Carvel Corp. v. Noonan

5 Citing briefs

  1. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Real-Time Analysis & News, Ltd.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 11 Order to Show Cause,, . Document

    Filed May 12, 2014

    Accordingly the "public harm" standard does not apply. See Carvel, 350 F.3d at 25. 10 The fact that Ransquawk has failed to appear does not preclude an award of punitive damages.

  2. Cornelius v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW

    Filed October 18, 2018

    F. Plaintiff’s Claims for Punitive Damages Should Be Dismissed as Plaintiff Has Failed to Produce Evidence of Wilful or Wanton Conduct Punitive damages are available under New York law only if the plaintiff can show “the existence of circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct may be called wilful or wanton.” Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 350 F.3d 6, 24 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc., 82 N.Y.2d 466, 479, 605 N.Y.S.2d 218, 226, 626 N.E.2d 34 (1993)) (internal quotation Case 2:17-cv-04539 Document 19 Filed 10/18/18 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 1657 11 marks omitted). Here, Plaintiff has produced no evidence to support a claim for punitive damages, and nothing in the record suggests that Bard acted with any “willful or wanton” behavior.

  3. Rodriguez v. Major League Baseball et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 25 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Rule12

    Filed November 8, 2013

    To state a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relationships under New York law, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) it had a business relationship with a third party; (2) the defendant knew of that relationship and intentionally interfered with it; (3) the defendant acted solely out of malice, or used dishonest, unfair, or improper means; and (4) the defendant’s interference caused injury to the relationship.” Kirch, 449 F.3d at 400 (quoting Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 350 F.3d 6, 17 (2d Cir. 2003)). Here, Plaintiff asserts that MLB acted dishonestly, unfairly, or improperly (to use the Kirch formulation) by collecting, using, and “leaking” evidence in violation of the Basic Agreement and the Joint Drug Agreement.

  4. Kolchinsky v. Moody's Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 5 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document

    Filed December 28, 2010

    1. Plaintiff’s Tortious Interference Claim Fails Because Plaintiff Cannot Establish A Third-Party Business Relationship With Which Moody’s Interfered. To establish a claim for tortious interference with business relationships or prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must plead and prove, among other things, that he had a business relationship with a third party with which the defendant interfered. See e.g., Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 350 F.3d 6, 17 (2d Cir. 2003); Treppel v. Biovail Corp., No. 03-3002, 2005 WL 2086339, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005). The law is clear that, to state a viable claim, a complaint must name the “specific” business relation with which the defendant allegedly interfered.

  5. TPTCC NY, Inc. et al v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 51 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint., 53 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint., 57 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed January 21, 2011

    59 Brown v. Leach, 189 A.D. 158, 178 N.Y.S. 319 (1st Dep’t 1919) .....................................................................43 Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977).................................................................................................................22 BUSA Corp., et al. v. Ecogloves, Inc., et al., No. 05 Civ. 9988(JSR), 2009 WL 3076042 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009)..................................31 CA-POWZ v. City of Greece, New York, No. 10-CV-6035-CJS, 2010 WL 3663409 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2010) ..................................62 California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972)...................................................................................................................8 Carell v. The Shubert Org., Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)......................................................................................31 Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 350 F.3d 6 (2d Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................58 CCC Info. Servs., Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994) ........................................................................................................26 Centra Industries, Inc. v. McGuirewoods, L.P, 270 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)......................................................................................47 Case 1:10-cv-07097-JSR Document 61 Filed 01/21/11 Page 5 of 77 v ny-959421 Cheminor Drugs Ltd. v. Ethyl Corp., 168 F.3d 119 (3d Cir. 1999).......................................................................................................9 Cine 42nd Street Theater Corp. v. Nederlander Org., Inc., 790 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1986).....................................................................................................7 City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising Inc., 499 U.S. 365 (1991)..