Cecilia M. Altonaga

In World Holdings, LLC v. Federal Republic of Germany, the plaintiff, which owned or controlled validated Dawes and Young bearer bonds issued by Germany after World War I, sued for payment on those bonds after Germany declined to honor them outside the 1953 London Debt Agreement settlement. The court granted summary judgment to Germany. It held the claims time-barred under New York law because the statute of limitations began running by the bonds' maturity and validation dates in 1964 and 1965, making the suit untimely whether a six- or twenty-year period applied.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking to recover amounts owed on two defaulted federally guaranteed student loans taken out by defendant Daniel F. Iwanski in 1990. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding the defendant liable for the principal and interest totaling over $18,000. The reasoning was that the government presented evidence of the promissory notes, disbursement, and default with no genuine issues of material fact, while the defendant's responses consisted only of denials and arguments about unrelated proceedings that did not affect his repayment obligation.

federal powerprocedure

This case concerns a dispute in which plaintiff Fabrice Lazarre alleged that Early Warning Services, a consumer reporting agency, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by inaccurately reporting fraudulent activity linked to a Washington Mutual bank account opened with his stolen identity, leading to holds and closures on his other accounts. Lazarre repeatedly disputed the information, but Early Warning relied on confirmations from Chase and declined to correct its reports. Early Warning moved to dismiss the claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i(a) for failure to state a claim. The court analyzed the statutory text and concluded that the maximum-possible-accuracy duty in section 1681e(b) applies to every consumer report, including those issued after reinvestigation, and is not rendered redundant by the reinvestigation obligations in section 1681i(a).

business & regulatoryprocedure

This multidistrict products liability case concerns plaintiff Marianne Chapman's claims that her use of Fixodent denture adhesive caused zinc-induced copper-deficiency myelopathy, resulting in neurological symptoms including numbness, ataxia, and pain. The court addressed Daubert motions to exclude testimony from seven of the plaintiff's experts, focusing on whether Fixodent can generally cause such myelopathy and whether it specifically caused the plaintiff's condition. Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards, the court evaluated the experts' qualifications, methodologies, and the reliability of their opinions, which relied primarily on case reports, pharmacokinetic data, and differential diagnoses without supporting epidemiological studies or controls for confounding factors. The court concluded that the proposed expert opinions lacked sufficient reliability due to methodological flaws, such as informal questioning of patients, failure to account for biases, and absence of rigorous scientific validation, and therefore excluded the testimony.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns claims by World Holdings, LLC to enforce payment on pre-World War II Dawes and Young bonds issued by Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and held by U.S. investors. Germany moved for partial summary judgment, contending that the 1953 Validation Treaty and related agreements require the bonds to undergo a specific validation process before any enforcement action can proceed in U.S. courts. The court granted the motion, ruling that the treaty applies to all U.S. bondholders and that validation is a prerequisite to suit, following the Second Circuit's decision in Mortimer. The core reasoning rests on the treaty's text, the historical record of post-war debt negotiations, and evidence that bondholders received adequate notice of the validation requirements through publication.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case is a putative class action brought by an MRI service provider, as assignee of insureds under Florida no-fault PIP policies, alleging that State Farm underpaid for MRI services by improperly applying the Medicare Multiple Diagnostic Imaging Rule when calculating reimbursement amounts based on the statutory fee schedule incorporated into the policies. The provider asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment (in the alternative), and declaratory/injunctive relief to resolve whether the rule could be applied to future payments. On State Farm's motion to dismiss, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the declaratory and injunctive relief claim because damages for breach of contract provide an adequate remedy at law and declaratory relief is unavailable where the issue is whether an unambiguous contract was breached.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case involves a condominium association's breach of contract claim against its insurer for denying coverage for windstorm damage from Hurricane Wilma under a homeowner's insurance policy. After the defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff moved to join several non-diverse defendants, including insurance agents and adjusters, which would destroy diversity and require remand to state court. The court denied the motion, applying factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) and finding that the joinder was primarily intended to defeat federal jurisdiction, that the plaintiff had been dilatory, and that there was no significant prejudice or valid claims against the proposed defendants.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from the plaintiff's claim that a fraudulent bank account opened in his name at Washington Mutual Bank (later acquired by Chase) led to inaccurate reports of fraudulent activity by Chase to Early Warning Services, which then affected his accounts at other banks; he sued both defendants under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for failing to properly investigate and correct the information. Chase moved to dismiss Count III for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), arguing that claims against it as WaMu's successor required prior administrative exhaustion with the FDIC. Early Warning moved to dismiss Counts I and II for failure to state a claim under the FCRA. The court granted Chase's motion, holding that FIRREA's jurisdictional bar applied to the claims, which must first be submitted to the FDIC, while also analyzing whether the complaint adequately pled violations against Early Warning under the relevant FCRA provisions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns claims by direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs that vertically integrated cement and concrete producers in Florida violated section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to fix prices, allocate customers and markets, and create artificial shortages of cement, ready-mix concrete, and concrete block. The defendants, who control most of the relevant market, allegedly targeted independent concrete producers through parallel price increases, factory shutdowns, and tying arrangements, particularly after construction demand declined. The court addressed identical motions to dismiss the second amended direct-purchaser complaint and the third amended indirect-purchaser complaint, examining the sufficiency of conspiracy allegations and whether parent companies could be liable for subsidiaries' conduct. Applying Eleventh Circuit agency standards, the court concluded that the complaints failed to allege facts showing parents directed or participated in any unlawful agreement, distinguishing precedents involving greater control or direct involvement, and therefore dismissed claims against certain parent entities.

business & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over a standard-form copier lease and service agreement between plaintiff Kenneth F. Hackett & Associates, Inc. and defendants GE Capital Information Technology Solutions, Inc. (d/b/a IKON Financial Services) and IKON Office Solutions, Inc. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and sought declaratory relief against IFS for an improper 5% payment increase after the first year, and claimed a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act against both defendants due to their roles in formulating, pricing, and enforcing the agreement. The court denied both defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the amended complaint pleaded sufficient facts to state plausible claims under Rule 8 standards, including IKON's direct participation in the alleged practices and the agreement's terms allowing potential repossession upon nonpayment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims by satellite service providers Intelsat against several defendants, including Multivision TV LLC, World Wide Broadcast, and individuals, alleging unauthorized transmission and reception of signals through an Intelsat satellite after termination of service agreements, in violation of the Federal Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 605) as well as state law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, tortious interference, and conspiracy. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt the defendants' use of the satellite bandwidth from a facility in Morocco. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction in full. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs did not qualify as "aggrieved persons" under the federal statute because they lacked proprietary rights in the communications at issue, combined with a lack of personal jurisdiction over certain unserved defendants and insufficient evidence or grounds to support injunctive relief against the others.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned an FLSA overtime claim brought by employee Nolman Antonio Barrera Solano against his employer, A Navas Party Production, Inc., and its co-owners, alleging failure to pay time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 per week during his 2005-2009 employment setting up and removing party equipment. The defendants moved for final summary judgment, contending there was no enterprise or individual coverage under the FLSA, that the plaintiff’s illegal immigration status barred recovery, and that any violations were not willful. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed on coverage (including out-of-state travel by the plaintiff and other employees, the origin of business goods, and supervision by one owner), the number of hours worked, and willfulness, all of which precluded judgment as a matter of law.

labor & employment

This case concerns consolidated appeals by Statutory Lienholders (contractors and mechanics' lien claimants) from eleven bankruptcy court orders in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Fontainebleau Las Vegas entities that were developing a casino resort project. The orders permitted the debtors to use approximately $18 million in cash collateral subject to first-priority liens held by Term Lenders and granted the Term Lenders replacement adequate-protection liens on the debtors' assets, while also authorizing related debtor-in-possession financing that primed other liens. The district court reviewed whether the bankruptcy court could enter these orders without ensuring adequate protection for the Statutory Lienholders, who asserted superior priority under Nevada law for their approximately $615 million in liens. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred in five disputed cash-collateral orders and the associated financing approvals because it did not confirm adequate protection for the Statutory Lienholders before authorizing the priming liens and use of cash collateral.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Anna Dockeray, an English dancer employed by Carnival Corporation on a Panamanian-flagged cruise ship, who broke her wrist when a performance chair collapsed and then sued Carnival in Florida state court on claims including Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and wage violations. Carnival removed the case to federal court under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in the Seafarer's Agreement requiring disputes to be resolved by arbitration in London, Monaco, Panama City, or Manila. Dockeray opposed arbitration, arguing waiver through Carnival's state-court participation, procedural unfairness, and conflict with public policy under precedents like Thomas v. Carnival Corp., but the court rejected these contentions after a limited inquiry under the Convention Act. The court concluded that a valid written arbitration agreement existed arising from a commercial relationship with foreign elements, enforced it by directing arbitration, and denied the motion to remand as moot while closing the case.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Henin v. Cancel, plaintiff Robert Henin sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligence, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging mistreatment by Miccosukee Tribe police officers after his arrest at a tribal casino; the officers were claimed to be acting under federal commissions from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The United States moved to dismiss the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for intentional torts. The court granted the motion and dismissed the three counts against the United States, holding that the negligence and IIED claims arose out of the alleged assault and battery and therefore fell within the FTCA's statutory exception for intentional torts. The decision rested on the principle that FTCA waivers must be strictly construed and that claims cannot be reframed to circumvent the intentional-tort bar when they are part of the same causative chain of events.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved Colombian and Panamanian plaintiffs who sued Helm Bank and other defendants in Florida state court, alleging unauthorized transfers of over one million dollars from their accounts into Florida entities' accounts as part of a fraudulent scheme involving international banking. Regions Bank removed the action to federal district court under 12 U.S.C. § 632, asserting federal jurisdiction because the suit involved international banking and a U.S.-organized bank. The plaintiffs moved to remand, contending that the rule of unanimity required all defendants to join the removal notice under general federal removal procedures. The court denied the motion to remand, reasoning that § 632's specific provision allowing 'any defendant' to remove controls and does not incorporate the unanimity requirement from 28 U.S.C. § 1446.

procedure

In this case, more than 200 plaintiffs who each paid about $350,000 for units in a planned Florida resort sued Sunvest and related defendants under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act after the project collapsed and their money was not refunded, alleging misrepresentations about the defendants' roles and obligations. The plaintiffs moved to bifurcate the trial into separate liability and damages phases or, alternatively, to continue the February 2010 trial date because of late expert reports on damages calculations. The court denied the motion, holding that bifurcation was inappropriate because damages are an element of an FDUTPA claim, that liability and damages issues overlapped in ways that would complicate separate trials, and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated the diligence or severe prejudice required to justify a continuance.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a motion in limine filed by defendant IMG Academies to exclude the damages calculations of plaintiffs' expert Michael O'Rourke in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) related to the purchase of condominium units marketed as luxury resort properties with specific amenities. O'Rourke's report measured damages as the difference between the market value of units as represented in marketing materials and their actual delivered condition, using purchase prices minus adjusted current appraisals. The defendant argued that the model failed to fully account for a 66 percent decline in the Orlando real estate market, potentially awarding plaintiffs compensation for losses caused by market conditions rather than any FDUTPA violation. The court evaluated the report's admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Florida law on damages, highlighting disagreements between the parties' experts on the proper application of market decline factors and the relevant valuation dates.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a graduate student, Sanjeev Sirpal, who sued the University of Miami and several professors after his dismissal from a Ph.D. program and suspension from medical school, alleging that false accusations of stealing research samples were motivated by racial bias and led to various harms including loss of property and reputational damage. The court addressed a motion to dismiss several counts and an alternative motion for summary judgment on conversion and negligent bailment claims. It dismissed one count without prejudice for failure to state a claim and granted partial summary judgment on the property-related claims to the extent they involved research and discoveries, reasoning that Sirpal did not own the intellectual property under copyright law, while denying summary judgment on claims involving his personally purchased items. The decision focused on ownership requirements for bailment and conversion under Florida law and the sufficiency of allegations regarding discriminatory intent.

civil rightspropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves claims by plaintiff Angeleke Saridakis, a female trauma surgeon employed by defendant South Broward Hospital District, alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and violations of the Equal Pay Act under Title VII, the FCRA, and related statutes. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate performance-based reasons for any adverse actions and disputing the existence of valid comparators or pretext. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether male surgeons were treated more favorably, whether the employer's stated concerns about skills, behavior, and timeliness were pretextual, and whether any Equal Pay Act violations were willful, thereby precluding judgment as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rights