Trump Complaint Dismissed, DTSA Claims Lacked Jurisdiction
This column addresses recent noteworthy decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. This installation focuses on two decisions granting motions to dismiss, the first dismissing claims brought by former president Donald Trump against New York Attorney General Letitia James, and the second dismissing an action alleging violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and accompanying state law claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of capacity to sue.
August 26, 2022 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Trade SecretsThis column addresses recent noteworthy decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. This installation focuses on two decisions granting motions to dismiss: the first, a high-profile decision by Judge Brenda K. Sannes dismissing claims brought by former president Donald Trump against New York Attorney General Letitia James after finding that both Younger abstention and res judicata justified dismissal; and the second, a decision by Judge Gary L. Sharpe dismissing an action alleging violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and accompanying state law claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of capacity to sue.
Judge Sannes Dismisses Trump's Claims Against Letitia James
On May 27, 2022, Judge Sannes dismissed a complaint brought by Donald Trump and his business organizations against Attorney General Letitia James, asserting that James's investigation of Trump and his business organizations violated his rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and abused the judicial process to advance James's own political ambitions. Trump et al. v. James, 1:21-cv-1352 (BKS/CFH), 2022 WL 1718951 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2022). In addition to a declaratory judgment, plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunctions to either cease or limit the investigation. Id. at *4.
In a lengthy discussion, Judge Sannes found this case to be a straightforward application of Younger abstention, in which the Sprint and Middlesex factors all weighed in favor of abstention. See id. at *8-*12. The court evaluated—and eventually rejected—plaintiffs' argument that the bad-faith exception to Younger applied, holding that the fact that James's "public statements reflect personal and/or political animus toward Plaintiffs is not, in and of itself, sufficient." Id. at *13. The court further found that plaintiffs failed to establish that the New York proceeding, in which James sought compliance with several subpoenas issued to plaintiffs, was commenced for the purpose of harassing plaintiffs. Id.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250