Case law

United States v. Huron Consulting Group, Inc.

843 F. Supp. 2d 464 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 16, 2012

See Schindler, 131 S.Ct. at 1895 (noting in dicta that a relator who requests FOIA information may qualify as “original source”). … Vincent’s 2005 claims, a ratio that would clearly overcompensate given the gross inflation of St.

Wertheim v. Continental Ry. & Trust Co.

15 F. 716 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 17, 1883

Babcock, 3 Dill. 566 ,) but immunity has never been claimed upon the ground now taken. … (a) The leading case establishing this principle is Amey v. Long.

Orozco Ex Rel. Arroyo v. Sobol

674 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 30, 1987

DISCUSSION The standards for injunctive relief in this circuit are well established. … The commissioner puts forth a plethora of constitutional barriers to plaintiffs claims, ranging from administrative immunity, to the eleventh amendment, to abstention.

Katzman v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue

167 F.R.D. 649 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 1996

Similarly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendants made fraudulent omissions. … The Lanham Act claim is therefore not sanctionable, even though it seems clearly destined to fail. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, Adv.Comm. Note.

Sanderson v. Roethenmund

682 F. Supp. 205 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 22, 1988

The Court of Appeals has stated that “[b]efore changes in the rights of a security holder can qualify as the purchase of a new security ... there must be such significant change in the nature of the investment or in the investment … The underlying certificates of deposit were issued by regulated and insured domestic banks and were clearly not securities under Marine Bank .

Thomas v. Sullivan

713 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 25, 1989

The deemed widow provision states: In any case where ... an applicant is not ... the widow [of an insured individual] but it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such applicant in good faith went through … The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment."

Toussaint v. NY Dialysis Services, Inc.

230 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 2, 2017

no effort to establish such a case here. … The Court does not consider this case a close one, but still, the standard is not whether the claim is a loser, but rather whether the claim is so clearly a loser that it is in the interest of justice to deter future plaintiffs

Kintetsu World Express (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Dialectic Distribution LLC

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 4, 2024

Olaf Gerber Rather than apply the factors set forth in Afram, Defendant argues that Olaf Gerber, as a Branch Manager for KWE, “clearly qualifie[s] as a Managing Agent … Mentioned above, Defendant makes no attempt to apply the Afram factors and instead merely states that Olaf Gerber is clearly qualified as a managing agent because of his status as Branch Manager. Dkt. No. 87.

Telebrands Corp. v. Del Laboratories, Inc.

719 F. Supp. 2d 283 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 15, 2010

Here, however, International Edge voluntarily ceded its right to be joined as party to infringement actions and would clearly suffer no harm from Telebrands’ suit against Coty. … Under these circumstances, Telebrands has a property interest in the trademark and qualifies as an assignee of the registrant for standing purposes.

Abergel v. Bank of America

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 2019

Here, Plaintiff might, for 3 Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction and has not pleaded facts about the citizenship of the parties that would establish diversity jurisdiction. … Sept. 19, 2019) (holding that charge levied for failure to rectify overdrawn deposit account within five days qualified as an extension of credit, and usurious interest rate exceeded rate allowed under the National Bank

New York Telephone Co. v. New York State Department of Labor

434 F. Supp. 810 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 23, 1977

Clearly, this is a determination on the merits of the case, Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 , 95 S.Ct. 2281 , 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975). … The State contends that under the eleventh amendment to the United States *824 Constitution 24 it is immune from suit because the damage award here sought would be payable to a private party from the State treasury.

Medinol Ltd. v. Guidant Corp.

417 F. Supp. 2d 280 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 15, 2006

that “substantially rigid after expansion” refers to the ability of the stent to hold open the blood vessel in which it is deployed, and Guidant does not dispute that the accused products qualify as “substantially rigid … The entire connector of the accused products qualifies as a flexible link, not just the looped portion.

Bonime v. Doyle

416 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 30, 1976

undercut by the fact that very serious discussions were indeed underway with a major British concern at the time of the allegedly misleading releases which, though arguably unduly optimistic — or rather, not fully enough qualified … At the outset, the proper method of calculating damages in cases such as this is far from established.

In re Bear Stearns Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation

851 F. Supp. 2d 746 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2012

As such, named Plaintiffs have clearly established that they, and the purchasers of all other tranches within the offerings, are part of the same case and controversy with Defendants. Cf . N.J. Carpenters Health Fund v. … In fact, the TAC states quite clearly that the values of those Certificates dropped, from approximately $1 to $0.3586 and $0.3817, respectively. (TAC $¶ 19, 21.) .

New York State Department of Social Services v. Bowen

661 F. Supp. 1537 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 10, 1987

Plaintiff clearly does not qualify as an individual beneficiary. Neither are plaintiffs acting as an individual’s representative, since plaintiffs’ interests may differ from the individual’s interests. … NYSDSS does not allege that it qualifies as a provider of health care services.

In Re American Express Co. Shareholder Litigation

840 F. Supp. 260 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 22, 1993

While there is apparently no case law on point, to permit the statute of limitations to run in these circumstances would clearly be inequitable. … However, even if the Court considered these allegations for the purposes of establishing continuity, this Court would not find that continuity had been established in light of the other factors considered below. 2 .

Gustafson v. Bell Atlantic Corp.

171 F. Supp. 2d 311 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 26, 2001

The Appeals Committee then decided that plaintiff did not even qualify as an “employee” of a participating company; a threshold requirement for participation in the Plan. … Turning first to the “crucial” factor of control, Carter, 735 F.2d at 12 , the Company clearly exercised a great degree of control over plaintiffs daily activities.

Banks Ex Rel. Banks v. Yokemick

177 F. Supp. 2d 239 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2001

Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 588 , 98 S.Ct. 1991 , 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978) (in structing that if � 1983 does not clearly address or provide a solution for a particu lar issue state law should supply the rule of decision insofar as … Such cases may introduce unique permutations into the § 1983 rule of decision inquiry that may affect its results — for example, the application of qualified immunity doctrines available to government agents only.

Wisdom v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2020

However, the record does not clearly demonstrate plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his First Amendment claim inasmuch as it concerns conduct raised in his March 7, 2016, grievance. … fact concerning such claim, the Court need not address defendant’s arguments respecting defendant’s personal involvement in any constitutional violation, or defendant’s alleged entitlement to qualified immunity.

Arrington v. MZ 2640 Owner LLP

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 8, 2024

For purposes of Title III of the ADA, public accommodations are defined to include, among other things, “any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. … Residential housing does not qualify as a public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b); Reid v. Zackenbaum, No. 05-CV-1569 (FB), 2005 WL 1993394, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.