Colleen McMahon

This case arose from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of the law firm Coudert Brothers, where the plan administrator (DSI) sued multiple law firms in adversary proceedings asserting 'unfinished business' claims under New York partnership and contract law to recover fees earned on matters handled by former Coudert partners after they joined the defendant firms, plus a fraudulent conveyance claim against one defendant. The defendants moved to withdraw the bankruptcy reference to district court and for abstention in favor of state court proceedings. The district court granted the motion to withdraw the reference, holding that the claims involve private rights that bankruptcy courts cannot finally adjudicate under Stern v. Marshall and related precedent, and that the proceedings are non-core or require district court oversight. It denied abstention, reasoning that the claims are not novel enough to warrant it, the three-year delay in seeking abstention undercut the request, and comity and efficiency did not favor state court resolution.

procedurefederal power

This case arose from the liquidation of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme under the Securities Investor Protection Act, where trustee Irving Picard brought avoidance and common-law damages claims against JPMorgan Chase entities and UBS-related defendants for allegedly facilitating or ignoring Madoff's misappropriation of customer funds. The common-law claims included aiding and abetting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and contribution, seeking billions in damages primarily on behalf of BMIS customers. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the common-law counts, leaving only certain avoidance claims. The core reasoning centered on the trustee's lack of standing to pursue customer claims (as opposed to injuries to the estate itself) and SLUSA preemption issues that required withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved the SEC's claims against defendants Rindner and Wovsaniker for alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with round-trip transactions involving AOL from 2000 to 2003. The SEC alleged primary liability under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act along with Rule 10b-5 for both misstatements and scheme liability. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders, which held that only those with ultimate authority over a statement can be liable for making it under Rule 10b-5(b), the court granted the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court reasoned that the defendants did not 'make' any misleading statements under the Janus standard, that the SEC had conceded this point for subsection (b) claims, and that the same 'maker' requirement and insufficient allegations of scheme liability applied equally to dismiss the parallel claims under Section 17(a) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c).

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Lawrence Guardino sued his former employer, the Village of Scarsdale Police Department, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging discriminatory termination after he left his post as a school crossing guard due to side effects from medication for his diverticulitis and COPD. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. It held that the NYSHRL claims were barred by the election of remedies provision because Guardino had previously filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. For the ADA claims, the court reasoned that Guardino failed to allege he was otherwise qualified for the position since remaining at his post was an essential function, no reasonable accommodation was proposed that would allow him to perform that function, and his termination was due to leaving his post rather than his disability.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves plaintiff Joseph Viti suing Guardian Life Insurance under ERISA for denying his claim for long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan, alleging mental disability from witnessing 9/11; Guardian denied the claim and refused to extend the six-month deadline for administrative appeal due to Viti's alleged incapacity. Viti sought a court order directing Guardian to hear his appeal, but the court addressed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on four causes of action, including issues of contractual statutes of limitations and exhaustion of remedies. The court granted dismissal of the third and fourth causes of action because Viti sued the wrong party for the wrong relief, denied cross-motions for summary judgment on those claims, and denied without prejudice the motions on the first two causes of action. It referred the matter for a hearing on whether equitable tolling could apply to extend the three-year limitations period for filing suit, noting that this issue remains unresolved in the circuit and depends on undeveloped facts.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between Marvel Comics and the heirs of artist Jack Kirby over ownership of copyrights in numerous comic books published from 1958 to 1963, including titles featuring the Fantastic Four, Hulk, and X-Men. The Kirby heirs served termination notices under 17 U.S.C. § 304(c) seeking to reclaim the copyrights, prompting Marvel to file suit for a declaration that the works were made for hire and thus owned by Marvel from the outset. The court granted Marvel's motion for summary judgment and denied the heirs' cross-motion, concluding that the works qualified as works made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1909 because they were created at Marvel's instance and expense. As a result, the termination notices were ineffective and Marvel retained ownership of the copyrights.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case stems from the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme and the ensuing SIPA liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS), in which trustee Irving Picard sued JPMorgan Chase entities for allegedly ignoring red flags and facilitating the fraud while serving as BMIS's primary bank. The complaint asserted clawback claims under bankruptcy and SIPA law to recover about $425 million in payments, plus non-bankruptcy claims seeking an additional $5.4 billion in damages for aiding and abetting fraud and related torts. JPMorgan moved under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court. The district court granted the motion, holding that the action raised substantial questions of federal non-bankruptcy law—specifically trustee standing under SIPA and SLUSA preemption of state-law claims—that warranted adjudication in district court, and that the motion was timely filed shortly after the complaint.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved defendants charged with participating in a terrorism-related plot who renewed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming the government's use of a confidential informant in a sting operation created the criminal scheme through inducements like large cash offers and thus amounted to outrageous misconduct violating due process. The court denied the motion after de novo review of the evidence. It held that Second Circuit precedent requires government conduct to shock the conscience when viewed standing alone, regardless of how much it induced the defendants or their predisposition (a separate issue resolved by the jury on entrapment), and that even elaborate stings do not meet this high bar. The opinion surveyed relevant Supreme Court and circuit cases establishing that such claims rarely succeed and that the facts here, including the informant's offers and the defendants' responses, fell short of the constitutional threshold.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved Verizon's appeal of a bankruptcy court order confirming FairPoint's Chapter 11 reorganization plan, which included an injunction barring Verizon from pursuing certain non-derivative claims against third parties that could adversely affect FairPoint's estate. The district court affirmed the confirmation order, holding that the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the injunction under Second Circuit precedent in In re Johns-Manville Corp. The court further ruled that Verizon's alternative arguments challenging the injunction's factual prerequisites were equitably moot because the plan had been substantially consummated and Verizon had not obtained a stay. The decision rested on the plan's impact on the bankruptcy estate and the equities of allowing consummation to proceed without challenge.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involves a contract dispute between 4Kids Entertainment and Upper Deck over three agreements (the Huntik Term Sheet, Huntik Production Agreement, and Dinosaur King Production Agreement) concerning licensing, broadcasting, and production of animated children's television series, with claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and related theories, plus a counterclaim by Upper Deck. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, awarding judgment to plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim under the Dinosaur King Production Agreement for unpaid amounts and authorizing related attorneys' fees, while finding defendants fully complied with the Huntik Production Agreement and dismissing all claims related to it. The court also dismissed plaintiffs' quasi-contract claims on the Huntik Term Sheet, all duplicative quasi-contract and implied covenant claims across the agreements under New York law, and deemed the counterclaim administratively closed due to the plaintiffs' Chapter 11 bankruptcy stay. Remaining issues, including damages on the Huntik Term Sheet breach, were reserved for later determination. The core reasoning relied on undisputed facts showing contractual compliance or duplication of remedies, with the court searching the record to grant relief to the non-moving party where appropriate.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Bermudez v. City of New York, NYPD officer Monica Bermudez sued the City and several fellow officers, alleging employment discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation based on her gender, race, and religion under federal and local civil rights laws. The court granted motions to dismiss all claims against defendants Neusch, Diaz, Croke, and Bax, dismissed numerous claims against Smith, Sanabria, and Stroman primarily due to the statute of limitations or insufficient allegations, but allowed certain claims such as sexual harassment and hostile work environment to proceed against Smith, Sanabria, and Stroman. It denied qualified immunity to those defendants on the surviving claims and declined to dismiss the claims against the City at this stage. The reasoning centered on accepting the plaintiff's factual allegations as true for dismissal motions, evaluating timeliness under statutes of limitations, and determining that qualified immunity did not apply where constitutional violations were plausibly alleged.

civil rightslabor & employmentreligious liberty

In United States v. Cherico, the defendant was indicted in August 2008 on charges including a 2002 bank fraud conspiracy (with a 10-year statute of limitations) and 2003 counts of obstructing justice and money laundering (with a 5-year statute of limitations); the indictment was sealed until February 2010 due to related ongoing grand jury investigations involving other defendants. Cherico moved to dismiss the obstruction and money laundering counts, arguing the sealing was improper and the charges were time-barred when unsealed, and to dismiss the entire indictment on Sixth Amendment speedy trial grounds due to the delay and lost witnesses. The court denied both motions, holding that the government had valid reasons to seal the indictment and did not delay unreasonably in unsealing it, that all charges were filed within their respective limitations periods, and that the post-unsealing delay did not violate speedy trial rights because Cherico had consented to time exclusions and failed to assert his rights promptly. The decision rested on precedents allowing sealing for investigative needs and the Barker v. Wingo factors, with the trial set for April 2011.

criminal lawprocedure

This diversity case arose from a failed Mango clothing franchise in Washington operated by plaintiff JM Vidal, Inc. under agreements with defendants Texdis USA, Inc. and Distex, Inc. The franchisee asserted claims for violations of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act and New York Franchise Sales Act, breach of the franchise agreement and implied covenant of good faith, and fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation based on alleged disclosure failures, sales projections, advertising shortfalls, and merchandise delivery issues. The court granted defendants' summary judgment motion in part, dismissing the New York claims as inapplicable, barring certain Washington statutory claims as time-barred, and rejecting misrepresentation claims for lack of reasonable reliance due to contract disclaimers, while denying summary judgment on the remaining Washington good-faith, contract, and related claims; it denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the statutory claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves investors in feeder funds that invested with Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme suing the funds' managers and advisors, including Ivy Asset Management, Jeanneret Associates, and others, for securities fraud and related claims. The court granted the accounting firm's motion to dismiss entirely, denied the Jeanneret defendants' motion to dismiss federal securities claims, and partially granted and denied the Ivy defendants' similar motion, while handling state law claims consistently with a prior ruling in a related case. The decisions rely on analysis of allegations regarding knowledge of the fraud, disclosure duties under securities laws, and precedents from similar Madoff-related litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedurecriminal law

This case involves competing sellers of bottled pomegranate juice, Pom Wonderful LLC and Organic Juice USA, Inc., each accusing the other of false or deceptive advertising under federal and state law. Pom claims Organic Juice sells adulterated juice falsely labeled as 100% pure, while Organic Juice counterclaims that Pom conceals that its juice is made from concentrate, adds elderberry concentrate, makes unsubstantiated health claims, and uses misleading ads and a promotional video that omit key production details. The court denied Pom's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings regarding amended counterclaims. The core reasoning was that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding consumer deception and whether the ads were literally false by necessary implication, preventing resolution without trial, and that prior rulings already found the amended claims viable. The court also granted Organic Juice fees for the frivolous dismissal motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Rex Medical's motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Angiotech from terminating a 2008 License, Supply, Marketing, and Distribution Agreement for the Option Retrievable Vena Cava Filter medical device, which Angiotech had exclusive rights to market and sell worldwide until 2015. The court granted the injunction in aid of arbitration. It reasoned that Angiotech had no contractual basis for unilateral termination because none of the specified conditions (material breach by Rex, loss of patent protection, or Rex's bankruptcy) had occurred, and the injunction was needed to preserve the status quo pending arbitration of the contract dispute. The order was conditioned on Rex posting a $100,000 bond and on the injunction expiring after 180 days.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Jean Louisaire, a lawful permanent resident from Haiti facing removal proceedings based on controlled substance convictions, who challenged his ongoing mandatory detention by ICE without access to a bond hearing under Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The district court granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, directing respondents to provide an individualized bond determination hearing within 10 days. The court's reasoning focused on the statute's temporal requirements for mandatory detention, concluding that they were not satisfied given the history of his releases, rearrests, and the stage of his removal proceedings.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

In this maritime case, plaintiff Richard Messier, a seaman employed by defendant Bouchard Transportation, sought maintenance and cure under general maritime law for B-cell lymphoma after dropping his Jones Act negligence claim. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on whether an asymptomatic illness contracted during ship service but diagnosed over a month after disembarkation qualifies for benefits, with the plaintiff also moving to amend his complaint. The court denied the plaintiff's motions, granted the defendant's cross-motion, and dismissed the case, holding that maintenance and cure requires the disease to manifest during the seaman's service. The core reasoning centered on the traditional admiralty rule that an illness must become symptomatic or apparent while the seaman is in the service of the ship, rejecting the argument that latent contraction alone suffices even if undisputed medical evidence showed the condition predated the end of service.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerns a copyright dispute between Marvel and the heirs of artist Jack Kirby over whether Kirby's contributions to comic books such as The Fantastic Four and X-Men were works made for hire. Marvel sought a declaratory judgment that the 2009 termination notices served by Kirby's children under 17 U.S.C. § 304(c) were invalid, while the Kirbys counterclaimed for declarations on the notices' validity, future profit division, plus claims for conversion, breach of contract, and a Lanham Act violation. The court granted the motion to dismiss the second through fifth counterclaims but denied dismissal of the first counterclaim and of Disney and Marvel Entertainment as parties. It reasoned that the primary counterclaim was not merely the mirror image of Marvel's claim and that the corporate defendants were appropriate for declaratory relief regarding the 1972 copyright grants and subsequent corporate transactions.

propertyprocedure

This case involves multiple class-action lawsuits brought by consumers against online travel companies including Hotels.com, Expedia, Priceline, Travelocity, and Orbitz, alleging deceptive practices, breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty related to undisclosed mark-ups on hotel room rates and overcharges for occupancy taxes under the merchant model of reservations. The court addressed motions to dismiss and one motion to transfer based on a forum-selection clause. It granted the transfer of the Travelocity case to the Northern District of Texas, dismissed most claims across the suits for failure to adequately plead violations or because they were governed by other states' laws, but allowed two specific claims to proceed: one under New York General Business Law § 349 against Hotels.com and a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against Priceline. The decisions turned on the sufficiency of the complaints under pleading standards, choice-of-law analyses, and contractual forum provisions, with similar treatment indicated for a related Orbitz case.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability