Case law

Medisim Ltd. v. Bestmed LLC

861 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 6, 2012

Admissibility of Expert Testimony Generally The proponent of expert evidence bears the initial burden of establishing admissibility by a “preponderance of proof.” 28 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states the requirements for … Goldberg Is Qualified as an Expert Medisim argues that Goldberg is not qualified as “an expert in the area of digital, conductive thermometry” because he has not worked in the medical device field since leaving IVAC in 1995

McBryde-O'Neal v. Polichetti

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 2025

Judge Tarnofsky alternatively determined that qualified immunity barred Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims, except as to the excessive force claim against Polichetti. Id. at 36-39. … They are protected by Qualified Immunity.” Id. at 2. If anything, this line seems to acknowledge the validity of Judge Tarnofsky’s determination that qualified immunity bars the majority of Plaintiff’s claims.

General Electric Co. v. Masters Mail Order Co. of Washington, D. C., Inc.

122 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 1954

Although not qualified to do business in New York, it is coneededly an affiliate of Masters, Inc. [hereafter called Masters of New York], a New York corporation. The stock ownership of both corporations is the same. … The presumption, stressed by the plaintiff, which usually arises from the seller’s payment of shipping charges, may perhaps be overcome here by facts alleged by the defendant, if established.

Hart v. Rick's NY Cabaret International, Inc.

967 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 2014

In light of defendants’ present failure to establish the separate two-thirds citizenship requirement, the Court need not reach whether Imbeault qualifies as an “other class action” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(4)(A)(ii) and … At this stage, plaintiffs’ FLSA claims remain unresolved and it is clearly sensible to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ NYLL claims.

Kuhns v. Ledger

202 F. Supp. 3d 433 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 24, 2016

The “shareholders,” according to Kuhns, “clearly referred to ... Foster, the [company's dominant and controlling shareholder.” Id. … Application Foster has established the economic interest defense, and Kuhns has not shown that Foster acted with malice or through illegal means.

Tung v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2019

Immune “checkpoints” are cellular mechanisms that prevent the body’s immune system from attacking healthy cells. (Compl. ¶ 37.) … One particular immune checkpoint centers around PD-L1, a protein that, when present on healthy cells, prevents the immune system from attacking them (specifically, by binding to PD-1, a protein present on the immune system

Bruchman v. Standard Chartered Bank, PLC

997 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 17, 1998

However, Brian Taylor, a Credit Appraiser for SCB, recommended qualified approval of the application. … Zaloom’s claim under U.C.C. § 4-103(5) clearly constitutes an action to recover upon a statutory liability.

Jalal v. Columbia University in the City of New York

4 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 9, 1998

A prima facie case is established in a denial of tenure suit when the plaintiff shows that 1) she belongs to a protected class, 2) she was qualified for tenure, 3) she was denied tenure and 4) tenure was granted to a person … If the defendant establishes such a reason, the presumption of discrimination established by the prima facie ease disappears, and the plaintiff “must .., point to sufficient evidence to reasonably support a finding that [

Ratermann v. Pierre Fabre USA, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 17, 2023

A website that is a “passive host of third party content” qualifies as an interactive computer service “entitled to immunity for the content of that third party.” Ricci v. … The interest protected in permitting recovery [under the New York Civil Rights Law] is clearly that of reputation, with the same overtones of mental distress as in defamation.

Sorenson v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. (In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.)

146 B.R. 92 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 19, 1992

Nor do appellant’s claims qualify for estimation under the provisions of § 502(c), because § 502(e)(1)(B) expressly states that it applies “[notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section...” … and its guarantor for the limited proceeds in the estate.”); In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 126 B.R. 919, 923 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1991), aff'd without opinion, 950 F.2d 721 (3d Cir.1991) (“Section 502(e)(1)(B) is not a means of immunizing

Whitfield v. Forest Electric Corp.

772 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 10, 1991

Similarly, the right to enforce a contract does not “extend beyond conduct by an employer which impairs an employee’s ability to enforce through legal process his or her established contract rights.” Patterson v. … That egregious racial harassment of employees is forbidden by a clearly applicable law (Title VII), moreover, should lessen the temptation for this Court to twist the interpretation of another statute (§ 1981) to cover the

Drayton v. Veterans Administration

654 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 25, 1987

The United States has waived its sovereign immunity regarding employment discrimination claims only to the extent that such claims are made against “the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate____” 42 U.S.C … Therefore, on its face Chung is clearly distinguishable from the instant action. Moreover, Chung, at least to the extent it pertains to § 2000e claims, concerns a plaintiffs pro se filings with the EEOC.

Patel v. The United States

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 20, 2021

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 (“[A]n action is ‘frivolous’ when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly … Act (with possible multiple predicate crimes) violations, tortious interference in a business transaction, and honest services duties, and functional removal the constitutional ipso facto office of a qualified,

Kiernan v. Lindsay

334 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 1971

. § 1343 (3), which confers original jurisdiction on the district courts over cases involving a deprivation of the privileges and immunities protected in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … We believe that this is clearly not a case involving personal liberty within § 1343(3).

City of New York v. Exxon Corp.

744 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 1990

For example, Alcan quotes an EPA ruling as establishing a mean concentration of 3.5 ppm of lead in “Fuel Oil No. 6.” Id. … Clearly, though Congress intended to exclude oil spills from the coverage of CERCLA, Congress did not intend to exclude waste oils such as Al-can’s, which are by no means strictly “crude oil or any fraction thereof.”

Ortiz v. IOD Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · May 7, 2019

By enacting the price-per-page provision, the Legislature clearly intended to control patient costs associated with access to medical records. … Although Sections 18(11) and (12) do not provide immunity for overcharges in violation of § 18(2)(e), see Spiro v. Healthport Tech., 73 F.

In re Towers Financial Corp. Noteholders Litigation

177 F.R.D. 167 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 15, 1997

Plaintiffs here have established typicality. D. … Common issues clearly predominate. F.

Brown v. Venettozi

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 1, 2021

immunity, (id. at 18–20). … Mem. 18–20), they merely recite the qualified immunity case law without meaningfully applying it to the facts of the case.

Davidson v. Lee

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 1, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages if either (1) the “official’s conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity entitles public officials to “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability . . . . [I]t is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Collens v. City of New York

222 F.R.D. 249 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 12, 2004

The Objections should be sustained only if the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. … An order is “clearly erroneous” when “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Surles v.