Case law

Szabelski v. AM&G Waterproofing, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2024

support, Defendants argue that “Plaintiff alleges that he was paid at a rate of at least $35 per hour, which is significantly more than the federal minimum wage,” and that he worked forty hours per week, which does not qualify … May 26, 2020) (“It is clearly established that [the] FLSA provides no cause of action for non-overtime wages above the federal minimum wage.”

Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 4, 2022

Therefore, the Court declines recommending a specific form of prompt post-deprivation hearing, but recommends that, at a minimum, Defendant’s “notice must clearly provide an opportunity for a hearing[] and that the government … “[M]unicipalities have no immunity from damages for liability flowing from their constitutional violations.” Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127, 164 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Owen v.

Lask v. Fallon

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 11, 2025

As no good cause has been established for bringing this latest motion, which is more akin to a motion for reconsideration, the law of the case doctrine governs. … Thus, these documents submitted in connection with their Motion to Dismiss, clearly satisfy the first part of the Lugosch test. See TileBar v. Glazzio Tiles, 723 F.

Ramchair v. Conway

671 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 5, 2009

Latimer’s testimony was “going to be fairly limited,” counsel reasoned, and thus it qualified as one of those “narrow instance[s]” in which trial counsel could properly be a witness in the trial. Id. This was wrong. … Because I conclude that Ramchair is ultimately entitled to a new trial, and that any other result would be an unreasonable application of clearly established federal constitutional law, the only significant factor weighing

Alvarado v. GC Dealer Services Inc.

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

In any event, the record clearly establishes that Beckerman was an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA and, thus, the branch of plaintiffs’ motion seeking a determination that Beckerman is individually liable under the … sufficient management, supervision and oversight of GC’s employment practices so as to qualify as an “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA.

High Income Securities Fund v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 2023

These are exactly “the types of qualifiers which render the [challenged] statements even more in the nature of puffery[.]” … Read in context, they are clearly “too general to induce reliance” by a reasonable investor. Id. at 104 (citation omitted).

Blackman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2022

Since both notices clearly identify the defendant as Chase, they contain no material misrepresentations. … Plaintiff does not allege what those circumstances are, or whether he qualified for them.

Raymond v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 5, 2024

To sustain a claim brought under Section 1983, “[t]he conduct at issue ‘must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law’ and ‘must have deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured … argument – that Plaintiff’s proposed message is private speech based on the content of the message – ignores the very premise of the government speech doctrine as well as what constitutes government speech under well- established

D.W.M v. St. Mary School

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 2019

Section 2000a(e) specifically provides that this subchapter does not apply to “a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made … available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).”

Han v. Shang Noodle House, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 12, 2022

The Second Circuit uses an “economic reality” test to determine when an individual qualifies as an employer under the FLSA. Id. at *35 (citing Carter v. Dutchess Comty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1984)). … Defendants’ alleged conduct underlying Plaintiff’s retaliation claims, which occurred after he filed his Complaint alleging FLSA and NYLL claims, clearly constitutes disadvantageous post- employment conduct.

Rowe Plastic Surgery of New Jersey, L.L.C. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 10, 2025

Because this preemption clause is “clearly expansive,” Off. Create Corp. v. Planet Ent., LLC, -- F.4th --, No. 24-CV-1879, 2025 WL 1634970, at * 4 (2d Cir. … The benefit must be “specific and direct”; “some indirect benefit” is insufficient to qualify as unjust enrichment. Id.

Rowe Plastic Surgery of New Jersey, L.L.C. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 15, 2025

Because this preemption clause is “clearly expansive,” Off. Create Corp. v. Planet Ent., LLC, -- F.4th --, No. 24-CV-1879, 2025 WL 1634970, at * 4 (2d Cir. … The benefit must be “specific and direct”; “some indirect benefit” is insufficient to qualify as unjust enrichment. Id.

IME WatchDog, Inc. v. Gelardi

District Court, E.D. New York · May 13, 2022

Moreover, the Court qualified its observations regarding irreparable harm and the scope of the injunction as preliminary, and thus asked for supplemental evidence and briefing from the parties. … The Court also finds that the public interest will be served by an injunction prohibiting Defendants from further using “what clearly and convincingly appears to be wrongfully obtained trade secrets” to poach clients from

Smith v. Mills

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 10, 2021

Plaintiff claims the loan’s commercial status affected whether the loan would qualify for certain benefits under TILA. See ibid. … “Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must clearly allege facts demonstrating 3 each element” of standing.

Doe v. Grindr, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 5, 2022

However, “the mere prospect of a second lawsuit” is not sufficient to establish “plain legal prejudice.” Camilli, 436 F.3d at 123 (quoting Cone, 330 U.S. at 217); see also Paulino v. … Counsel for Grindr was well prepared for the October 25, 2022 conference, and had clearly researched the issues beforehand.

Salem v. Pompeo

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

Courts have established that futile gestures will not be required to meet the requirements of standing. See Jackson-Bey v. HansImaier,115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir.1997). … While this Court recognizes that most State Department employees carry out their duties with professionalism and due regard for the rights of US. citizens, documented misconduct at Embassy Sana’a and the instant action clearly

Rodriguez

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 8, 2026

Fischer has been qualified and opined as a medical expert at trial in approximately eight other cases. Id. at 238:3-12. Dr. … Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Accident was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Araoz v. The New Albany Company, LLC

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2025

reiterated that the defendants’ res judicata argument was strong, and initially suggested that the parties brief only that issue.2 The Court pointed out that the stipulation of discontinuance was with prejudice, which qualified … Hantman’s conduct were clearly inappropriate — particularly his failure to research or address the res judicata issue and his filing of inappropriate materials on the public docket — the Court concludes that this conduct

Allstate Insurance Company v. Weiner

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 8, 2023

under this policy on the date of [the named insured’s] death. (2) An insured person, and any person having proper temporary custody of [the named insured’s] property until a legal representative is appointed and qualified … Coverage Under the Plain Language of the Policy Plaintiff argues first that the “Allstate policy clearly and unam- biguously provides that when the named insured dies, coverage will only be provided until the end of the

EBIN New York, Inc. v. SIC Enterprise, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 20, 2023

Given that Plaintiff’s CDLC is not inherently distinctive, the Court considers whether it otherwise qualifies as distinctive pursuant to the standards set forth in Abercrombie. … What these messages clearly show, however, is Defendant’s desire for Edge Booster to compete with Plaintiff’s product.