Wednesday, August 09, 2017
The plaintiff appealed, and the Second Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court, holding that, setting aside the unchecked items on the form complaint, based on the plaintiff's handwritten allegations, the district court should have been aware that the plaintiff was asserting claims under New York State and New York City law. The Court stated that "our holding is rooted in our well-worn precedent concerning a district court’s obligation to liberally construe pro se submissions. We do not expand that obligation here, nor do we purport to task district courts with the responsibility of scouring obscure bodies of law in order to come up with novel claims on behalf of pro se litigants. Rather, we conclude that in this case, where McLeod’s factual allegations supported claims under the well-known antidiscrimination provisions of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, our existing precedent required the district court to construe McLeod’s complaint as asserting claims under those laws, regardless of her failure to check the appropriate blank on a form complaint"
The decision in the case can be found here.
Friday, May 12, 2017
A copy of the decision in this case can be found here.
Wednesday, April 05, 2017
On July 12, 2013, The plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant within the 30-day period disputing the validity of the debt and requesting a verification of the dollar amount of the the purported debt.
On August 9, 2013, the defendant complied, but stated that the amount provided included certain fees that were not yet due, and that if the amount was paid and any of those fees did not actually become due, such fees would be refunded.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires that within five days of an initial communication with a consumer, a debt collector has to provide a written notice containing, among other things, the amount of the debt.
The action was brought because plaintiff claimed that the defendant had not complied with that requirement. The defendant moved to dismiss.the action, which motion was denied, but on a motion for reconsideration, the court dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed. The two questions at issue was which document was the initial communication, and whether the notice had been provided.
The Court first held that the complaint was not the initial communication. The Second Circuit had previously held that a complaint could be an initial communication, but the statute had been amended to eliminate a pleading as an initial communication.
The plaintiff's letter was not an initial communication because an initial communication under the statute was one sent by the debt collector to the consumer.
The Court held that the defendant's August 9, 2013 letter to the plaintiff was the initial communication.
The Court then held that the notice contained in the letter did not comply with the statute because because it "d[id] not specify what the 'estimated fees, costs, [and] additional payments' are." The Court stated that "[w]e do not hold that a debt collector may never satisfy its obligation under [the statute] by providing a payoff statement that provides an amount due, including expected fees and costs. But a statement is incomplete where, as here, it omits information allowing the least sophisticated consumer to determine the minimum amount she owes at the time of the notice, what she will need to pay to resolve the debt at any given moment in the future, and an explanation of any fees and interest that will cause the balance to increase."
The Court acknowledged that the defendant's notice may be common in the debt collection interest, but stated that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act "does not insulate a debt collector from liability merely because others in the industry engage in the same practice."
The Court vacated the order and judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The decision in this appeal can be found here.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
The plaintiff, which claim to own the rights to the recordings of "The Turtles," a well-known band with a string of hits in the 1960s, sued Sirius XM Radio, Inc., a radio and internet-radio broadcaster, claiming that Sirius infringed on the plaintiff's copyright in The Turtle's recordings. On a motion for summary judgment, Sirius claimed that there was no public performance rights in pre-1972 recordings under New York law and that if such a right existed, it violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.
The District Court held that there was such a right and that it did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. Sirius then moved for reconsideration or to certify its order for interlocutory appeal. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, but certified both the summary judgment and reconsideration orders for immediate appeal.
On appeal, the Second Circuit decided that there was an unclear issue of state law that should be decided by the New York State Court of Appeals -- whether there is a right of public performance for creators of pre-1972 sound recordings.
On December 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals held that New York common law does not recognize such a right.
Based on this finding, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's order denying summary judgment and remanded the case to the District Court with instruction to grant Sirius's motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the case with prejudice.
The New York State Court of Appeal's decision can be found here. The Second Circuit's decision can be found here.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
FMLA -- Obligation on Employer to Ask for Information to Determine whether Employee is Entitled to Relief
A copy of the decision can be found here.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
In A.M., the evidence before the CSE showed that A.M. needed intense applied behavior analysis therapy. The school district had declined to provide for such therapy in the IEP.
A copy of the Court's decision in this case can be found here.
Monday, October 31, 2016
What is the standard for finding a defendant liable for punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8‐502?
The decision in Chauca can be found here.
The decision in this case can be found here.