Contemporary Mission, v. U.S. Postal Service

17 Citing briefs

  1. Lewis et al v. United States of America et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

    Filed June 28, 2017

    District courts may grant any appropriate orders to deny, limit or qualify discovery to protect a party or person "from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see e.g. Contemporary Mission Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., 648 F.2d 97, 107 (2d Cir.1981) (affirming decision disallowing discovery prior to determination of the defendants ' motion for summary judgment). It is common practice in the Second Circuit to stay discovery pending resolution of dispositive matters.

  2. Sanders et al v. Army And Air Force Exchange Service et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed June 2, 2017

    See Aktiebolaqet Bofors v. United States, 194 F.2d 145, 148 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (barring an action for damages arising out of an alleged unauthorized use by the United States of an unpatented trade secret); United States v. Mullins, 228 F.Supp. 748 (W.D. Va. 1964) (barring a counterclaim against the United States which alleged that the Government had unlawfully frozen the assets of the counterclaimant and forced it into bankruptcy); Pargament v. Fitzgerald, 272 F.Supp. 553, 556 (S.D. N.Y. 1967), affirmed, 391 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1968) (an action alleging that the an IRS district director conspired with the purchaser of property at a tax sale to prevent the plaintiff from enforcing his chattel mortgage); Contemporary Mission. Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 648 F.2d 97, 105, n.9 (2d Cir. 1981) (barring a claim by a purported religious and charitable organization challenging the Postal Service’s actions in revoking its nonprofit bulk mail permit and putting a “hold” on its mail); Kessler v. General Services Administration, 341 F.2d 275 (2d Cir. 1964) Case 3:17-cv-00284-CRS Document 7-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 44 13 (barring recovery for damages for interfering with plaintiff’s performance of her work as a GSA employee); and Segarra Ocasio v. Banco Regional de Bayamon, 581 F.Supp. 1255 (D.C.Puerto Rico 1984) (Plaintiff’s claim of damages against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for withholding his certificate of deposit, precluding him from investing somewhere else at a higher yielding interest rate, fell within “interference with contract rights” exception of the FTCA).

  3. Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Nomura Holding America, Inc. et al

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 906 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants' Due Diligence and Reasonable Care Defenses. . Document

    Filed March 17, 2015

    See Opals on Ice Lingerie v. Bodylines Inc., 320 F.3d 362, 370 n.3 (2d Cir. 2003) (An “opposing party’s facts must be material and of a substantial nature, not fanciful, frivolous, gauzy, spurious, irrelevant, gossamer inferences, conjectural, speculative, nor merely suspicions.”) (quoting Contemporary Mission v. U.S. Postal Serv., 648 F.2d 97, 107 n.14 (2d Cir. 1981)). 1.

  4. United States of America, ex rel, et al v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 245 MOTION to Compel United States, and the States of California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Washington, and Wisconsin to Produce . . Document

    Filed September 29, 2014

    Our Lady of Mercy Med. Ctr., 2001 WL 630481, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2001) (quoting Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Svc., 648 F.2d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 1981)). Case 1:11-cv-08196-CM-JCF Document 280 Filed 09/29/14 Page 16 of 24 13 Here, Novartis’s inability to explain – with any modicum of specificity – the relevance of its “adherence related” requests is especially telling. As Novartis acknowledges, it has been aware of the Government’s investigation of the Exjade scheme for some time.

  5. Fenner v. News Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document

    Filed May 10, 2013

    The nonmovant’s facts “must be material and of a substantial nature, not fanciful, frivolous, gauzy, spurious, irrelevant, gossamer inferences, conjectural, speculative, nor merely suspicions.” Contemp. Mission v. U.S. Postal Serv., 648 F.2d 97, 107 n.14 (2d Cir. 1981). II.

  6. Guzman v. News Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 137 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document

    Filed May 10, 2013

    Case 1:09-cv-09323-LGS Document 138 Filed 05/10/13 Page 12 of 24 8 F.3d 63, 71 (2d Cir.1996) (citations omitted), and the nonmovant’s facts therefore “must be material and of a substantial nature, not fanciful, frivolous, gauzy, spurious, irrelevant, gossamer inferences, conjectural, speculative, nor merely suspicions.” Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 648 F.2d 97, 107 n.14 (2d Cir. 1981) (quotation marks omitted). II.

  7. Fenner v. News Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document

    Filed May 10, 2013

    Thus, the nonmovant’s facts “must be material and of a substantial nature, not fanciful, frivolous, gauzy, spurious, irrelevant, gossamer inferences, conjectural, speculative, nor merely suspicions.” Contemp. Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 648 F.2d 97, 107 n.14 (2d Cir. 1981) (quotation marks omitted). II.

  8. Sandisk Corporation v. Lucent Technologies Inc. et al

    Reply to Opposition to

    Filed November 16, 2007

    Furthermore, a plaintiff cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by merely restating conclusory allegations and amplifying them only with speculation about what discovery might Case 5:07-cv-03618-JF Document 46 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A/72317125.3/3002631-0000326417 4 C 07-03618 JF SANDISK’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT uncover. Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 648 F.2d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 1981); see also Olympic Club v. Those Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 991 F.2d 497, 503 (9th Cir. 1993) (a party’s mere hope that further evidence may develop is an insufficient basis upon which to justify denial of summary judgment). Because Lucent fails to point to either an existing material factual dispute, or to specific facts that are likely to be uncovered that would create such an issue, summary judgment is appropriate.

  9. Kellogg v. New York State Department of Correctional Services et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 4 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint.. Document

    Filed August 10, 2007

    Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim is conclusory, speculative and devoid of supporting facts that suggest that there is any merit to this argument. See, Pollack v. Nash,58 F. Supp.2d at 302-303, citing, Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 648 F.2d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 1981). [T]his Court has repeatedly held that complaints containing only conclusory, vague, or general allegations of conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights cannot withstand a motion to Case 1:07-cv-02804-BSJ-GWG Document 5 Filed 08/10/07 Page 36 of 44 26 dismiss) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Howard v. Koch, 575 F. Supp. 1299 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)(to prevent the proliferation of vague and wholesale allegations, encouraging the redress of imagined wrongs

  10. Metropolitan Life v. Bancorp Services LLC, et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Discovery Under Rule 56

    Filed July 11, 2005

    “In a summary judgment context, an ‘opposing party’s mere hope that further evidence may develop prior to trial is an insufficient basis upon which to justify the denial of [a summary judgment] motion.’” Gray v. Town of Darien, 927 F.2d 69, 74 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 648 F.2d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 1981)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 856 (1991).