Case law

Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains

931 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 12, 1996

In a footnote that was clearly dicta, Bum-ham set the precedent. … Because zoning is a normal function or operation of a governmental entity, 2 the plain meaning of “activity” clearly encompasses zoning.

Lebron v. National RR Passenger Corp.(Amtrak)

811 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 8, 1993

Looking first at the symbolic, Congress established Amtrak, 45 U.S.C. § 501 , and defined it as a “mixed-ownership government corporation.” 31 U.S.C. § 9101 . … This broad provision clearly does not state, or even imply, the rejection of all “political” advertising.

Barrett v. United States

646 F. Supp. 1345 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 8, 1986

This contention is clearly incorrect, as the above discussion shows. … Sovereign immunity could not at that time be availed of by them for their participation in such wrongful conduct. Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565, 574 (2d Cir.1986).

Kerman-Mastour v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

814 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2011

Kerman, as a woman and Orthodox Jew, is clearly a member of a protected class, and her termination is equally clearly an adverse employment action. … In Slattery , the Second Circuit rejected a similar attempt to increase the necessary showing for an em *368 ployee to be qualified, where an employer argued that the plaintiff was not qualified because he had been promoted

Christian, Klein, & Cogburn v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc.

970 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 8, 1997

. § 1446 (b), NASD filed a notice of removal claiming that petitioner’s complaint clearly would seek judicial review of the NASD’s performance of its function as a SRO under federal law. … many district courts in this Circuit: “An initial document, by whatever name, which contains enough information to allow defendant to intelligently ascertain removability qualifies as an initial pleading.”

Wedra v. Thomas

623 F. Supp. 272 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 24, 1985

However, § 1988 does not contain a fee cap, as does § 2412;. and the latter statute “is ... like other statutes allowing recovery against the United States, a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and must be narrowly construed … A judgment for costs when taxed against the United States shall, in an amount established by statute, court rule, or order, be limited to reimbursing in whole or in part the prevailing party for the costs incurred by such

Barrett v. Forest Laboratories, Inc.

39 F. Supp. 3d 407 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 14, 2014

An individual plaintiff may prove disparate treatment under the familiar McDonnell Douglas framework 5 by first establishing “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she is qualified for her position; (3) she suffered … statements, she “understood” that he “was clearly advising her not to apply.”

Zousmer v. Canadian Pacific Air Lines, Limited

307 F. Supp. 892 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 19, 1969

Some tests are well established. … To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action. * * * The right or immunity must

Securities & Exchange Commission v. E.P. Seggos & Co.

416 F. Supp. 280 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 15, 1976

In order to qualify as a claimant entitled to payment under SIPA, Kayden must establish that he was a “customer” of the bankrupt broker-dealer. … SO ORDERED. * Although not raised by Kayden, the Court notes that Kayden’s claim cannot be considered an “open contractual commitment” as defined in 6(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. § 78fff(d)), in that “[s]ection 6(d) was clearly

Hudson Energy Services, LLC v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

538 B.R. 666 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 2015

The Reorganized Debtors objected to Hudson’s Motion on the basis that electricity did not qualify as “goods” under Section 503(b)(9). (See Bankr. Doc. 3932.) … I will note, however, that I agree with the Bankruptcy Court that under those facts it does not so qualify.

Barrett v. United States

668 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 8, 1987

The cases that the State cites to the contrary are clearly distinguishable from the present one. The New York Court of Appeals barred contribution in Holodook v. … United States, 453 F.2d 839, 842 (6th Cir.1972) because the states in question had not waived their immunity from suit.

City of Merced Redevelopment Agency v. ExxonMobil Corp.

674 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 8, 2009

This provision offers them immunity from claims that the additive is defective in design or manufacture. … Rutherford, 332 F.2d 444 (2d Cir.1964) ("As applied to the act of which appellant was found guilty, the act is clearly constitutional.

Associated Container Transportation (Australia) Ltd. v. United States

502 F. Supp. 505 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 4, 1980

That statute, which established the authority of the Assistant Attorney General to issue CIDs, and the procedure by which a CID recipient could challenge the validity of the Demand, specifically provides that the Federal … But that Act did not clearly authorize CID objections under the ‘civil discovery’ standard set forth in this bill.

Bader v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc.

773 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 29, 2011

to his team and Wells Fargo” despite the fact that he did not formally qualify to attend. … However, the New York Court of Appeals has clearly held that Section 193 applies only to wages and not to any compensation paid to an employee. See Hudacs v.

Prosper

District Court, S.D. New York · May 20, 2026

So if Section 1367(a) was satisfied in Jones, it clearly is satisfied here. Prosper’s arguments to the contrary are off base and unavailing. … “To establish a malicious prosecution claim under New York law, a plaintiff must prove (1) the initiation or continuation of a criminal proceeding against plaintiff; (2) termination of the pro- ceeding in plaintiff’s favor

R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. So

748 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 12, 2010

Damages (a) Smith Is Not Qualified to Make Financial Projections. Plaintiff has adduced no evidence that Mr. Smith is qualified to make financial projections. … of future periods, one commonly establishes the value of those rights in the present period.

Rossini v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc.

597 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 13, 1984

The court finds, however, that Rossini has not established as part of her prima facie case that she was qualified for the job. See pp. 1139-1140, supra. … that she was qualified for that job.

United States v. Polanco

37 F. Supp. 2d 262 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 1999

Section 3El.l(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level downward adjustment "[i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a). … The entry of a guilty plea does not automatically qualify a defendant for such an adjustment. See id. Application Note 3. 3 .

Reich v. Lopez

38 F. Supp. 3d 436 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 18, 2014

With respect to the Travel Act and FCPA violations, RICO provides an exhaustive list of qualifying predicate acts and the latter is notably absent. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1). … Under that standard, if an enterprise formed in another nation sent emissaries to the United States to engage in domestic ... violations of the various RICO predicate statutes, its participants would be immune from RICO liability

Women's Interart Center, Inc. v. N.Y.C. Economic Dev.

223 F.R.D. 156 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 20, 2004

Defendants have failed to establish that these drafts are protected by the attorney-client privilege. … Many of these documents do evidence clearly legal advice, however. For those matters discussed that are not clearly legal, the Center’s redactions involve information that is not relevant to the claims at issue here.