Search apple

In an opinion today, Judge Cronan granted summary judgment to Sacha Baron Cohen (and other defendants) in a case over his interview of Roy Moore, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, that was broadcast as part of the television show “Who is America?“.

Judge Cronan ruled that the claims against Cohen and others were barred by a waiver that Moore had signed, and that, in addition, claims by Moore’s wife — for international infliction of emotional distress — were barred by the First Amendment.

For purposes of the First Amendment analysis, Judge Cronan found that the interview, in which Cohen played the role of an Israeli “Anti-Terrorism Expert” named “Gen. Erran Morad,” was obvious satire, and was not making factual assertions about Moore:

In light of the context of Judge Moore’s interview, the segment was clearly a joke and no reasonable viewer would have seen it otherwise. The segment began with an absurd joke (i.e., “Gen. Erran Morad” boasting about once killing a suicide bomber with an iPad 4, but luckily he had purchased AppleCare), followed soon by footage of numerous news reporters commenting on the accusations brought against Judge Moore.

At this point, it should have been abundantly clear to any reasonable viewer that Defendants were using humor to comment on those accusations, rather than making independent factual assertions or even remarking on the truth or accuracy of the allegations.

The actual interview of Judge Moore then became even more absurd. No reasonable viewer would have interpreted Cohen, in his over-the-top “Erran Morad” character, waving a wand that supposedly detects enzymes emitted by pedophiles in the vicinity of Judge Moore as stating facts about Judge Moore. Nor would a viewer have reasonably believed that this gadget—which “Erran Morad” contended also was able to detect hidden tunnels used by terrorists—doubled as a device that also could detect enzymes secreted by pedophiles.

 

On Wednesday, Judge Rakoff granted summary judgment in favor of New York State and the Kings County District Attorney in their challenge to a decision by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (“ICE”) to greatly increase civil immigration arrests in and around courthouses. Plaintiffs had alleged that the directive exceeded ICE’s statutory authority and had been adopted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. See our previous coverage here.

Judge Rakoff agreed, finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act incorporated the “centuries-old common law privilege against courthouse civil arrest.”  He also found that ICE had “offered no rationale other than its misguided reliance” on an Executive Order, which had directed the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize immigration enforcement against broader categories of aliens but was not addressed to courthouse arrests. Judge Rakoff’s ruling also emphasized the that ICE’s policy was compounding the challenges already presented by COVID-19: Continue Reading Judge Rakoff: ICE Policy of Making Immigration Arrests at Courthouses is Illegal

Yesterday, Judge Keenan dismissed a complaint against several producers of fossil fuels that asked the court to address the producers’ role in the effects of climate change.  The complaint, filed by the City of New York, alleged that the defendants had known for decades about the effects of their fossil fuel emissions on the global climate but continued to promote these fuels.  The City alleged it was harmed when it had to take additional steps to protect the City and its infrastructure from the effects of climate change, including rising sea levels and intense storms like Hurricane Sandy.

Judge Keenan held that the state law claims alleged in the complaint were preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.  According to Judge Keenan: Continue Reading Judge Keenan: Addressing Climate Change is “Squarely Within the Purview of the Political Branches”

In an opinion this afternoon, the Sixth Circuit refused to block Michigan’s “ballot selfie” ban, and, in doing so, echoed the very same concern from Judge Castel on Wednesday (covered in this post, immediately below), about delay in bringing suit:

One hundred and twenty-five years ago, Michigan enacted a law designed to protect the secret ballot by forbidding voters from exposing their marked ballots to others. Nine years ago, Apple introduced a cell phone capable of taking photographs and uploading them to the Internet. Thirty-two days ago, Joel Crookston sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the State from enforcing the Michigan law in the upcoming election so that he could take a “ballot selfie” with his cell phone and post it on social media. Four days ago, the district court granted his motion, which state officials immediately asked us to stay. Timing is everything. Crookston’s motion and complaint raise interesting First Amendment issues, and he will have an opportunity to litigate them in full—after this election.

As we reported in May, Judge Swain precluded the trial testimony of the plaintiffs’ loss causation and damages expert in a shareholder class action accusing Pfizer of concealing the cardiovascular risks of two drugs, Celebrex and Bextra.  At the time we wrote:  “Without a damages expert, it is unclear how the plaintiffs can prove their case at trial, which is currently scheduled for September.” The answer, based on an Order yesterday, is that the plaintiffs will not be able to prove their case.  Judge Swain dismissed the case altogether, writing:  “To prevail on a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Plaintiffs must prove loss causation and damages. See, e.g., Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148, 157 (2007); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(4). Without a loss causation expert, Plaintiffs cannot prove either.” She rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to update the expert’s report to fix the issued she identified earlier:

Continue Reading Following Preclusion of Plaintiffs’ Expert, Judge Swain Dismisses Pfizer Shareholder Class Action

In an opinion today, Judge Rakoff explained the reasons for his granting class certification in December of a case alleging that the defendants sold a product labeled “100% Pure Olive Oil” that, in fact, contained an industrially processed substance called “pomace” made from skins and pits of olives from which the oil had already been extracted. The defendants claimed the class was not “ascertainable” because it would not be practical to identify the class of olive oil purchasers by any objective criteria. In support, they cited Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., a case which Judge Cote ruled that it would be “unrealistic” to try to discern who bought Snapple drinks allegedly bearing the false label “All Natural” during the class period: “However beloved Snapple may be, there is no evidence to suggest that its consumers treat it like a fine wine and remove and save its labels.” Judge Rakoff ultimately disagreed with the Judge Cote’s decision in the Snapple case because its rationale would make these type of consumer class actions “impossible”:

Although Snapple is not binding on this Court, it raises concerns. However, the Second Circuit has instructed that “failure to certify an action under Rule 23(b)(3) on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and should be the exception rather than the rule.” In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124, 140 (2d Cir. 2001). Against this background, the Court finds that , the end, Snapple goes further than this Court is prepared to go, and, indeed, would render class actions against producers almost impossible to bring. Yet the class action device, at its very core, designed for cases like this where a large number of consumers have been defrauded but no one consumer has suffered an injury sufficiently large as to justify bringing an individual lawsuit. Against this background, the ascertainability difficulties, while formidable, should not be made into a device for defeating the action.

As we previously reported, the preliminary injunction hearing between Internet TV start-up Aereo and the major network broadcasters went forward last week before Judge Nathan. Yesterday, the broadcasters got presumably their last bite at the apple, with a reply brief in further support of their original motion for the injunction. In the brief, the broadcasters take on Aereo’s argument that Internet streaming of live TV (on a seven-second delay) is akin to the “time-shifting” function of a DVR or VHS, and thus protected under the Supreme Court’s historic Sony decision and the Second Circuit’s holding in Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings (“Cablevision“). In contrast to the recording devices at issue in those cases, the broadcasters argue, Aereo’s service does not permit individual users to copy specific programs for later consumption. Instead, Aereo itself captures the over-the-air (“OTA”) signals of broadcast television and then retransmits them to subscribers over the Internet. In addition, Aereo’s service allows consumers to view copyrighted content in a completely different medium — on computers or handheld devices over the Internet, rather than on televisions — which the broadcasters claim puts the Aereo service outside of the scope of Sony and Cablevision.

Continue Reading Broadcasters Attempt to Distinguish Aereo’s Internet-TV Service from DVRs in Reply Brief