This case is part of the In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation multidistrict litigation, involving a bellwether trial selection where plaintiff Sarah Raber sought partial reconsideration of an order denying her request to withdraw a Lexecon waiver. Raber argued for withdrawal under the Americans with Disabilities Act due to her husband's medical treatment needs in Florida, aiming to have the trial in the Northern District of Florida instead of the original Middle District of Tennessee. The court denied the motion, holding that Raber failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 6.3 by presenting new arguments, did not demonstrate good cause for withdrawal, and could not rely on the ADA as a basis for the relief sought. The opinion further rejected attempts to reframe the request as a venue transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), noting such arguments were untimely and not properly raised.
This case is part of the multidistrict litigation against Merck over its osteoporosis drug Fosamax, with plaintiff Linda Secrest alleging that the drug caused her osteonecrosis of the jaw and bringing claims for design defect, failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, breach of warranty, and punitive damages. The court granted Merck's motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn, breach-of-warranty, fraudulent-concealment, and punitive-damages claims, but denied it on the design-defect claim. It also ruled on the parties' Daubert motions, granting and denying them in part. The decisions rested on the evidentiary record regarding when Merck received adequate notice of the ONJ risk and whether that risk rendered the drug's design defective under applicable state law.
In United States v. Egan, the case involved an ancillary forfeiture proceeding under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) following the guilty pleas of Robert Egan and Bernard McGarry to conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud and bank fraud charges stemming from their operation of Mount Vernon Money Center. The government had seized over $19 million from the company's vaults and sought to dismiss petitions by various banks, credit unions, and insurers claiming legal interests in portions of the funds. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. It reasoned that the claimants' petitions plausibly alleged superior legal interests in the seized property under the criminal forfeiture statute, which focuses on ownership rights rather than equitable distribution among victims, and that a hearing on the merits was required.
In Filho v. Safra National Bank of New York, a Brazilian plaintiff sued the bank for breach of contract, negligence, securities fraud, and related claims after alleging that bank representatives made unauthorized risky investments with his account funds between 2007 and 2008, claiming he had limited English skills, signed blank forms, and requested a hold-mail service that prevented him from learning of the activity. The defendant moved to compel arbitration under updated account terms or alternatively to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, finding a valid agreement because the original terms allowed the bank to change conditions with constructive notice to hold-mail customers, which the plaintiff had agreed to and never revoked despite opportunities to do so, and the broad arbitration clause covered all claims including federal statutory ones. The case was dismissed without prejudice in favor of arbitration proceedings.
This case involved a dispute over a performance bond issued by Federal Insurance Company to guarantee a subcontract between Turner Construction and Pile Foundation for marine construction work on the New York Cruise Terminal project, which was overseen by the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC). After Pile encountered performance issues and a payment dispute arose related to contract registration and VENDEX vendor disclosures, Turner terminated the subcontract, leading to claims about whether Federal remained liable under the bond following a memorandum of understanding that extended deadlines. The court granted Federal's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Federal had no further liability on the Performance Bond. It denied EDC's cross-motion for summary judgment and motion to amend its answer as moot, based on the undisputed facts regarding the bond terms, default notice, and MOU.
The case involves Grand River Enterprises, a non-participating tobacco manufacturer, suing the attorneys general of numerous states over their enactment of escrow statutes tied to the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between major cigarette companies and settling states. Plaintiff alleges these statutes, which require NPMs to either join the MSA or pay into escrow accounts to cover potential future health care liabilities, violate the Commerce Clause and Sherman Act by imposing anticompetitive burdens on out-of-state sellers. The court opinion provides background on the MSA's payment structures for original, subsequent, and grandfathered participating manufacturers versus NPMs, explains the escrow statutes' goal of neutralizing cost advantages for non-joiners, and addresses pending motions to exclude expert reports on market share effects along with cross-motions for summary judgment. The court assumes standing and discusses the statutes' role in preventing NPMs from gaining market share without contributing to state health costs, while noting limitations on NPM adjustments under the MSA.