Paul G. Gardephe

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rights

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Robert Steven Williams, who faced federal charges for conspiracy to deal in unlicensed firearms, felon-in-possession of a firearm, and unlawful transport of firearms after agents executed a search warrant at a Bronx apartment and recovered four guns. Williams moved to suppress the firearms recovered from the apartment, arguing that the supporting affidavit contained false statements and material omissions, and to suppress his post-arrest statements, claiming they were taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court denied suppression of the search evidence, finding the warrant affidavit sufficient, but granted suppression of the statements because they were obtained through custodial questioning without Miranda warnings and without a valid good-faith or public-safety justification. The decision rested on review of the investigation history, the warrant application process, and the circumstances of the post-arrest interrogation.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Danielle Herbert, an assistant principal at a New York City public school, sued the City and her principal Shaniquia Dixon, alleging that her demotion from a probationary position was due to gender and pregnancy discrimination in violation of Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, and also claiming whistleblower retaliation under state civil service and education laws for reporting alleged misconduct. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting poor performance as the reason for demotion and lack of knowledge of the report for the retaliation claim. The court denied summary judgment on the discrimination claims, finding material issues of fact as to whether the decision was motivated in whole or in part by Herbert's pregnancy. The court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim, however, because there was no evidence that Dixon knew of the report before demoting Herbert.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, Bayer sued Watson and Sandoz after they filed ANDAs seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of Bayer's oral contraceptive Yasmin, alleging that the filings infringed Bayer's U.S. Patent No. 5,569,652, which claims a method of achieving contraceptive, anti-androgenic, and antialdosterone effects. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that no infringement claim could be stated under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The court granted the motion, holding that the patent does not claim any use of Yasmin that the FDA had approved under Bayer's NDA, as the approved indication was limited to oral contraception and the patent's additional effects were not part of that approval. The decision rested on the requirement that an ANDA-based infringement claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) requires the patent to cover an FDA-approved use listed in the Orange Book.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs suing Petrobras, a Brazilian government-owned oil company, for breach of contract after it refused to convert their bearer bonds into preferred stock as per the bond terms. Petrobras moved to dismiss the action, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, forum non conveniens, and failure to state a claim. The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding that it had jurisdiction and that the claims were timely under the applicable statute of limitations, which began running upon the company's refusal to convert the bonds.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves appeals from bankruptcy court rulings in adversary proceedings brought by the Bayou Hedge Funds against investors who had redeemed their interests. The Funds sought to recover approximately $24.7 million in pre-petition redemption payments—covering both principal and fictitious profits—as actual fraudulent conveyances under Bankruptcy Code §§ 548(a) and 544 and New York Debtor and Creditor Law. The bankruptcy court granted the Funds summary judgment, holding that the investors could not establish a good-faith defense under § 548(c) because they were on inquiry notice based on information suggesting potential issues with the investment or management integrity. The district court reversed, ruling that the bankruptcy court applied an overly broad and unsupported standard for inquiry notice; the correct test requires information indicating the transferor's insolvency or the fraudulent nature of the transfer.

business & regulatory

In this Section 1983 case, plaintiff Menachem Ezagui alleged that the City of New York and NYPD Officer Jacqueli Harper violated his due process rights by seizing his vehicle and its contents pursuant to a search warrant in a criminal investigation and retaining them as evidence without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard, contrary to the procedures required by Krimstock v. Kelly. The undisputed facts showed the vehicle was seized in April 2008, plaintiff was not charged with any crime, and repeated demands for return of the vehicle and personal property were met with ex parte retention orders that did not address notice requirements or personal property. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to the City of New York but denied it as to Officer Harper, and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Harper's liability while denying it as to other claims. The core reasoning was that the officer failed to provide constitutionally required notice at the time of seizure regarding how to challenge retention, and the later retention orders did not cure this procedural defect under the Fourteenth Amendment.

civil rightscriminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves an interpleader action filed by the Reserve International Liquidity Fund to resolve claims to its remaining assets following the fund's collapse and the appointment of liquidators by a British Virgin Islands court. The Fund petitioned under the All Writs Act for an injunction directing non-party Société Générale to deposit $10 million—held from an overnight deposit in its Cayman Islands branch—into the court's registry, amid parallel proceedings in Cayman Islands and New York courts over control of those funds. The district court denied the petition. The core reasoning was that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue such relief against a non-party not subject to any claim in the interpleader action, the BVI liquidators had displaced the Fund's board and directed its affairs, and the Fund had not established an adequate basis for supplemental or ancillary jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was an appeal by Best Payphones, Inc. from a bankruptcy court judgment awarding MetTel $238,082.43 plus interest for breach of a dial-tone service contract originally between Best and Natelco. The district court denied the appeal and upheld the award, finding that MetTel's notice of disconnection improperly demanded payment of an unrelated prior judgment but that Best had breached the contract by switching to a new provider without giving MetTel written notice of the breach and an opportunity to cure under the agreement's terms. The court reasoned that the contract had been validly assigned to MetTel in the Natelco bankruptcy proceedings and that Best's failure to follow the required notice-and-cure procedure precluded it from terminating the agreement. Core holdings also addressed the effective date of the bankruptcy sale order and the calculation of lost-profit damages based on MetTel's costs.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Angie Bouchard sued the Archdiocese of New York and the Church of Our Saviour in state court, asserting common-law claims arising from sexual abuse by visiting priest Father Fernando Kennedy in 2001; the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds. After earlier rulings dismissed most claims, the remaining counts alleged negligence and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that these claims failed as a matter of law because the plaintiff presented no evidence that the Archdiocese or church knew or should have known of Kennedy's alleged propensity for sexual abuse before the incidents occurred.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Kitaru Innovations, a Barbados company, sued Ashok and Sachen Chandaria, UK citizens residing in Kenya, over ownership of U.S. Patent No. 6,874,554. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, to set aside an alleged fraudulent 2008 assignment of the patent from Ashok to his son Sachen, damages for tortious interference based on demand letters sent to a licensee, and an injunction against further contacts with Kitaru's customers. A related Canadian lawsuit filed one month earlier by Ashok Chandaria addressed the same patent assignment and broader family business dispute among Chandaria relatives who control the involved companies. The court dismissed the U.S. action on forum non conveniens grounds, finding the Canadian proceeding the more appropriate forum given the overlapping parties, issues, and lack of strong U.S. connections.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Carlos Chaluisan brought a putative class action against his former employer Simsmetal East LLC and a principal, alleging violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime while working as a supervisor, along with individual claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment over unpaid vacation pay and a bonus. Defendants moved to dismiss the state-law claims under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing they were not sufficiently related to the FLSA overtime claim for supplemental jurisdiction, and alternatively under Rule 12(b)(6) on preemption grounds for the unjust enrichment claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss (after a stipulation dismissing claims against one defendant), holding that the state claims derived from a common nucleus of operative facts involving the plaintiff's employment, pay practices, and supervisor duties. It further found no basis to conclude that the FLSA preempted the vacation pay and bonus claims.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves parents Stephen and Linda Maus, suing on behalf of their minor child K.M., against the Wappingers Central School District and its superintendent under the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA. The parents appealed an SRO decision denying K.M. classification as a student with a disability under IDEA and sought tuition reimbursement for private school placement; they also claimed the district failed to provide required accommodations under the other statutes. The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on these claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that K.M. did not meet the criteria for disability classification under IDEA and that no violations occurred under Section 504 or the ADA.

civil rights

In this case, plaintiff Leslie Mugavero alleged that her former employer, Arms Acres, Inc., a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility, and her supervisor, Dr. Frederick Hesse, retaliated against her under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and New York law after she supported a coworker's sexual harassment complaint, through actions including written warnings, a report to the New York Office of Professional Discipline, administrative leave, and termination. Following an eight-day trial, a jury found in Mugavero's favor on all retaliation claims and awarded her compensatory and punitive damages totaling over $1.1 million. The court denied the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the core claims; it granted in part the motion to vacate or reduce damages by applying the statutory cap under federal law to the punitive award and granted discovery sanctions in the form of attorneys' fees and costs.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, pre-trial detainee Stevie Tatum sued correction officer Renee Jackson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law after being severely assaulted by other inmates at Rikers Island, alleging deliberate indifference, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting the attack. A jury found in Tatum's favor and awarded $1 million in compensatory damages, after which Jackson moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The court denied the motion, holding that the evidence supported the jury's findings on Jackson's liability and that the damages award was reasonable given the extent of Tatum's injuries, including multiple fractures, surgeries, and ongoing pain. The decision reviewed trial testimony showing Jackson's provocative actions and failure to intervene, as well as comparable case law on non-economic damages.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability