In an opinion Monday, Judge McMahon imposed over $900 million in damages and statutory penalties under the False Claims Act on long-term care pharmacy services provider Omnicare after a jury verdict finding that Omnicare submitted claims to the government for medications that lacked valid prescriptions.

The actual damages to the government were approximately $136 million, but that amount was then statutorily trebled and coupled with statutory penalties. Omnicare argued that the Constitution limited the government to a one-to-one ratio of actual damages to penalties. It relied on State Farm Mut. Automobile Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), which found a jury award of $145 million in punitive damages on top of $1 million in actual damages violated due process and which suggested that in some cases a one-to-one ratio might be the maximum allowable.

But Judge McMahon disagreed, finding that the case was governed by the Constitution’s “excessive fines” clause, not the due process clause implicated in State Farm:

Continue Reading Judge McMahon Concludes That $900 Million In False Claims Act Damages and Penalties Is Not Constitutionally Excessive Because Amount Was “Serious” But Not “Surreal”

On Wednesday, Judge Carter granted a preliminary injunction to halt efforts from the Department of Labor (DOL) to close 99 private Job Corps centers that offer food, shelter and vocational resources to impoverished youth. The DOL admitted that it did not follow statutory requirements for closures, but argued that the termination of contracts only paused operations, rather than shuttering any centers. The Court concluded that this was a “distinction without a difference” and that the DOL exceeded its statutory authority.

Earlier this year, the DOL implemented two new policies that gave rise to this lawsuit. First, the DOL stopped performing statutorily required background checks for new applicants, which “effectively prevented new enrollment in the program, because, by statute, new enrollees may not begin the program until after they pass these background checks.” Second, the DOL terminated all contracts with private Job Corps centers and informed them that all centers must be shut down by June 30, 2025.

Continue Reading Judge Carter Preliminarily Enjoins DOL From Closing Job Corps Centers

On Thursday, Judge Liman granted plaintiff Blake Lively’s motion to strike a letter from the docket in her ongoing lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation claims against Justin Baldoni and his production company, in connection with the filming of It Ends With Us. The challenged letter “accused Lively, and her counsel, of engaging in witness tampering and evidence spoliation based on an undisclosed anonymous source.”

The Court, noting that it had “inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases” and the authority to “strike materials outside the pleadings that are abusive or otherwise improper,” explained that the letter “must be stricken” because it was improper and irrelevant. Specifically, the Court concluded:

Continue Reading Judge Liman: Court Has “Inherent” Authority to Strike Inflammatory Baldoni Letter from Public Docket

In an opinion last week, Judge Engelmayer dismissed a class action brought by 16 student-athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) over claims arising from NCAA’s use of the student-athletes’ names, images, and likeliness (“NIL”) in advertisements and other commercial endeavors. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges unjust enrichment and violations of the Sherman Act, including a conspiracy aimed at suppressing the market for the plaintiffs’ NIL and a monopolization of the markets for student-athlete labor, images, and footage.

Continue Reading Judge Engelmayer Dismisses NCAA Student-Athletes’ Untimely “Names, Images, and Likeness” Case

Last Tuesday, after oral argument, Judge Buchwald granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration concerning the detainment and removal of Columbia student, Yunseo Chung, who is a lawful permanent resident. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for May 20, and the government is barred from detaining her or transferring her out of the Southern District in the meantime.

Ms. Chung filed her complaint last Monday, alleging that the attempted deportation violated her First Amendment rights. Ms. Chung participated in a “sit-in and protest” at Columbia on March 5, 2025, at which she was arrested and “given a Desk Appearance Ticket, . . . a common citation issued by the police at protests.” By March 10, 2025, Ms. Chung’s counsel was notified that her “lawful permanent resident status” was being revoked, and judicial search warrants were executed three days later.

The government is apparently invoking a law allowing for the removal of noncitizens whose presence or activities in the United States “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” as determined by the Secretary of State. Ms. Chung’s brief in support of the TRO argues that it was until recently “preposterous” to think that student protests would trigger this law:

Continue Reading Judge Buchwald Grants TRO Preventing Deportation of Columbia Student Protester

Last week, a group of professional tennis players and the Professional Tennis Players Association (a group co-founded by Novak Djokovic) filed a 163-page complaint against the International Tennis Federation (which regulates professional tennis tournaments, including the four “Grand Slams”), the ATP Tour (which regulates men’s professional tennis tours), the WTA Tour (which regulates women’s professional tennis tours), and the International Tennis Integrity Agency (which investigates and disciplines players for doping and corruption). The complaint argues that the Defendants formed a cartel and implemented interlocking anticompetitive measures, including caps on tournament prize money and requirements that players sign over name, imagine, and likeness rights as a condition of competing. The result, the complaint alleges, is a “marketplace bereft of rivals competing for the players’ services”:

Defendants’ unlawful actions have destroyed fair competition, with devastating effects. Defendants’ scheme has resulted in a marketplace bereft of rivals competing for the players’ services. Because of the anticompetitive restraints that entrench their market power and bar new market entrants, Defendants and their co-conspirators operate insulated from competition and can freely pay players less and provide worse working conditions as a result. Defendants and their co-conspirators are able to divide the cartel’s profits while players and fans suffer. Because of Defendants’ actions, tournaments have no need (and no ability) to compete with one another to attract players with better pay or higher quality tournaments, alternative events are excluded from competing for the players’ labor, and players have lost the freedom to play where, when, and on what terms they want.

The case is already becoming combative. Over the weekend, the plaintiffs accused the ATP of trying to intimidate players at the Miami Open by demanding that players sign statements disavowing the lawsuit.  The ATP responded yesterday, denying any wrongdoing.

The case is assigned to Judge Garnett.

On Wednesday, Judge Furman ruled on several motions in limine for an upcoming bench trial, including denying a motion to preclude the testimony of a fact witness that defendants had failed to include, without justification, in their Rule 26 disclosures.

The Court explained that preclusion was too “drastic” for this case, where there was no prejudice to the plaintiff:

Continue Reading Judge Furman: Preclusion Too “Drastic” for Witness Omitted From Rule 26 Disclosures Absent Prejudice

Last Friday, Judge Vargas granted a preliminary injunction filed by the Attorneys General of 19 States that restrains the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) from accessing Treasury Department payment systems. The preliminary injunction substantially tracks the temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that Judge Engelmayer granted on February 9th, which bars the Treasury Department from granting access to DOGE team members to “any payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees.” The Court’s order also provides an opportunity for Defendants to cure the procedural defects related to the protection of sensitive and confidential information, which would then possibly justify termination or modification of the preliminary injunction.

Continue Reading Judge Vargas Grants Preliminary Injunction Limiting DOGE Access to U.S. Treasury systems

On Wednesday, Judge Woods endorsed a joint letter from the New York Times and the Department of Justice to stay proceedings in a FOIA case, pending the outcome of an administrative appeal.

The case concerns the NYT’s January 10, 2025 expedited FOIA request for the second volume of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report. This volume addresses his decisionmaking in the criminal case against Trump regarding the alleged mishandling of classified documents. On January 21, 2025, alleging that the DOJ had not addressed their expedited processing request within the required timeframe, Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit.

Subsequently, the DOJ expedited the NYT’s request, and then denied it on February 5, 2025. Because a decision has been issued, an administrative appeal is now available.

In requesting a stay, the parties recognized, but did not ask the Court to address, an “unusual” issue:

Continue Reading Judge Woods Stays FOIA Case Over Volume II of Jack Smith Report, Allowing For Administrative Process to Be Completed

On Saturday, Judge Engelmayer granted an application for temporary restraining order filed that day by the Attorneys General of 19 States. They requested that, pending a hearing for preliminary injunction, the Court restrain access by the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) — or others that normally lack access — to the Treasury Department’s “payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees.”

Among the arguments advanced by the Attorneys General is that the Privacy Act of 1974 limits the disclosure of confidential information within an agency to specified persons within that agency, without any authority for disclosure to DOGE staffers or others outside Treasury.

The Court, in granting the temporary restraining order and scheduling a hearing for a preliminary injunction for February 14, agreed with the States that, absent a TRO, there was risk of sensitive information being compromised or the system being vulnerable to hacking:

Continue Reading Judge Engelmayer Grants TRO Blocking Access to Treasury Databases