Loretta A. Preska

This case involved motions by defendants in adversary proceedings stemming from the liquidation of British Virgin Islands investment funds that had placed assets with Bernard Madoff's firm. The funds' foreign representatives filed state-law claims in New York state courts, then removed them to federal bankruptcy court after obtaining Chapter 15 recognition of the BVI proceedings, prompting defendants to seek remand or abstention on grounds of lacking subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted leave to appeal and reversed the bankruptcy court's denial of the motions. It held that the claims, which rest on state or BVI law rather than arising under title 11, did not qualify for core bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and that mandatory abstention was required because the actions could be timely resolved in state court. The court further rejected related-to jurisdiction as insufficient to override abstention rules in these circumstances.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suing Bloomberg L.P. on behalf of a class of female employees, alleging a pattern or practice of sex and pregnancy discrimination under Title VII through reduced pay, demotions, fewer responsibilities, and exclusion from meetings for pregnant workers or those returning from maternity leave. The court granted Bloomberg's motion for summary judgment on the pattern-or-practice claim. The court reasoned that accusations alone were insufficient and the evidence did not show discrimination as Bloomberg's standard operating procedure, noting instead that the company increased compensation for women returning from maternity leave more than for employees taking comparable leaves and did not disproportionately reduce their responsibilities, with only isolated anecdotal incidents rather than statistical proof of systemic bias.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a class action by purchasers of digital music alleging that major record labels violated federal and state antitrust laws by conspiring to fix wholesale prices, licensing terms, and usage restrictions for Internet Music through joint ventures like MusicNet and pressplay, along with most-favored-nation clauses and digital rights management. The court addressed defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the Third Consolidated Amended Complaint following remand from the Second Circuit. It analyzed the Sherman Act claims under Twombly's plausibility standard, finding the allegations of collusion sufficient to proceed, while evaluating state-law claims under varying rules for indirect purchasers, dismissing some (such as certain Illinois claims) and allowing others from states with Illinois Brick repealers to continue based on the pleaded facts and applicable statutes.

business & regulatory

This case involves claims and counterclaims between USI Insurance Services and its former employee Jeffrey Miner, who left USI in 2010 to join a competitor, centering on alleged breaches of an employment agreement and an asset purchase agreement that included restrictive covenants, notice requirements, and non-solicitation provisions. The court addressed multiple cross-motions for partial summary judgment, granting USI's motion that Miner failed to provide required written notice under Section 4.2 before alleging compensation breaches, while also ruling on issues such as the enforceability of covenants not to solicit clients and whether Miner had improperly contacted former USI clients. The court applied New York law on contract interpretation, substantial compliance with notice clauses, and the protection of goodwill sold in the APA, finding that strict adherence to notice procedures was enforceable and that certain client contacts constituted solicitation. It denied or deferred other requests, including those on trade secret misappropriation and injunctive relief, due to factual disputes or insufficient evidence on confidentiality. The rulings were based on the agreements' explicit terms, precedents like Bessemer v. Lake Champlain, and the absence of genuine issues of material fact on the resolved issues.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved former members of the 1970s band the Bay City Rollers suing Arista Records for tens of millions in unpaid royalties allegedly due under a 1981 agreement. Arista raised an affirmative defense that the statute of limitations barred recovery for royalties accruing before 2001, while the plaintiffs argued that Arista had acknowledged the debt in writing under New York General Obligations Law Section 17-101, restarting the limitations period. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the limitations defense and denied Arista's cross-motion, after first addressing motions to strike certain unauthenticated or hearsay exhibits from Arista's summary judgment papers. The core reasoning centered on whether Arista's writings sufficiently acknowledged the debt to revive the claim and on the admissibility of evidence under the Federal Rules for summary judgment purposes.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a civil rights action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in which the plaintiffs, after obtaining a judgment against the Katonah-Lewisboro School District, moved for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred during the litigation. The court granted the motion in part and awarded $153,870.40 in attorneys' fees, $2,088.75 in paralegal fees, and $1,017.69 in expenses. The court first confirmed that the plaintiffs qualified as prevailing parties under the IDEA fee-shifting provision, then evaluated the reasonableness of the requested rates and hours by comparing them to prevailing market standards for similar work and experience levels, and reduced the hours claimed by certain attorneys to account for administrative tasks, vague entries, and inefficient time spent on routine matters.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by environmental groups and a New York assemblyman to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s grant of an exemption allowing Entergy to use a one-hour fire-rated cable wrap instead of the three-hour barrier required by 10 C.F.R. Pt. 50, App. R, at the Indian Point nuclear plant. Plaintiffs argued that the agency’s Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact violated NEPA because an Environmental Impact Statement was required and that the exemption process itself was unlawful. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment on the administrative record and granted judgment to the NRC. It held that the record adequately supported the agency’s conclusion that the exemption would not significantly affect the environment, that defense-in-depth fire protection remained in place, and that the Atomic Energy Act permitted case-by-case exemptions when equivalent safety could be shown.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Community Trust Bank suing Merrill Lynch for alleged violations of federal securities laws and Kentucky state laws arising from the bank's 2006 purchase of $10 million in auction rate securities through a private placement. The plaintiff claimed Merrill Lynch failed to disclose its practice of placing support bids to prevent auction failures, thereby misrepresenting the liquidity of the ARS market, and that the market's 2008 collapse left the bank unable to sell most of its holdings. The court granted Merrill Lynch's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA for securities fraud claims, that certain alleged misrepresentations were not actionable or adequately pleaded as false, and that disclosures in the private placement memorandum and later SEC-related materials undermined reliance on earlier statements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between fragrance companies over the ownership and licensing of trademarks under a 2003 Licensing Agreement, including related loan agreements and consents from 2004 and 2007. Plaintiffs IMG and others alleged breach of contract, tortious interference, aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy against Houbigant and Sherman. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding that certain claims could proceed based on the terms of the agreements and the alleged unauthorized modifications, while dismissing others for failure to state a claim.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a mortgagee's request for a deficiency judgment after a judicial auction of a vessel failed to cover the full amount of a preferred ship's mortgage. The court held that the in personam defendant may be entitled to a fair value offset against the deficiency because the plaintiff's agent prevented potential bidders from verifying the vessel's operability, which may have depressed the sale price. The reasoning is that while judicial sale prices generally determine deficiencies in admiralty cases, equitable considerations allow adjustment when the mortgagee's conduct taints the process, such as by deterring higher bids. A trial will determine the vessel's fair market value on the sale date to set the proper deficiency amount.

propertyprocedure

In this case, the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District and the State of Louisiana sued Merrill Lynch entities for ten causes of action arising from the defendants' recommendation and underwriting of auction rate securities issued to refinance debt on the Louisiana Superdome. The plaintiffs alleged that Merrill failed to disclose conflicts of interest, its practice of placing support bids to prop up auctions, and an ongoing SEC investigation into its ARS practices, leading to auction failures and losses after the market collapsed in 2008. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. It held that claims predicated on pre-August 2007 nondisclosures were time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations but allowed claims based on post-disclosure conduct or other alleged misrepresentations to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the EEOC suing Bloomberg L.P. alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII after employees filed charges claiming bias following pregnancy announcements and maternity leave returns. Bloomberg moved for summary judgment on grounds of the EEOC's failure to adequately conciliate before suing and on claims it argued were time-barred under the 300-day filing deadline. The court denied in part and granted in part the conciliation motion, rejecting arguments about insufficient notice and investigation for discrimination claims but limiting some retaliation aspects, and granted the timeliness motion, finding most claims outside the statutory period without qualifying for exceptions like the Ledbetter Act or continuing violation doctrine based on the plain language of the filing requirements and lack of timely charges.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from a maritime collision in the Yellow Sea between the M/V Rickmers Genoa and another vessel, after which water entered a hold containing 600 tons of magnesium-based cargo (SS-89), triggering an explosion and fire that killed the chief officer and destroyed the cargo and damaged the ship. Cargo owners sued multiple parties, prompting vessel owner Rickmers to bring third-party claims against the cargo manufacturer ESMT and its parent ESM Group alleging strict liability for dangerous goods, failure to warn, negligence, and related theories. The court granted the manufacturers' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that Rickmers could not establish the elements of strict liability or negligence because it had received and mishandled information identifying the cargo's magnesium properties via the booking process, the manufacturers had no duty to provide additional warnings under the circumstances, and other claims such as breach of warranty or indemnification likewise failed on the record.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved parents of a student with disabilities, B.S., who sued the Katonah-Lewisboro School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) seeking tuition reimbursement for their unilateral placement of the child in a private day program at Maplewood School during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years. The court reviewed the administrative record and the decisions of the Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer, which had denied reimbursement on the grounds that the district's proposed Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the denial of reimbursement for 2006-2007 because the IEP was reasonably calculated to enable progress, but reversing for 2007-2008 on the basis that the IEP failed to account for the student's demonstrated needs and progress after the prior year and thus did not offer a FAPE. Equitable factors, including the parents' cooperation with the district's process, supported reimbursement only for the second year.

civil rights

The case concerned a product liability lawsuit brought by Jeanette and Hugh Gelber against Stryker Corporation and related entities, alleging injuries from a defective Trident ceramic hip replacement system implanted in 2004, including claims for failure to warn, manufacturing defects, inadequate testing, and breach of warranties. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that the claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 and failed to meet pleading standards. The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that the state-law claims were preempted under Riegel v. Medtronic because they imposed requirements different from or in addition to federal regulations and were not properly pleaded as parallel claims, while the remaining claims also lacked sufficient factual allegations under Twombly regarding defects, causation, or reliance on any warranty.

business & regulatoryhealthcarefederal powertorts & liability

In this case, plaintiffs Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Washington Square Legal Services submitted multiple FOIA requests to the CIA seeking records on the identity, location, transport, and treatment of unregistered or "ghost" detainees, including interrogation methods and policies. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the CIA's search for responsive records was adequate and whether its invocations of FOIA exemptions and Glomar responses were proper. The court held that the CIA's search was adequate except regarding records on the "attention grasp" technique, and that most exemptions and Glomar responses were justified under FOIA provisions protecting national security and other interests. The reasoning relied on agency declarations, a Vaughn index, and case law establishing that agencies need only conduct searches reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents and may withhold records falling within enumerated exemptions. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved General Star National Insurance seeking to enforce an Ohio default judgment from a reinsurance contract dispute against Romanian entities by obtaining a writ of execution in New York against the Romanian Bank of Foreign Trade and its successors-in-interest, on the theory that they were alter egos of the Romanian government under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court denied the motion for the writ. It reasoned that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient evidence that the bank or successors were extensively controlled by or agents of the Romanian government at the time of the judgment or the alter-ego finding, and thus could not pierce the corporate veil to reach their assets.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

Parents M.H. and E.K. sued the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, challenging the DOE's IEP placement for their autistic son as both procedurally and substantively inappropriate and seeking reimbursement for private-school tuition. After state administrative hearings and an appeal, the district court conducted a modified de novo review of the administrative record on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted the parents' motion and denied the DOE's, finding that the proposed public placement failed to meet the IDEA's standards for a free appropriate public education tailored to the child's needs. The decision rested on evidence that the IEP did not adequately address the child's academic, social, and behavioral requirements or provide sufficient mainstreaming opportunities.

civil rightsprocedure

Plaintiff Muench Photography, Inc. sued publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and printer R.R. Donnelly for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, alleging that the defendants exceeded the scope of limited licenses for approximately 180 photographs by reproducing and distributing them beyond the permitted terms. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the photographs were not properly registered with the Copyright Office, and the court converted the motion to one for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, denying it as to twenty photographs that had been individually registered by photographer David Muench. For the remaining images, the court examined whether registrations of automated databases by Corbis, which held temporary title solely for registration purposes under agreements with the photographers, validly covered the individual contributions despite listing Corbis and others as authors rather than the Muenches or MPI.

propertyprocedure

Plaintiff Frank Brandon sued the City of New York and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of his constitutional rights during his 2006 arrest and prosecution for crack cocaine possession, including false arrest, unlawful strip search, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and denial of a fair trial. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(e) regarding the strip search and certain constitutional claims, and for summary judgment under Rule 56 on the remaining claims. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing the false arrest and fair trial claims because the plaintiff failed to timely substitute named officers for the John Doe defendants within the three-year statute of limitations, while permitting the malicious prosecution claim to continue since its limitations period had not yet expired.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure