Case law

Cohen v. United States of America

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 14, 2022

The Supreme Court has held that whether a Bivens cause of action is available is an “antecedent issue” to whether a plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Wood v. … Rather, Cohen’s claim is clearly predicated on the First Amendment.

Rankel v. Town of Somers

999 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 25, 2014

Assuming that Plaintiffs conduct is protected activity — which at least some of it clearly seems to be — -Plaintiff fails to plead a causal connection between this activity and any retaliatory conduct. … To the extent Plaintiff intends to sue DEC, it is immune from suit by private citizens in federal court without state consent. See New Holland Vill. Condo, v.

New York Telephone Co. v. United States

56 F. Supp. 932 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 24, 1944

Jurisdiction is not questioned, and is established by Section 402(a) of the Commissions Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064 , 1093, 47 U.S.C.A. § 402 (a), and by the Urgent Deficiencies Appropriation Act, 38 Stat. 219 , 28 U.S.C.A … The order 7-C was clearly found to be within the law as a constitutional and statutory exercise of the powers conferred upon the Commission by the Communications Act of 1934.

Janczuk v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 9, 2024

Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … 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

Collaza v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2024

The 1988 Tentative Final Monograph, on the other hand, clearly applies to the product and feature at issue in this case (i.e. acetaminophen dissolution rates). … Clearly no such pleading deficiency exists in this case. Zooming out, the Court also finds Plaintiff’s larger theory wholly unworkable.

Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos

653 F. Supp. 494 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 13, 1987

Wall Street was at least in part rendered moot when a receiver was appointed at the instance of Citibank by reason of substantial defaults incurred under a mortgage agreement. 1 Discussion Plaintiff bears a heavy burden to establish … Recognizing that some of the above recitations are merely unproved allegations, the undisputed and the clearly demonstrated aspects powerfully justify the appointment of a receiver.

Amaker v. Gerbing

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 17, 2019

Americans with Disabilities Act Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in … Congress unambiguously expressed its intent to abrogate states’ immunity from claims for damages under Title II. See 42 U.S.C. § 12202.

Partenza v. Brown

14 F. Supp. 2d 493 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 1998

Likelihood of Success The next issue that must be addressed is whether plaintiffs have clearly shown that their lawsuit is likely to succeed. … Section 14(b) provides that "the Executive Board may establish such retirement and pension plan as it may deem desirable, and for such purpose may establish a Trust, appoint and remove Trustees and enter into such Trust Agreement

Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp.

76 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 1999

Where primary assumption of risk is present, it does not merely diminish plaintiffs recovery, but eliminates or qualifies whatever duty defendant otherwise would owe to plaintiff in the circumstances. … However, it is clearly established under New York law that "a manufacturer may be liable for failing to warn against the dangers of foreseeable misuse of its product,” Liriano I, 92 N.Y.2d at 240 , 677 N.Y.S.2d 764 , 700

Dial Corp. v. News Corp.

314 F.R.D. 108 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 18, 2015

To establish that News Corp. committed any (or all) of these exclusionary acts will require Plaintiffs to put forth the same evidence for all members of the class. … It used to clearly be the case that individual damages determinations would not defeat class certification. See Seijas v. Republic of Arg., 606 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir.2010).

In re Merrill Lynch Tyco Research Securities Litigation

249 F.R.D. 124 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 16, 2008

The settlement class in this Action clearly is so large that individual actions by all potential plaintiffs would not be possible. The numerosity requirement therefore is easily satisfied. … This rate is in excess of what is required to induce qualified counsel to bring securities class litigation that would otherwise not be prosecuted.

Brophy v. Chao

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 16, 2020

App’x 372, 374 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary order) (plaintiff must establish a prima facie case that “(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position for which he applied; (3) he was denied the … Accordingly, I will not adopt standards articulated by other circuits, as Plaintiff suggests, and in fact I could not do so, as the Second Circuit has clearly established binding precedent on the issue.

In Re Elan Securities Litigation

385 F. Supp. 2d 363 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 20, 2005

Plaintiffs also “must qualify under one of three criteria set forth in Rule 23(b).” Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372 , 376 (2d Cir.1997). 8 The Settlement Class clearly satisfies Rule 23(a). … And, Class Counsel are “qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation.” Id. at 378.

Aaron v. Keyser

District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2023

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 … P. 12(b)(1): Eleventh Amendment Immunity and Standing First, Plaintiff proceeds herein against Commissioner Annucci. (Doc. 29).

Harper Insurance v. Century Indemnity Co.

819 F. Supp. 2d 270 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 2011

The parties clearly detailed their long course of dealing to the Panel. … Clearly, the Panel was presented with evidence that the parties had successfully used a prepayment method in the past. 2.

Arbelaez v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 2019

Third, it is a qualified privilege that must yield to fairness when the information sought is relevant and helpful to the defense.” U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. … But, as its name suggests, the informer’s privilege is an evidentiary privilege — not an immunity from suit or liability.

DiDonna v. Mass

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 23, 2024

immunity. … Halpern” United States District Judge Given the conclusions reached herein, the Court need not and does not reach Defendants’ arguments regarding qualified immunity. (Def.

United States v. Gilbert

478 F. Supp. 306 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 20, 1979

The plaintiff brought suit against the United States (under a statute whereby the United States waived its sovereign immunity), and claimed title to property held by the United States, which plaintiff claimed could not be … Bruce did not assume Gilbert’s tax liability — in fact, the 1970 Order clearly states that Gilbert remained obligated to Bruce to the extent of payments made by Bruce to satisfy Gilbert’s tax liability.

McElroy v. Gemark Alloy Refining Corp.

592 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2008

The record clearly establishes that there is no genuine issue about the material fact of intention. Gemark’s consistent intention was to be bound only by a fully executed written agreement with McElroy. … the Second Circuit said: The point of these rules is to give parties the power to contract as they please, so that they may, if they like, bind themselves orally or by informal letters, or that they may maintain complete immunity

Coleman v. BMC Construction Corp.

425 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2006

Plaintiffs argue that because the contributions at issue became trust assets immediately upon being due, Cupo qualifies as a fiduciary under ERISA’s broad definition and therefore is liable for the nonpayment. … may be imposed on an individual officer, shareholder or manager, the cases upon which plaintiffs rely concern clear obligations to contribute to a fund, ie., a signed collective bargaining agreement, and individuals with clearly