Town v. Town

6 Citing briefs

  1. Kaur et al v. Royal Arcadia Palace, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 7, 2007

    The evidence on a summary judgment motion is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and resolving all ambiguities in their favor. Town of Southold, 477 F.3d 38; Allstate, 473 F.3d at 456. POINT II PLAINTIFFS’ WAGE CLAIMS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE FLSA In order for the FLSA to apply, the employer must be a business enterprise engaged in commerce with annual gross sales of over $500,000.

  2. Sacerdote et al v. New York University

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document

    Filed February 12, 2018

    Because of this, courts routinely deny summary judgment when experts disagree. See, e.g., Town of Southold v. Town of E. Hampton, 477 F.3d 38, 52 (2d Cir. 2007) (“courts also must be wary of granting summary judgment when conflicting expert reports are presented”); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12591 at *68 (“The Court is persuaded that plaintiff’s expert reports are wholly sufficient to create a genuine dispute as to the materiality of defendant’s alleged breaches.”). Courts deny summary judgment on ERISA prudence claims when the parties’ experts differ on reasonableness of the fiduciary. In George, the Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment in a similar 401(k) excessive fee case based on the plaintiffs’ expert testimony alone.

  3. Erdei v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG

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

    Filed February 18, 2015

    Even if Plaintiff could show "state action," his claim would fail because he has not been denied any constitutional right. As the Supreme Court explained, while "[t]he constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified. . . ., the 'right' of international travel has been considered no more than an aspect of the 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U.S. 170, 176 (1978) (emphasis added); see also Lee v. China Airlines, Ltd., 669 F. Supp. 979, 982 (C.D. Cal. 1987) ("Aznavorian makes clear that limitations upon international travel are to be evaluated under a rational basis test"). Even in the context of restrictions on interstate travel, however, courts have consistently held that "burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel," and "passengers do not possess 'a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel.'" Town of Southold v. Town of E. Hampton, 477 F.3d 38, 54 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999); City of Houston v. F.A.A., 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir. 1982)). There is certainly no constitutional right to travel on a particular international airline. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim that Lufthansa interfered with his "constitutional right" to international travel by not contracting with Plaintiff so he might fly on its specific product, fails for this reason, as well.

  4. Janes et al v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 86 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing The Complaint With Prejudice.. Document

    Filed August 23, 2013

    12 12 In actuality, the Second Circuit‘s ―minor burden‖ analysis is self-created and erroneous as applied to a State act impinging on travel based upon State citizenship. In Selevan I, it wrote that ―[o]ur observation that ‗minor restrictions on travel simply do not amount to the denial of a fundamental right,‘ Town of Southold, 477 F.3d at 54 [], is consistent with the Supreme Court‘s jurisprudence.‖ 584 F.3d at 101.

  5. Latif et al v. United States Department of Justice et al

    Memorandum in Support.

    Filed November 17, 2010

    Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Latif v. Holder, No. 3:10-cv-00750-BR Case 3:10-cv-00750-BR Document 44 Filed 11/17/10 Page 38 of 68 Page ID#: 462 26 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding there is no right to drive); Green v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1130 (W.D. Wash. 2005) (holding there is no right to travel “without any impediments” and burdens on a “single” form of transportation are not unreasonable); see also Town of Southold v. Town of East Hampton, 477 F.3d 38 (2nd Cir. 2007) (“travelers do not have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel”); Cramer v. Skinner, 931 F.2d 1020, 1031 (5th Cir. 1991) (same); City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184 (5th Cir. 1982) (same). For example, in Gilmore, the Ninth Circuit upheld certain requirements for air travel because the plaintiff “does not possess a fundamental right to travel by airplane even though it is the most convenient mode of travel for him.”

  6. Fikre v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

    Memorandum in Support .

    Filed November 4, 2013

    ................... 10, 11, 12 Standard Alaska Prod. Co. v. Schaible, 874 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................................................... 7 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 31 Tabbaa v. Chertoff, 509 F.3d 89 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007).................................................................................................. 20 Case 3:13-cv-00899-BR Document 22 Filed 11/04/13 Page 5 of 42 vi – OFFICIAL-CAPACITY DEFS.’ MEM. IN SUPP. OF MOT. TO DISMISS Fikre v. FBI, et al., No. 3:13-cv-00899-BR Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 6 Tooley v. Bush, Case No. 06-cv-306, 2006 WL 3783142 (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 2006) ................................ 21, 22, 23 Town of Southold v. Town of East Hampton, 477 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2007)........................................................................................................ 16 United States ex rel. Siegel v. Shinnick, 219 F. Supp. 789 (E.D.N.Y. 1963) ........................................................................................... 17 United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................. 19 United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006)................................................................................................ 19, 21 United States v. Hawkins, 249 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................