Cites Hamer v. . Sidway — Mallory v. Qilletl (31 FT. Y. 413); Belknap v. Bender (75 id. 446); Berry v. Brown (107 id. 659); Beaumont v. Beene (Shirley’s L. C. 6); Porterfield, v. Butler (47 Miss. 165); Hunoll v. Wilson (9 Barb
JG
John George Koeltl
Judge, District Court, S.D. New York · Born 1945 · New York, NY
The case concerned an appeal by Cellmark Paper, Inc., a supplier of promotional paper to Ames Merchandising Corporation, from a bankruptcy court judgment that allowed Ames to recover $1.9 million in payments made to Cellmark during the 90 days before Ames’s 2001 bankruptcy filing as avoidable preferential transfers under Bankruptcy Code sections 547 and 550. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling after a bench trial. It held that Cellmark had failed to rebut the statutory presumption of Ames’s insolvency because it offered only evidence of book values rather than fair market values of Ames’s assets and liabilities. The court also held that Cellmark had not established the ordinary-course-of-business defense, because the timing and manner of the payments deviated from the parties’ prior dealings.
In United States v. McDonald, the defendant was convicted by a jury of securities fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud after representing himself at trial. McDonald moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, claiming the court coerced the jury by instructing it to continue deliberating after a poll revealed a non-unanimous verdict on one count. The court denied the motion, holding that the brief instruction was not coercive when viewed in context. The original charge had already directed jurors not to abandon conscientious beliefs merely because they were outnumbered, and neither McDonald nor standby counsel raised any objection at the time. The court further noted that the circumstances showed no risk of improper pressure on holdout jurors.
In Jovani Fashion, Ltd. v. Cinderella Divine, Inc., a prom dress manufacturer sued multiple competitors, including Fiesta Fashions, alleging copyright infringement of original artistic elements (such as sequin and bead patterns plus wire-edged tulle) in one specific dress design, along with initial Lanham Act and state-law claims that were later dropped. The court had previously granted Fiesta’s motion to dismiss the remaining copyright claim under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the asserted design elements were neither physically nor conceptually separable from the dress itself. Fiesta then moved for attorney’s fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The court denied the motion, reasoning that Jovani’s copyright claim raised a debatable question of separability and was not objectively unreasonable or pursued in bad faith, while the withdrawn Lanham Act claims did not create exceptional circumstances justifying a fee award.
The case involved Jacquelyn White, a female correction officer at Lincoln Correctional Facility, who sued New York State, the Department of Correctional Services, and several supervisors. She claimed gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII after a 2006 (and later 2008) Officer-in-Charge position was posted exclusively for male applicants, despite her qualifications and seniority, along with related equal-protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Applying the Rule 56 standard, the court examined the undisputed facts—including the male-only posting language, White’s application and internal complaints, the timing of discipline, and the job’s stated duties—and determined that genuine issues of material fact existed on key elements of the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims (such as causation and pretext) while some aspects of the § 1983 claims failed as a matter of law.
This case concerns disputes over the management of Little Rest Twelve, Inc. and Mutual Offshore Benefit Fund, featuring allegations of fraud, misconduct, and contested changes in corporate control between competing groups referred to as old and new management. The old management removed three related state court actions from New York Supreme Court to federal district court, claiming jurisdiction under bankruptcy removal statutes due to parallel proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, and additionally citing a trademark issue in one case. The new management moved for abstention and remand, while creditor and employee intervenors sought to participate and oppose remand. The court examined the procedural history, including prior state court litigation involving fraud and breach claims, and assessed whether the matters qualified as core or related bankruptcy proceedings warranting federal jurisdiction or abstention.
This securities action was brought by the Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands on behalf of purchasers of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I and related entities, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misrepresentations in the offering documents. The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court first addressed the standards for evaluating both motions, including the plaintiff's burden to establish jurisdiction and the plausibility requirements for pleading, then noted undisputed facts about the eleven series of certificates and the plaintiff's purchase of only one. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, primarily dismissing claims related to the ten series the plaintiff did not purchase due to lack of standing.