Sidney H. Stein

Parul Jain sued McGraw-Hill, S&P, and two supervisors for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act plus various New York state-law claims arising from her 2005-2008 employment as Director of U.S. Credit Strategy and her June 2008 termination. The claims centered on performance reviews, oral and written warnings, a transfer of supervision, and Jain’s April 2008 request for medical leave related to a back condition. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the thirteen remaining counts. It held that Jain failed to present evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on any claim, that six counts had been abandoned, and that the FMLA and state-law allegations lacked proof of required elements such as interference, retaliation, or specific damages causally tied to the alleged torts.

labor & employment

The case involved the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Pike County suing Purdue Pharma and related defendants in state court, alleging that the companies violated Kentucky laws by deceptively marketing OxyContin as less addictive than other opioids, which led to increased prescriptions, addiction treatment costs, and other expenses covered by the state's Medicaid program. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction and removability under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the claims arose solely under state law without raising a substantial federal issue and that the action did not qualify as a removable class action under CAFA because it was brought by the state and county rather than a class of plaintiffs. The reasoning centered on the defendants' failure to carry their burden of proving federal subject matter jurisdiction over the state-law claims for fraud, nuisance, unjust enrichment, and related theories.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In this case, Lehman Brothers Holdings sued the Knutson defendants to enforce five guaranties they signed in connection with over $200 million in loans for Arizona apartment properties after the borrower defaulted. The defendants raised defenses including fraudulent inducement and demanded a jury trial. Lehman moved to strike the jury demand based on jury waiver clauses in each guaranty. The court granted the motion, finding the waivers enforceable because the Knutson defendants, through their attorney, had sufficient bargaining power and sophistication, the waiver language was clear and conspicuous, and identical waivers appeared in related transaction documents.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a copyright infringement claim by authors David and Jeanie Stiles against HarperCollins and the authors of The Dangerous Book for Boys, alleging that the defendants' tree house construction illustrations and design copied protected elements from the plaintiffs' books The Tree House Book and Tree Houses You Can Actually Build. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no substantial similarity between the works as a matter of law, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The decision rested on a side-by-side comparison showing that the defendants' illustrations differed in perspective, details such as the presence of human figures or screws, wood textures, and overall aesthetic feel—plaintiffs' works appearing more animated while defendants' were more utilitarian—while noting that general ideas like platform construction methods are not protectible under copyright. The court emphasized that only original expression, not ideas or unoriginal elements, receives protection.

property

This case involved Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. petitioning a federal district court to confirm two London arbitration awards against Transfield ER Cape Ltd. arising from a 2008 contract of affreightment for iron ore shipments, and to enforce those awards against Transfield ER Limited as an alleged alter ego. The court confirmed the awards against ER Cape under the New York Convention, rejecting ER Cape's arguments for forum non conveniens and improper venue because the respondent had been registered to do business in New York at the time of service. However, the court dismissed the claims against ER Limited, holding that the petition contained only conclusory allegations of alter ego liability that failed to meet federal pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal. The court also denied attorneys' fees, finding no bad faith by ER Cape.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from Citigroup employees' claims that the company failed to disclose its subprime mortgage exposures in offering documents for its employee stock purchase program (FA CAP), leading to purchases of Citigroup securities from 2006 to 2009. Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, plus state law claims. The court granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the Section 12(a)(2) claims were untimely, the Section 10(b) claims failed to plead scienter with particularity as required, and the state claims lacked adequate factual allegations. The decision rested on the complaint's deficiencies in timeliness, particularity, and pleading standards without reaching other defenses such as releases.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a shareholder derivative lawsuit brought by Citigroup shareholders against the company's current and former officers and directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and other claims related to the company's involvement with risky mortgage-backed assets, including misleading statements and corporate waste. The plaintiffs did not make a demand on the board of directors to pursue these claims before filing suit, which is generally required. The court dismissed the amended complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing that such a demand would have been futile with respect to the board as it existed in September 2009 when the amended complaint was filed. The core reasoning is that the allegations did not raise a reasonable doubt about the majority of the board's ability to objectively evaluate a demand.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a securities fraud class action brought by shareholders of Crystallex International Corporation against the company and its officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements about the likelihood of obtaining a required environmental permit from Venezuelan authorities to mine gold at Las Cristinas, causing stock purchases at inflated prices that later dropped when the permit was denied. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the complaint did not plead facts sufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter, as the statements were either forward-looking, accompanied by disclosures, or reflected genuine optimism based on progress in the permitting process rather than recklessness or actual knowledge of falsity.

business & regulatory

In this case, a stock broker sued his employer, a capital corporation, and its officers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, alleging failures to pay overtime, commissions, and timely wages, and seeking to litigate the federal claims as a collective action and the state claims as a class action. The court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the FLSA claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and stayed the action pending arbitration. The reasoning centered on the parties' employment agreement requiring arbitration of disputes according to FINRA rules, which bar arbitration of class actions but not collective actions due to their distinct opt-in versus opt-out mechanisms, along with the federal policy favoring arbitration and the absence of congressional intent to make FLSA claims nonarbitrable.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves parents of a child with autism seeking reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for private school tuition at the Rebecca School and related therapy services for the 2008-2009 school year, after rejecting the New York City Department of Education's proposed individualized education program (IEP). An Impartial Hearing Officer initially awarded full reimbursement, but a State Review Officer reversed that decision, finding that the school district had offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The district court reviewed the administrative record on cross-motions for summary judgment and concluded that the DOE's proposed IEP was appropriate based on the preponderance of the evidence. The court denied the parents' motion for summary judgment, granted the DOE's motion to dismiss the complaint, and denied the DOE's request to recoup payments already made during the proceedings.

civil rights

This securities litigation case brought by Citigroup shareholders alleged that the company and certain executives violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements and omissions regarding Citigroup's exposure to subprime mortgages, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), structured investment vehicles (SIVs), and other risky assets in SEC filings and public statements prior to and during the 2008 financial crisis. Plaintiffs claimed these disclosures understated risks and violated GAAP, leading to losses when the true extent of exposure became known. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, permitting Section 10(b) claims against Citigroup and related Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against one executive to proceed solely for alleged CDO-related misstatements from November 4, 2007, to April 2008, while dismissing all remaining claims. The decision applied standards requiring particularized allegations of material misstatements, scienter, and loss causation, concluding that only a narrow subset of the post-November 2007 CDO allegations met those thresholds.

business & regulatory

The case involved a German film production company suing a U.S. distributor for breach of a 2009 settlement agreement by failing to make required installment payments on amounts owed under a 2002 distribution agreement for made-for-television movies. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint or stay the action pending arbitration, citing the distribution agreement's broad arbitration clause for disputes arising under that contract. The court denied the motion, holding that the settlement agreement expressly limited arbitration to disputes over the audit-determined amount and did not cover claims for non-payment of that amount, while the original agreement's clause did not govern the separate settlement contract. The decision applied New York contract law and the Federal Arbitration Act to conclude no valid agreement to arbitrate this specific dispute existed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a patent infringement dispute between Sanofi and Apotex over the drug Plavix (clopidogrel bisulfate), where Apotex had manufactured and sold a generic version after Sanofi's U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265 was found valid and enforceable in prior proceedings. The court granted Sanofi's motion for summary judgment on damages, awarding $442,209,362 plus prejudgment interest at the prime rate compounded quarterly from August 2006, costs, and post-judgment interest. The decision rested on a 2006 settlement agreement that set damages at 50% of Apotex's net sales of $884,418,724 for the relevant infringement period, with both Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. held jointly and severally liable under the agreement's terms defining 'Apotex' collectively. The court rejected arguments limiting liability to only one entity or reducing the percentage due to an alleged authorized generic launch, finding no such launch occurred.

business & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

The case involved a dispute between Finger Lakes Bottling Co., a New York beer wholesaler, and Coors Brewing Co., a Colorado brewer, over Coors's termination of a 2003 distribution agreement for Molson beer under New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law section 55-c. Following termination in March 2008, the parties arbitrated the fair market value of the distribution rights, resulting in a February 25, 2009 arbitration award of $1,060,224 to Finger Lakes. Finger Lakes then sued in federal court under 9 U.S.C. § 9 to confirm the award and obtain prejudgment interest under New York law. The court confirmed the award and awarded interest at the Treasury-bill rate from the March 21, 2008 termination date until the award date, then at New York's statutory nine percent rate from the award date until entry of judgment, because the amount became ascertainable on the award date and Coors had retained use of the funds.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned whether Westport Insurance Corporation had a duty to defend its insured, the law firm Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, in a New York state court action brought by intervenors alleging that the firm had fraudulently manipulated settlement amounts in diet drug litigations to the clients' detriment. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the scope of coverage under a Lawyers Professional Liability policy that excluded claims arising from dishonest, fraudulent, or malicious acts. The court denied Westport's motion and granted the firm's motion, holding that Westport must defend because the factual allegations in the complaint could support covered claims such as negligence or breach of fiduciary duty even if the fraud allegations ultimately fail. Under New York law, the insurer's duty to defend is triggered whenever the complaint's facts suggest a possible covered theory of liability, regardless of how the causes of action are labeled.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Sheldon Sussman sued his former employer Rabobank International under ERISA section 502, as well as for breach of contract and conversion, claiming entitlement to about $833,000 in unvested deferred bonus benefits under the company's Bonus Deferral Plan after his 2008 termination. Rabobank moved for summary judgment, contending that Sussman had waived all rights to the benefits in the separation agreement he signed, which included a broad release of claims with a carve-out only for benefits already vested as of the termination date. The court granted Rabobank's motion and denied Sussman's cross-motion, holding that the second tranche of the bonus award had not vested by March 10, 2008 under the plan's vesting schedule requiring two years of service, so the carve-out did not apply. The core reasoning was that the plain language of both the plan documents and the separation agreement showed Sussman knowingly forfeited rights to the unvested amounts in exchange for a $4.9 million lump-sum payment, extinguishing any ERISA, contract, or tort claims.

labor & employment

The case involves an inmate, Gultela Qasem, suing corrections officer Luis Toro and supervisors Delores Thornton and William Rogers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from repeated sexual assaults and rapes by Toro while she was incarcerated at Taconic Correctional Facility. The plaintiff claimed that the supervisors were deliberately indifferent to her safety by allowing Toro continued access to her despite investigations and warning signs. The court denied the supervisors' motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged plausible claims of deliberate indifference and that qualified immunity did not apply because the right to be free from sexual abuse in prison is clearly established.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involves a putative class action brought by pension plans and an insurance company that purchased Citigroup bonds, alleging that Citigroup and related defendants made materially false or misleading statements or omissions in offering materials for 48 bond issuances from May 2006 to August 2008 regarding the company's exposure to collateralized debt obligations, structured investment vehicles, asset-backed securities, reserves, capital status, and GAAP compliance. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, that the claims sounded in fraud requiring heightened pleading, and failure to identify actionable misstatements. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that plaintiffs had standing and stated plausible claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 but lacked standing under Section 12, while finding the allegations sufficient under the applicable pleading standards without applying Rule 9(b).

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute over life insurance benefits where the plaintiff sought to recover under both a group policy governed by ERISA and a converted individual policy after her husband's death. The defendant paid only under the group policy, leading the plaintiff to sue in state court for breach of contract and declaratory judgment regarding the individual policy. The court decided to deny the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. The core reasoning was that the claims primarily concern rights under the ERISA-covered group plan, specifically the conversion privilege, making the action subject to federal question jurisdiction under ERISA.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

In this case, defendants Guang Ju Lin and Yudi Liu were indicted for murdering Danny Cabezas in furtherance of a racketeering enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 1959 as members of the Ah Jun Organization. They moved to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it lacks a sufficient connection to interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause and is unconstitutionally vague regarding the enterprise's racketeering activities. The court denied the motions, reasoning that the statute's jurisdictional element—defining an enterprise as one engaged in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce—complies with Commerce Clause requirements per Second Circuit precedents such as United States v. Torres and United States v. Feliciano, and that its terms provide adequate notice consistent with RICO interpretations, rejecting vagueness claims.

criminal lawfederal power