Case law

Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq.

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 2020

Mar. 21, 2013) (“Defendants, Plaintiff’s privately retained former attorney and that attorney’s lawfirm, are clearly not stateactors.”) (citing Polk Cnty. v. … I have established a PACER account; 3.

Fort Worth Employers' Retirement Fund v. Biovail Corp.

615 F. Supp. 2d 218 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 2009

To qualify its product as a generic, the applicant, must show, among other things, that the generic version is “bioequivalent” to the approved drug. (Id. ¶ 4.) … These detailed disclaimers and risk disclosures indisputably satisfy the PSLRA safe harbor, and immunize from liability all of the alleged misrepresentations cited in the Amended Complaint.

Papyrus Technology Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

325 F. Supp. 2d 270 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 29, 2004

More importantly, it adequately isolates Van Buskirk from the case, thereby immunizing From-mer from his taint. 10 *281 The Court next must determine whether the screen was timely erected. … However, there exists no per se rule that a small-firm (to the extent that *281 Frommer, as a fifty-member patent firm qualifies as small) cannot erect an effective screen.

Marcoux v. Farm Service and Supplies, Inc.

290 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 14, 2003

And I say “qualified” because the testimony was that she is qualified by virtue of her RN degree and she’s qualified by virtue of 30 years’ experience. … They’re qualified by years of service in administrative fields. They’re qualified by their demeanor and- MR. LANE: Your Honor, there is no evidence as to that. MR.

Fujiwara v. Sushi Yasuda Ltd.

58 F. Supp. 3d 424 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 12, 2014

But even three-star restaurants are not immune to wage and hour claims. … The risk of failing to establish liability was relatively small. But Plaintiffs faced risks in establishing their damages.

United States v. Archer

461 F. Supp. 2d 213 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2006

Archer objected to the enhancement on the ground that two of his prior offenses no longer qualified as predicate felonies under the ACCA. At sentencing, the Court held that Archer was not subject to the ACCA. … The government argues, however, that the language “is prescribed” refers back to § 924(e)(1), which establishes a mandatory minimum sentence for a felon-in-possession who “has three previous convictions ... for ... a serious

Payden v. United States

605 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 11, 1985

Clearly this information may be used against the defendant at trial to establish the “substantial income” element of the 848 count and the items subject to forfeiture. … That is clearly not the law in this circuit.

Moodie v. James

District Court, S.D. New York · May 22, 2024

unless Congress has abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity . . . .” … New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.

725 F. Supp. 758 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 21, 1989

This appears inconsistent with the reach of the household exclusion itself (which clearly covers ash). … . *774 In order to qualify for the resource recovery exemption, a facility must not only have in place the appropriate procedural safeguards, Section 3001(i)(2), but must also not accept hazardous waste from commercial or

United States v. Gleason

265 F. Supp. 880 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 1967

Leaving aside other points of difference, the cases are clearly about custodial or similar interrogation, not only on their facts but in the words repeatedly used by the Court to define the new doctrine. … We consider first the most sweeping and general aspect of the motion — the demand for any evidence “tending to exculpate * * * or to establish any * * * defenses.”

Starr International Co. v. American International Group, Inc.

648 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 31, 2009

SICO also concedes, see id. at 8, that if and when it wishes to sell shares that qualify as restricted under Rule 144, it could readily apply to the SEC for a “no action” letter stating that it qualifies for the relevant … Greenberg and other witnesses by AIG's counsel had established the various additional inferences (if any) that AIG’s counsel claimed they would establish based on this excluded evidence, the Court now concludes that it would

Garcia v. Yonkers Board of Education

188 F. Supp. 3d 353 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 27, 2016

However, the Second Circuit has not established a specific delay that defeats an inference of causation. Gorman-Bakos v. … However, various other circuit courts have considered the issue and held that a police report does qualify as protected activity. Id. (citing Worth v. Tyer, 276 F.3d 249 , 265 (7th Cir.2001); EEOC v. Dinuba Med.

Walder v. Paramount Publix Corporation

132 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 1955

Under well established principles of conspiracy law, they may be held as fully liable as the original or earlier participants in the conspiracy. The motion made by these defendants must be denied. … However the defendant Paramount Film Distributing Corporation does contend it was qualified to do business in Florida since 1923 but even this is in dispute. 24 .

Allstate Insurance Company v. Administratia Asigurarilor De Stat

962 F. Supp. 420 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 28, 1997

In the case at bar, this Court finds that ADAS has not established that the act of state doctrine renders ADAS immune from suit in an American court. … For example, it asserts that “[p]ursuant to Romanian Law No. 31, of January 30, 1954, regarding the status of juridical persons, ADAS clearly lacks capacity to sue or standing to be sued after the effective date of its dissolution

Walker v. Capra

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 2, 2024

“[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.” … New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting Section 1983. Trotman v.

Isaac v. Schiff

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 16, 2023

“The party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction exists.” Hettler v. Entergy Enters., Inc., 15 F. Supp. 3d 447, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Conyers v. … However, while “[p]ro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, even following Twombly and Iqbal,” dismissal is “appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet minimum

Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 1, 2023

Westchester County’s receipt of federal funds therefore does not waive the BOL’s immunity from suit. … The Court holds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that the BOL received federal financial assistance from 2014 through 2018 and thus Plaintiff has not shown that the BOL has waived immunity under § 504 of the

McNamara v. Associated Press

40 F. Supp. 3d 345 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 21, 2014

Plaintiffs request was denied because the AP believed that she was not qualified for the sales position (Quan Aff. at ¶ 13). … The Committee believes that the language adopted in 2004 sets forth these requirements clearly, and does not recommend any changes in that language. Local Civil Rule 56.2.

Bank of New York Ex Rel. NextCard Credit Card Master Note Trust v. First Millennium, Inc.

598 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 24, 2009

“The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts establish her right to judgment as a matter of law.” Rodriguez v. … This provision seems to clearly show that the Noteholders’ right to collect unpaid principal is limited to the Collateral.

Doe v. Morgenthau

871 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 8, 1994

Ill Rulings of a United States Magistrate Judge in the course of supervising discovery can be overturned only if “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). … I direct plaintiff to provide sufficient evidence to establish that there is a genuine material issue with respect to the existence of facts suggesting that claim.