Case law

Marchak v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

84 F. Supp. 3d 197 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 6, 2015

Merrill Lynch, 546 F.3d 1340, 1352 (11th Cir.2008) (finding that, where the defendant accepted investors’ monies for investment in securities, no actual purchase or sale need occur to qualify as a “covered security” under … Thus, the defendants established a sufficient connection between the material misrepresentation at the heart of the Madoff Securities fraud, and ultimate purchase of covered securities.

Plymouth County Retirement Ass'n v. Schroeder

576 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 2008

Backdating options qualifies as one of those rare cases [in which] a transaction may be so egregious on its face that board approval cannot meet the test of business judgment, and a substantial likelihood of director liability … Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 363 , 111 S.Ct. 2773 , 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991) (“Because the purpose of the 3-year limitation is clearly to serve as a cutoff, we hold that tolling principles do not apply to that period.”).

Hagans v. Nassau County Department of Social Services

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2022

To establish a substantive due process violation based on the removal of children from the home, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that the state action was so egregious, so outrageous, that … Plaintiff does not clearly identify, nor is the Court able to distill, factual allegations to support the corresponding elements for this second subset of purported Section 1983 claims.

Montiel v. Mi Esquina Deli Corp.

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 23, 2024

not appeared to defend themselves in this case, they have not 7 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants employed “eight or more employees,” see ECF No. 1 ¶ 22, so the Court cannot determine whether Defendants qualify … But Plaintiff, in this instance, has clearly not alleged 8 These claims appear together in Count IV of the Complaint.

Abarza Rios v. Spirit Pharmaceuticals LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · May 28, 2025

Rule 23(a)(4): Adequacy of Representation Plaintiff argues the adequacy requirement is satisfied because Plaintiff’s interest is clearly aligned with the interests of the proposed class as they share … Further, Plaintiff’s Counsel has sufficient experience and is well qualified. Attorneys Louis Pechman, Galen C. Baynes, and Camille A.

Bahl v. New York Institute of Technology

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 20, 2024

Later that afternoon, Mary Ann Achtziger emailed Bahl and advised him that "you do not qualify for a medical leave of absence." Id. … In my view, the jury clearly got it right.

Leong v. Laundry Depot, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 26, 2023

“The party seeking class certification bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that each of Rule 23’s requirements have been met.” Johnson v. … Under such circumstances, “the class can clearly be ascertained by objective documentation, such as Defendants’ employee payroll records.” Gucciardo v. Titanium Constr.

Landow v. Wachovia Securities, LLC

966 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 12, 2013

Specifically, plaintiff, “decided to engage in a so-called seller-financed ESOP transaction with leveraged qualified- replacement property (QRP), as defined in Section 1042 of the Internal Revenue Code.” (Compl., ¶ 84). … See Staehr, 547 F.3d at 427 (“Inquiry notice may be found as a matter of law only when uncontroverted evidence clearly demonstrates when the plaintiff should have discovered the fraudulent conduct.”)

Schaeffer v. Signature Bank

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 10, 2023

AP7 clearly suffered the greatest losses as a result of Signature Bank’s allegedly unlawful conduct. The Court, therefore, finds that AP7 has the largest financial interest in the litigation. B. … As discussed below, AP7’s selected counsel, Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz, are experienced in securities litigation and qualified to litigate this action.

Guerriero v. O'Malley

District Court, E.D. New York · May 14, 2025

Guerriero contends that his work would be best qualified as medium work Pl.’s Mot. at 13. … Guerriero asserts that the job descriptions contained within Exhibits 3E and 5E were made by Guerriero’s mother while he was hospitalized, and that “Guerriero clearly disputed the characterization of his work as set forth

Burke v. Dow Chemical Co.

797 F. Supp. 1128 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 16, 1992

These changes also established more substantial data requirements for registration, passed-on the cost of registration to applicants through registration fees and provided EPA with more authority to obtain data necessary … As a genera] rule, compliance with federal standards does not, in and of itself, immunize a manufacturer or retailer from state law tort liability. See Ferebee, 736 F.2d at 1542 .

Rosado v. Pruitt

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 17, 2020

shall establish and apply criteria for reviewing and evaluating such permit applications, and, in establishing or revising such criteria, shall consider, but not be limited in his consideration to, the following … EPA contends that because the MPRSA does not waive sovereign immunity, Plaintiffs are barred from bringing standalone claims under that statute. EPA is incorrect.

Holloway v. Suffolk County Correctional Facility Medical

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 21, 2022

Further, the Court made clear that, “[t]o establish the existence of a municipal policy or custom, the plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of … frivolous as a matter of law when, among other things, it is based on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or when it “lacks an arguable basis in law . . . or [when] a dispositive defense clearly

Singh v. Signature Bank

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 10, 2023

AP7 clearly suffered the greatest losses as a result of Signature Bank’s allegedly unlawful conduct. The Court, therefore, finds that AP7 has the largest financial interest in the litigation. B. … As discussed below, AP7’s selected counsel, Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz, are experienced in securities litigation and qualified to litigate this action.

Walls v. The City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 24, 2020

The phrase “misconduct summaries” clearly encompasses various stages of a misconduct matter. opposed. See ECF No. 37. … Defendants cannot rely on a burden that they themselves created—the over-redaction of the records—to establish a factor in their favor in the proportionality analysis.

Dawson v. Merck & Company, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 24, 2021

Documents with a qualified First Amendment right of access have the highest presumption of access. … While Plaintiff cites to Dkt. 115-29 in his brief, (Dkt. 113 at 46, 48, 49), those citations clearly reference different parts of the deposition, not those provided in Dkt. 115-30.

Dickson v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 19, 2023

Instead, less qualified candidates were being hired for that same position. (Id. ¶ 49.) … “The movant has the burden of establishing that the evidence is not admissible for any purpose.” Walker v. Schult, 365 F. Supp. 3d 266, 275 (N.D.N.Y. 2019).

Campbell v. Rite Aid Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 17, 2020

a prima facie case of age discrimination by demonstrating that “(1) he was a member of the protected age group; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and ( … “However, where an affiant may lack personal knowledge of the facts set forth in h[is] declaration, if the averments are based on ‘clearly referenced . . .

McKinnies v. New York City Police Dept.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 2024

“deprived [the plaintiff] of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010). … To establish causation, Plaintiff “must plausibly plead a connection between the act and [her] engagement in protected activity.” Id.

Jean-Louis

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 16, 2026

Id. at 393–94, 404; see 29 C.F.R. § 782.2(b)(3) (discussing applicability of the exemption “in all workweeks when [an employee] is employed” in a qualifying job (emphasis added)). … Accordingly, Defendants have not met their burden to establish that the exemption clearly applies. See Mullins v.