In Sandom v. Travelers Mortgage Services, Inc., former Vice President Vanessa Sandom alleged that her employer TMS and several executive supervisors discriminated against her on the basis of sex by denying her equal title, salary, benefits, and commissions compared to male employees, subjected her to sexual harassment after she disclosed her pregnancy, eliminated her responsibilities upon return from maternity leave, and terminated her in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge. She asserted claims under Title VII for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge, the federal Equal Pay Act, and New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the CEPA claim because precedent established that retaliation for filing an EEOC charge is not actionable under the statute, dismissing the sexual harassment claim for failure to raise it in the EEOC charge, but denying dismissal of the remaining Title VII retaliation claim and Equal Pay Act claim as to the individual defendants because they shared a sufficient identity of interest with the named corporate employer and exercised operational control.
This case is a lender liability action brought by Tuxedo Beach Club Corp. and its president against City Federal Savings Bank alleging breach of contract, fraud, and related torts for the bank's failure to provide promised additional funding for a condominium construction project after an initial loan was made. After City Federal failed and the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was appointed receiver under FIRREA, the RTC intervened and the court considered motions including partial summary judgment and dismissal. The court held that claims based on oral promises or side agreements are barred by the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) because they were not properly documented in the bank's records, but indicated that consumer fraud claims might proceed if supported by a qualifying written agreement.
business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liability
The case involved a New Jersey resident suing Florida-based medical providers for negligence and medical malpractice allegedly occurring during her birth in Florida in 1970. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens, while the plaintiff sought transfer to a Florida federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court found no personal jurisdiction over the defendants in New Jersey but held that transfer was inappropriate because the claim would be time-barred under Florida law and its statute of limitations policies. Accordingly, the court granted the motions to dismiss and denied the transfer request.
This case involves a defamation lawsuit brought by Michael Donio against Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Harvey for statements made to a newspaper about Donio's guilty plea to distributing child pornography. After the case was removed to federal court and the United States substituted as defendant under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, the government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the United States is immune from liability for defamation claims, and Harvey was acting within the scope of his employment when making the statements.
procedurefederal powertorts & liabilitycriminal law
This case involves a breach of contract claim by Tuxedo Beach Club Corporation and Edmund C. Wideman, III against City Federal Savings Bank for failing to provide additional funding for a condominium development project. After the bank was placed into receivership under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) with the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) appointed, the defendant sought a 180-day stay of the proceedings to allow for administrative claims processing. The court granted the stay, holding that despite ambiguous statutory language, the legislative history of FIRREA indicates that claimants must exhaust administrative procedures before continuing judicial actions, requiring a 180-day period for the receiver to process claims.
This case involves a patron at Harrah’s Marina Hotel Casino who allegedly swallowed glass chips from a complimentary alcoholic beverage served at a gaming table, leading to claims of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability against the casino operator. The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant on the express warranty claim, finding no evidence of any affirmation, promise, description, or sample regarding the beverage. It denied summary judgment on the implied warranty and strict liability claims, reasoning that the drink was served as part of the casino's business operations to encourage gambling, making strict liability applicable even without a formal sale because the defendant was better positioned to ensure the safety of the glassware and the policy of strict liability supports imposing costs on those creating the risk.