Paul Austin Crotty

This case involves five former court interpreters for the New York Unified Court System Office of Court Administration who were terminated after failing required English proficiency examinations. The plaintiffs, who worked with languages including Bengali, Hindi, Wolof, and others, sued under Title VII, the ADEA, and related state and local laws, alleging that the exams were developed and administered in a discriminatory manner based on race and national origin; some also raised claims against their union for inadequate representation. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), with the union alternatively seeking summary judgment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full after reviewing the parties' objections, granting the union's motions entirely and granting in part and denying in part the OCA's motions based on issues including administrative exhaustion, timeliness, and failure to state claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

Plaintiffs, bus drivers and mechanics employed by the New York City Transit Authority, sued manufacturers of urban transit buses and diesel engines for negligence and strict product liability, alleging personal injuries from exposure to diesel exhaust fumes caused by defective vehicle designs that violated Clean Air Act emissions standards and by inadequate warnings about the fumes. After plaintiffs abandoned design defect claims that sought stricter emissions controls, the remaining claims asserted that the vehicles failed to meet CAA standards and that defendants negligently failed to warn of latent dangers. The court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), dismissing all claims. The Clean Air Act preempts state common-law claims relating to emissions control, provides no private right of action, and the failure-to-warn claims were either preempted or failed to plead proximate causation; spousal derivative claims were likewise dismissed.

environmenttorts & liabilityfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In this case, Napster sued Rounder Records for breach of contract, seeking indemnification for costs from copyright infringement lawsuits over musical compositions in sound recordings supplied under 2001 and 2006 agreements for Napster's online music service. The court granted Rounder's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). It dismissed the 2001 contract claim because that agreement was rescinded and superseded by the 2006 contract, extinguishing any breach claims. The 2006 contract claim was dismissed because Napster failed to obtain the required advance consent for settlements and because the agreement did not obligate Rounder to procure mechanical licenses for the compositions at issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Anderson News, a major magazine wholesaler, suing various magazine publishers, distributors, and other wholesalers, alleging they conspired in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act to boycott Anderson and drive it out of business by cutting off its supply of magazines. Anderson also brought claims for tortious interference with business relationships and civil conspiracy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege an antitrust conspiracy under the Twombly standard. The court reasoned that Anderson's own proposal of a surcharge on magazines, presented as a non-negotiable ultimatum, explained the publishers' actions more plausibly than a collusive scheme, and there were insufficient facts to show agreement beyond parallel conduct.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Christine Arakelian's claims against her former employer Omnicare for breach of contract, violations of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and a declaratory judgment regarding the enforceability of non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in her employment agreements. The dispute centered on Omnicare's failure to pay severance benefits and unused vacation time after her termination without cause in 2009, along with the validity of post-employment restrictions. The court granted in part and denied in part both parties' summary judgment motions, holding that Omnicare breached the contract by withholding severance but that Arakelian had waived the full amount sought through a later agreement, that no unused vacation time existed under company policy, that Maryland law did not apply to bar recovery under the Wage Payment Act, and that the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses were unenforceable. The core reasoning relied on contract interpretation under New York law, factual determinations about vacation accrual and agreements signed, and choice-of-law analysis showing insufficient contacts with Maryland.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves two consolidated breach-of-contract actions brought by the successors of Brazilian songwriters Antonio Jobim and Vinicius de Moraes against Songs of Universal, Inc. The disputes arose from 1960s subpublishing agreements granting Universal limited rights to exploit compositions such as "The Girl from Ipanema" in specified territories in exchange for royalty payments, including provisions on mechanical rights, synchronization licenses, English lyric adaptations by Norman Gimbel, and territorial scope. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations, including improper royalty reductions tied to the Gimbel agreements, underpayments despite later rate adjustments, and unauthorized licensing outside the licensed territories. In the liability phase, the district court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment by interpreting the contract language on royalty calculations, deductions, and assignment rights, granting plaintiffs' motions in part on certain royalty and licensing claims while denying them on others due to factual disputes, such as whether Hong Kong qualified as an English-speaking territory under the agreements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Rajagopala Raghavendra's claims that Columbia University violated his civil rights and retaliated against him, culminating in his termination in 2005. After extensive litigation and an all-day mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement providing for substantial payment to Raghavendra in exchange for withdrawal of all claims and addressing future employment references. Raghavendra promptly moved to disavow the agreement, alleging it was voidable due to fraud, duress, and illegality involving collusion by Columbia, the mediator, and his counsel. The court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, found the objections meritless and lacking specificity, and upheld the settlement as final and binding. It therefore dismissed all related cases with prejudice.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns a patent infringement lawsuit in which Alloc, the holder of patents on interlocking floor panel systems, alleged that Balterio's Click Xpress panels infringed three related patents. Balterio moved for summary judgment on non-infringement, lack of willful infringement, invalidity of two patents, and unenforceability of one patent due to inequitable conduct. The court granted summary judgment to Balterio solely on the willful infringement claim and denied the remaining motions. The rulings turned on the prior claim construction requiring a 'play' element in the patented systems, the existence of genuine factual disputes over whether the accused products include that element or are anticipated by prior art, and unresolved questions about the materiality of certain disclosures during patent prosecution.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a real estate financing dispute in which plaintiffs Randolph Equities and related parties alleged that defendants Carbon Capital and BlackRock improperly terminated a planned $16.7 million mezzanine loan commitment needed to purchase and convert a Florida apartment complex to condominiums. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel. The court granted defendants' summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part, while denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the contract claim and certain damages. The core reasoning was that the commitment letters incorporated at-will termination rights from the letters of intent, no enforceable waiver of those rights occurred through conduct or oral statements, the statute of frauds barred certain oral modifications, and plaintiffs failed to show justifiable reliance or damages with sufficient certainty.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case is a securities-fraud class action brought by shareholders of SafeNet Inc. against the company, its former officers, and directors, alleging that the defendants issued materially false financial statements, proxy materials, and registration statements concerning improper stock-options backdating and revenue-recognition practices, which allegedly inflated the company's stock price until corrective disclosures caused it to drop. Plaintiffs asserted nine counts under Sections 10(b), 20(a), 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and related rules. Defendants moved to dismiss the 151-page complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part after analyzing whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded falsity, scienter, loss causation, and other elements for each count and defendant group.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a challenge by New York City taxicab fleet owners to new regulations from the City's Taxi and Limousine Commission that adjusted maximum lease rates for vehicles—raising them for hybrids or clean-diesel taxis and lowering them (in stages) for conventional vehicles like Crown Victorias—in an effort to encourage purchases of more fuel-efficient cabs. The court had previously enjoined an earlier mpg-based mandate as preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and the City responded with this lease-rate approach. The opinion examines whether the new rules effectively function as a fuel-economy mandate through their stated purpose, public statements by city officials, and effects on owners, despite being framed as incentives. The court concluded that the regulations have the purpose and effect of establishing minimum mpg standards and are thus preempted by federal law.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves five consolidated personal injury lawsuits filed against Amtrak by employees of contractors who were injured when a crane from a separate Amtrak project collided with their worksite in the East River Tunnel during a standpipe installation project. Amtrak sought partial summary judgment to enforce indemnification clauses in its contracts with Crescent, STV, HMM, and the STV/HMM joint venture, requiring those parties to defend and indemnify Amtrak against claims by their own employees. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after finding no clear error, granting Amtrak's motions and denying HMM's cross-motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the contract language was unambiguous in requiring indemnification for employee injuries without limitation to the specific project services, that Amtrak had not materially breached the contracts, and that HMM was jointly liable as part of the joint venture.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This consolidated class action lawsuit concerned whether current and former Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation were entitled to overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and corresponding New York and California state wage and hour laws. The plaintiffs claimed they did not fall within any exemptions to the overtime requirements, while Novartis argued they qualified as outside salespersons, administrative employees, and in some cases highly compensated employees. The court granted Novartis's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact. The Reps' primary duty of calling on physicians to persuade them to prescribe Novartis drugs constituted making sales for purposes of the outside sales exemption under the FLSA and state laws; alternatively, their work was directly related to the company's general business operations and involved sufficient discretion to qualify for the administrative exemption.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case arose from plaintiffs' participation in illegal tax shelters (OPIS and BLIPS) marketed by KPMG and Brown & Wood, with financing from defendant banks Deutsche Bank and HVB and advice from defendant Presidio; after recovering from the accounting and law firms, plaintiffs sued the banks and advisor under RICO, civil conspiracy, fraud, unjust enrichment, and fiduciary duty claims, alleging the defendants knowingly assisted the fraudulent schemes for fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part. It held that the PSLRA did not bar the RICO claims because the core fraud was a tax avoidance scheme with only incidental securities transactions, but it dismissed certain claims as time-barred, finding insufficient allegations of fraudulent concealment.

taxescriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involves customers of the defunct broker-dealer A.R. Baron & Co. who lost over $7 million due to Baron's securities fraud and market manipulation schemes between 1992 and 1996, after Baron went bankrupt and its principals were convicted. Plaintiffs sued various defendants, including Bear Stearns entities, broker firms, and individuals, alleging they assisted Baron by providing financing, clearing services, and other support that enabled the fraud to continue. The claims asserted were federal securities fraud through misrepresentations and market manipulation, RICO violations, common law fraud, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting fraud. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims against every defendant except the Apollo Defendants, whose motion was denied.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a class of current and former managerial employees at Gristede's supermarkets who sued the company and related defendants for failing to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, along with related claims of fraud and retaliation stemming from counterclaims filed against two plaintiffs. The court had previously certified a collective action under the FLSA and a class action under Rule 23. On plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment addressing nine issues—including the applicability of the white collar exemption, liability for overtime to co-managers, the unlawfulness of deleting unauthorized overtime from records, certain affirmative defenses, liquidated damages, the statute of limitations, record-keeping obligations, the counterclaims, and retaliation—the court granted the motion on all claims except the seventh regarding record-keeping presumptions. The decision rested on the absence of genuine disputes of material fact, undisputed evidence from prior proceedings, and legal standards establishing that defendants could not meet their burdens on exemptions, good faith, willfulness, or non-retaliatory motives for the counterclaims.

labor & employment

In this securities fraud class action, lead plaintiffs Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board and Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Association alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb and individual defendants made materially false and misleading public statements about the company’s patent litigation and settlement efforts with Apotex over the drug Plavix by omitting details of side agreements, relinquished legal rights, and heightened regulatory rejection risks. The claims were brought under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of Bristol-Myers stock during the class period from March 21 to August 8, 2006. Defendants moved to dismiss, contending that disclosures were adequate and that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation and scienter. The court denied the motions in full, holding that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged the required elements of the securities claims.

business & regulatory

This case is a class action brought by shareholders of Medis Technologies against the company, its CEO, and a marketing representative, alleging violations of federal securities laws through misrepresentations about the company's first commercial sales of fuel cell products to Microsoft. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants knowingly or recklessly overstated the size and nature of the sales in press releases and interviews, causing a spike in stock price. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to adequately plead scienter under the Exchange Act. The court granted the motion, holding that the complaint lacked sufficient particularized facts showing the defendants acted with the required intent or recklessness regarding the statements about the Microsoft transaction.

business & regulatory

Plaintiff Edward Arnold sued accounting firm KPMG and law firm Brown & Wood for damages after purchasing tax shelters (FLIP, OPIS, and BLIPS) that involved securities transactions designed to offset taxable income but were later ruled unlawful by the IRS. Arnold asserted federal securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, along with state law claims including breach of contract, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and professional malpractice, alleging the firms knowingly promoted the schemes with misleading opinion letters. The court dismissed the federal claims as time-barred by the statute of limitations. It merged the state claims into single professional malpractice claims against each defendant, exercised supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims, and dismissed the malpractice claims as time-barred under New York's three-year statute. The court also denied leave to amend the complaint, citing repeated prior amendments and the futility of further changes after ten years.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Panther Partners, Inc. v. Ikanos Communications, Inc., a class action securities suit, plaintiff Panther alleged that defendant Ikanos and its officers, directors, and underwriters misstated or omitted material facts regarding inventory levels with Japanese customers, quality control processes, a latent semiconductor defect known as Kirkendall voiding, and useless acquired inventory in the registration statements for the company's 2005 IPO and 2006 secondary offering. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint under the PSLRA and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the offering documents adequately disclosed the risks inherent in Ikanos's business model, semiconductor market, design processes, and technology integration; that securities laws do not require disclosure of unknown or unknowable future events or clairvoyance; and that there were no challenges to the company's audited financial statements.

business & regulatory