Laura Taylor Swain

The case involves the Securities and Exchange Commission bringing a civil enforcement action against Andreas Badian, alleging he conspired in a scheme to manipulate Sedona Corporation's stock price through aggressive short selling before converting a debenture and later trades to create false demand, benefiting client Amro International. In this pretrial Memorandum Order, the court resolved multiple motions in limine from both parties on evidentiary issues including expert testimony, authenticity of recordings, witness credibility related to prior bonus payments, and exhibit designations. Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and standards for relevance and reliability, the court excluded expert opinions that invaded the jury's role or lacked sufficient methodological basis while admitting other evidence meeting authenticity and procedural requirements, and it set a revised pretrial schedule.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns consolidated securities fraud claims brought by several institutional investors, including the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, against Morgan Stanley entities and related parties under the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs alleged that registration statements and prospectus supplements for various mortgage-backed security pass-through certificates contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding loan underwriting standards, appraisal processes, loan-to-value ratios, and credit ratings. After prior partial dismissal of an earlier complaint, the court considered defendants’ motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint on multiple grounds, including lack of standing, statutes of limitations and repose, failure to allege cognizable injury or actionable misstatements, and insufficient control-person claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, permitting some claims to proceed while dismissing others for procedural and pleading deficiencies.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a putative class action by internet subscribers against Time Warner Cable alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act through unauthorized throttling of peer-to-peer transmissions that damaged their computers, along with state-law claims for consumer fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment based on advertisements promising high-speed service. The court addressed the defendant's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings and Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, as well as the plaintiffs' Rule 12(f) motion to strike portions of supporting documents. It granted the motion to strike in full, granted the defendant's motion in part by dismissing Counts III through XI, and denied the motion in part as to the remaining CFAA counts, reasoning that the complaint adequately alleged unauthorized access and damage under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 for those counts while failing to state claims under the other theories.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved former Assistant Store Managers at Starbucks stores in New York who sued the company under New York Labor Law § 196-d, alleging that Starbucks' tip distribution policy improperly excluded them from sharing in customer tips placed in collective tip boxes. The court granted Starbucks' motion for summary judgment in full and dismissed the complaint, without reaching the plaintiffs' class certification motion. The core reasoning was that Section 196-d does not grant any particular employees an entitlement to portions of a tip pool, Starbucks did not retain any tips for itself as all proceeds went to eligible baristas and shift supervisors, and the plaintiffs provided no evidence that Starbucks demanded, accepted, or retained tips given directly to ASMs.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Loop Production sued defendants including Capital Connections LLC and individuals under the federal RICO statute and New York common law, alleging they fraudulently obtained a $40,000 wire transfer by claiming to book recording artist Nelly for a New Year's Eve event while lacking authority to do so and then refusing to refund the money after the transfer arrived. The court denied the moving defendants' motions to vacate the clerk's entry of default under Rule 55(c) and to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment on the RICO and related claims. The court reasoned that the defendants' failure to respond meant the complaint's allegations of a pattern of racketeering activity through wire fraud were deemed admitted under Rule 8(b)(6), establishing liability, and calculated damages by trebling the $40,000 loss under RICO while also awarding prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees. The breach of contract claim was dismissed as duplicative of the RICO recovery.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves parents of a minor student seeking reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) from the New York City Department of Education for unilaterally placing their son in an out-of-state private residential therapeutic school after the local Committee on Special Education denied eligibility for special education services. An Impartial Hearing Officer found the student eligible as having an emotional disturbance and ordered reimbursement, but the State Review Officer reversed that determination, concluding the student did not meet any of the regulatory criteria for emotional disturbance. The district court reviewed the administrative record on cross-motions for summary judgment and granted judgment to the Department of Education, holding that the evidence did not establish the student's condition exhibited the required characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affected educational performance. The court therefore upheld the denial of reimbursement.

civil rightsfederal power

In this case, pro se plaintiff Larry Thomas, a New York state inmate, sued five Department of Correctional Services employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming they violated his due process rights by filing false misbehavior reports, giving false testimony at a disciplinary hearing, denying him the opportunity to call two witnesses, and affirming the hearing results, which led to 291 days in the Special Housing Unit. The district court adopted in full the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after finding no clear error and no timely objections. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against the defendants in their official capacities and the false accusation and false testimony claims against three defendants, but denied the motion as to the due process claims against the hearing officer and the director who affirmed the decision. The core reasoning was that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred official-capacity claims, allegations of false reports and testimony did not state a due process violation, and the remaining claims regarding witness denial and personal involvement were sufficiently pleaded to proceed.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved plaintiffs who lost money in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, claiming the SEC was grossly negligent in failing to detect the scheme despite multiple complaints and investigations from 1992 to 2008. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The reasoning centered on the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, which protects government agencies' decisions involving policy judgments and discretion, such as how to conduct investigations, from liability.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Norcott Corby challenging his New York state convictions for second-degree murder and first-degree robbery. The petitioner claimed the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights by barring cross-examination of the key prosecution witness, Xanderia Burnett, about whether she decided to accuse him only after learning he had implicated her in the crimes. The district court granted the petition and declined to adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief, holding that the limitation prevented meaningful inquiry into the witness's potential bias and motive to lie. The court further concluded that the state courts unreasonably applied Chapman harmless-error analysis, as the precluded questioning had substantial potential to undermine the state's case given that Burnett was the sole witness directly linking Corby to the offenses.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case is a putative class action securities lawsuit brought by lead plaintiff State of Michigan Retirement Systems on behalf of investors who purchased AIG securities during the class period from March 2006 to September 2008. Plaintiffs alleged that AIG and various executives, directors, accountants, and underwriters violated Sections 10(b), 20(a), 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the federal securities laws by materially misrepresenting the company's exposure to the subprime mortgage market through its securities lending program and credit default swap portfolio, which led to a liquidity crisis and government bailout. The court ruled on motions to dismiss filed by AIG, individual executives, directors, underwriters, and PwC. It denied the motions in substantial part, holding that the complaint adequately pleaded material misstatements and omissions under the heightened standards of the PSLRA and Rule 9(b), that plaintiffs had standing to assert Section 11 claims, and that control-person and signer liability was sufficiently alleged. The core reasoning centered on whether specific statements about collateral risks and subprime exposure were false or misleading when made and whether defendants could be held responsible for them.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by the Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust, holder of rights to Cornell Woolrich's short story 'Rear Window,' against Steven Spielberg and various film studios and distributors over the 2007 movie 'Disturbia,' which the plaintiff alleged copied protectable elements from the story and the 1954 Alfred Hitchcock film adaptation. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the copyright claims. The court granted the motion and dismissed those claims, finding that although access and actual copying were conceded, there was no unlawful appropriation because an ordinary observer would not regard the aesthetic appeal of the short story and 'Disturbia' as the same. The decision rested on a direct comparison of the works themselves, excluding expert opinions, similarity charts, and other extraneous materials as irrelevant to the substantial similarity analysis.

propertyprocedure

This case involves appeals from a bankruptcy court's orders in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Extended Stay Inc., concerning three adversary proceedings originally filed in New York state court. The proceedings centered on claims related to non-recourse loan guarantees and mezzanine debt that could become enforceable upon a bankruptcy filing, with disputes among certificate holders like Five Mile Capital, Cerberus, Centerbridge, Line Trust, and Bank of America. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of remand and grant of intervention in one proceeding where it found jurisdiction, while affirming remand of the other two proceedings on grounds of mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 due to lack of federal jurisdiction and timely state court adjudication. The core reasoning focused on the scope of bankruptcy jurisdiction over state-law claims, rejection of complete preemption arguments, and application of abstention factors without resolving the underlying merits.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In Plew v. Limited Brands, Inc., plaintiff Katerina Plew sued several Victoria's Secret entities for patent infringement, claiming that their 100-Way Bra infringed her U.S. Patent No. 6,733,362, which covers an adjustable brassiere allowing multiple strap configurations via hidden fabric loops. Defendants counterclaimed for a declaration of patent invalidity and moved for summary judgment on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as well as non-infringement. The court denied both motions, holding that conflicting expert testimony raised triable issues of fact on whether the invention was obvious in light of prior art and that similarities in strap attachment mechanisms and skin-protection features could allow a reasonable jury to find the accused product equivalent under the means-plus-function claim construction.

propertyprocedure

The case involves a plaintiff who sued a retailer for failing to provide adequate disclosures about billing error rights in a credit card agreement, as required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that its credit terms were more favorable than TILA requires, thus excusing the need for standard disclosures. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged insufficient disclosures compared to the required model form, that the defendant's additional factual claims could not be considered on a motion to dismiss, and that TILA mandates disclosure of statutory rights regardless of any broader contractual protections.

business & regulatory

The case concerned the NLRB Regional Director's petition under Section 10(j) of the NLRA for temporary injunctive relief against Ardsley Bus Corp., a school bus provider, based on allegations that the company violated Sections 8(a)(1), (5), and 8(d) by refusing to furnish relevant information to the union, bypassing the union to deal directly with employees, failing to participate in grievance procedures, and unilaterally altering terms and conditions of employment after the collective bargaining agreement expired. The court granted the requested injunction pending final Board resolution. It determined there was reasonable cause to believe the unfair labor practices had occurred, relying on the administrative record and the ALJ's findings that the company's conduct caused employee disaffection from the union and that certain information requests were presumptively relevant under established precedent. The court further concluded the injunction was just and proper to maintain the status quo during the ongoing Board proceedings.

labor & employment

This case involves former New York City Corrections Officer Frankie Cortes suing the City and individual defendants for alleged gender and race discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and 1985, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and New York State and City human rights laws, stemming from events including an alleged assault by female officers, subsequent transfers, discipline, and his 2007 termination. Defendants moved under Rule 12(c) to dismiss the complaint, citing time bars for pre-2005/2007 events, preclusion by prior administrative findings, lack of individual liability under Title VII, and insufficient pleading of claims. The court granted the motion in part by dismissing Title VII claims against individuals with prejudice, sex discrimination claims under Section 1981 with prejudice, and the Section 1985 conspiracy claim with leave to amend, while denying dismissal on statute of limitations grounds for later claims and on the merits for the remaining Title VII, state, and local claims, which it found sufficiently pleaded.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case is a shareholder derivative lawsuit brought by Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System on behalf of AIG against its directors and officers, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of assets, unjust enrichment, and securities law violations related to oversight of credit default swaps tied to subprime mortgages, misleading statements about financial health, dividend increases, stock repurchases, and executive compensation before the 2008 liquidity crisis. The court dismissed the entire complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to make a pre-suit demand on AIG's board of directors and did not sufficiently plead particularized facts showing that such a demand would have been futile.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this consolidated putative class action, plaintiffs alleged that Focus Media Holding Limited, its officers and directors, and underwriters violated Sections 10(b), 20A, 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the federal securities laws by making misleading statements and omissions about the company's 2007 financial results, gross margins, and third-quarter earnings guidance around a secondary offering and related stock purchases. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the PSLRA. The court granted the motion in its entirety, holding that the earnings projections were forward-looking statements entitled to safe-harbor protection, that the company had no duty to provide more specific gross-margin guidance, and that plaintiffs otherwise failed to plead actionable misrepresentations or omissions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a former employee of the New York City Off-Track Betting Corp. who sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments, alleging that the employer failed to honor a prior settlement of a religious discrimination claim, created a hostile work environment based on religion, demoted him, and subjected him to disparate treatment and retaliation. The plaintiff also sought to amend his complaint to add a claim for undermining the settlement agreement. The court denied the motion to amend as futile and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. It found no triable issues of fact supporting the discrimination, retaliation, or due process claims, held that a breach of contract dispute does not support a Section 1983 action, and determined that any state-law contract claim was barred by the plaintiff's failure to file a timely notice of claim.

labor & employmentcivil rightsreligious liberty

Caryn McDonaugh sued the Social Security Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423(d) seeking review of the denial of her application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The district court reviewed objections to a magistrate judge's report recommending that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted and the plaintiff's cross-motion be denied. After applying clear-error review to unobjected portions and de novo review to specific objections, the court determined that the ALJ's finding that McDonaugh could perform sedentary work eight hours per day, five days per week was supported by substantial evidence, including opinions from multiple medical experts such as Drs. Lathan, Ha, Wells, Maguire, and Bernanke. The court therefore adopted the report in relevant part and upheld the denial of benefits.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure