William E. Smith

This case involved a copyright infringement dispute in which Plaintiff Gerffert Co. alleged that Defendants, including a former employee and his new company Hirten LLC, infringed its copyrights in original religious artworks by selling books containing modified versions of those works, along with a claim that the employee breached fiduciary duties. The district court denied the plaintiff's appeal of a magistrate judge's order deeming most of the defendants' undisputed facts admitted due to deficiencies in the plaintiff's statement of disputed facts, and also denied the plaintiff's objection to the magistrate's report and recommendation. The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to properly dispute the facts under local rules, the modified works were created under a separate license arrangement for the new company, and the assignment of rights to the plaintiff did not establish infringement or breach.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved nine residuary beneficiaries suing Bank of America, as co-executor of Magda L. Burt's estate, for breaching fiduciary duties in handling the distribution of shares in a closely-held company. After a bench trial, the court determined that the Bank breached its fiduciary duties and held it liable to some of the beneficiaries for specific amounts. The court's reasoning was based on findings that the Bank failed to properly value the stock, respond adequately to purchase offers, and fulfill its obligations during the estate administration, as detailed in the extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between two insurance companies, Travelers and PWIC, both of which had insured New England Container Company (NECC) at different times. Emhart Industries sued NECC for liability related to environmental contamination at a Superfund site from operations in the 1950s to early 1970s, and Travelers defended NECC under a reservation of rights while seeking contribution from PWIC, which refused to participate. The court granted summary judgment to PWIC, holding that it had no duty to defend because its policies covered only 1982-1985, after the alleged property damage had already occurred. Under Rhode Island law, coverage is triggered when damage manifests, is discovered, or is reasonably discoverable, and here the relevant events predated PWIC's policy period, so the pollution exclusion and other arguments were not reached.

environmentbusiness & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved the SEC's allegations that Leila Jenkins, sole owner of investment adviser Locke Capital Management, fabricated a Swiss client with over $1 billion in assets under management, used this fiction in marketing and SEC filings like Form ADV to attract business, falsified records, and lied to investigators, violating multiple provisions of the Securities Exchange Act, Securities Act, and Advisers Act. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, treating Jenkins's pro se filing as one for summary judgment. It granted the SEC's motion and denied Jenkins's, finding no genuine dispute of material fact because Jenkins offered no evidence rebutting the SEC's showing that the client did not exist and all claimed documentation was fabricated. The decision rested on the absence of any corroboration for the client's existence despite extensive discovery and the undisputed falsity of the representations in filings and materials.

business & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Julio C. Roca, a dark-skinned Hispanic driver terminated by defendant Kraft Foods Global, Inc. in 2007, who alleged that the termination was discriminatory based on race/color and national origin in violation of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act and Civil Rights Act. Kraft moved to dismiss, arguing that Roca lacked standing because he had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy without disclosing the claim, making it part of the bankruptcy estate, and that judicial estoppel barred pursuit of the claim. The court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation, ruling the initial motion moot due to the filing of an amended complaint adding the bankruptcy trustee as a plaintiff, granting the second motion only to the extent it barred Roca personally from seeking monetary damages, and denying it in all other respects so that the trustee could proceed with the claims on behalf of creditors.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, Standard Parking Corporation brought third-party claims against Rouse Providence, LLC for contribution, common-law indemnity, and breach of contract after Melissa Reyes sued Standard for negligence stemming from a concrete piece falling on her car in a mall parking garage managed by Standard. Rouse had contracted with another firm to repair the garage without including required indemnification language from its management agreement with Standard. The court granted Rouse summary judgment, holding that Standard's claims were prepetition claims discharged by Rouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy confirmation order because they arose from events before the bankruptcy petition and Standard had received adequate notice of the claims bar date through its branch offices. The decision rested on the broad definition of "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code, which encompasses contingent and unliquidated rights to payment, and the finality of the bankruptcy discharge and injunction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a Miller Act claim by subcontractor J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. against prime contractor Honeywell Building Solutions and surety Travelers Casualty & Surety Company for approximately $575,000 allegedly owed for work performed on a federal construction project at Naval Station Newport. Lynch completed its work in 2010 under a subcontract but was not paid in full, prompting a suit on the payment bond required by federal law. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or alternatively to limit their liability to the amount awarded in a pending Navy equitable adjustment proceeding and to stay the case, and also sought consolidation with a related action. The court denied all motions, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged a Miller Act claim, that the subcontract provisions did not clearly bar or condition the claim at the pleading stage, and that a stay or consolidation was not warranted.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned whether a three-year contractual limitations period in an employer-issued automobile insurance policy barred an insured employee's claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits after an April 2007 accident. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment that the claim was untimely, while the insured counterclaimed for breach of contract and bad faith, arguing the limitations provision was unenforceable as against public policy and that the period should not begin until it was clear she would not recover fully from the tortfeasors. The court held that Rhode Island law permits such contractual limitations periods in insurance policies, that they begin to run on the date of the accident, and that the provision here was valid and enforceable because it did not wholly deprive the insured of access to the courts. It therefore granted judgment on the pleadings to the insurer without needing to address the bad-faith claim or certify questions to the state supreme court.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a patent infringement action brought by Emissive Energy Corporation against SPA-Simrad, Inc. in federal district court in Rhode Island. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted the motion, holding that it lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff had waived any objection to the magistrate's use of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard by failing to timely challenge the notice and order directing jurisdictional discovery, and that the defendant's limited contacts with Rhode Island—primarily through a passive website and an indemnity agreement—were insufficient to satisfy due process.

procedure

This case is a class action by non-Rhode Island residents challenging toll discounts on the Newport Bridge that are available only to Rhode Island E-ZPass users, claiming violations of the dormant Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority and denied the plaintiffs' motion. It held that the authority acted as a market participant when setting tolls, placing the discount beyond dormant Commerce Clause review, and that the residency-based pricing did not discriminate against interstate commerce because all toll revenue funds the bridges' operation and maintenance with no showing of protectionist effect. The court further concluded that the distinctions were rationally related to legitimate state interests and did not burden the right to travel or other protected rights.

federal powercivil rights

The case arose after Mark Jackson died in police custody following a confrontation with West Warwick officers who approached him in a liquor store parking lot on suspicion of vandalism. Plaintiff Karen Petro, as estate administratrix, sued the town and officers Kelley, Lukowicz, and Thornton for alleged Fourth Amendment violations, assault and battery, and wrongful death. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the assault and battery claim and constitutional claims tied to events before Jackson's arrest. The court denied the motion, holding that material facts remain genuinely disputed, including whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Jackson, whether his actions constituted assault on an officer, and whether the ensuing seizure and use of force were lawful. The case must therefore proceed to trial.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved Sylvester Okpoko, a Nigerian granted asylum in the United States, who sought judicial review of a USCIS decision revoking an initially approved asylee relative petition he filed for his wife after consular investigations in Nigeria determined the claimed marriage was fraudulent and not bona fide, based on findings including an invalid proxy marriage certificate and lack of evidence of a genuine relationship. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim or alternatively for summary judgment, while the plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment, both sides agreeing no material facts were disputed. The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants' motion and denying the plaintiff's, and the district court accepted that recommendation, dismissing the action because the plaintiff did not establish jurisdiction over the consular factual determinations under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability and failed to meet his statutory burden to prove eligibility for the visa benefit. The court further noted that any due process claims were not colorable.

immigrationprocedure

In Moderate Party of Rhode Island v. Lynch, the Moderate Party challenged Rhode Island General Laws § 44-30-2(d)(2), which distributes funds from a nonpartisan account for public financing of elections proportionally based on prior election results for governor and allocations for elected general officers, arguing that the scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against newly recognized parties under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment after denying a preliminary injunction. It ruled in favor of the defendant, upholding the statute. The decision applied the flexible Anderson-Burdick balancing test for election laws rather than strict scrutiny, finding that the distribution method did not impose a severe burden on new parties' rights and was justified by legitimate state interests in allocating limited public funds based on demonstrated voter support.

electionsfree speech

This case concerns a dispute over an annuity contract in which Nationwide Life Insurance Company refused to pay the full death benefit after discovering that the annuitant had been terminally ill at the time of purchase and that multiple contracts had been issued on the same life. The court had previously held that Nationwide breached the contract by attempting to rescind it and tendering only the surrender value rather than the death benefit. The remaining issue was the calculation of prejudgment interest on the stipulated damages of $1,059,685.48. The court decided that Rhode Island law requires 12% annual interest on the full amount from April 19, 2009 (the date payment was due) until judgment, because the tendered check was conditional and did not stop the accrual of interest on the entire sum.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns Native American Arts, Inc. (NAA), an Indian-owned organization, suing Contract Specialties, Inc. under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA) for advertising and selling non-Indian-made jewelry and crafts nationwide using terms like "Indian," "Apache," "Navajo," and similar labels without disclaimers that they were not authentically Indian-made. NAA alleged competitive injury from lost sales and damage to goodwill in the market for Indian-style products. Specialties moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, insufficient particularity in pleading, and claims that the IACA violated the First Amendment, equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, and due process regarding damages. The court denied the motion, concluding that NAA had statutory standing as an Indian arts and crafts organization, that Rule 9(b) pleading requirements did not apply to this strict-liability statute or were satisfied by the complaint's details, and that the constitutional challenges were without merit.

business & regulatoryfree speechcivil rights

This diversity case involves a dispute between Seaton Insurance and Yosemite Insurance over two reinsurance agreements from the 1970s covering excess liability policies issued to Champion and Westinghouse. Seaton sued for breach of contract after Yosemite ceased payments on claims, while Yosemite counterclaimed seeking rescission on grounds that the agreements were void due to alleged misrepresentations about risk retention. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed Seaton's claims under the Champion policy but found triable issues under the Westinghouse policy; it granted Yosemite a declaratory judgment of no further obligation on one policy but dismissed its breach counterclaims as barred by California law on account stated. The reasoning centered on the language of the facultative certificates regarding retention requirements, the application of California insurance and contract principles, and the absence of material fact disputes on certain issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Credit Northeast Inc. v. Global Equity Lending, Inc., the plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence against the defendants and later added additional parties. After the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with discovery requests and court orders over an extended period, including missing multiple deadlines for document production and depositions, the magistrate judge entered default against all defendants and awarded the plaintiff $10,300 in attorney’s fees and costs. The district court affirmed both orders, holding that the magistrate judge had proper authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) to issue them without party consent, that the defendants had forfeited any personal jurisdiction defense by actively participating in the case for 15 months without raising it, and that the defendants’ pattern of discovery violations supported default as a sanction along with the associated fee award.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involves a Nigerian-born plaintiff of African descent who was hired by Merrill Lynch as an investment specialist in 2007 and later terminated after receiving two written warnings for allegedly inadequate performance scores. He sued the defendants under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and related Rhode Island statutes, claiming discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and religion, asserting that customer complaints about his accent and background led to unfair application of performance standards inconsistent with the employee handbook. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss only as to Count VI (the § 1981 claim for religious discrimination, which is not cognizable under that statute) and denying it as to all other counts, allowing the remaining claims of unlawful termination and discrimination to proceed. The reasoning centered on the plaintiff sufficiently alleging that his quality assurance scores met or exceeded handbook thresholds for bonuses and incentives, that the imposed average-score requirement was not previously disclosed and mathematically difficult to satisfy, and that the timing of warnings was proximate to customer complaints tied to protected characteristics.

civil rightslabor & employmentimmigration

The case involved a dispute between UNITE HERE Local 217 and Sage Hospitality Resources over whether the hotel must submit to arbitration under a neutrality agreement to conduct a card check determining union support among employees. The union sought to enforce a prior court order compelling arbitration, while the hotel requested a stay pending appeal and reconsideration of the order, arguing that contract expiration issues should be decided by the court rather than an arbitrator. The court denied the stay, finding the hotel unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, and granted the motion to enforce the order directing the parties to proceed with arbitration. It partially granted reconsideration to clarify the application of post-expiration arbitrability principles but otherwise upheld the original ruling based on First Circuit precedents holding that termination disputes fall to the arbitrator when a broad arbitration clause is present.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a dispute over the distribution of assets from a grandfather's will and related trusts, where grandchildren plaintiffs allege that errors in the will documents and subsequent probate proceedings wrongfully defeated their inheritance rights, leading to claims for equitable restitution and damages against the defendant widow of their father and the drafting attorney. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion after reviewing the facts, including the will's terms, an affidavit about a drafting error, and probate court actions, finding sufficient grounds for jurisdiction and a viable claim. The district judge accepted the report and recommendation in full, denying the motion to dismiss.

family lawpropertyprocedure