Case law

Love and Madness, Inc. v. Claire's Holdings LLC.

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 2021

Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior privilege review.

McClain v. United States

478 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 1979

At the time of petitioner’s sentencing, the relationship between §§ 2113(d) and 924(c) had not been clearly established. The first two circuits to confront the problem found that they were not duplicitous. Perkins v. … Grimes establishes a firm rule to guide future prosecutorial action.

McDonald v. Pension Plan of the NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund

153 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 29, 2001

While the ninth claim is pled as a class claim, the declaratory relief requested can clearly be provided without considering class certification. … Some beneficiaries who qualify receive benefits according to the old SRP schedule if those benefits are greater than those provided by the VRP. Id.

Slevin v. United States

71 F. Supp. 2d 348 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 3, 1999

Petitioner’s Evidence Does Not Establish Deficient Performance Petitioner’s allegations, if true, clearly meet the standard for relief set forth in Boria and Gordon . … Day, 969 F.2d 39, 45-46 (3d Cir.1992) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing and stating that a defense attorney’s corroboration "might qualify as sufficient confirming evidence”).

Carr v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, Inc.

111 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 31, 2000

The papers Carr submitted in support of his 1996 action clearly show that he was aware at least 57 other doctors were allegedly being treated differently than he was. … In its entirety, it consists of the following sentence: “I applied for the consulting specialist position was qualified for it, and *414 was denied the opportunity because of my race.” Carr Mar. 6 Aff. ¶ 27.

Creative Waste Management, Inc. v. Capitol Environmental Services, Inc.

458 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 2, 2006

Creative concluded, therefore, that Code “failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment .... ” (See id. at 6.) We denied summary judgment. III. … Creative contends that Code was negligent in failing “to know or discover that under existing PADEP guidelines governing its activities, the New *185 Rochelle dredge material could not qualify as 'clean fill’ and, therefore

Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd. v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.

741 F. Supp. 1051 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 15, 1990

“[W]hen the bill of lading does not clearly indicate an alternative number of packages, the container must be treated as a COGSA package if it is listed as a package in the bill of lading and if the parties have not clearly … The bill of lading and tariff thus unambiguously establish that the actual freight unit used by the parties for the oceangoing portion of the carriage was “per container.”

Giantceutical, Inc. v. Ken Mable, Inc.

356 F. Supp. 2d 374 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 16, 2005

Mable argues that Giantceutieal has failed to establish that Beijing assigned the patent to Juneng. … The party seeking a preliminary *380 injunction must establish both of the first two factors, at a minimum, in order to prevail. Id. 1.

Parrish v. Sollecito

249 F. Supp. 2d 342 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 2003

Defendants suggest that Parrish’s evidence does not clearly establish that Gallagher’s alleged touchings occurred above her knee and, injecting a point instinct with insinuation and accusation, they note that despite the … Furthermore, Defendants assert that, standing alone, this act would represent nothing more than an isolated episode not sufficient to qualify as pervasive or severe enough to create a hostile work environment.

Brown v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

594 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 21, 2009

The Second Circuit has held that, under principles of agency law, an employer will be charged with knowledge of harassment when a) the official is at a sufficiently high level in the company’s management hierarchy to qualify … Brown has adduced no evidence linking Bonne’s alleged (and, if true, clearly discriminatory) behavior to Pfeil’s alleged behavior. 4 .

Anderson v. Lowrey

667 F. Supp. 105 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 5, 1987

Defendant’s contention that plaintiffs should additionally be required to specify with precision when Catalyst was formed, information clearly within the province of defendant, is not persuasive. … Now, however, it is established that while the two sections may offer plaintiffs the same relief, see Yoder, 751 F.2d at 559 n. 3, there are practical differences between the two.

US VC Partners GP LLC v. United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 17, 2020

Clearly there is an important public and governmental interest in ensuring that SDN-owned properties and entities are blocked, and sanctions are upheld. … This Court declines to act as an alternative route by which Plaintiffs may circumvent procedures established for the specific purpose of addressing these concerns.

Cayetano v. Federal Express Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 2022

The written job description clearly states this requirement. ECF No. 51-4. … that, at least with the aid of some identified accommodation, she was qualified for the position at issue.”

Arista Records LLC v. Usenet. Com, Inc.

608 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 26, 2009

Under the Daubert standards, a court must first determine whether the expert is qualified to testify. See Zaremba v. Gen. … Rule 702, states that an expert must be qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”

United States Football League v. National Football League

704 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1989

Rivera clearly cannot mandate a “reasonable” fee of one dollar in this litigation. C. The Fee Award. … Costs for all of the depositions taken by the USFL during the abbreviated, hectic discovery phase in this case qualify under the applicable- standard, and those costs will be assessed.

Reserve Management Corp. v. Anchor Daily Income Fund, Inc.

459 F. Supp. 597 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 1978

Dudley, the independent directors had already established several criteria basic to their consideration of a new investment advisory organization. … Accordingly, plaintiffs fail to qualify even under this narrowly drawn and carefully delineated exception and their claim must be dismissed.

Tyson International Company, Limited v. Partner Reinsurance Europe SE

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026

knew about the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but decided to ignore it or pay no attention to it.” … Further, PartnerRe argues that the Panel never determined fraud to be the only grounds for recission, and that the Panel suggested that negligent or reckless misconduct may qualify as such grounds.

Haywood v. Portuando

288 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 2003

The federal habeas court must decide “whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable” — not whether the application was simply incorrect. … Haywood does not articulate what “clearly established” law of the Supreme Court was unreasonably applied by the Appellate Division in rejecting this ground.

Bank of America Corp. v. Lemgruber

385 F. Supp. 2d 200 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 5, 2005

As an initial matter, Defendants are correct that the record before the Court on the present motion clearly establishes that the Edge Act Plaintiffs neither exercised the Call Option themselves nor actually purchased any … As discussed above, the record before the Court on the present motion clearly establishes that Brazil and Bahamas Holdings acquired and currently own 100% of the BL Banks’ stock.

Sassower v. Field

752 F. Supp. 1182 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 5, 1990

his prima facie case by proving the following facts: (1) that he is [a member of a protected class]; (2) that he applied for and was qualified to rent or purchase the housing; (3) that he was rejected; and (4) that the housing … Clearly a dispute exists regarding the applicability and enforceability of the Cooperative Guidelines.