This case arose from Sandoz’s Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking to market generic versions of Bayer’s prescription oral contraceptives Yasmin and Yaz, prompting Bayer to file suit and Sandoz to assert counterclaims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act for monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy. After an earlier dismissal with leave to amend, Sandoz redefined the alleged relevant product market as oral contraceptives commonly prescribed to treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) and associated symptoms. The court granted Bayer’s motion to dismiss the amended counterclaims, holding that Sandoz failed to plead a plausible antitrust product market. The court reasoned that the proposed market was arbitrary and inconsistent, as it excluded other contraceptives approved or used for overlapping indications like acne or PMS without adequate economic justification, and that a manufacturer’s inherent control over its own branded products does not constitute anticompetitive conduct under the Sherman Act.
In this case, pro se plaintiff Elvira Morillo appealed the denial of her application for pension benefits under an ERISA-governed plan administered by Defendant 1199 SEIU Home Care Employees Pension Fund. Defendant moved to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment, raising affirmative defenses including that the action was untimely and that Morillo had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Because the complaint did not address these defenses and Defendant submitted materials outside the pleadings, the court provided the required pro se notice and converted the motion to one for summary judgment under Rule 56. The court granted the motion for summary judgment.
This case involves a subrogation action by AIG Europe, the insurer of a shipment, against UPS Supply Chain Solutions for damage to an x-ray machine during transport from the Netherlands to Texas, asserting contract, bailment, and tort claims. UPS moved for summary judgment on the tort claim and for partial summary judgment limiting its liability under a purported contract to about $9,479, while AIG cross-moved arguing there was no enforceable liability limitation agreement and that any such limit would be invalid under the Carmack Amendment. The court granted UPS's unopposed motion on the tort claim but denied the other summary judgment motions, finding that the record failed to establish basic facts about whether a contract existed between UPS's predecessors and the shipper Philips or what its terms were. The core reasoning was that disputed and unclear evidence on the RFQ response, subsequent negotiations, and performance prevented determination of contract formation, enforceability, or application of the Carmack Amendment as a matter of law.
The case involved Tecnimed SRL, manufacturer of the Thermofocus non-contact thermometer, suing Kidz-Med, Inc. and American Scientific Resources, Inc. for trademark and trade dress infringement under federal law, along with related state claims, after the parties' distribution and settlement agreements ended. Tecnimed alleged that Kidz-Med's competing thermometer used similar purple-and-blue packaging, slogans, artwork, and promotional materials that created confusion and falsely suggested a connection to the Thermofocus. The court granted Tecnimed's motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering Kidz-Med to stop selling its product in the infringing packaging. The decision rested on findings of a likelihood of consumer confusion due to the copied trade dress and marketing tactics, combined with evidence of irreparable harm to Tecnimed from lost sales and goodwill in a competitive market.
This case concerned whether parents of a child with autism, who was denied a free appropriate public education by the New York City Department of Education, could obtain direct payment of private school tuition under the IDEA even though they lacked the funds to pay the tuition upfront. An impartial hearing officer had found that the school district failed to provide a FAPE, that the Rebecca School was an appropriate placement, and that equitable factors supported funding, but a state review officer reversed the tuition award on the ground that the parents had not made out-of-pocket payments. The district court granted summary judgment to the parents, holding that IDEA’s grant of authority to award appropriate relief permits a court to order retroactive direct payment to the private school when the Burlington test is otherwise satisfied. The court reasoned that limiting the remedy to parents who can first pay out-of-pocket would contradict the statute’s text, Supreme Court precedent interpreting the IDEA, and Congress’s intent to ensure educational access for all children with disabilities regardless of family resources.
This case was an insurance coverage dispute in which homeowner Richard Brice sued State Farm after the insurer paid only a small portion of his claim for structural damage to his property caused by excavation and faulty underpinning on an adjacent lot and denied the rest under the policy's earth movement exclusion. Brice sought $739,000 in damages. The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. Under New York law interpreting the unambiguous policy language, the exclusion applied to earth movement resulting from external forces including man-made construction activities, so the denial of coverage was proper.