This case concerned whether a defendant convicted of receiving and possessing child pornography must pay restitution to a victim under 18 U.S.C. § 2259. The court decided that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary, that Vicky qualified as a victim, that recoverable losses were limited to those proximately caused by the defendant's conduct, and that the defendant was jointly and severally liable for the full amount of those losses after offsets. It calculated specific recoverable amounts for future counseling, educational and vocational needs, lost wages, and attorney's fees based on the evidence submitted. The core reasoning rested on the statutory text of § 2259, its mandatory restitution requirement, and precedents interpreting proximate causation and joint liability under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.
This case involves claims by property owners and related entities against county, state, and corporate defendants arising from alleged ongoing pollution and hazardous waste discharges from the Old City of Fulton Dump onto plaintiffs' properties. Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under the Clean Water Act, RCRA, CERCLA, and Section 1983 for due process and unlawful search violations, along with state law claims for nuisance, negligence, and declaratory relief. The court granted the state defendants' and corporate defendants' motions to dismiss in full and the county defendant's motion in part, dismissing most claims while allowing limited aspects of the county claims to proceed. Dismissals rested on grounds including lack of standing, failure to allege ongoing violations, Eleventh Amendment immunity, collateral estoppel from prior state proceedings, and qualified immunity.
This case is a patent infringement action in which Optigen, LLC, the exclusive licensee of two U.S. patents covering DNA-based tests for progressive rod-cone degeneration (PRCD) in dogs, sued International Genetics, Inc. (InGen, a Bahamian company), Genetic Fulfillment USA, Pinpoint DNA Technologies, and Richard Dobbins. The complaint alleged direct and induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, plus Lanham Act false advertising and unfair competition claims, based on defendants' website offers and sales of PRCD testing kits and services to U.S. customers (with samples shipped from and to U.S. addresses but tests performed abroad). The court granted Optigen's motion to dismiss certain counterclaims and strike affirmative defenses for failure to state a claim, granted InGen's summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part on the infringement issues, and granted Optigen's motion to amend the complaint. The core reasoning addressed whether website solicitations and fulfillment arrangements directed at U.S. customers constitute an infringing "offer to sell" or "sale" under § 271(a) even when performance occurs outside the United States, along with the adequacy of the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6).
The case involves a plaintiff suing a police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment for false arrest and excessive force after an August 2004 incident in which the officer arrested him for skateboarding in a prohibited area at Auburn City Hall and for resisting arrest. The court granted the officer's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, dismissing the false arrest claim but allowing the excessive force claim to proceed to trial. The false arrest claim failed because the officer had arguable probable cause based on his observations of the plaintiff with a skateboard in a no-skateboard zone, the plaintiff's denial of skating, and his refusal to comply with instructions during the encounter, which also supported qualified immunity. The excessive force claim survived due to disputed issues of material fact about the degree of the plaintiff's resistance and the level of force the officer used in forcing him to the ground and applying handcuffs.
This case involves a breach-of-contract dispute in which insurance companies sued their former insured clients for unpaid retrospective premiums, guaranteed-cost policy premiums, taxes, and claim service fees under multiple workers' compensation, liability, and auto insurance policies. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that most claims were barred by New York's six-year statute of limitations because the action was filed in 2007, more than six years after the relevant policy audits had occurred and amounts became due. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that claims based on audits completed before November 2000 were time-barred absent any tolling, while allowing certain remaining claims to proceed; the decision rested on the policy language requiring payment after each annual retrospective calculation or audit notice and the absence of evidence supporting equitable tolling or fraudulent concealment.
In this products liability case, plaintiff Beverly Maxwell sued defendant Howmedica Osteonics Corp. after suffering an allergic reaction to nickel in the Duracon Total Knee System implanted during her 2004 knee replacement surgery, asserting claims for design defect and failure to warn under negligence and strict liability theories. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in full. It reasoned that expert testimony was required to establish both a design defect and inadequate warnings but that the plaintiff's sole expert disclosure was insufficient, as it did not address the reasonableness of the product's design or the adequacy of warnings. The court further held that the defendant had satisfied its duty to warn by providing information about metallic risks to the implanting surgeon under the learned intermediary doctrine.