15 results for 'judge:"Schofield"'.
J. Schofield denies the company's motion to dismiss a securities fraud suit alleging it made material omissions in statements about an acquisition. The statements allegedly created the impression the acquisition would be approved by the government without requiring renegotiation of the merger. The company repeatedly and specifically stated the expected merger timetable, which was misleading if corporate executives, behind the scenes, knew otherwise.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv4838, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, Securities, Class Action
J. Schofield partially denies the insurer's motion to dismiss a class action challenge to its policy of reducing the value of vehicles totaled in a car wreck and therefore paying less on insurance claims for those vehicles. A reasonable jury could find that the insurer engaged in misleading practice regarding the calculation of the value of accident victims' cars, but the complaint's claims based on alleged violations of Regulation 64 rest on an incorrect reading of the law.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv6243, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Insurance, Consumer Law, Class Action
J. Schofield partially grants defendants' motion to dismiss claims stemming from its role as a middle-man sourcing a supplier for 100% nitrile gloves during the Covid-19 pandemic. Defendant purportedly conducted a test of the gloves and trusted this supplier, but the buyer's test found that the gloves were a blend and returned the gloves, causing the plaintiff $2 million in losses. The complaint adequately alleges the middle-man committed fraud but this court lacks jurisdiction over non-signatories to the contract.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv3454, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, Business Practices
J. Schofield dismisses all but the breach of contract claim against the packaging company over its cancellation of the parties' contract after a dispute over the pharmaceutical company's requests for "true-up" compensation. The complaint adequately alleges that the packaging company never objected to true-up payments when they were in its favor, but failed to honor the agreement when it was expected to repay monies received.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: February 2, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1825, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Health Care, Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Schofield grants Amazon's motion to dismiss negligent misrepresentation claims filed by a steel container supplier for its robotics systems. Amazon provided the supplier with three reduced demand forecasts in 2022 following a surge in demand during the Covid-19 pandemic, and there is no allegation that Amazon knew its projections were false. However, the supplier adequately states a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on Amazon's conduct encouraging the supplier to invest millions to boost its supply dedicated solely to Amazon's demand.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv292, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, Business Expectancy
J. Schofield finds a licensor of tech products failed to pay fashion brand Kate Spade required fees for fiscal year 2023, resulting in Kate Spade terminating the license agreement. While the licensor argues that it invoked the force majeure clause of the licensing agreement due to Covid-19 related supply chain delays, Kate Spade successfully showed the licensor could have made some payment toward what it owed after the force majeure had abated, and in doing so breached the licensing agreement. The instant court grants Kate Spade’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finds the licensing agreement terminated, and orders the licensor to cease the manufacture and sale of Kate Spade branded products.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv5409, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Licensing, Trademark, Contract
J. Schofield finds jurisdictional issues exist in this matter seeking enforcement of foreign awards. Shareholders in a resort and casino entered into arbitration in response to the resort terminating the Management Services Agreement (MSA) between the parties. The arbitral panel found the resort had breached the MSA by terminating it without sufficient basis and issued a liability award in favor of the shareholders. Because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding personal jurisdiction, cross-motions for summary judgment are denied, as well as the shareholders' motion to confirm the arbitral award.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv2655, NOS: Arbitration - Other Suits, Categories: Arbitration, Enforcement Of Judgments, Jurisdiction
J. Schofield affirms an arbitral award in this matter concerning arbitration. An employee filed suit against his employer, and the parties were ordered to participate in arbitration per their agreement. The arbitrator found in favor of the employer and awarded sanctions in the amount of $11,416 and $23,026. The employee now appeals, arguing the award should be vacated, as the arbitrator did not properly conduct the arbitration. The instant court finds the employee's arguments are unsupported and without merit, grants the employer’s motion for summary judgment and confirms the arbitral award.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv10500, NOS: Arbitration - Other Suits, Categories: Arbitration, Employment, Sanctions
J. Schofield grants the company's motion to dismiss a securities class action over its failure to immediately inform investors of subsidiary Ben & Jerry's decision to stop selling its ice cream in Israel in light of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The B&J board's decision was contrary to the wishes of its corporate owner, which delayed implementation of the decision, and instead sold the B&J Israeli business to the company's former Israeli licensee over the protests of the B&J board. The company did not defraud investors by not immediately informing them of the board's decision because it did not know how it would be implemented.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv5011, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, Securities, Class Action
J. Schofield grants in part and denies in part the New York City Department of Education’s (NYCDE) motion for summary judgment in this matter of employment discrimination, disability accommodation and retaliation. The court finds that the NYCDE did not discriminate against an employee with multiple respiratory and cardiac issues when it moved her to an office with no ventilation, no windows, no air conditioning and limited wi-fi, as NYCDE offered that it was the only available space large enough for the employee and her team. But the instant court denies NYCDE’s motion regarding reasonable accommodation in violation with the Americans with Disabilities Act, because the employee demonstrated that she had a disability and NYCDE failed to reasonably accommodate her. The employees' claims of retaliatory conduct and creation of a hostile work environment by NYCDE are also supported.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: July 24, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv6109, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Schofield partially denies both parties cross-motions for summary judgment in a trademark dispute over the mark "Red Gold" used on watch and jewelry products. The issue of the mark's genericness cannot be resolved without further evidence, and a jury could find that the defendants' use of the term "red gold" is likely to cause consumer confusion with the plaintiff watchmaker's products.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Schofield, Filed On: June 14, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv1262, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Trademark