Jose L. Linares

In Seiss v. United States, the plaintiff brought tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall incident at a post office. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the complaint was untimely because it was filed more than six months after the agency mailed its notice of denial. The ruling interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) to require both timely administrative filing within two years of accrual and court filing within six months of denial, based on the statute's legislative history and consistent precedent from other circuits emphasizing that the limitations periods operate in the conjunctive.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

In United States v. Manzo, brothers Louis Manzo (a losing candidate for mayor of Jersey City) and Ronald Manzo (his campaign manager) were charged with Hobbs Act conspiracy and attempted extortion, as well as interstate travel to promote bribery, based on meetings in which they allegedly agreed to accept cash payments from an FBI cooperating witness in exchange for future expedited development approvals and a personnel promotion if Louis won the election. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the extortion-related counts, holding that the Hobbs Act's prohibition on extortion "under color of official right" applies only to actual public officials and does not reach candidates who hold no public office at the time of the alleged conduct. The court denied the remaining motions seeking dismissal on grounds of outrageous government conduct and seeking additional discovery related to the grand jury and a witness recording.

criminal lawelections

The case concerned plaintiff Barry Hall's challenge to an early termination fee charged by defendant AT&T Mobility LLC after he canceled his wireless service and ported his number to another provider. Hall filed suit under California consumer protection statutes seeking to represent a class, prompting AT&T to move to compel arbitration under the service agreement's arbitration provision, which contained a class-action waiver and self-destruction clause. The court denied both the motion to compel arbitration and a related motion to strike a supporting declaration. It held that the class waiver was unconscionable under California law because the contract was adhesive, involved predictably small individual damages, and allegedly formed part of a scheme to extract small sums from many consumers. This finding triggered the self-destruction clause, voiding the arbitration agreement entirely, and the court rejected arguments that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted the unconscionability analysis.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a law firm's appeal of a magistrate judge's order in a grand jury investigation of a marine vessel for potential violations of U.S. anti-dumping and environmental laws. The magistrate had appointed temporary individual conflict counsel for four crew members designated as material witnesses, all of whom were represented by the same firm, to assess possible conflicts of interest in the joint representation. The district court denied the appeals of both the appointment order and the denial of a stay, holding that the magistrate properly exercised discretion to inquire into conflicts in order to protect the witnesses without disqualifying counsel. The court found the decision supported by concerns underlying Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c) and relevant case law on judicial inquiries into conflicts, even though the rule does not directly apply to grand jury witnesses.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves federal criminal charges against defendant John J. Hamilton Jr. for conspiracy and attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act, bribery, making false statements to an FBI agent, and attempted witness tampering. Before his retrial, the government moved to exclude evidence that Hamilton had twice offered to take a polygraph examination during interviews with agents. The court ruled the 2002 offer admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 because it was relevant to his state of mind on the false-statements count and any prejudice could be cured by a limiting instruction, but excluded the 2005 offer as irrelevant.

criminal lawprocedure

Everett Laboratories sued Breckenridge Pharmaceutical for infringing claims of two patents covering compositions and methods for nutritional supplementation for pregnant or lactating women by selling a competing prenatal multivitamin product. Everett moved for a preliminary injunction to halt sales of the accused product pending resolution of the case. The court granted the motion, determining that Everett showed a likelihood of success on the merits because infringement was undisputed and Breckenridge's invalidity defenses lacked substantial merit, that Everett would suffer irreparable harm through price erosion and loss of market share, that the balance of hardships favored Everett, and that the public interest supported enforcement of patent rights.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In Watkins v. Weber, the plaintiff brought a § 1983 action alleging that public defender defendants violated his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel during his criminal prosecution for unlawful possession of a gun and controlled dangerous substance, including claims of inadequate representation and conspiracy with prosecutors. The public defender defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that they were not acting under color of state law and that plaintiff failed to show conspiracy, rights violations, or damages; plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The court granted summary judgment, reasoning that public defenders and pool attorneys do not act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes absent specific evidence of conspiracy with state actors, and that plaintiff had not demonstrated prejudice from the alleged conduct.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Jake Brahm, who was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1038 for posting a false message on a website claiming that dirty bombs would detonate at NFL stadiums in seven U.S. cities on October 22, 2006. Brahm moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, and also sought additional discovery. The court denied the motion, holding that the phrase "may reasonably be believed" in the statute is not vague as it employs an objective reasonable person standard, that Brahm had standing to challenge it under the First Amendment, and that he was not entitled to the requested discovery under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.

criminal lawfree speech

Plaintiffs Altana Pharma AG and Wyeth sued Teva Pharmaceuticals and Sun Pharmaceutical for infringement of claims 22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 4,758,579, which covers the compound pantoprazole used in the proton pump inhibitor drug Protonix for treating gastrointestinal disorders. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from marketing generic versions during patent litigation. After reviewing the parties' arguments and evidence, including issues of patent obviousness during prosecution and the adequacy of showing irreparable harm, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not carried their burden on the required factors for injunctive relief, such as likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a state inmate, Shaun Gourdine, who filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations related to bail but failed to pay the $350 filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, including the required six-month inmate trust account statement. The court explained the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which mandates that prisoners seeking in forma pauperis status provide an affidavit of indigence and account statement, pay the full fee over time through deductions, and face potential dismissal if the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim. Plaintiff had also submitted multiple other complaints with similar deficiencies. The court denied the in forma pauperis application without prejudice, administratively terminated the case without filing the complaint or assessing fees, and allowed the plaintiff 30 days to reopen the case by submitting a complete application or the filing fee.

civil rightsprocedure

The case Engers v. AT&T concerns ERISA claims brought by former AT&T management employees challenging the company's 1997-1998 conversion of its defined-benefit pension plan from a traditional pay-base averaging formula to a cash-balance formula, along with related disclosure and fiduciary-duty issues in plan documents such as the summary plan description. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims (three, four, five, six, seven, ten, and eleven), while defendants cross-moved on claims three through seven. The court denied plaintiffs' motion in full, including on two newly added claims that were not yet part of the operative complaint at the time of filing, and granted defendants' motion in part while denying it in part. Core reasoning addressed the timing of amended pleadings, the proper categorization of statutory versus fiduciary claims under ERISA §§ 102 and 404, and the absence of evidence showing inadequate disclosures or active concealment.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Kushner, media organizations sought to intervene and obtain access to sentencing memoranda and approximately 750 letters submitted on behalf of a prominent defendant who had pled guilty to tax fraud, witness retaliation, and false statements to the FEC. The court granted the motion to intervene and allowed access to the sentencing memoranda and any letters that the court explicitly relies upon or discusses during sentencing, while denying access to the remaining letters to protect the personal privacy of the letter writers and third parties mentioned. The core reasoning balanced the common-law presumption of public access to judicial records against countervailing privacy interests, drawing on First Amendment precedents regarding access to criminal proceedings and distinguishing sentencing letters from confidential presentence reports. The court also permitted limited redactions for sensitive information such as ongoing investigations or grand jury matters.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

In Sarbak v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., the plaintiff, a former employee, filed suit alleging workplace discrimination on the basis of national origin, ancestry, and sex, claiming a hostile work environment and constructive discharge. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay the federal proceeding, relying on three documents the plaintiff had signed at the start of her employment that required binding arbitration of all employment-related disputes, including claims under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes. The district court granted the motion, holding that the arbitration provisions were clear, unambiguous, and enforceable, that the plaintiff had knowingly agreed to them, and that no conflicting provisions or other barriers prevented arbitration of the statutory claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved investors Patrick and Laura Goggins who sued Alliance Capital Management, the Alliance Premier Growth Fund, and related officers, alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs claimed that the fund's prospectus and other statements about its investment and research strategies were materially false or misleading because the fund's portfolio manager negligently purchased hundreds of millions of dollars in Enron stock despite warning signs, leading to roughly $900 million in losses when the holdings were sold in November 2001. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims for failure to file within the applicable limitations period. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of potential claims by late 2001 at the latest, based on numerous publicly available articles from 2000 and 2001 detailing Enron's questionable accounting practices, insider selling, and other red flags, which the complaint itself referenced as sources of information.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a patent infringement dispute in which plaintiff Grayzel alleged that defendants' Angio-Seal vascular closure device infringed claims 13, 14, and 16 of his '960 patent, which covered improvements to the modified Seldinger technique for inserting catheters into veins, including a beveled tip on the sheath and visible markings to indicate its position and orientation. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that the claims were invalid. The court granted the motion, holding the claims invalid as anticipated by prior art. The core reasoning was that earlier patents and publications, such as those by Koehn, Roehr, and others, already disclosed beveled sheaths for percutaneous vascular access and markings to show bevel orientation, rendering the claimed features not novel.

healthcareprocedure

This case involves an employment dispute in which plaintiff Thomas Seltzer, after being terminated from his position at I.C. Optics Ltd. (ICO Ltd.), sued the company along with its Italian parent, I.C. Optics S.p.A. (ICO SpA), and others for breach of contract, wrongful termination, age discrimination under New Jersey law, and related claims. ICO SpA moved to dismiss the complaint against it for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The court granted the motion, finding that ICO SpA maintained a separate corporate identity from its New Jersey subsidiary, with insufficient minimum contacts in the forum state to support jurisdiction. The court further reasoned that the parent did not exert day-to-day control over the subsidiary sufficient to attribute the subsidiary's contacts to it, and that fairness considerations weighed against exercising jurisdiction over the foreign defendant.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Lalit K. Chugh suing his former employer, Western Inventory Services, for alleged retaliatory discharge after he complained about sexual harassment by a coworker, claiming violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). Chugh had previously filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (DCR), which investigated and found no probable cause. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the NJLAD claim due to the plaintiff's election of an administrative remedy and preclusion by the DCR's findings, dismissed the § 1981 claim as barred by the two-year statute of limitations, and denied dismissal of the Title VII claim.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, three parents sued the Ridgewood Board of Education and school administrators on behalf of their minor children, alleging constitutional and statutory violations from the administration of a voluntary, anonymous student survey covering topics such as substance abuse, sexuality, family relationships, and criminal activity. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the survey was properly administered with parental notice and opt-out options. The court granted the motion in full, finding no credible evidence that the survey was mandatory or that students were compelled to participate, as directions emphasized voluntariness, parents received multiple notifications and opportunities to review the questions, and administrators consistently instructed staff to allow non-participation without penalty. The court distinguished the facts from prior cases involving mandatory surveys lacking confidentiality protections and noted that federal findings under the PPRA did not control the constitutional analysis.

civil rights

The case centered on a patent dispute in which Glaxo sued Dr. Reddy's for infringing patents on ondansetron formulations, and Reddy filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement on two additional patents known as the Winterborn patents. Kali Pharmaceuticals, another generic drug applicant, intervened to object to the parties' proposed stipulation for partial dismissal with prejudice that would incorporate a covenant not to sue. The court dismissed Reddy's declaratory judgment counterclaim without prejudice, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no actual controversy existed between Glaxo and Reddy regarding the Winterborn patents. The decision was based on the Declaratory Judgment Act's requirement of an immediate controversy and the principle that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

Mayflower Transit sued Brett Prince after he registered domain names incorporating the company's mark and posted a website criticizing his experience with an intra-state move handled by an affiliated agent, Lincoln Storage, which resulted in stolen property. The suit alleged violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, and state-law claims for libel and trade libel. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ACPA claim but denied it on the libel and trade libel claims, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion in full. The ACPA ruling rested on the absence of bad-faith intent to profit from the mark, whereas the defamation claims survived because genuine factual disputes existed regarding the falsity of the statements and the defendant's level of fault. The court also denied sanctions.

business & regulatoryfree speechtorts & liability