Jessica Holloway

Subscribe to Jessica Holloway's Posts

In a motion filed yesterday, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Warner Brothers and Viacom filed a motion for partial summary judgment asking Judge Baer to rule that LimeWire intentionally fostered infringement of the studios’ copyrights in movies and TV shows by distributing the LimeWire peer-to peer file sharing software. In May of 2010, in Arista – an analogous and hotly contested suit brought by thirteen record companies – Judge Wood found LimeWire liable on summary judgement, finding that the evidence of intent to foster infringement of musical recordings was “overwhelming.” Ultimately LimeWire settled that case – for $105 million – during a trial to determine damages. The studios’ motion relies heavily on that decision, arguing that the legal and factual issues are identical, and collateral estoppel therefore compels the identical result.
Continue Reading Studios File “Me Too” Summary Judgment Motion in Action Against LimeWire

It has been a busy week for Judge Sullivan. On Friday, Judge Sullivan dismissed with prejudice a securities fraud class action brught against UBS and certain of its executives alleging that UBS misled investors about its exposure to mortgage-backed securities and auction rate securities, and about its compliance with U.S. tax and securities laws.
Continue Reading Judge Sullivan Dismisses UBS Securities Class Action

In a decision filed on Sunday, Judge Sullivan granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in Dinler et al. v. City of New York – the consolidated actions brought by protesters arrested during the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. The parties’ fifty motions addressed four issues:

(1) whether the police had probable cause to arrest protesters and bystanders at a demonstration on Fulton Street on August 31, 2004; (2) whether the police had probable cause to arrest protesters and bystanders at a demonstration on East 16th Street on August 31, 2004; (3) whether the City’s suspension of its summons policy for minor offenses, when those offenses related to the RNC, was constitutionally permissible; and (4) whether the City’s blanket fingerprinting policy with respect to RNC-related arrests was lawful and constitutionally permissible.

Judge Sullivan dismissed plaintiffs’ claims challenging the constitutionality of the No-Summons and Fingerprinting policies, but granted in part plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, finding that probable cause did not exist to justify the Fulton Street arrests. He also found that questions of fact existed with respect to the East 16th Street arrests that require trial. Continue Reading Judge Sullivan: Some Arrests at 2004 RNC Lacked Probable Cause

On Tuesday, Judge Kaplan issued a 97-page decision granting in part and denying in part Chevron’s motion for partial summary judgment in the RICO litigation Chevron has brought challenging an allegedly fraudulent $18 billion dollar judgment against it in Ecuador under that country’s Environmental Management Act for “environmental harms to the community.”
Continue Reading Judge Kaplan Finds Fraud but Denies Chevron’s Motion Regarding Enforceability of $18 Billion Ecuadorian Judgment

This Thursday, Judge Scheindlin denied reconsideration of Moody’s, S&P’s and Morgan Stanley’s motions  to dismiss claims brought by investors to recover losses stemming from the October, 2007 collapses of Rhinebridge and Cheyne, structured investment vehicles. (Our previous post on her denial of the motions to dismiss is here.) Defendants‘ motions for reconsideration were based on new authority regarding negligent misrepresentation claims in securities cases: the Second Circuit’s May 10, 2012 decision in City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian Employees’ Retirement System v. CBS Corp., and its May 18, 2012 summary order in Stephenson v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP.  Judge Schiendlin, however, was not persuaded that either case cast doubt on her previous decision.
Continue Reading Negligent Misrepresentation Claims to Proceed Against Rating Agencies, Morgan Stanley

In a decision issued today, Judge Jones found the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.   Judge Jones’ decision came on the heels of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Tuesday, declining en banc review of its February decision finding California’s Prop 8 unconstitutional, and the First Circuit ‘s affirmance, last week, of  two 2010 district court decisions finding that DOMA unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.
Continue Reading Judge Jones: DOMA Unconstitutional