This case concerns a school social worker who alleged that her employer, BOCES, and individual supervisors retaliated against her for reporting a teacher's alleged inappropriate conduct with a student and for submitting a FOIL request, through actions including verbal and written admonishments, denial of a part-time after-school position and summer work, removal from a conference presenter role, failure to discipline coworkers, email review, and a job transfer. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed most claims for lack of evidence showing causation between the protected speech and the alleged adverse actions or because certain actions did not qualify as adverse employment actions, but it found a triable issue of fact regarding the denial of the part-time position and personal involvement by at least one supervisor, precluding qualified immunity on that claim.
This case involves a dispute between Longacre Master Fund, Ltd. and ATS Automation Tooling Systems Inc. over an assignment of ATS's creditor claims in the Delphi Automotive bankruptcy, specifically regarding whether certain bankruptcy court objections and proceedings impaired the claim and entitled Longacre to repayment, damages, or indemnification under their agreement. The court granted ATS's converted motion for summary judgment on all counts and denied Longacre's cross-motion for summary judgment on its first, fifth, and seventh causes of action. The core reasoning was that the assignment agreement allocated the risk of unknown information to the buyer, the bankruptcy actions did not constitute an impairment of the claim or breach of ATS's representations and warranties as defined in the contract, and ATS lacked the requisite knowledge of any conditions affecting the claim's validity at the time of the assignment.
In Plair v. City of New York, a pre-trial detainee at Rikers Island alleged that correction officers assaulted him after a verbal dispute with another inmate, resulting in broken jaws, and then denied him medical care for 19 hours, leading to surgery and extended detention beyond his release date; he brought Section 1983 claims against the City, supervisory officials, and individual officers. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissing the Monell claim against the City while allowing other claims to proceed and granting leave to amend. The core reasoning was that the complaint contained only conclusory allegations of a municipal policy or custom of staff brutality and failed to plausibly link the isolated prior incidents at RNDC to the plaintiff's specific injury, as required under Monell and Twombly/Iqbal standards.
This case concerns plaintiffs who established self-directed IRAs through contracts with defendants Principal Financial Group and Principal Trust, directed investments into a Ponzi scheme, and subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging twenty-six claims for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and ERISA violations under federal and state law. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that certain federal ERISA claims failed because plaintiffs were not participants or beneficiaries under an employee benefit plan, while other contract, negligence, and fiduciary duty claims under state law and federal IRA requirements could proceed based on the terms of the standardized agreements and alleged duties to hold assets and avoid commingling. The decision applied choice-of-law analysis favoring the plaintiffs' home states and assessed the adequacy of pleadings regarding the scope of custodial responsibilities.
business & regulatorylabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability
This case involves two nonprofit organizations, the Alzheimer's Foundation of America and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association, each alleging that the other misused trademarks and caused donor confusion through the handling of charitable donations, including checks intended for one party but deposited by the other. The Foundation brought claims under the Lanham Act for false designation and unfair competition, along with New York state law claims for dilution, deceptive practices, conversion, unjust enrichment, and related torts, while the Association asserted Lanham Act trademark infringement and dilution claims plus state claims for libel, fraud, and tortious interference. On dueling motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court denied dismissal of the Lanham Act and related claims but granted dismissal of the UCC, conversion, libel, and unjust enrichment claims, as well as all claims against Northern Trust, finding insufficient factual allegations for those counts while determining that the trademark and confusion allegations stated plausible claims. The court granted leave to amend within 20 days.
The USPA Parties sought a declaratory judgment that they could license and sell fragrance products bearing marks including "U.S. POLO ASSN.," the Double Horsemen Trademark, and "1890" without violating the Lanham Act or New York common law regarding trademark infringement, dilution, or unfair competition with respect to the PRL Parties' Polo Player Logo and "POLO" marks. The PRL Parties counterclaimed for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition under federal and state law and moved for injunctive relief. After a trial, the court denied the requested declaratory judgment and granted a permanent injunction to the PRL Parties. The decision rested on findings that the PRL marks were strong and distinctive in the fragrance market, that the USPA marks and trade dress created a likelihood of consumer confusion, and that the USPA Parties had adopted their marks with intent to benefit from PRL's goodwill.