This case involved an appeal in a bankruptcy proceeding where AYL Realty Corp. sought to be released from its contract to buy real property from debtor Schenck Tours, Inc. The bankruptcy court had denied AYL's motion, ruled the contract terminated with AYL in default, and allowed Schenck to keep the $255,000 deposit. The district court reviewed the record and legal arguments, then affirmed the bankruptcy court's order in full. The affirmance rested on agreement with the lower court's detailed analysis without adding new reasoning. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
The United States sued Mattiace Industries and other defendants under CERCLA to recover costs for cleaning up a hazardous chemical spill in Hicksville, New York, to impose fines and penalties for noncompliance with EPA orders, and to obtain injunctive relief. After Mattiace filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it moved to stay portions of the action under the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision, but a magistrate denied the motion. The district court affirmed, holding that the CERCLA claims fell within the statutory exception for actions by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory powers, so the automatic stay did not apply. The court relied on the text of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) and supporting case law interpreting the exception to cover response-cost recovery actions.
This trademark infringement case involves competing claims by Physicians Formula Cosmetics, Inc. and West Cabot Cosmetics, Inc. over the use of similar marks—PHYSICIANS FORMULA and PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS—on cosmetics, skin care products, and soaps. Plaintiff sought summary judgment on its federal and state trademark and unfair competition claims, arguing prior rights and likelihood of consumer confusion from defendant's expansion into non-soap products; defendant counterclaimed and moved for a preliminary injunction to block plaintiff's updated trade dress. The court granted plaintiff's summary judgment motion and denied defendant's injunction request. The decision rested on undisputed facts showing plaintiff's valid, distinctive mark with priority in the cosmetics field, peaceful coexistence of the marks until recent expansions, and a likelihood of confusion under the Polaroid factors due to the marks' similarity and overlapping goods. Summary judgment was appropriate because the only disputed issue was the legal application of those factors to the facts.
The case concerned a commercial sublease between Family Showtime, which operated a Chuck E. Cheese franchise, and Toys "R" Us as sublessor. Family Showtime failed to install two required elevators, prompting Toys "R" Us to issue a notice of default and then a formal termination of the lease under its terms. After Family Showtime filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, it sought to assume the lease, but the bankruptcy court held that the lease had terminated before the filing and thus could not be assumed or rejected, requiring surrender of the premises. The district court affirmed, finding that the lease created a conditional limitation allowing termination upon uncured default and that post-termination conduct, such as accepting rent under a stipulation, did not revive the lease.
The case involved the State of New York suing Shore Realty Corp. and its president under CERCLA and state law to compel cleanup of a hazardous waste site and recover response costs, after Shore purchased the contaminated property with knowledge of the hazards from prior illegal operations. Shore impleaded numerous past owners, operators, and waste generators as third-party defendants for contribution under CERCLA and state law, along with a §1983 civil rights claim against state environmental commissioners. The court denied motions to dismiss the CERCLA contribution claims and state law claims against the third-party defendants, finding them adequately pled and not barred by sovereign immunity or other defenses, but granted dismissal of the §1983 claims against the commissioners for failure to state a claim.
In Washington v. LeFevre, petitioner Richard Washington sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his New York state conviction for multiple counts of robbery and related crimes, claiming a due process violation because the trial court allegedly refused to allow evidence of a third party's confession to the offense. The U.S. District Court dismissed the petition, holding that the claim was procedurally barred under Wainwright v. Sykes because Washington had failed to make a contemporaneous objection at trial as required by New York law, and the state's highest court had expressly found waiver on that ground. The court reasoned that Washington could not show cause for the default, as the record indicated counsel made a deliberate tactical choice not to offer the evidence after interviewing the confessor, nor could he demonstrate actual prejudice. The decision emphasized that federal habeas review does not reach claims defaulted under adequate and independent state procedural rules absent the required showing of cause and prejudice.
