Case law

In Re Omni Mutual, Inc.

193 B.R. 678 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 19, 1996

The letter sent to Landi from Omni dated March 2, 1988 clearly states that OMIG “will be registered” in the future and thus informed Landi that OMIG was not registered at the time of purchase. … In sum, it is uneontested that the OMIG interests were not registered with the SEC as required to qualify as a “security” pursuant to SIPA.

Silverman v. Peltz (In re Peltz)

263 B.R. 721 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2001

(“Trustee”) was appointed interim Chapter 7 trustee of the estate and has since duly qualified and is permanent trustee in Debtor’s Chapter 7 case. … CONCLUSION In denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, the Bankruptcy Court clearly stated that defendants’ statute of limitations defense could be moot once Trustee presents his case.

Sanluis Developments, L.L.C. v. CCP Sanluis, L.L.C.

498 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 2, 2007

Under Section 7(a) of the related Members’ Agreement, entered into on the same day as the Amended Operating Agreement, if no “Approved Sale [of the Company] nor a Qualified Public Offering has occurred by the fifth anniversary … After five years passed with no Approved Sale or Qualified Public Offering of the Company, a dispute arose among the parties regarding what instructions, if any, were to be given to any investment bank that might be asked

Estate of M.D. ex rel. DeCosmo v. New York

241 F. Supp. 3d 413 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 2017

Because New York State has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, nor has Congress abrogated the state’s immunity under § 1983, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against the State of … As the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of their constitutional rights, the Court declines to consider Defendants' arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Dawson v. G. Malina, Inc.

463 F. Supp. 461 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 11, 1978

Accordingly, it would clearly be unjust for the Court to adopt the strict standard proposed by Dawson. … Since the oral agreement alleged by Dawson was clearly capable of performance within one year of its making, the Statute of Frauds does not pose any problem to its enforcement.

Lynch v. Amoruso

232 F. Supp. 3d 460 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 8, 2017

Discussion Plaintiffs’ pro se amended complaint fails to clearly assert any particular causes of action. … The Court concludes that the allegations here are insufficient to establish continuity.

Sales Arm, Inc. v. Automobile Club of So. Cal.

402 F. Supp. 763 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 22, 1975

The Club is not qualified to do business here; it has no office or property owned, leased or occupied or possessed in New York; its only offices are in California. See Bryant v. … Consideration of these factors in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case clearly requires that this action be transferred to the Central District, of California and it is so ordered.

Lincoln CERCPAC v. Health & Hospital Corp.

977 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 4, 1997

To establish a violation of the Rehab Act, plaintiffs must show that (1) they are “handicapped persons” under the Act; (2) they are “otherwise qualified” for the benefit that has been denied; (3) they are being denied benefits … To establish a violation under the ADA, the plaintiff must show: (1) he or she is a “qualified individual with a disability,” (2) he or she is being excluded from participation in or being denied the benefits of some service

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin

54 F.R.D. 565 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 4, 1972

The defendants also claim that they are immune from antitrust liability as theirs ,is a regulated industry. … Even if it could be so considered, such “regulation” scarcely would be immunized from judicial review.

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp.

224 F.R.D. 98 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 2004

The subject matter waiver arising from the advice-of-counsel defense clearly extends to all such “communications,” not just formal or written opinions. … Work Product Immunity While it is well established that assertion of the advice-of-counsel defense in patent litigation creates a subject matter waiver with respect to all privileged communications, the case law is inconsistent

Lennon v. United States

387 F. Supp. 561 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 2, 1975

The above allegations clearly state valid causes of action. U. S. ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 , 74 S.Ct. 499 , 98 L.Ed. 681 (1954); Bufalino v. … These cases do not, and, in my view, could not hold that a government official can with impunity, immune from judicial review, institute a deportation proceeding solely as a penalty for the lawful exercise of constitutional

Golden Trade v. Jordache

143 F.R.D. 508 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 10, 1992

Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines a qualified immunity from discovery for documents “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial” by the party or his attorney or an agent of the party or … Even if the information does constitute work-product, the discovering party may nonetheless obtain it if he “establishes a sufficiently acute need for it,” Martin v.

Drogan v. Ward

675 F. Supp. 832 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 17, 1987

. § 1983, Drogan must allege that acting under color of state law the respondents deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. … This section is part of a statutory scheme that establishes procedures for rating examinations, establishing eligible lists, notifying candidates of their rating and position on the list, and appointing and promoting candidates

Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.

594 F. Supp. 1553 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 16, 1984

Since this was clearly per *1560 missible, Justice Douglas never reached the issue of whether the Bernstein exception must be satisfied. … Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 , 96 S.Ct. 1854 , 48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976) ] the respondent having brought suit (and thus clearly having waived the defense of immunity) attempted to assert that a refusal to pay a commercial obligation

Lawson v. Getty Terminals Corp.

866 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 2, 1994

Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (“McDonnell Douglas ”). 6 Under this standard, the plaintiff must establish that he (1) belongs to a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was … In addition, the evidence clearly shows that plaintiff was replaced by another minority worker.

Richards v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

572 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 7, 1983

This statement clearly describes an agency relationship such that Frucher in his official capacity was properly served through Pellegrini. … The record does not establish, however, that Pellegrini was authorized to accept service on behalf of Frucher in his individual capacity.

United States v. Costello

171 F. Supp. 10 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 20, 1959

Pursuant to this authority the first uniform rule of naturalization established by Congress was the Act of March 26, 1790. … This burden of the Government to establish clearly and convincingly its evidence is rightly based upon the concept that nowhere in the world today is the right of citizenship of greater worth to an individual than it is in

Spinelli v. National Football League

96 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2015

Here, the AP Contributor Agreements’ meaning may be clearly gleaned from their text. . … The assignee then claimed that he was immune from the second co-owner’s infringement suit.

Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Schneider

551 F. Supp. 2d 173 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 31, 2008

Purcell The Schneiders have met their burden of showing that Purcell is qualified to testify. … Further, as discussed above, Purcell is clearly qualified to testify in this action.

Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States

123 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 11, 1953

Procedure, 28 U.S.C., on the ground thát this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and over the person of the defendant in that defendant United States of America as sovereign has not waived its immunity … As I see it, the Armstrong case tried before Judge Medina and affirmed in the Court of Appeals clearly indicates that I should dismiss this complaint and hold that the Tucker Act does not apply here but that the Suits in