Cases

745 F.Supp.2d 214 (2010) Rosalinda BAEZ, Plaintiff, v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS and Tiffany Malabet, Defendants. No. 09-CV-596 (NGG)(SMG). United States District Court, E.D. New York. October 15, 2010. *218 Jon L. Norinsberg, Law Office of Jon L. Norinsberg, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Christopher G. Kelly, Robert J. Burns, Hollan

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS SAYLOR, District Judge. This is an action against JetBlue Airways for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff George Gill, an incomplete quadriplegic, while boarding an aircraft. The complaint alleges negligence in the accommodation of Mr. Gill’s disability during aircraft boarding. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citiz

Memorandum and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: [[Image here]] I. Introduction Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC (“Helferich” or “Defendant”) is a company that licenses and enforces patents to which it lays claim. It is registered to do business and has an office in Illinois. Its prin

379 F.Supp.2d 299 (2005) In re JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. PRIVACY LITIGATION. No. 04-MD-1587 (CBA). United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 29, 2005. *300 *301 *302 Michael M. Buchman, Milberg Weiss, LLP, Ira Michael Press, Kirby Mcinerney & Squire, Robert

III. GARDNER'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY Gardner moves to exclude the defendants' joint expert, Dr. Moulton, under *1324Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Gardner asserts that Dr. Moulton's opinions are not "the product of reliable principles and methods" because he did not examine Gardner befor

MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presently before the Court is the United States’ [161] Motion for Entry of the Proposed Final Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings 1 , the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS the U

MEMORANDUM OPINION ' JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. The Export-Import Bank of the United States has long been in the business of issuing loan guarantees to support foreign airlines’ purchases of aircraft from domestic manufacturers. While the Bank’s involvement in the air-travel industry undoubtedly serves the interests of

436 F.Supp.2d 756 (2006) Vincent D. DIFELICE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. US AIRWAYS, INC., Defendant. No. 1:04 CV 889. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia. Alexandria Division. June 26, 2006. *757 Stephen Ray Pickard, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiff. Charles C. Jackson, Chri

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Victor A. Bolden, United States District Judge Plaintiff, Lisa Mendillo, brought this action against her former employer, The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential” or “Defendant”), asserting claims for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), the Family Medical Leave Act (the “FML

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge. Plaintiff John Delaney brings suit against Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America Merrill Lynch f/k/a Banc of America Securities, LLC (collectively, “Bank of America” or “BoA”), alleging that BoA (1) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, by terminating him; and (2) breached an oral agree

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant John Delaney (“Plaintiff-Appellant” or “Delaney”) appeals from the December 11, 2012 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Paul A. Engelmayer, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of Appellant’s former employers, Defendants-Appellees Bank of America Corporation, and Merrill Lynch,

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 23-1802 UNITED STATES; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF FLORIDA; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC., Defendant, Appellant, JETBL

MEMORANDUM & ORDER JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge. Table of Contents 282 I. Introduction........................................................ 283 II. Claims............................................................. 283 III. Facts.............................................................. 286 IV. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).........

754 F.Supp.2d 500 (2010) Deborah HIRSCHBERG, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. No. 08 CV 1611(DRH)(AKT). United States District Court, E.D. New York. December 1, 2010. *501 Gabor & Gabor, by David George Gabor, Esq., Hope Senzer Gabor, Esq., Garden City, NY, for Plaintiff. Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodg

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: ECF No. 97 JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant Virgin America’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 97. The Court will deny the motion in part and grant the motion in part. I. BACKGROUND The Plaintiffs are flight attendants who currently work or have previo

MEMORANDUM & ORDER MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge: Plaintiff Theodoras Zorbas filed the above-captioned action against Defendants United States Trust Company, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A., in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, alleging negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary-duty, breach of express and implied contract, and breach of covenant

OPINION AND ORDER SEIBEL, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 31.) For the reasons stated below, the Motion is *99GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff was employed by Daikin America, Inc. (“DAI”), a chemical manufacturing,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. This case presents a collision of interests between domestic airlines, which seek to avoid competing against subsidized foreign carriers, and domestic aircraft manufacturers, which desire those foreign carriers to buy U.S. planes rather than shopping overseas. Plaintiffs here are organizations representing the interests of certain U.

OPINION & ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge. Plaintiff Jason Ndremizara (“Plaintiff’), proceeding pro se, brings this Action against Defendant Swiss Re America Holding Corporation (“Defendant” or “Swiss Re”), alleging that Defendant’s decision not to hire him for an actuarial analyst position for which he applied violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 6

OPINION & ORDER DENISE COTE, District Judge: Plaintiff pro se James Nolley (“Nolley”) brings this lawsuit alleging employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and New York State and New York City human rights laws against defendant Swiss Re America Holding Corporation (“Swiss Re”). Nolley alleges th