Shira A. Scheindlin

This case involves a FOIA lawsuit brought by advocacy groups against ICE, DHS, and other federal agencies seeking records about the Secure Communities immigration enforcement program, particularly documents addressing whether state and local law enforcement agencies could opt out of participation. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment focused on the withholding of an October 2 Memorandum under FOIA Exemption 5, claiming deliberative process and attorney-client privileges. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and denied the defendants', ordering disclosure of the document. It reasoned that the Memorandum lost protection under the deliberative process privilege because it was post-decisional and had been adopted by the agency in shifting its policy position on opt-out, as evidenced by public statements and internal communications, and that attorney-client privilege did not apply due to failure to maintain confidentiality.

immigrationcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit by individuals against the City of New York and NYPD officers, alleging that the department's stop-and-frisk practices violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments through widespread suspicionless and race-based stops. The specific ruling addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of an earlier partial summary judgment that had dismissed claims arising from plaintiff David Floyd's February 2008 stop and frisk. The court granted the motion and reinstated those claims. It reasoned that newly analyzed NYPD crime data created a genuine factual dispute over whether officers had reasonable suspicion based on a burglary pattern in the area, as the data indicated only one reported burglary nearby in the preceding two months, and this evidence was not previously available despite due diligence.

criminal lawcivil rights

Hyunmi Son, a Korean-born former bookkeeper, sued her employer Reina Bijoux, Inc. and related defendants alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, unpaid overtime under the FLSA and New York Labor Law, and related claims under New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the § 1981 discrimination claim and the FLSA retaliation claim. The court granted the motion, holding that § 1981 prohibits only race-based discrimination and does not extend to national-origin or ethnicity claims, and that FLSA anti-retaliation protections apply only to formal complaints filed with the Department of Labor rather than internal protests about unpaid wages. The court also noted that the complaint's factual allegations centered on stereotypes about Korean employees' willingness to work without compensation, which fell outside the statute's scope.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Mark IV Industries brought an adversary proceeding against the New Mexico Environment Department seeking a declaratory judgment that its obligation to clean up groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site had been discharged in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy. NMED counterclaimed for a declaration that its demand for injunctive relief requiring continued abatement of the pollution was not a dischargeable claim, and the EPA and the current site owner intervened in support. The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to NMED, and the District Court affirmed after de novo review. The court reasoned that the state-law obligation to address ongoing or threatened migration of contaminants constituted an equitable duty to stop pollution rather than a right to payment, and therefore survived the bankruptcy discharge.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Jarvis Buckman, an African-American employee at Calyon Securities, sued the company alleging race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL, along with breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and New York Labor Law claims related to his termination and an alleged oral promise of a seven-figure bonus. The court granted Calyon's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It found no evidence permitting an inference that Buckman's termination, which occurred as part of a reduction in force, was motivated by discrimination rather than legitimate business reasons, and held that the company's written policy making bonuses discretionary precluded enforcement of any alleged oral bonus promise. The opinion also rejected the remaining contract, fraud, and wage claims as unsupported by the record or barred by applicable legal standards.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Floyd v. City of New York, plaintiffs brought a putative class action against the City of New York, NYPD officials, and officers, alleging a policy and practice of suspicionless and race-based stops and frisks that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Section 1983, Title VI, and related state laws. The defendants moved for summary judgment on certain claims of named plaintiffs and on claims against the City, Mayor Bloomberg, and Commissioner Kelly. The court addressed the claims in the context of documented racial disparities in stop rates, the dramatic increase in pedestrian stops since the mid-1990s, prior remedial measures from the Daniels settlement, and whether the City's training, supervision, and monitoring demonstrated deliberate indifference to constitutional violations. The opinion examined statistical evidence, the requirements of reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, and the standards for municipal liability under Section 1983.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case is a putative class action brought by investors in the Optimal Strategic U.S. Equity fund, which had placed all its assets with Bernard Madoff's firm, alleging that various defendants failed to perform adequate due diligence, ignored warning signs of fraud, and made misstatements that led to investment losses while collecting fees. Previously, the court dismissed the Santander Plaintiffs' claims based on a forum selection clause in their account agreements requiring litigation in the Bahamas and dismissed certain common-law claims by other plaintiffs for lack of standing because the harms were derivative of injuries to the fund itself. On the motions addressed here, the court granted reconsideration in part, holding that only Santander U.S. (but not OIS, Clark, or Banco Santander) could enforce the forum selection clause as a closely related non-signatory, and ruled that the Wagoner Rule did not confer standing on plaintiffs to pursue the dismissed common-law claims such as breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The decision rests on the specific language of the account agreements and the principle that only the injured entity can bring direct claims for derivative harms.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Feldman Law Group, as assignee of Hyman’s rights under an insurance policy, sued Liberty Mutual for breach of contract and related claims after Liberty refused to defend Hyman in an underlying copyright and trade dress infringement action brought by Van Cleef. The policy provided coverage for personal and advertising injury but excluded most intellectual property claims except those arising from infringement in the insured’s own advertisement. Liberty denied a defense on the ground that the underlying complaint focused on the production and sale of infringing jewelry rather than any advertising activity. Applying Pennsylvania law under New York’s choice-of-law rules, the court held that the complaint did not allege advertising injury within the policy’s coverage and granted Liberty’s motion to dismiss all claims.

business & regulatory

This case involves a FOIA lawsuit brought by advocacy groups against ICE, DHS, and other federal agencies seeking records on the Secure Communities immigration enforcement program, with a focus on documents addressing whether states or localities could opt out of participation through MOAs or other means. Plaintiffs had requested broad categories of information on policies, data, fiscal impacts, and communications related to the program, which the agencies initially resisted producing. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment concerning the applicability of FOIA exemptions, particularly the deliberative process privilege, to a set of opt-out records produced in January 2011. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, distinguishing between predecisional and postdecisional materials based on the timeline of the government's shift from describing the program as voluntary to mandatory. The core reasoning centered on whether specific discussions occurred before or after key agency decisions and public statements regarding opt-out options.

immigrationcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involved ERISA-governed and other class members who sued JPMorgan Chase Bank for investing their securities lending cash collateral in Sigma Finance medium-term notes that later became worthless. Plaintiffs alleged that JPMorgan breached its duties of prudence and loyalty under ERISA and New York common law by simultaneously extending repo financing to Sigma, which allegedly created a conflict of interest and allowed JPMorgan to profit at the class members' expense. The court granted JPMorgan's motion for partial summary judgment on the duty-of-loyalty claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motions. It held that JPMorgan's repo financing to Sigma occurred in a non-fiduciary capacity and did not create a conflict because it did not influence the bank's management of plan assets or cause the plaintiffs' losses. The court further found no evidence that JPMorgan's failure to disclose its repo relationship was motivated by self-interest to the detriment of its fiduciary clients.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involves photographer David LaChapelle suing Rihanna, her record label Island Def Jam, and video producers for copyright and trade dress infringement under federal law, plus unfair competition and unjust enrichment under New York law, alleging that the music video for Rihanna's song 'S&M' copied protected elements from eight of his photographs. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. In analyzing the copyright claims, the court applied the standards for actual copying (via access and probative similarities) and substantial similarity to protectible original expressions, excluding unprotectible ideas, scenes a faire, and standard photographic techniques, while also addressing preemption and sufficiency of the state-law claims.

propertyprocedure

This case is a putative class action brought by residents and visitors of New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings against the City of New York and NYCHA, alleging that NYPD vertical patrols and trespass enforcement practices resulted in a pattern of unconstitutional stops, seizures, and arrests without individualized suspicion or probable cause, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and various civil rights statutes. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to halt these practices. The City moved for summary judgment on the equitable claims, arguing that policy revisions since the suit began—including replacement of Patrol Guide section 212-60 with Interim Order 23, formation of a Safety and Security Task Force, and other reforms—had rendered the claims moot. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the City's voluntary changes did not meet the high burden to show mootness because a reasonable possibility remained that the challenged conduct could recur and factual disputes persisted regarding the permanence and effectiveness of the reforms.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case is a multi-district products liability action in which the Orange County Water District alleges that gasoline companies' handling of MTBE caused contamination or threatened contamination of groundwater in its service area. The District moved for partial summary judgment establishing liability on statutory claims under the OCWD Act and common-law claims of public nuisance and trespass at fourteen service-station sites where MTBE had been detected above regulatory levels, the defendants had owned or operated the sites and supplied MTBE gasoline, and the defendants were conducting agency-supervised remediation. The court denied the motion, holding that material factual disputes remained over whether the District possessed enforceable usufructuary rights in the shallow groundwater at issue, whether any such rights had been abandoned by non-use, and whether any trespass or nuisance was continuing or permanent. The ruling turned on California water-law distinctions among riparian, appropriative, and overlying rights and on the effect of concurrent regulatory oversight by other state agencies.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

The Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleging that their July 2010 Bulletin and Statement on Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs violated the Administrative Procedure Act and National Environmental Policy Act by halting development of those programs without required procedures. The agencies moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing absence of standing, no final agency action, statutory bars on review, and that the NRDC fell outside the relevant zone of interests. The court granted the motions and dismissed the case, holding that HERA's anti-injunction provision (12 U.S.C. § 4617(f)) barred judicial interference with the FHFA's conservatorship actions and that the guidance documents did not constitute reviewable final agency action. Core reasoning focused on the limited exceptions to the statutory preclusion of jurisdiction and the agencies' authority to issue supervisory guidance on mortgage safety and soundness concerns.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved Families for Freedom and three individuals in deportation proceedings who filed FOIA requests seeking records from CBP, ICE, and DHS about Border Patrol operations, including arrests on inter-city buses and trains in the Buffalo Sector, as well as related policies, statistics, and training materials. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, asserting various FOIA exemptions to withhold or redact responsive documents. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, ordering production of additional documents after analyzing the applicability of exemptions such as 2, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), which protect internal practices, deliberative processes, and personal privacy in law enforcement files, while finding insufficient justification for withholding in other instances based on the balance of public interest and privacy concerns.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

Synergy Advanced Pharmaceuticals sued CapeBio, CombiMab, and Lindell in state court for breaching a consulting agreement by misusing confidential information, violating a non-compete clause, and failing to assign inventions related to gastrointestinal drug compounds, seeking damages, an injunction, and assignment of any relevant patents. After removal to federal court on diversity grounds, Synergy moved to remand, arguing lack of complete diversity among the Delaware-incorporated parties and improper removal, while defendants countered that the case involved federal patent law or, alternatively, sought to drop CapeBio and CombiMab to establish diversity. The court denied the remand motion and granted the request to dismiss the two corporate defendants. It reasoned that the claims were rooted in state contract law rather than arising under federal patent statutes, as they concerned enforcement of assignment rights without requiring resolution of patent validity or infringement, and that the dropped parties were non-essential alter egos bound by a stipulation to any judgment.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Citibank and Morgan Stanley International over a credit default swap agreement tied to a collateralized debt obligation, specifically whether the swap transferred Citibank's controlling class voting rights to Morgan Stanley and whether Morgan Stanley was obligated to cover Citibank's losses after liquidation of the collateral. The court had previously granted Citibank judgment on its breach of contract claim based on the unambiguous terms of the agreement. On cross-motions for summary judgment regarding Morgan Stanley's counterclaim for reformation, the court denied Morgan Stanley's motion and granted Citibank's, holding that there was no clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake or intent to alter the written terms. The ruling relied on the agreement's integration clause, no-reliance provision, and the absence of unambiguous documentary support for reformation under New York law applicable to sophisticated parties.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Alan Newton, who was convicted of rape in 1985 and sought post-conviction DNA testing under New York law starting in 1994; the City repeatedly failed to locate the relevant rape kit until 2005, after which testing exonerated him and led to his release in 2006. Newton sued the City and employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of due process and access to courts, plus state claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury found the City liable on the constitutional claims for $18 million and two employees liable on the IIED claim for a total of $592,000. The court granted the defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that Newton had no enforceable due process right to post-conviction access to DNA evidence under controlling precedent and that the evidence was insufficient to support the IIED verdicts against the individual defendants.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the U.S. Government suing the owners of two Manhattan housing developments (Independence Plaza North and Glenn Gardens) that had exited New York's Mitchell-Lama Program, seeking recovery of allegedly overcharged federal Section 8 housing assistance payments under HAP contracts administered by HUD, plus a declaratory judgment that the properties became subject to New York City's Rent Stabilization Law upon receiving J-51 tax abatements. The owners moved for summary judgment, contending the buildings were not subject to rent stabilization under the RSL or related regulations after their exit from the MLP and that no overcharges occurred. The court granted the owners' motion for summary judgment and denied the government's cross-motion, holding based on the regulatory framework, statutory provisions like RPTL § 423 and RSL § 26-504(c), and precedents such as Roberts v. Tishman Speyer that the properties were not subject to RSL regulation solely by virtue of the J-51 benefits in the manner claimed by the government.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

The case involved New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), a non-contracted provider, suing WellCare of New York, a Medicare Advantage organization, for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and unjust enrichment. HHC sought full diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment amounts under Medicare rules for emergency services provided to WellCare's enrollees, rather than the lower posted charges WellCare had paid. WellCare moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption, lack of a private right of action, and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the breach of contract claim due to the absence of a private right of action to enforce the relevant federal Medicare payment standards. The unjust enrichment claim was addressed separately but the primary decision centered on the lack of enforceability under federal law.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory