In Anderson v. City of New York, plaintiff Marvin Anderson sued the City of New York and police officers for false arrest, malicious prosecution, an illegal strip search, and related federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, plus state tort claims, all arising from his 2005 arrest at a hospital after an altercation with a security guard. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied the motion as to the false arrest claims against the individual officers and the City, the malicious prosecution claims against the officers, and the First Amendment retaliation claim against the officers, due to disputed facts on probable cause and the officers' conduct. The court granted summary judgment on the remaining claims, including the strip search, equal protection, and Section 1985 claims, as well as certain claims against the City, because of insufficient evidence or failure to properly plead the claims.
The case involved the Estate of Duke Ellington suing Harbrew Imports Ltd. and Iconic Brands, Inc. for unauthorized use of the Duke Ellington name and registered trademarks in marketing and selling "Duke Ellington XO Cognac," claiming violations of the Lanham Act sections 43(a) and 43(c) along with related New York state claims for unfair competition and dilution. After the defendants' counsel withdrew, they defaulted and failed to prosecute their counterclaims or third-party complaints. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after finding no clear error and no objections were filed, granting the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $325,000 in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), issuing a permanent injunction against further use of the trademarks, and dismissing the defendants' counterclaims and third-party complaints with prejudice.
In this case, plaintiff Mary Lodge sued various parties alleging she was targeted based on her race in a property-flipping scheme and deceived into buying an overvalued home with predatory loans; the Bayview Defendants, successors to the mortgage servicer and holder, asserted a holder-in-due-course defense to the mortgage claims. Lodge moved to strike that defense under Rules 56 and 37, citing the defendants' repeated inaccurate and conflicting statements about mortgage ownership, failure to produce requested discovery on securitization and transfers, and resulting prejudice from late disclosures. The court denied the motion to strike the defense but sanctioned the Bayview Defendants by ordering them to pay the plaintiff's costs and fees incurred in discovery and related motions on the defense, and by precluding evidence produced after January 13, 2011, along with related testimony. The reasoning centered on the defendants' discovery violations and misrepresentations under Rule 37, which caused prejudice warranting compensation and evidentiary limits without fully eliminating the defense.
In McDonald v. City of New York, plaintiff Joseph McDonald, a DOT employee with a herniated disc injury from a 2004 car accident, sued the City and DOT under the ADA alleging disability discrimination, failure to promote, failure to accommodate, and retaliation after he was placed on limited duty, denied certain assignments, and ultimately terminated under New York Civil Service Law §72 while seeking disability retirement. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in full. It found that McDonald had abandoned his failure-to-promote and retaliation claims by not addressing them in opposition, that his state and local claims were barred by election of remedies after he filed with the NYSDHR, and that he failed to raise a triable issue on his ADA claims regarding qualification for his position or discriminatory motive. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.
The case involves a four-count indictment charging defendants Courtney Dupree, Thomas Foley, and Rodney Watts with conspiracy to commit bank, mail, and wire fraud, bank fraud, and making false statements. The charges stem from allegations that, as officers of GDC Acquisitions and its subsidiaries, the defendants defrauded Amalgamated Bank and attempted to defraud C3 Capital by submitting false financial statements and inflated accounts receivable reports to obtain loans. The defendants moved for relief from the seizure of bank funds, to suppress evidence obtained via a search warrant at GDC's offices, and to dismiss the indictment due to alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The court denied all motions, finding the search warrant valid and executed in good faith under United States v. Leon, that the crime-fraud exception applied to certain privileged communications, and that no prosecutorial misconduct warranted dismissal.
The case involves a New York law firm specializing in attorney malpractice suits and its principal suing multiple attorneys, their firms, and three former clients under the federal RICO statute and New York state laws, alleging a corrupt scheme in which the defendants induced the former clients to file false malpractice claims that damaged the plaintiffs' business. The court granted the defendants' separate motions to dismiss all federal RICO claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint as futile, found the motions to disqualify counsel moot, and denied sanctions, all based on the insufficiency of the factual allegations in the 58-page amended complaint to support the RICO causes of action.
.jpg?width=900)