Plaintiff Houraney, proceeding pro se, brought a diversity action in federal court against Burton & Associates, P.C. and Bernard Burton alleging breach of contract, negligence, and legal malpractice arising from the firm's representation in real estate and related litigation matters. After the close of discovery, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add a fraud claim. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, finding that the proposed amendment failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and would cause undue prejudice to the defendants by reopening discovery and delaying the case. The district judge reviewed the report and recommendation de novo, overruled the plaintiff's objections, and adopted the recommendation in full, thereby denying leave to amend.
The case involves the City of New York suing state-licensed cigarette stamping agents for allegedly violating the federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act by shipping more than 10,000 unstamped cigarettes to reservation retailers for resale to the public, on the theory that New York Tax Law § 471 requires tax stamps on such sales. Defendants moved for reconsideration of the court's prior denial of their motion to dismiss, citing a state appellate decision in Day Wholesale that held New York Tax Law § 471-e was not yet in effect due to the state's failure to distribute tax exemption coupons. The court denied reconsideration, reasoning that the state ruling addressed only the enforceability of § 471-e and did not change the scope or applicability of § 471 for purposes of the federal CCTA claim.
The case involved plaintiffs Karen and Daniel Best suing BWIA West Indies Airways for injuries Mrs. Best allegedly suffered when forcibly removed from a LIAT flight during a layover in Trinidad on a trip from New York to Grenada that BWIA had ticketed. BWIA removed the action to federal court under the Montreal Convention and moved for summary judgment after discovery. The court granted the motion, holding that BWIA was not liable under Article 39 of the Convention because it was not the performing carrier on the leg where the incident occurred and there was no express agreement assuming liability for the entire journey. The court further found no evidence of an agency relationship between BWIA and LIAT that would impose liability on BWIA under common law principles. Judgment was entered for the defendant.
This case involves an NBA referee and two co-conspirators who engaged in schemes to bet on NBA games using non-public information and to transmit wagering picks, leading to guilty pleas for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to transmit wagering information. As a victim, the NBA sought restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (and alternatively the Victim and Witness Protection Act for one defendant) for costs including legal fees incurred while assisting the government's investigation and prosecution. The court awarded the NBA a total of $217,266.94 in restitution, to be imposed jointly and severally in part and apportioned among the defendants in part. The core reasoning was that the MVRA permits recovery of costs directly tied to assisting the prosecution of the offenses of conviction, such as document production and attendance at proceedings, while excluding costs from unrelated prior conduct or insufficiently documented expenses.
The case involved the City of New York suing state-licensed cigarette wholesalers for allegedly violating the federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act by selling large quantities of unstamped cigarettes to reservation retailers, who then sell them to the public without paying taxes required under New York Tax Law. The wholesalers moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds including lack of standing, failure to state a claim due to a state forbearance policy on taxing reservation sales, and failure to join the State of New York as a necessary party. The court denied all motions to dismiss, finding that the City had standing, the claims were viable despite the forbearance policy, and the State was not a necessary or indispensable party under federal rules. The core reasoning centered on interpreting the tax laws, the scope of federal authority over cigarette trafficking, and procedural requirements for joinder.
In Gristede's Foods, Inc. v. Unkechauge Nation, a supermarket chain sued two Indian tribes, their smoke shops, and associated individuals, alleging unauthorized sales of untaxed cigarettes to non-tribe members through physical stores, the internet, and advertising, which the plaintiff claimed created an illegal market harming its business. The complaint asserted civil RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, a Lanham Act false advertising claim, New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 violations, common law unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions in part, dismissing the RICO, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims for failure to adequately plead proximate cause, direct dealings between the parties, and related elements under Twombly standards, while denying dismissal of the Lanham Act and New York statutory claims; it also granted leave to amend to properly name the defendants. The rulings relied on precedents like Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. for the RICO analysis and case law requiring a substantive relationship for unjust enrichment.
