STMicroelectronics sued Credit Suisse Group under Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) as a controlling person, along with state law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting fraud, alleging that brokers at CSG's subsidiary made unauthorized investments in non-SLARS securities like subprime CDOs and misrepresented the account holdings. The court granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, permitted the federal securities claims to proceed, dismissed the unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting claims but allowed the conversion claim to continue, and denied as moot the request to lift the PSLRA discovery stay. The rulings rested on the sufficiency of the amended allegations assumed true for pleading purposes, the existence of a confirmed arbitration award against the subsidiary, and the application of agency and contract principles to the various claims.
The case involved parents who were arrested and convicted for assault and child endangerment after their infant suffered severe malnutrition from a strict vegan diet they provided, leading to claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and New York law against police officers, prosecutors, and the city for false arrest, unlawful search, malicious prosecution, and related violations. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that prosecutors enjoyed absolute immunity for their conduct, probable cause supported the arrest and charges, and the complaint failed to state viable claims for the remaining allegations.
This case involved a challenge by candidate Randy Credico and two independent political bodies, the Libertarian Party and the Anti-Prohibition Party, to New York Election Law § 7-104.4(e), which requires that a candidate nominated only by multiple independent bodies appear on only one ballot line. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to have Credico's name placed on both parties' ballot lines, arguing violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted the injunction against the Board of Elections commissioners, concluding that the plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the law burdens their rights of political affiliation without sufficient justification. The decision directed that Credico's name be certified on both ballot lines for the 2010 election.
In Fischer v. NYC Department of Education, a vocational education teacher with multiple sclerosis sued his employer alleging retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act for requesting schedule accommodations and discrimination and retaliation under New York State and City human rights laws for failing to provide requested accommodations such as an early teaching schedule, a cooler classroom, a first-floor room, and a paraprofessional. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case in full. It held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation. The state and city claims were dismissed because the plaintiff did not serve a timely notice of claim as required by N.Y. Education Law § 3813, and the court lacked authority to extend the deadline beyond the one-year statute of limitations.
This case involved J&J Sports Productions suing 291 Bar & Lounge, LLC and its owner Dennis Caba for the unauthorized interception and public exhibition of a closed-circuit telecast of a May 2006 boxing match, in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605). After the defendants defaulted by failing to respond, the court deemed the complaint's allegations admitted and found that the defendants had willfully intercepted the scrambled satellite signal without a license or payment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report in full and awarded J&J $3,000 in statutory damages plus $1,332.50 in fees and costs against the corporate defendant under section 605, but awarded no damages against the individual defendant due to insufficient evidence of personal involvement. The decision rested on the default establishing liability for commercial signal theft and on the plaintiff's election of statutory remedies and documented costs.
The case involves Mohammed Mohsin's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction, based principally on the victim's post-trial recantation of testimony that had linked him to setting a fire along with related claims of perjury and new evidence. The court decided to deny the petition in full after de novo review. The core reasoning is that the recantations and corroborating post-trial materials were not newly discovered smoking-gun evidence but instead amounted to more elaborate versions of the same factual challenges to the victim's credibility that had already been presented to and rejected by the jury at trial through cross-examination and other testimony.