Case law

Lipman v. Rodenbach

District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 2020

If a party does not qualify as necessary under Rule 19(a), the Court does not need to make any further decision with respect to the motion to dismiss. … The facts alleged in the SAC are clearly part of the same transaction of events that gave rise to the Barber action.

Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.

384 F. Supp. 3d 254 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 14, 2019

Extending these benefits by making qualifying purchases on Mom gave the accountholder "more free months of Prime." ( Id. ). … In order to establish this account, she was acquired to sign a "cardholder agreement," which included an arbitration provision. See id. at *1-*2.

Trisvan v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 1, 2021

The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty days as to his U.C.C. claim and advised Plaintiff that if he “intends to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over his state law claim, [he] must clearly … against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).

Mich & Mich TGR, Inc. v. Brazabra

128 F. Supp. 3d 621 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 4, 2015

Parallel is a mathematical concept and characterization that cannot be qualified; something either is or is not parallel. … Moreover, the center pieces are not clearly the “main” piece of the structure, as sections C, D, E, and F of Figure 2, which comprise the outer circular frame of the structure, appear to comprise the “main” portion of the

Margaritis v. Peconic Jet Ski LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 2021

of such issues in Romero – would have enacted such a fundamental change to this well-established limit on removal jurisdiction without clearly stating such a purpose. … intention is clearly expressed.’”

Weekes v. Jetblue Airways Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 16, 2022

To establish a prima facie case of failure to accommodate under the ADA, the plaintiff must show that “(1) his employer is subject to the ADA; (2) he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) he was otherwise qualified … “This burden is not heavy: ‘It is enough for the plaintiff to suggest the existence of a plausible accommodation, the costs of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits.’” Id. at 127 (quoting Borkowski v.

Hamilton v. Accu-Tek

47 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 22, 1999

A conflict between clearly-articulated, well-established legal rules of different jurisdictions is not presented. … The only factors clearly weighing in favor of retention of the action in New York are plaintiffs’ inconvenience and easy access to witnesses and evidence relating to damages.

Licausi v. Griffin

District Court, E.D. New York · May 19, 2020

“Clearly established Federal law” means holdings, as opposed to dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” … Given petitioner’s pro se status, however, the Court construes petitioner’s argument that the New York courts engaged in an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Cronin v. United States

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 26, 2020

Discretionary Function Exception The FTCA provides jurisdiction in the federal courts and waives the sovereign immunity of the United States in claims involving injuries “caused by the negligent … And those cases clearly state that the Postal Service Handbook does not mandate procedures for wet floor maintenance. 5 See, e.g., Durham, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40174, at *8; Krey, 2017 WL 2797491, at *4.

Edwards v. Destefano

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 3, 2022

Defendants are entitled to object to the records on relevancy or admissibility grounds at a later time, but Plaintiff is clearly entitled to the discovery at this juncture. … If established, the law enforcement privilege is a “qualified” privilege, and the court must weigh the public interest in nondisclosure against the need of a particular litigant for access to the privileged information.

Stertz v. Gulf Oil Corp.

528 F. Supp. 735 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 6, 1980

Consequently, in • order to qualify for a refund, a reseller should be prepared to demonstrate that it was selling a Gulf product at a price that was below Its maximum permissible selling price during the period of time covered … All applications must be filed in duplicate, signed by the applicant and clearly labeled "application for refund — Gulf Oil Corp. consent order No. NOOR00007.”

Davis v. Velez

15 F. Supp. 3d 234 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 23, 2014

The uncontradicted evidence establishes that jurors were not exposed to the extrinsic information contained in the article. … Branch-Ramadan answered, “I understand clearly, Judge.” Hr’g Tr. (Dec. 3, 2013) 14:11-14:15. The parties were asked if “anybody objects to the action the court has just taken.” Hr’g Tr. (Dec. 3, 2013) 14:20-14:23.

Integrity Social Work Services, LCSW, LLC v. AZAR

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 1, 2021

has only waived sovereign immunity for claims arising under the Medicare Act to claims brought pursuant to the Medicare Act. … Rather, the court emphasized that it found delegation of this nature to a competitor to be “clearly arbitrary.” Id.

Weisshaus v. Cuomo

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 21, 2021

. § 1983, applies only if the plaintiff suffered a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” Id. (emphasis added). … This language “clearly” showed that Congress intended “to recognize the power of the states,” id., just as the Public Health Service Act does today.

Mandel v. Mitchell

325 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 18, 1971

More clearly, Aptheker v. … It should not be initiated by judicial decision which can only deprive our own Government of a power of defense and reprisal without obtaining for American citizens abroad any reciprocal privileges or immunities.

Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Mimex Co.

37 F. Supp. 36 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 24, 1941

The defense of laches is also urged but no proof beyond the facts stipulated was adduced; and those facts are not sufficient to establish the defense. The second of the patents in suit is for a sealing composition. … It is clearly intended to be implied that not all materials answering the general description will work, and this is probably a fact.”

Natlional Asbestos Workers Medical Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.

74 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 7, 1999

Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366 , 382 n. 19, 70 S.Ct. 207 , 94 L.Ed. 171 (1949) (insureds and insurers “clearly not ‘indispensable’ parties”); Krueger v. … Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts in their complaint to establish that, if proven, they are entitled to some relief.

Du Pont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co.

6 F. Supp. 859 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 11, 1934

Under these conditions, the question was whether Bayer could establish a secondary meaning. … This case is clearly distinguished from the Bayer Case.

Eiklor v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 9, 2022

“A party asserting the work-product doctrine as a bar to discovery bears the burden of establishing the applicability of the doctrine.” Danza, 2012 WL 832289, at *1. … In support of its position that the emails are immune from discovery under the work-product doctrine, Defendant relies on Gray v. Denny's Corp., No. 5:09-CV-746 (NPM) (ATB), 2010 WL 11566295 (N.D.N.Y. May 19, 2010).

Powell-Belnavis v. Guzman

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2025

These experiences do not qualify as harassment or abuse, even viewed in the totality of the circumstances. … This “standard is higher than the standard for establishing a hostile work environment.” Fincher v.