This case concerned the enforcement of the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (FETRA), under which the federal government imposes quarterly assessments on tobacco product manufacturers and importers to fund a trust that compensates farmers for the end of production quotas. The United States sued Native Wholesale Supply Co. (NWS), a company importing cigarettes manufactured by a Canadian Native-owned firm, for unpaid assessments totaling millions of dollars from 2005 onward, plus failure to submit required removal documentation. NWS cross-moved for summary judgment, contending that assessments were miscalculated using an improper base period, that a customs broker rather than NWS was the true importer, and that enforcement violated treaty rights, due process, and the Takings Clause. The court granted the government's motion, denied NWS's, and held that NWS qualified as the importer responsible for assessments based on its own self-reported removal data, with no statutory or constitutional barriers to collection. It ordered NWS to supply the missing documents and required the government to submit a final accounting before entry of a monetary judgment.
In this diversity jurisdiction case removed from New York state court, plaintiff Alesia Mueller sued defendant Seatainer Transport, Ltd., a Canadian trucking company, for non-economic damages arising from a November 2006 rear-end collision on Interstate 290 that allegedly caused her neck, back, wrist, and related injuries. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Mueller had not met the "serious injury" threshold under New York's no-fault statute, N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d), which would bar her pain-and-suffering claim. After reviewing deposition testimony, MRI results, and multiple medical reports, the court denied the motion, holding that the chiropractor's affidavit supplied a sufficient qualitative assessment of objective medical evidence to raise a triable issue on both the existence of a serious injury and its causal link to the accident, notwithstanding prior incidents.
In Kaminski v. Anderson, a longtime employee of the Town of Amherst Highway Department sued the town and its superintendent under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her First Amendment rights were violated when she faced adverse job changes after announcing her candidacy for the superintendent position against the incumbent. The plaintiff claimed that after declaring her run as the Democratic nominee in 2007, her office was closed, her responsibilities were altered to less desirable duties like scrap-yard oversight, and her supervisor monitored or altered her work orders. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no retaliation and that qualified immunity applied. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the actions were motivated by retaliatory animus and concluding that disputed facts on intent precluded a legal determination of objective reasonableness for qualified immunity purposes.
This ERISA case involved a former employee seeking long-term disability benefits under his employer's plan, which was sponsored and administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The plan capped benefits at 24 months for disabilities caused primarily by mental illness, and the administrator applied this limit after reviewing medical records and concluding the plaintiff's cognitive and other symptoms stemmed mainly from psychiatric conditions like depression and personality disorder rather than physical ailments. The plaintiff appealed the denial of further benefits, arguing an undiagnosed physical condition was the root cause. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the administrator's determination was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious given the supporting evaluations from psychiatrists, psychologists, and other physicians.
This case involved a worker injured during demolition of a coal hopper at a salt mining facility, who sued the property owner under common-law negligence and New York Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6), with the owner then seeking indemnification from the worker's employer. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the section 240(1) claim and one predicate for the section 241(6) claim, but denied summary judgment on the remaining negligence, section 200, and other section 241(6) claims, as well as the cross-motions on indemnification. It reasoned that a wall collapse during demolition does not qualify as the type of elevation-related hazard covered by section 240(1), while factual disputes existed regarding supervision and control for the other claims and whether the owner was free from negligence for indemnification purposes.
This ERISA case was brought by three participants in the Niagara-Genesee & Vicinity Carpenters Local 280 Pension and Welfare Funds as a derivative action against twelve former trustees and two former plan managers, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3) through retroactive benefit increases, subsequent reductions in future accruals, a secret meeting to accelerate benefits, and related conduct from 1993 to 2007 that allegedly depleted fund assets and favored certain participants. The allegations overlapped substantially with a prior lawsuit, LaScala v. Scrufari. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims against the Empire State Carpenters Funds and certain time-barred or non-fiduciary claims while denying dismissal as to other counts involving alleged concealment and breaches by specific trustee groups, based on ERISA's statute of limitations, the fiduciary nature of the acts, and the sufficiency of the pleadings.
