John Fontaine Keenan

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryfederal powerhealthcare

This case is a bellwether products liability action in multidistrict litigation in which plaintiff Shirley Boles alleged that Merck's osteoporosis drug Fosamax caused her to develop osteonecrosis of the jaw after nearly eight years of use. The first trial ended in a mistrial, and after partial dismissal of some claims, a retrial on design-defect theories produced an $8 million verdict for the plaintiff. The court denied Merck's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings on design defect and causation, but ordered a remittitur because the damages award was excessive.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiffs seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to hazardous waste pollution from the former Union Carbide India Limited plant in Bhopal, India, with claims that Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) as the parent company was liable under theories including direct participation, concerted action, and alter ego. The specific dispute concerned plaintiffs' objections to a magistrate judge's order denying their motion to compel production of additional documents related to technology transfer and service agreements between UCC and UCIL, beyond the over 9,000 pages already produced. The court overruled the objections and affirmed the magistrate's ruling in full. The core reasoning was that the withheld categories of documents—such as drafts, documents not shared with UCIL, non-design services, and materials on a specific unit—were either irrelevant to pollution issues or of such attenuated relevance that production was not required, and the magistrate's decision was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law under the deferential standard of review.

environmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Mahmoud Reza Banki, who was convicted by a jury on five counts including conspiracy to violate the IEEPA and Iranian Transactions Regulations by operating an informal hawala money transfer system to send funds to Iran, substantive violations of those sanctions laws as an aider and abettor, operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, and making false statements to OFAC regarding the source of certain transfers. Following the verdict, Banki moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, raising claims of constructive amendment of the indictment, prejudicial variance, and improper prosecutorial arguments in summation about the materiality of his statements. The court denied the motion, holding that the evidence at trial was consistent with the charges in the indictment, the prosecutor's rebuttal did not introduce new theories of criminality or materiality beyond what was charged, and any minor discrepancies did not warrant retrial.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a dispute over an early termination payment under an interest rate swap agreement related to revenue bonds issued by the Adelanto Public Utility Authority. Ambac Assurance Corporation, as the surety, paid the termination amount to Piper Jaffray after the Authority failed to do so and sued for reimbursement, breach of contract, and specific performance. The Authority moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue based on the forum-selection clause in the agreement. The court denied the motion, holding that the clause requires exclusive jurisdiction in the United States District Court in Manhattan, New York, and that the provision allowing transfer applies only to actions initiated by the Authority, which this one was not.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a bellwether products liability action in multidistrict litigation against Merck concerning whether its osteoporosis drug Fosamax caused the plaintiff's jaw condition known as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ or BRONJ). The court denied Merck's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's negligent failure-to-warn claim, while dismissing her uncontested strict liability and warranty claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's symptoms aligned with the AAOMS's updated definition of stage-zero BRONJ, which does not require exposed necrotic bone, and that whether Fosamax specifically caused her condition presented a genuine issue of material fact for trial rather than a basis for dismissal as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In this copyright case, plaintiff Orrin Lynn Tolliver Jr. sued defendant James Louis McCants over McCants' unauthorized 2005 licensing of their 1982 co-created musical composition 'I Need a Freak' for use in the Black Eyed Peas song 'My Humps.' The court had previously found infringement and reinstated affirmative defenses, but now addresses the remaining defenses of acquiescence and waiver on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that waiver was abandoned and that acquiescence failed because the record showed no active consent by Tolliver, no justifiable reliance by McCants on any conduct by Tolliver, and inconsistent actions by McCants that contradicted any claimed reliance. The decision rests on undisputed facts about the timing of events, lack of evidence of inducement or detriment, and McCants' own contradictory statements and claims of ownership.

propertybusiness & regulatory

Plaintiffs, fifty-seven Israeli citizens injured or whose family members were killed in 2006 Hizbullah missile attacks during the Israel-Lebanon conflict, sued five Lebanese banks under the Alien Tort Claims Act. They alleged that the banks provided financial services to Hizbullah-affiliated groups, amounting to terrorism financing as well as conspiracy and aiding and abetting genocide, war crimes, and terrorism. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. It held that the banks' use of New York correspondent accounts for U.S. dollar wire transfers did not create sufficient minimum contacts with the forum or show that the claims arose from those contacts under New York's long-arm statute or due process requirements. The court denied jurisdictional discovery as futile and did not reach the Rule 12(b)(6) issues.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case is a proposed securities class action brought by shareholders of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co. (Freddie Mac) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act through misrepresentations about the company's mortgage portfolio, underwriting, and capital during the 2007-2008 housing crisis. While a motion to dismiss was pending, plaintiffs sought to partially lift the PSLRA's automatic discovery stay to obtain documents Freddie Mac had produced to congressional and federal investigators, and separately moved to declare unenforceable a non-participation clause in Freddie Mac severance agreements that allegedly blocked former employees from speaking with plaintiffs' investigators. The court denied both motions. It held that plaintiffs had not shown the particularized need required to lift the PSLRA stay and that they lacked standing to challenge the severance provision; even if standing existed, the court lacked jurisdiction under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act because the requested relief would interfere with the Federal Housing Finance Agency's authority as conservator to enforce Freddie Mac's contracts.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involved Louis Vuitton Malletier alleging that Bonini Italian Handbags, Inc. sold or attempted to sell counterfeit versions of its trademarked Epi Leather handbags in violation of the Lanham Act and New York law. After the court previously entered a default judgment against Bonini for failure to respond, it referred the matter for an inquest on damages. The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted without objection, an award of $400,000 in statutory damages plus $5,568.14 in attorneys' fees and costs, based on evidence of infringing sales and the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations accepted as true due to the default. The court declined additional punitive damages under New York law, finding the statutory award already included a punitive component.

business & regulatory

This case is a products liability action in which plaintiff Shirley Boles alleges that she developed osteonecrosis of the jaw after taking the osteoporosis drug Fosamax manufactured by defendant Merck. The court addressed Merck's motion for summary judgment under Florida law on claims including failure to warn and related negligence and strict liability theories. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding triable issues on causation supported by expert testimony linking long-term Fosamax use to the plaintiff's condition while dismissing other claims such as punitive damages for lack of evidence meeting the statutory threshold. The reasoning centered on the admissibility and sufficiency of medical and regulatory expert opinions regarding when risks were known and whether warnings were adequate.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This multi-district products liability litigation concerns claims that Merck's osteoporosis drug Fosamax causes osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), a rare condition involving exposed dead bone in the jaw, often after dental procedures. The court addresses omnibus Daubert motions from the Plaintiffs Steering Committee and Merck challenging the admissibility of numerous expert witnesses on issues including causation, the drug's mechanism and efficacy, and regulatory compliance. The core reasoning applies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevance, evaluating experts' qualifications, methodologies, and whether their opinions are grounded in sufficient scientific data rather than speculation, while noting that certain opinions (such as affirmative causation or its absence) may be limited or excluded based on the strength of supporting evidence like epidemiological studies and FDA reviews.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs who purchased approximately $6.8 million in stock from Aspen Technology, Inc. under a securities purchase agreement and later sued former Aspen officers, including defendant Lawrence Evans, for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting fraud based on allegedly false statements in pre-agreement meetings, the agreement itself, SEC filings, and press releases. After an earlier dismissal of the initial complaint with leave to replead the common law claims, Evans moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part, holding that the amended complaint adequately attributed certain statements to Evans under the group pleading doctrine and sufficiently alleged his scienter through new details about internal accounting practices and specific transactions, while dismissing other claims for lack of particularity or insufficient scienter allegations. The core reasoning focused on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) particularity requirements for fraud claims and the need for a strong inference of scienter, applying prior analysis to the amended pleadings.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a trademark dispute between Dress for Success Worldwide, a national nonprofit that provides professional attire and career services to disadvantaged women and holds a federally registered mark since 1999, and Dress 4 Success, a California nonprofit operating in Los Angeles that provides similar services to women and men using a similar mark since 1996. After a period of affiliation under licensing agreements that ended in 2008, Worldwide moved for a preliminary injunction to bar D4S from using the DRESS 4 SUCCESS mark and website, while D4S cross-moved to enjoin Worldwide from using its mark in the Los Angeles area. The court granted Worldwide's motion and denied D4S's, concluding that D4S's common law rights merged into the licensing agreements and that Worldwide was likely to succeed on its infringement claim based on its registered mark and D4S's post-termination use.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved plaintiff Ronald Ventura suing Merrill Lynch, its affiliate, and analyst Henry Blodget for securities fraud under federal law and common law fraud. Ventura alleged that the defendants issued misleadingly positive research reports on CMGI stock to secure investment banking business, inflating the stock price and causing his losses when the truth emerged. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, holding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead loss causation by linking the alleged misrepresentations to his financial losses rather than broader market factors.

business & regulatory