The case involved plaintiff Danny Terrance, a level three sex offender no longer under probation or parole, challenging the City of Geneva's Chapter 285 municipal code, which permanently barred level two and three sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools or 500 feet of parks, playgrounds, or daycare centers. Terrance sought a declaration that the ordinance was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement after being notified it applied to his new residence. The court ruled that the ordinance was preempted by New York State's comprehensive and detailed scheme under SORA and related laws governing sex offender registration and residency restrictions, which established the state's intent to occupy the field exclusively without local variation. As a result, the ordinance was declared invalid and without effect, the federal constitutional claims were not addressed, and the city's motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
In this patent infringement lawsuit, Tailored Lighting, Inc. alleged that Osram Sylvania Products, Inc. infringed its U.S. Patent No. 5,666,017 for a daylight lamp with a special spectral light distribution. The court had previously ruled the patent invalid due to lack of enablement and found no infringement by Sylvania. On motions for reconsideration, attorneys' fees, and to amend the judgment, the court denied reconsideration and fees but granted the amendment, holding that the asserted claims, including dependent ones, were invalid for lack of enablement because the formula could not be practiced without undue experimentation. The reasoning emphasized that the plaintiff's evidence had already been considered and did not alter the prior conclusions.
This case involved a lawsuit by a Mexican migrant farm worker employed under the H-2A visa program against his employer, Fowler Brothers, Inc., on behalf of himself and similarly situated workers, alleging violations of the FLSA and New York labor laws. The plaintiff claimed that pre-employment travel, visa processing, and recruitment expenses he paid were unreimbursed kickbacks that reduced his first week's wages below the minimum wage between 2003 and 2010. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that such expenses were not legally reimbursable and that minimum wage requirements were met, and also sought dismissal of claims from years the plaintiff did not work for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied summary judgment, holding that these expenses are reimbursable under federal and state wage laws if they bring compensation below the minimum, following the Eleventh Circuit's Arriaga decision and recent DOL guidance, while granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss.