In a complete victory for our client, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, J), today granted our motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The Court awarded our client, a national life insurance company, judgment against its former agent for commissions and other costs the former agent owed arising from its sale of life insurance policies that were thereafter declared void ab initio following the client’s discovery of material misrepresentations in the policy applications. The Court’s decision also dismissed with prejudice the former agent’s counterclaims for additional commissions it claimed it was owed, and awarded our client its costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in pursuing collection of the commissions and costs.
Fishkin Lucks scored another victory today on behalf of our client, Banco Popular North America (“BPNA”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufis, J.). Plaintiff brought suit in the Supreme Court of New York (Kings County Commercial Division) alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and fraud claims against BPNA arising from a construction loan issued to an LLC of which Plaintiff was a member. Several months later, the LLC filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and Plaintiff removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 1452(a) on the ground that it related to the bankruptcy proceeding. Once removed, Plaintiff moved the Eastern District to refer the action to the bankruptcy court. Our Firm opposed referral to the bankruptcy court and moved the Eastern District to abstain and remand the action to the Kings County Commercial Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 (c)(1), (c)(2), or 1452(b). Agreeing with our argument that the action is a non-core, but related to, proceeding, accepting Plaintiff’s stipulation that BPNA met five of the six elements necessary to apply mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2), and finding over Plaintiff’s objection that BPNA showed the sixth and final element, the Eastern District denied Plaintiff’s motion to refer the action to the bankruptcy court and granted BPNA’s motion to abstain and remand the matter to the Kings County Commercial Division. Immediately after receiving the Eastern District’s decision, we filed a motion for summary judgment on BPNA’s behalf in Kings County.
Today, Fishkin Lucks presented “Federal Abstention: Theory and Practice” before a live audience in New York City. The presentation was produced by Lawline.com of FurtherEd Inc. and is available for CLE credit online. Exploring both the themes and practical mechanics of the federal abstention doctrine, the presentation focused on the concept that federal courts may be required to refrain from hearing cases that are otherwise properly brought before them. The seminar explored how while both prudence and federalism occasionally require federal courts to abstain, courts narrowly apply abstention doctrines making their application the exception rather than the rule. In addition to the most well-known doctrines such as Colorado River and Pullman Abstention, we examined the closely related Younger Doctrine, the Anti-Injunction Act, and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Offering a practical approach to an often cumbersome area of federal practice, we placed each of the abstention theories within historical and contemporary contexts so that their applicability to the practitioner is clear.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the Supreme Court of New York (New York County) (Coin, J.). Following a hearing, the Court dismissed the remaining claim brought against our client, a national life insurance company, by its former servicing agent in Latin America for alleged commissions due under the parties’ agency agreement prior to its termination. The Court found on the record presented that all compensation due under the agreement’s complex commissions structure was paid in full before the agreement was properly terminated. Combined with the Court’s earlier ruling in May 2012, granting the Firm’s motion to dismiss claims that our client wrongfully terminated the agency agreement, this latest ruling from the Court provides our client a complete victory in the case.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the Supreme Court of New York (New York County) (Kornreich, J.), obtaining a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on behalf of the Firm’s client, an international manufacturer of industrial machinery, prohibiting the client’s former Chief Operating Officer from, among other things, transferring a luxury New York City condominium he purchased with funds embezzled from the client. We were able to persuade the Court that the former executive was likely to sell the condominium and transfer the sale proceeds off-shore, thus necessitating the temporary restraints and emergent injunctive relief ordered.
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted today, in large part, the Firm’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing negligence claims and claims brought under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (“CPLA”) against the Firm’s clients, including a well-known manufacturer of residential and industrial protective paints and coatings, and a leading national retailer. The Court based its decision on admissions the Firm elicited at its deposition of plaintiffs’ expert engineer, including that he had no basis to criticize our clients’ product. The Court stated “in his deposition,” plaintiffs’ expert “admitted he ‘does not criticize'” the product and based on that admission, his “testimony provides no basis for the trier of fact to conclude [the product] had a faulty design or a manufacturing defect. . . . The plaintiffs’ failure to proffer expert testimony is also fatal to their CPLA claim to the extent it is based on a failure to warn theory or negligence theory. With respect to failure to warn, the plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence that the [product] was defective without warnings. Similarly, with respect to negligence, the plaintiffs have not sufficiently shown that defendants breached a duty of care. Summary judgment is, therefore, warranted.”
