Kiyo A. Matsumoto

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.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

In this federal criminal case, defendant Sauri Morel was charged with importing and attempting to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of various federal statutes, based on events at JFK airport. The government moved in limine to bar the defense from introducing at trial the court's prior suppression order, the suppressed statements, and several declinations of prosecution involving Morel and other arrestees; the defense initially opposed but later withdrew opposition to some items while seeking to introduce circumstances of admissible statements and the fact that only Morel faced charges. The court granted the government's motion to preclude the suppression-related evidence and declinations of prosecution, but permitted the defense to present evidence of the circumstances surrounding any admissible post-arrest statements and to note that Morel was the sole individual prosecuted among those arrested. The core reasoning was that the defendant could challenge witness credibility consistent with the right to present a defense, while excluding material that risked jury confusion or prejudice, and the court directed proposed jury instructions on the limited permissible evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved twenty-one former Delta pilots who were forced to retire at age 60 under the FAA's Age 60 Rule between 2006 and 2007, after which Congress passed the non-retroactive Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act allowing pilots to fly until 65. The plaintiffs sued Delta, ALPA, and its president, alleging violations of the ADEA and OWBPA, breach of contract by ALPA, and breach of implied contract by Delta, based on the union's negotiations during Delta's bankruptcy and the failure to secure retroactive relief or return rights. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It reasoned that the ADEA claims failed because the mandatory retirement was required by then-existing federal law, that contract claims were preempted or barred under the Railway Labor Act due to lack of an independent duty or enforceable third-party beneficiary rights, and that there was no subject matter jurisdiction over duty of fair representation claims. The court also declined to allow further amendment.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

In this trademark and trade dress infringement case, luxury goods companies Montblanc-Simplo and related entities sued Colibri Corporation for manufacturing and selling pens that allegedly copied the protected design elements of their Starwalker pens. After the defendant defaulted, the court entered a permanent injunction limited to products matching the specific trade dress described in the complaint. Plaintiffs then moved under Rule 59(e) for reconsideration to broaden the injunction to cover Colibri Product Number GRB-4200, submitting a photo and arguing it created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the motion, holding that plaintiffs had not shown the product fell within the defined trade dress or satisfied the Polaroid factors for likelihood of confusion, as no supporting evidence on key elements like actual confusion or bad faith had been provided.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The United States brought a civil action against Archie J. Pugh, Jr. and Theodore Pugh, who operated Archie’s Tax and Accounting Service, seeking a permanent injunction barring them from preparing federal tax returns and from promoting a discredited “claim of right” tax-evasion scheme that falsely asserted wages are not taxable income under I.R.C. § 1341. After earlier default and preliminary injunction proceedings, the court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the defendants had repeatedly prepared returns containing the frivolous deduction, charged fees for the scheme, and knew or should have known that the positions lacked any realistic possibility of success on the merits, thereby violating penalty provisions in I.R.C. §§ 6694, 6695, 6700, and 6701. It concluded that injunctive relief under §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408 was warranted to prevent future violations of the internal revenue laws.

taxesfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs suing several international airlines for allegedly conspiring to fix prices on passenger fares and fuel surcharges for transatlantic flights between the United States and Europe from 2004 to 2006, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and alternatively under Rule 12(b)(1). The court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the case, holding that the complaint's allegations were insufficient to plausibly show an unlawful agreement because they centered on activities shielded by Department of Transportation antitrust immunity or failed to provide non-conclusory facts demonstrating a conspiracy.

business & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs, including a Wisconsin resident and a California travel agency, suing international airlines including Air France, KLM, Lufthansa, and United on behalf of a putative class. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices for transatlantic passenger fares and fuel surcharges between the United States, Germany, and other European Union destinations from August 2004 to June 2006, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, seeking injunctive relief and treble damages. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and alternatively under Rule 12(b)(1), with United also raising a bankruptcy discharge defense. The court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the case, holding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege an unlawful conspiracy because the defendants' participation in IATA tariff conferences and Global Alliances occurred under DOT antitrust immunity, and the remaining allegations of parallel conduct and surcharge discussions did not show an agreement to restrain trade.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Lisa Hall, an African-American female provisional employee at the New York City Department of Transportation, who sued her employer alleging employment discrimination under Title VII and New York State Executive Law based on race, gender, and age, as well as retaliation for filing internal and EEOC complaints. The claims centered on alleged failures to promote, denial of overtime, excessive scrutiny, and a hostile work environment involving derogatory remarks, physical incidents, and bathroom access issues from 2000 onward. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims for discrete discriminatory acts like failure to promote and overtime denial, but denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and retaliatory hostile work environment claims under both statutes. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie cases or rebut legitimate reasons for the dismissed claims, while she met her minimal burden to show severe or pervasive harassment and a causal link to protected activity for the surviving claims, with the defendant offering no adequate nondiscriminatory explanation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Seagate Logistics, an air freight forwarder, suing defendant Angel Kiss, an importer, for breach of contract over unpaid fees for four shipments of textile goods from Vietnam to California. Plaintiff sought a default judgment after the defendant failed to appear. The court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was below the diversity threshold, the claim did not arise under federal law or a treaty, and neither federal common law nor the Montreal Convention provided a basis for federal question jurisdiction over this non-performance contract dispute between non-carriers.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Faina Vinokur suing Sovereign Bank for employment discrimination under New York State Executive Law § 296 and New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107, alleging discrimination based on disability (rheumatoid arthritis), age, and national origin (Russian), as well as failure to provide reasonable accommodation and retaliation for requesting accommodation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in full, dismissing the action. The core reasoning was that the undisputed facts showed no evidence of discriminatory animus or adverse actions tied to protected characteristics, that the bank had accommodated prior leaves of absence, and that plaintiff's termination stemmed from her documented involvement in structuring transactions in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act and bank policy rather than any protected activity.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Capitol Awning Company sued Local 137 under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging that the union violated NLRA provisions 8(b)(4)(i) and 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by interfering with Capitol's contract to manufacture and install awnings for a J.P. Morgan Chase rebranding project. The dispute arose after Capitol's employees had organized with a different union, Local 955, rather than Local 137, leading to union communications and actions claiming the work for its members. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied Capitol's motion in full and granted Local 137's motion in part while denying it in part, based on the undisputed facts regarding the parties' interactions, the scope of any agreements reached, and whether the union's conduct constituted prohibited secondary activity.

labor & employment

In United States v. Ramirez, the defendant was charged with using a passport obtained through false statements, misusing a passport, and aggravated identity theft after presenting false documents upon arrival at JFK from the Dominican Republic. He moved to suppress statements made to Customs and Border Protection officers during primary and secondary inspections, as well as later questioning by an enforcement officer. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that statements to the first officer were admissible but those made to the second officer after an overnight delay must be suppressed. The reasoning centered on 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5, which require prompt presentment before a magistrate; the court determined the delay was unreasonable because it was primarily for further interrogation to build the criminal case rather than administrative processing. Credibility findings on the officers' testimony and the sequence of events supported distinguishing the two sets of statements.

criminal lawprocedureimmigration

This case involved trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement claims brought by Montblanc-Simplo GmbH and related companies against Colibri Corp., alleging that the defendant manufactured and sold products copying the designs of the Starwalker Pen and Panerai Luminor watches. After the defendant entered receivership and failed to participate in the litigation, plaintiffs moved for default judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting default judgment in part on the trade dress claims and issuing a permanent injunction against future infringement of those designs. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full after finding no clear error, noting the lack of any objections from the parties, and directed plaintiffs to submit a modified proposed injunction limited to the protected trade dress designs.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a seven-count superseding indictment charging four defendants with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, along with substantive counts of mail and wire fraud, stemming from alleged schemes to solicit investments in B.I.M. Mining Corporation by misrepresenting its mining assets and operations between 2003 and 2008. The court addressed multiple pretrial motions from the defendants, including requests for bills of particulars, striking surplusage from the indictment, precluding certain evidence of prior business ventures and convictions, severing the trials or excluding co-defendant statements, and ordering expert disclosures. The court granted the bills of particulars only as to the identities of unindicted co-conspirators and partially granted the motions regarding co-defendant statements by limiting their use, but denied the motions to strike, to sever trials, and to preclude most of the challenged evidence on grounds that it constituted direct evidence of the charged crimes or was otherwise admissible. It also denied the expert disclosure motion as moot based on the government's representations. The rulings were based on application of Federal Rules of Evidence, Criminal Procedure, and relevant case law to determine relevance, prejudice, and fairness in a joint trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was an individual action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in which plaintiff Liz Nero alleged that defendant Law Office of Sam Streeter sent her a debt-collection letter that omitted required information about disputing the debt in writing and that the firm misrepresented its legal status by attempting to collect debts in New York City without the required license. The defendant failed to answer or defend, resulting in entry of default. Based on the admitted facts, the court found violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g and 1692e and awarded plaintiff $500 in statutory damages plus $1,840 in attorneys’ fees and $415 in costs, applying the standards for default judgments and reasonable fees in the Eastern District of New York.

business & regulatory