Case law

Gloster v. Standard Lithium Ltd.

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

In the months following the May release, Standard Lithium documented the Demonstration Plant’s progress toward establishing proof of concept. … In any event, Standard Lithium did clearly disclose the origins of the LiSTR patent applications in its 2020 annual report to shareholders, and therefore cannot have misled its investors

United States v. Restrepo

890 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 6, 1995

Testimony at the suppression hearing established that the officers involved in this particular seizure were aware of the forfeiture provisions and how the Memphis Police Department might benefit when they stopped Guevara’ … (“[W]e are not bound to accept the district court’s findings of basic historical fact, if they are clearly erroneous.”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 944 , 109 S.Ct. 371 , 102 L.Ed.2d 360 (1988).

Speedfit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 9, 2020

Though the court found Whelan qualified as a relevant person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), his opinion that the disclosures in the ‘265 Provisional and Patents-in-suit had common … Though Astilean was clearly collaborating with Woodway throughout 2008 and 2009, nothing in the record indicates that either party was acting pursuant to any duty, see Gargano, 165 A.D

Blanche

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 13, 2026

Particularly relevant here is the Second Circuit’s recognition that longstanding principles of statutory interpretation requir[e] Congress to speak clearly and specifically when it wishes … He is not making any claim of “immunity from removal,” as “the 2017 expedited- 13 See id. at 399–400 (citing Mukantagara v. U.S.

Brady v. Top Ships Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 5, 2019

Specifically, plaintiffs challenge the statements that qualify the effect of defendants’ stock issuances with the word “may.” … Those facts do not establish a plausible inference of securities fraud, and because of the public nature of the conduct at issue, 32 there are no further facts in existence which could

Chrysafis v. Marks

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 29, 2021

This assertion is qualified, though not clarified, at the end of the declaration where she states, “I am homeless and my daughter and I are living with friends and out of my car.” Id. ¶ 22. … “To establish the traceability requirement of standing, a plaintiff must establish that the injury was not ‘self-inflicted’ or ‘so completely due to the plaintiff’s own fault as to break the causal chain.’”

Amador v. 109-19 Food Corp.

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

Amador worked at the Liberty Location for most of his time working for Defendants, except for a period of “several 4 The complaint does not state clearly whether the Corporate Defendants each collected this revenue or … In addition, in order to qualify for the FLSA’s overtime protections, a plaintiff must show either that the employees are “engaged in commerce,” or that the employer is an “enterprise engaged in commerce[.]”

Freeman

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026

In their opposition, Plaintiffs argue only that “Defendants’ knowing provision of material support to Iran’s terror apparatus and their vast efforts to assist it qualify as acts of international terrorism.” … But the statute clearly requires a contemporary FTO designation. See 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2).

United States v. Kahale

789 F. Supp. 2d 359 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 2009

F.2d 507, 509 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923 , 96 S.Ct. 2633 , 49 L.Ed.2d 378 (1976) (“There is no general requirement that the government disclose in a bill of particulars all the overt acts it will prove in establishing … Meanwhile, Graham asserts that such misrepresentations, even if true, would not qualify as “material” because they are not relevant to the benefit investors intended to receive, and thus could not sustain a charge of mail

Rowe Plastic Surgery of New Jersey, LLC v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 26, 2025

App’x 83, 84 (2d Cir. 2015) (“‘A court should not’ take judicial notice of a fact ‘that is an essential part of a party’s case unless the fact is clearly beyond dispute.’” (quoting Pina v. … Bank of Am., No. 23-7903, 2024 WL 5135381, at *2 (2d Cir. 2024) (“To establish the existence of an enforceable agreement, a plaintiff must establish an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and

Philips v. Berryhill

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 22, 2021

DiGiacinto, who noted that the new MRI did not clearly show the origin of her increased neck pain. Tr. 833. … Determining the Established Onset Date (EOD) in Disability Claims, Soc. Sec. Ruling (“SSR”) 18-01p, 2018 SSR LEXIS (S.S.A.

WG Woodmere LLC v. The Incorporated Village of Woodsburgh

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

“First, the court must determine whether an absent party . . . qualifies as a ‘necessary’ party under Rule 19(a).” Id. … In First English, the Supreme Court held that “‘temporary’ regulatory takings which, as here, deny a landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from permanent takings, for which the Constitution clearly

Chrysafis v. Marks

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 21, 2023

Dec. 6, 2021) (holding “[t]o qualify as a prevailing party, a plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his [or her] claim”) (purgandum). … “The party seeking attorney’s fees also bears the burden of establishing that the number of hours for which compensation is sought is reasonable.” Stratakos v. Nassau County, 574 F.

Jibowu v. Target Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2020

Supp. 2d 508, 525 n.16 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“[T]he determination of whether or not an employee qualifies as exempt under the regulations focuses on evidence regarding the actual day- to-day activities of the employee rather … Supp. 3d at 535 (noting that “the DOL regulations clearly state ‘an occasional suggestion with regard to the change in status of a co-worker’ is not sufficient to show that an employee’s recommendations

Caccavale

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 20, 2025

This notice may be made by mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means and it must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood … establishing damages; and (iv) the risks of maintaining the class through the trial.”

WG Woodmere LLC v. The Incorporated Village of Woodsburgh

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 12, 2025

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claim fails to satisfy the three-part test for a regulatory taking established by Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). Mot. at 21–35. … Hempstead writes: The economic impact . . . can only qualify as a regulatory taking if it ‘effectively prevented [Plaintiffs] from making any economic use of [their entire] property.’ Sherman v.

Finkel v. Zizza & Associates Corp.

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 6, 2023

The Moving Defendants contend this qualifies them “for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under both § 1132(g)(1) and § 1451(e).” (Id. at 12.) … the Moving Defendants’ responsibility for the withdrawal liability, the Court finds Plaintiff’s degree of success on the merits would qualify it for a discretionary award under Section 1132(

Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc.

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

Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to establish materiality based on the FE-1 statement. … Moreover, the Second Circuit has held that such statements are inactionable under the Securities Act “where, as here, the statements are explicitly aspirational, with qualifiers such as ‘aims to,’ ‘wants to,’ and ‘should

Federal Trade Commission v. Harris Originals of NY., Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 16, 2024

Monitor must be a qualified, objective, independent third-party professional with experience in assessing monetary relief to consumers. … Attachment G clearly and unambiguously states: “click here.” Defendants cannot simply— and conveniently—read “click here” out of the Order. See Bank of New York v.

Zabrodin v. Silk 222, Inc.

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

If the unchallenged facts establish the defendant’s liability, the court determines the amount of damages due. Newman v. W. … Here, supplemental jurisdiction clearly extends to Plaintiffs’ third and fourth claims, which seek to recover for unpaid minimum wages and overtime premiums under the NYLL