Rosemary S. Pooler

The case involved antitrust claims by merchants against American Express, challenging contractual arbitration clauses that included class-action waivers on the ground that the high costs of individual arbitration would prevent effective pursuit of federal statutory remedies. A Second Circuit panel held the waivers unenforceable, and an active judge requested rehearing en banc; after a poll, the court denied that request. Judge Pooler’s concurrence explained that the panel’s decision rested on the Supreme Court’s Mitsubishi and Green Tree line of cases requiring that arbitration agreements permit vindication of federal statutory rights—an issue distinct from the state-law preemption analysis in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. Dissenting opinions contended that the panel ruling conflicted with Concepcion, created a circuit split, and warranted further review.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved multiple plaintiffs who purchased uncompleted condominium units from defendant developers and sought to revoke their contracts under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) for lack of required property disclosures. The developers argued that the sales qualified for ILSA's 100-lot exemption, which they claimed should be assessed once 100 or more nonexempt lots in the subdivision had been sold or could not be sold. The Second Circuit held that eligibility for the 100-lot exemption is instead determined at the time each purchaser signs the contract, entitling buyers to know then whether a property report is required. The court vacated the district courts' judgments in favor of the defendants and remanded for further proceedings, relying on the statute's text and purpose of providing timely consumer protections in land sales.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved antitrust claims by health plans, pharmacies, and other purchasers challenging a 1997 settlement between Bayer and Barr Laboratories in patent litigation over the drug Cipro. Under the agreement, Bayer paid Barr nearly $400 million to refrain from marketing a generic version until the patent expired. Following a panel decision that upheld the settlement under the precedent of In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, several plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc. The Second Circuit denied the petition because an active judge poll failed to produce a majority in favor of rehearing. The core reasoning was that the existing circuit precedent permitted reverse-payment settlements unless the underlying patent suit was shown to be fraudulent or objectively baseless.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved Warren Green, who was convicted of possessing a weapon and marijuana while in prison and received a sentence that included three years of supervised release. As a special condition, the district court barred him from associating with members of the Bloods or other criminal street gangs and from wearing their colors, insignia, or obtaining related tattoos. On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed the condition for plain error and held that the prohibition on wearing gang colors or insignia was unconstitutionally vague because it provided no specific guidance on prohibited items. The court therefore vacated that portion of the condition and remanded for further proceedings, while noting that Green had lacked notice of the full terms at his oral sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing a town and its official under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds due to factual issues, and later issued a clarification order addressing unrelated Monell and damages questions. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal more than four months after the immunity ruling. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requires notices of appeal in civil cases to be filed within 30 days and that an order clarifying non-immunity issues does not restart the clock for an interlocutory qualified immunity appeal.

civil rightsprocedurefree speech

The case concerns Timothy Watson's application for conscientious objector status and discharge from the Army, which the Department of the Army Conscientious Objector Review Board (DACORB) denied without providing an adequate statement of reasons. A Second Circuit panel held that where the DACORB fails to adequately explain a denial, a district court must generally remand the matter to the Army for a proper statement unless remand would be utterly futile because no possible basis in fact supports the decision. The full court denied rehearing en banc, reasoning that the panel's narrow holding applies only to the infrequently invoked DACORB process, adheres to established administrative remand principles, and does not raise questions of exceptional importance or threaten uniformity of precedent.

religious libertycivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Nashua Corporation, the current owner of a tape manufacturing facility in Watervliet, New York, and Norton Company, the previous owner from the 1930s to 1974, over liability for solvent contamination in the soil and groundwater. Nashua sued under CERCLA and RCRA, alleging that leaks from Norton's underground solvent lines in the 1960s and subsequent activities caused the pollution, seeking recovery of cleanup costs. The court found that while Nashua contributed to the contamination through its own operations, Norton's massive releases were the primary source, leading to the decision that Norton is responsible for 90% of Nashua's response and cleanup costs. The reasoning centered on evidence from investigations showing the extent and origin of the contamination, along with allocation of liability under federal environmental statutes.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

Montauk Bus Company sued the Utica City School District and related parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law after the district terminated its student transportation contract, alleging that officials schemed to favor local bidders, imposed improper requirements, spread false information to undermine financing and performance, and breached the agreement. The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that Montauk failed to state a federal claim. The court held that even assuming a property interest in the short-term commercial contract, the allegations did not implicate interests fundamental enough to support a substantive due process violation, as the contract was limited to two school years and involved ordinary business expectations rather than core personal liberties. With all federal claims dismissed, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and counterclaims.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns a petition by the NLRB regional director under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act seeking temporary injunctive relief against Landis Plastics for alleged unfair labor practices during a union organizing drive, including claims of employee discharges and interference. The court denied Landis's motion for reconsideration of a prior order, denied its motion to strike the union's appearance, and ruled on the petition's merits. It applied a deferential reasonable-cause standard favoring the NLRB, considered whether relief was just and proper based on irreparable harm to workers, and determined that affidavit evidence showed no material factual disputes requiring additional discovery or an evidentiary hearing. The court granted the requested injunction, ordering Landis to cease the practices, reinstate two employees, and post notices, while noting that the underlying administrative proceedings would ultimately decide the merits.

labor & employmentfederal power

In Proctor v. Vadlamudi, a prisoner at Marcy Correctional Facility sued Dr. Vadlamudi and the facility after injuring his thumb, alleging that the medical treatment he received violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiff claimed ongoing pain and inadequate care following an x-ray that showed no broken bones, including wrapping the thumb, antibiotics, and follow-up visits, but did not pursue the prison grievance process. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), approving the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The facility was dismissed based on sovereign immunity, and the claim against the doctor was dismissed for failure to state a constitutional violation, as the allegations amounted only to a disagreement with the chosen treatment method rather than deliberate indifference. The court also noted that the exhaustion requirement under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act did not apply retroactively to this pre-1996 complaint.

civil rightscriminal law

In Martuzas v. Reynolds, an inmate serving five to fifteen years after pleading guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to seek early recusal and representation of other defendants from the same investigation, that the trial judge should have recused, and that the court should have permitted withdrawal of the plea. The district court denied the petition, adopting the magistrate judge's findings. The court explained that a guilty plea generally bars later attacks on prior constitutional issues unless the plea was not knowing and voluntary, and held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's actions or that the plea lacked voluntariness, since the sentencing range was explained and understood.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a prisoner who sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that officials at the Albany County Correctional Facility violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him medical treatment for a leg issue. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claim amounted to medical malpractice at most, which is not actionable under Section 1983. The plaintiff failed to respond to the motion despite being granted an extension, leading the magistrate judge to recommend dismissal, which the district court adopted, resulting in the action being dismissed.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcareprocedure

This case involves the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking to amend its petition and resume proceedings for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Landis Plastics, Inc., based on alleged unfair labor practices during a union organizing campaign. The court granted the NLRB's motion to amend the petition and resume the proceedings after a settlement agreement broke down. The decision was based on the liberal standard for amending pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), finding no undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice to the respondent, and noting that the NLRB has authority to set aside the settlement for non-compliance. The court also denied Landis's requests for additional discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the motion.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Donovan v. Eastern Milk Producers Cooperative Ass'n, plaintiff Michael Donovan sued his former employer and two board members for breach of his employment contract and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and New York Human Rights Law after the board terminated him at age 57 and replaced him with a 41-year-old. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed on whether Donovan was qualified for his position and whether the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination, including evidence of his prior contract renewals, satisfactory performance reviews, and comments about seeking a younger manager. The court granted in part Donovan's cross-motion, dismissing several of the defendants' affirmative defenses to the extent they were inconsistent with the analysis of liability and the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Parents of a disabled preschooler sued New York state education officials (along with local school and county defendants) under the federal IDEA, alleging that a state policy barring funding for unapproved preschools prevented the child from receiving a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The state defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that no justiciable case or controversy existed between them and the plaintiffs. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against the state defendants, holding that the parents could not demonstrate causation or redressability because the challenged placement decisions were made by local officials and the state review officer, the child had since aged out of preschool, and any declaratory or injunctive relief would not benefit him.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Pelicia Bordeaux alleged that officers from the Central New York Drug Enforcement Task Force violated her Fourth Amendment rights by searching her luggage and arresting her at the Syracuse bus station based on suspicions of drug possession, leading to her conviction that was later overturned on state appeal. The defendants, including municipalities, the county sheriff, and individual officers Lynch and Toomey, moved for dismissal or summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to the City of Syracuse, Onondaga County, the Onondaga County Sheriff, and the officers in their individual capacities. The core reasoning was that the officers' actions, even if they violated the Fourth Amendment, were protected by qualified immunity, and the municipalities were not liable; the court also noted that Bordeaux had abandoned any privacy interest in the searched bag by denying ownership.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

ONBANCorp, a bank holding company, sued shareholder Seymour Holtzman under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that his press release, cartoon, and shareholder proposal for the 1997 annual meeting constituted materially false and misleading proxy solicitations. The bank sought a preliminary injunction requiring corrective disclosures and barring future violations of the Act's filing and disclosure rules. The court denied the motion, holding that ONBANCorp failed to demonstrate any likelihood of irreparable injury to the corporation or its shareholders from the materials issued or anticipated before trial. The decision rested on the absence of evidence that shareholders would be misled in any way that could not be remedied after a full hearing on the merits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves the Sherrells seeking reconsideration of a district court decision that upheld the bankruptcy court's dismissal of their adversary claims against Fleet Bank for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the Sherrells' motions for reconsideration, a writ of mandamus, and an order to show cause. The court reasoned that the bankruptcy trustee's abandonment of the legal claims removed them from the estate and the court's jurisdiction irrevocably under the Bankruptcy Code, that the June 1996 letter and conversion motion presented no new controlling matters that would alter the prior ruling, and that the requirements for mandamus relief were not satisfied. Issues raised in the order to show cause were deemed already addressed or inconsequential.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Georgiann Alfano, a corrections officer, sued her employers and supervisors at the New York State Department of Correctional Services, alleging multiple instances of sexual discrimination and harassment under Title VII as well as related state-law claims such as emotional distress and defamation. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims against individual defendants not named in the prior EEOC complaint due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, dismissing certain allegations as time-barred under the statute of limitations, dismissing other allegations for failure to state a claim, and dismissing all Title VII claims seeking individual liability against the remaining defendants. The court applied the Rule 12(c) standard equivalent to a 12(b)(6) motion, accepting the complaint's allegations as true while evaluating whether they could support relief under applicable legal requirements.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a prisoner's civil rights complaint alleging a due process violation from insufficient evidence in a disciplinary hearing that resulted in 90 days of punitive segregation. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Sandin v. Conner, arguing the confinement was not an atypical and significant deprivation creating a liberty interest. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, interpreting Sandin to either preserve prior due process analysis for certain punishments or require factual development. Upon de novo review, the court agreed that Sandin does not eliminate the need to assess state-created liberty interests under Hewitt v. Helms alongside the atypical hardship test, and that the plaintiff's allegations stated a valid claim. The court therefore denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings and referred the case for further scheduling.

criminal lawcivil rights