Consistently follows and cites controlling precedents such as Anderson v. Mt. Clemens without questioning their validity in [7] and similar applications elsewhere. Lanzetta v. Florio's Enterprises… ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In April 2006, the Bairds gave Bernard Madoff a sculpture as a thank-you gift for managing their investments through his firm; after Madoff’s 2009 guilty plea to fraud, the sculpture was forfeited to the government as part of his assets, prompting the Bairds to file a petition seeking its return on the ground that the gift was conditional on Madoff’s honest handling of their money. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the petition. Applying New York law, the court held that the transfer met all requirements of a completed gift—delivery with donative intent—because the Bairds presented the sculpture without stating any conditions or reservations at the time, and a later claim that the gift was based on a mistaken premise does not render it revocable. The petition contained no facts showing that Madoff agreed, expressly or impliedly, to return the item if the premise proved false.
In United States v. Peterson, after Richard Peterson pleaded guilty to wire fraud and related insurance offenses and agreed to forfeit two properties as part of his sentence, his long-term domestic partner Gregory Crew petitioned under 21 U.S.C. § 853 to assert an interest in both the San Francisco Property and the Grand Cayman Property. Following a two-day hearing, the district court ruled that Crew held a valid community property interest in the San Francisco Property but none in the Grand Cayman Property. The court found that Crew and Peterson had lived together as a couple at the San Francisco Property since the early 1980s, registered as domestic partners under California law granting them rights equivalent to married couples, and that Crew had contributed roughly 40 percent of ownership costs plus substantial labor and funds to multiple renovations. By contrast, the Grand Cayman condominium was owned by a Peterson-controlled company, and Crew had no comparable financial or ownership stake. The court therefore recognized Crew’s interest only in the San Francisco Property while rejecting it for the other asset.
In this case, Jose Marte pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute Oxycodone and was sentenced to 135 months in prison under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. He later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the Guidelines' drug equivalency tables for Oxycodone were unconstitutional. The court denied the motion, finding that Marte's plea agreement included a valid waiver of his right to challenge the sentence via § 2255, that his counsel had raised related sentencing arguments at the time, and that any equal protection claim had not been preserved. The decision rested on the terms of the plea agreement and the procedural history showing the sentence fell within the stipulated Guidelines range.
In Lawson v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, the petitioner, a Jamaican-born lawful permanent resident and Vietnam veteran, sought de novo review of USCIS's denial of his naturalization application after it determined he lacked good moral character due to his 1985 manslaughter conviction for killing his wife. The sole issue was whether Lawson had been of good moral character during the statutory period beginning in 2005. The court granted the petition, holding that Lawson met the requirement based on his military service and resulting PTSD and addictions, his completion of over thirteen years in prison during which he earned degrees and counseled others, and his post-release record of steady employment as a drug counselor, family caregiving, church involvement, and community volunteering. Although prior conduct could be considered, the court found that Lawson's rehabilitation and contributions established good moral character by a preponderance of the evidence.
In this qui tam action under the False Claims Act, relator Cleuza Colucci alleged that Beth Israel Medical Center and its executives submitted false claims to Medicare by purchasing non-teaching hospitals to artificially inflate reimbursements for its Graduate Medical Education program. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court reasoned that the complaint failed to allege falsity because the relevant Medicare regulations were ambiguous and the defendants' interpretations were reasonable, and it also failed to plead that the defendants acted knowingly, as the facts showed only a possibility of misconduct rather than the required scienter.
The case involved plaintiff James Muller claiming that defendants Twentieth Century Fox, Paul W.S. Anderson, and Davis Entertainment copied his screenplay "The Lost Continent" when producing the film "AVP: Alien vs. Predator," asserting copyright infringement and breach of implied contract. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the amended complaint. It reasoned that no reasonable jury could find actual copying or substantial similarity between the works under copyright law, as any similarities involved only unprotectible ideas, concepts, or abstractions rather than particular expressions, and the works told very different stories.
