District Court, W.D. New York — appointed by Gerald Ford
Born 1917 · Montour Falls, NY
Hayes v. Williamsville Central School District
District Court, W.D. New York · 2007-08-10 · cited 2×
In this case, a parent filed suit on behalf of herself and her son against a school district, the New York State Education Department, and a federal civil rights office, alleging violations of the IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, FERPA, §1983, and Title VI related to the handling of education complaints and disability accommodations. The Education Department moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds and for a more definite statement under federal pleading rules. The court granted dismissal of all claims against the Education Department, reasoning that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court against states and their agencies absent consent or statutory waiver, which did not exist for these claims seeking monetary and punitive relief.
civil rightsfederal powerprocedure
Davis v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Davis)
District Court, W.D. New York · 2007-07-19 · cited 13×
The case concerned a debtor who sought to discharge her federally guaranteed student loans through bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), which permits discharge only upon a showing of undue hardship using the three-prong Brunner test. The Bankruptcy Court applied that test and granted a partial discharge of the loans. On appeal, the District Court reviewed the legal conclusions de novo and determined that the Bankruptcy Court had failed to properly apply the Brunner factors, including by not adequately considering total household income in assessing the debtor's standard of living and future prospects, and that the debtor had not satisfied her burden to prove all three prongs by a preponderance of the evidence. The District Court therefore vacated the Bankruptcy Court's order, reversed the partial discharge, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment holding the full loan amount non-dischargeable.
procedure
Savino v. LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC
District Court, W.D. New York · 2007-06-14 · cited 13×
This case involves co-receivers appointed in consolidated state court class actions against Richard Muto and related parties, who sued Lloyds TSB Bank in federal court asserting claims including breach of contract, conversion, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty arising from an alleged fraudulent investment scheme known as Merit Quest. The receivers alleged that investor funds were to be held in a specific Lloyds trust account subject to strict withdrawal conditions under a trust agreement, but the funds were improperly handled. The court considered Lloyds' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was the operative pleading, and determined that the allegations were deficient because they relied on vague assertions made only on information and belief, failed to identify parties to key agreements or attach supporting documents, and did not sufficiently plead the elements of the causes of action. As a result, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without granting leave to file a further amended complaint.
procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability
United States v. Waker
District Court, W.D. New York · 2006-11-01 · cited 4×
In United States v. Waker, the defendant, a convicted felon, was charged with unlawfully possessing firearms and ammunition in violation of federal law after agents executed a search warrant at his apartment and recovered those items. Waker moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrant was invalid due to a handwritten date error listing 2004 instead of 2005, insufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized, and lack of probable cause in the supporting affidavit. The district court, reviewing the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denied the motion to suppress and upheld the denial of a bill of particulars. The court reasoned that the date discrepancy was a minor clerical error that did not mislead anyone, that incorporating the detailed affidavit by reference satisfied Fourth Amendment and Rule 41 particularity requirements, and that the affidavit contained ample facts establishing probable cause for the search.
criminal lawprocedureguns
Montalvo v. Barnhart
District Court, W.D. New York · 2006-10-06
The case concerns Aracelis Montalvo's petition for judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her application for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, based on claimed disabilities including diabetes, depression, and other physical and mental conditions. The district court considered motions for judgment on the pleadings and a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, which found that the administrative law judge violated the treating physician rule by rejecting the treating psychiatrist's opinions without substantial supporting evidence in the record. The court adopted the recommendation, denied the Commissioner's motion, granted the claimant's motion, and remanded the matter for calculation of benefits rather than further administrative proceedings.
federal powerhealthcare
In Re Application of Buran
District Court, W.D. New York · 2006-09-11
This case involves a dispute over the removal of a New York state court action seeking dissolution of Amherst Medical Park, Inc., a business in which the petitioner and respondent each own 50% of the stock, to federal district court under bankruptcy removal statutes, followed by a motion to refer the matter to bankruptcy court where the petitioner has a pending Chapter 11 proceeding. The dissolution action centers on valuing the petitioner's ownership interest in the company, which is affected by a large state court judgment from a related eviction proceeding that prompted the bankruptcy filing. The petitioner contends the action is core to the bankruptcy estate and should proceed in federal bankruptcy court, while the respondent argues it is non-core, seeks remand to state court on equitable grounds, and urges discretionary abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). The court analyzes procedural requirements under Bankruptcy Rule 9027(e)(3) for filing statements on core or non-core status and substantive issues of jurisdiction and abstention.
business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power