Case law

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation

986 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 13, 2013

The objectors assert that, among other problems, the releases cover a “virtually limitless range of claims,” providing Visa and MasterCard with “immunity” from all future merchant claims, including antitrust claims, and therefore … The full array of future claims embraced by such a release necessarily involves a measure of uncertainty, but the Second Circuit has clearly established the rule of decision: “The law is well established in this Circuit and

Yusuf v. Colvin

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

However, not every such report generated outside of court will qualify as testimonial. … None of the cell phone company records introduced at Petitioner’s trial qualify as testimonial.

Rodolico v. Unisys Corp.

199 F.R.D. 468 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2001

“First, class counsel must be qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation.” In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litigation, 78 F.3d 764, 778 (2d Cir.1996); In re Frontier Ins. … Continental Casualty Co., 199 F.R.D. 536 , -, 2001 WL 288706 *9 (D.N.J.2001) (“Rule 23(b)(3) ... was designed for situations in which ‘class-action treatment is not as clearly called for’ as it is in Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule

Packer v. Raging Capital Management, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 13, 2023

And the Court lacks the power to impose such a limitation into that decision, especially where one clearly was not intended. … harm is enough to establish concrete harm, is insufficient.

Jensen v. United States

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 6, 2025

Plaintiff alleges that “FCI Danbury and MDC” staff “repeatedly violated inmate[s’] [visitation rights], including refus[ing] to let in qualified visitors under ever-changing []schedules that contradicted the stated … The party asserting subject matter jurisdiction must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction exists. Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008).

Deering v. Assing

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 14, 2023

His impairments qualify as disabilities under the more lenient standards imposed by SHRL and CHRL. … Deering alleges more than “simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents,” which are insufficient to establish a hostile work environment. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v.

Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.

775 F. Supp. 544 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 9, 1991

Since we are convinced that an uncorrectable ruling of no facial preemption would be “clearly erroneous”, see Arizona v. … Thus, we have two expert witnesses, both ostensibly qualified, and both undoubtedly very well-paid for their opinions.

Stepheny v. Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children

356 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 17, 2005

Ctr., 807 F.2d 304 , 307-08 (2d Cir.1986) (decision by manager to create position for which only his girlfriend would be qualified is not “sex” discrimination because preference was not based on the gender of the employee … Black directed at Maria which were clearly not race-based, including “you think you’re a big shot, group leader, they say you don’t even know the paperwork”; “you stink (in a private area of body)”; “you will be gone soon

Fields v. N.Y.S.D.O.C.C.S.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 2023

a petitioner must show that the state court decision, having been “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings,” is either “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law … “To qualify as an adequate procedural ground, capable of barring federal habeas review, a state rule must be firmly established and regularly followed.” Johnson v.

Koster v. Perales

108 F.R.D. 46 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 12, 1985

Healthy test is *52 not necessary for the establishment of that fact. Id. at 153 (emphasis added) (citing Mt. Healthy City School Board v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)). … Class certification clearly would be helpful in defining the scope of such relief. 7.

Rosano v. United States

67 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 20, 1999

If these gifts were completed in 1989, they qualify for the annual exclusion under § 2503(b); however, if the gifts were not completed until 1990, they must be combined with the other gifts made to Ronda and Raymond Gallucci … Clearly, section 2035(b)(2) was never intended to operate in such a manner.

Moreno v. Nielsen

District Court, E.D. New York · May 18, 2020

(b)(3) include “skilled workers” and other workers “who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified … By statute, holders of such visas were “eligible to apply for a change of status and to be accorded … rights and benefits includ[ing] employment authorization and immunity from deportation or exclusion, pending the adjudication

Cudjoe v. Building Industry Electrical Contractors Association

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 28, 2024

Certain tangible harms – such as physical and monetary harms – will “readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III.” … The Supreme Court also highlighted that the plaintiffs’ complaint “did not plausibly and clearly claim that the alleged mismanagement of the plan substantially increased the risk that the plan and the employer would fail

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc.

190 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 28, 2002

After a national search for qualified counsel, the group of Blue Cross / Blue Shield plans, including Empire, retained Dewey Ballantine LLP (“Dewey”) in March 1998 to represent them in this action. … The fee earned and fully established for section 349 work necessary to obtain the judgment is, as found as a fact, $37,841,054.22.

Doe v. New York

97 F. Supp. 3d 5 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 16, 2015

succeed in a claim under Section 1983, “a plaintiff must show that (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities … Wright, 315 F.3d 158, 165-66 (2d Cir.2003) (“While liability may not be established against a defendant simply because that defendant was a ‘policy maker’ at the time unconstitutional acts were committed, ... where unconstitutional

T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Town of Islip

893 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 21, 2012

Although a reviewing court would not normally “look far beyond [a local board’s] citing of aesthetics to find a valid basis for a local zoning decision, ... under the TCA, a reviewing court can find that aesthetics qualify … In addition, at the Decision Hearing, the chairman of the Board concurred, stating “It is my position, anyway, in this particular situation, there is clearly a lack of coverage here.

Mamedov v. Barr

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 1, 2023

However, even with the benefit of supplemental briefing, defendants have failed to clearly or concisely explain what the purported difference is. … Defendants come closest to establishing a firm position when they state: “Significantly, Caplash did not order USCIS to grant the petition.” Id. at 2.

Walker v. Royce

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 18, 2024

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if “the state court reached a conclusion of law that directly contradicts a holding of the Supreme Court” or, “when presented with ‘facts that … See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (requiring application of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”); Washington, 876 F.3d at 403 (same).

Hill

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 26, 2026

The HRA office had a clearly posted sign instructing individuals not to record and warning them that they would be escorted out if they did so. Chanderdat Video at 01:13, 01:22. … immunity given its conclusions.

Vincent v. New York City Transit Authority

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2021

If the employer satisfies this burden, the plaintiff must then establish that the employer’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Velez v. … Vincent does, however, provide two examples of harassment that are clearly based on her perceived disability.