace harassment, graffiti, and retaliation spanning 2002 to 2006. The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because they required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement governing workplace complaints and union duties. The court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that the remaining claims against Verizon were preempted as they necessitated construing the CBA and, alternatively, were time-barred by one-year statutes of limitations; any potential claim against the union for breach of the duty of fair representation was also untimely. The individual defendants were never served.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves three plaintiffs who sued moving companies for alleged deceptive practices in interstate shipments of household goods, including low-balling price estimates and overcharging for add-on services like fuel and insurance, asserting both federal and state law claims such as violations of New York consumer protection statutes, fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligence. After previously denying a motion to dismiss based on field preemption and the Carmack Amendment, the court granted defendants' Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss all remaining state law claims. The court held that these claims are expressly preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, which broadly displaces state laws related to the prices, routes, or services of motor carriers transporting property, even if the state laws might align with federal consumer protection goals. The decision relied on the statute's plain language and Supreme Court precedent interpreting similar preemption provisions, while noting that federal remedies remain available for the surviving claims.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The Town of Babylon sued the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleging that their guidance and actions on Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) home improvement financing programs—which create first-priority liens—violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Tenth Amendment, and constituted tortious interference with contracts. The town sought declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside the agencies' directives. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), holding that the town lacked Article III standing against the OCC because it could not show redressability, as banks would independently weigh the risks of such liens regardless of any withdrawn bulletin.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

This case was a federal civil rights action brought by John Whitson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Police Officer Thomas Gilberg, alleging false arrest after Whitson was identified as the seller in a May 2007 undercover drug transaction and later charged; the prosecutor eventually declined to pursue the case. The district court granted the officer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court held that probable cause supported the arrest because Gilberg identified Whitson from the transaction video and a mug shot, and another officer positively identified him from a still photograph; the court further concluded that qualified immunity would apply even if probable cause were lacking, because arguable probable cause existed, and the related state claim was dismissed along with the federal claim.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Nanomedicon suing the Research Foundation of SUNY and Dr. Gouma in state court for breach of a patent license agreement, breach of confidentiality, and tortious interference, stemming from disputes over licensing rights to gas-sensing technology patents. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction due to the involvement of patents. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the claims were purely state-law contract and tort actions that did not raise significant issues of patent law or challenge patent validity, thus lacking federal subject matter jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a plaintiff who purchased five Dell computers in 2003 for his chiropractic business under a five-year limited warranty and later experienced operational failures attributed to defective capacitors. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging multiple causes of action, including breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and sought to represent a class of similarly situated purchasers. On Dell's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because a valid contract governed the transaction and dismissed any claims based on alleged safety hazards because no actual injury was pleaded. The court allowed the remaining claims to proceed to discovery, noting that the warranty limited remedies to repair and replacement and that the statute of limitations issues turned on when the plaintiff discovered the defects.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

A former employee of Countrywide Home Loans sued the company under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging a hostile work environment based on gender stereotyping related to his sexual orientation as a homosexual male, as well as retaliation for his internal complaints about the treatment. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were not cognizable under Title VII and lacked sufficient evidence. The court granted summary judgment on the hostile environment claim on the ground that it amounted to a claim of sexual orientation discrimination, which is not prohibited by Title VII. The court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, holding that the plaintiff could have held a reasonable good-faith belief that he was opposing unlawful conduct and that factual disputes existed on issues of causation and pretext.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a former employee's claims against the Town of Huntington and individual defendants for age and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff had signed a resignation agreement and release in exchange for lifetime health insurance benefits, which included acknowledgments of anti-discrimination laws, a 45-day consideration period, a 7-day revocation right, and advice to consult an attorney. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the release was enforceable and barred all claims. The decision rested on the totality of circumstances showing the waiver was knowing and voluntary, supported by the plaintiff's education and employment background, the plain language of the document, and lack of evidence contradicting its terms under both federal standards for ADEA claims and state contract law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves claims by two employees of a truck sales company seeking overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law on behalf of themselves and a putative class, after an earlier order rejected the employers' arguments that the "partsman" and "motor carrier" exemptions applied. The employers moved for reconsideration of that order or, alternatively, for certification of an immediate interlocutory appeal, while industry associations sought to participate as amici curiae. The court denied all motions. It held that the reconsideration request merely repeated prior arguments without new evidence or controlling law, that the associations offered no unique or helpful perspective beyond the defendants' well-represented position, and that an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the case.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This is a personal injury product liability case brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, in which plaintiff Tim Doktor, a contractor, seeks damages from the Werner Defendants and Home Depot for injuries from falling off a Werner Electromaster ladder (Model FS206S) that he alleges was defectively designed and sold with a breach of warranty. The Werner Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss, submitting evidence that the ladder was manufactured in 1997 by a predecessor company (Old Ladder Co., formerly Werner Co. PA) that later went bankrupt, with its assets sold free and clear of successor liability under a bankruptcy court-approved asset purchase agreement. The court held that New York law, as interpreted in Semenetz v. Sherling & Walden, Inc., precludes imposing successor liability on the asset purchaser for the predecessor's product claims, but denied the motion to dismiss because it could not credit the factual affidavit on the ladder's manufacture date and identity at the pleading stage. The court allowed limited discovery on those factual issues before the defendants may seek summary judgment. The topics are torts & liability and procedure.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim by John Hickey against the FDIC as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, following resolution of a related foreclosure action in state court that was removed after the bank's insolvency. A jury awarded Hickey $245,000, and the court addressed post-trial disputes over the amount collectible from the FDIC-R, availability of prejudgment interest, and the form of payment. The court held that recovery was not capped by the amount stated in Hickey's administrative claim under FIRREA, that prejudgment interest was available because the statute does not exclude it, and that payment would be limited to a receiver's certificate rather than immediate cash. The reasoning relied on FIRREA's text and purposes differing from the FTCA, the receiver's statutory discretion in claims administration, and the absence of any statutory bar to interest that would have applied against the original bank.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case is a class action brought by teachers and retirees who participated in tax-deferred annuity investment programs, alleging that New York State United Teachers defendants breached state-law fiduciary duties by exclusively endorsing high-cost programs from ING in exchange for millions in payments rather than offering lower-cost alternatives. The action was filed in New York state court after a prior federal ERISA lawsuit on the same facts was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over government plans. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing it actually raised federal securities claims, and moved to dismiss under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), which bars certain state-law class actions alleging securities fraud. The court denied remand, holding that the complaint alleged misrepresentations or omissions of material fact made in connection with the purchase of covered securities, and granted dismissal on SLUSA grounds.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Plaintiff Evelyn Clark sued the Town of East Hampton in state court after the town denied her application for a Natural Resources Special Permit to build a residence on her wetlands-area property, alleging state and federal constitutional takings claims and seeking damages for a temporary taking. The town removed the case to federal court based on the federal claims. Clark moved to remand, arguing that under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank the federal takings claims were unripe because she had not pursued compensation through available state procedures. The court granted the remand motion, holding that the claims failed both prongs of the Williamson ripeness test (finality and exhaustion of state remedies), depriving the federal court of jurisdiction, but denied costs and fees.

propertyprocedurefederal power

In Harper v. Government Employees Insurance Company, plaintiff Candace Harper sued her former employer GEICO for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a parallel New York law, alleging she worked more than forty hours per week as a Telephone Claims Representative II handling insurance claims. GEICO moved for summary judgment on the ground that Harper qualified for the statutory exemption from overtime as an administrative employee whose primary duties involved the exercise of discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance. The court denied the motion, holding that material facts were sharply disputed regarding the actual scope of her duties and authority, that FLSA exemptions must be narrowly construed, and that the question of exemption could not be resolved without a trial on the facts.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves two former employees of a truck dealership who sued their employer for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The employer moved for summary judgment, claiming exemptions for "partsmen" under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(a) and for employees subject to the motor carrier exemption under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1). The court denied the motion, finding that the employees' duties did not qualify for the partsmen exemption because they primarily handled parts for mechanics or customers rather than engaging in sales or servicing of vehicles, and their loading activities were too trivial, casual, or occasional to fall under the motor carrier exemption.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves three individual plaintiffs who used the defendant moving companies to ship household goods from New York to other states and allege that the defendants engaged in overcharging practices, including providing low estimates that were exceeded by final charges, adding unauthorized fees, and submitting false weight tickets. The plaintiffs asserted federal claims under 49 U.S.C. §§ 13707 and 13708 for violations of carrier billing and payment rules, along with state claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, and breach of contract, seeking class action status. Defendants moved to dismiss primarily on federal preemption grounds and for failure to state a claim. The court granted dismissal only of the breach of contract claims to the extent they relied on non-binding estimates but denied the motion in all other respects, holding that the federal statutes did not preempt the claims and that factual allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This is a breach of contract action brought under diversity jurisdiction involving a lease agreement for medical equipment between S & L Birchwood, LLC and LFC Capital, Inc. Defendant moved to dismiss the case or transfer it based on a forum-selection clause in the contract that specified Illinois law and submission to Illinois courts. The court denied the motion to dismiss but granted transfer to the Northern District of Illinois, holding that the clause was enforceable because it reflected the parties' intent to resolve disputes in Illinois and that transfer served the interests of justice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a).

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a personal injury products liability action in which plaintiffs Ellen and John McGlone allege that a defective Thermotex heating pad caused severe burns to Mrs. McGlone after she purchased and used it in New York. Defendant Thermotex, a Canadian corporation, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). The court denied the motion, ruling that jurisdiction exists under New York's long-arm statute CPLR § 302(a)(3)(ii) because Thermotex shipped the product into the stream of commerce knowing it would reach New York, reasonably expected New York consequences, and derived substantial revenue from international commerce. The court further held that the exercise of jurisdiction satisfied due process minimum contacts and fair play requirements, as the sale arose from Thermotex's efforts to serve the U.S. market rather than an isolated occurrence.

proceduretorts & liability