In this case, YouTube applied to ASCAP for a blanket license to publicly perform over two million musical compositions on its streaming video website but the parties could not agree on fees, prompting ASCAP to seek court determination of interim and final fees under the Second Amended Final Judgment from a prior antitrust action. The court set interim fees at $1,400,000 for the period from YouTube's 2005 launch through 2008 and $70,000 per month starting January 2009 until final fees are determined, with an initial lump-sum payment required. The core reasoning compared the proposed fees to YouTube's existing licenses with record companies such as EMI and Sony BMG, noted music's substantial role in driving site traffic and ad revenue, and concluded the amounts were reasonable and conservative relative to those benchmarks.
The case involves plaintiff Ertha Augustin, a teacher of Haitian descent employed by the Enlarged City School District of Newburgh, who brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Executive Law § 296 alleging that her termination was motivated by national origin discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. Defendants, including the District and two administrators, moved for summary judgment, with the parties disputing the plaintiff's work performance, the reasons for her reassignments and mentoring, and whether complaints or evaluations reflected bias. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that some claims lacked sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or personal involvement while others presented triable issues of fact regarding the decision-making process and potential bias by certain defendants.
This case is a class action securities lawsuit brought by investors against Citigroup and individual officers of Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd., alleging that the company's IPO registration statement and prospectus contained material misrepresentations about how the FA-1 cable system construction would be financed through presales of capacity. Plaintiffs claimed violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on the disclosures regarding over $750 million in presales, which they argued misrepresented actual customer demand. Defendants moved for summary judgment on those claims, arguing that the presales disclosures were accurate and any risks were adequately warned about in the prospectus. The court denied the motion in full, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the presales representations were misleading, particularly regarding whether they implied real demand rather than financing arrangements, and that this issue was not resolved by the risk disclosures.
In Cicchetti v. Davis, a former Fire Commissioner of Mount Vernon, New York, sued the city's mayor under the First Amendment after being fired shortly after attending a political fundraiser for the mayor's opponent. A jury found that the plaintiff's political activity was a substantial factor in the termination decision, but the court then addressed the mayor's affirmative defense. The court held that the plaintiff qualified as a policymaker because the position involved duties creating a rational connection between shared political ideology and job performance, such as influencing city programs and being perceived as aligned with the mayor. As a result, the court set aside the jury's verdict and entered judgment as a matter of law for the defendant, allowing the termination based on political associations.
free speechelectionslabor & employmentcivil rights
This case concerns an application by ASCAP under the Second Amended Final Judgment in a longstanding antitrust action to set reasonable interim license fees for AT&T Mobility's public performances of ASCAP music via wireless devices (including Cellular Video services and Answer Tones) and certain Internet websites and streaming services. After reviewing the parties' proposals, revenue data, and comparable licensing rates, the court determined interim fees of $1,500,000 for the period from October 2004 through October 2008, plus ongoing monthly fees of $60,000 starting November 2008, while deferring decision on fees for Ringtone previews due to insufficient information. The reasoning relied on allocating portions of AT&T's subscription and sales revenues attributable to the licensed services, applying rates drawn from radio broadcasting and other ASCAP licenses, and adjusting for incomplete discovery and third-party licenses held by some suppliers.
In Mahmud v. Kaufmann, plaintiff Dr. Saeeda Mahmud, a cardiologist, sued fellow physicians affiliated with Bon Secours Community Hospital alleging that they denied renewal of her contract and blocked her admitting privileges at the hospital and a related facility on the basis of race and to suppress competition in local cardiology services. Her remaining claims after prior rulings were for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and violation of the Sherman Act. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in full, holding that plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing that defendants acted outside the scope of their hospital authority or engaged in any improper conduct that caused the loss of her privileges or opportunities. The opinion notes that the hospital's actions, including reviews of her patient care, were conducted through established quality-assurance processes and that no actionable interference with business relationships was demonstrated.
