Sign in to follow
Search Results

0 results for ''Zuckerman Spaeder''

You can use to get even better search results
Magellan Tech. Inc. v. U.S. Food Drug Admin.
Publication Date: 2023-06-23
Practice Area: Administrative Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Myrna Perez
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: For Petitioner Magellan Technology, Inc.: Joseph A. Smith, Jessica Tierney, on the brief, Eric N. Heyer, Thompson Hine LLP, Washington, D.C.
For defendant: For Respondent United States Food and Drug Administration: Samuel R. Bagenstos, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Wendy S. Vicente, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel for Litigation, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, William D. Thanhauser, Associate Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, of counsel, Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Arun G. Rao, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Gustav W. Eyler, Director, Consumer Protection Branch, Hilary K. Perkins, Assistant Director, Consumer Protection Branch, on the brief, David H. Hixson, Trial Attorney, Consumer Protection Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Amici Curiae 38 National and State Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Product Advocacy Associations, in support of Petitioner: J. Gregory Troutman, Troutman Law Office, PLLC, Louisville, KY. For Amici Curiae Dr. David B. Abrams, Clive D. Bates, and Professor David T. Sweanor, in support of Petitioner: Mary G. Bielaska, Zanicorn Legal PLLC, New York, NY. For Amici Curiae Medical and Public Health Groups, in support of Respondent: Shawn Naunton, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York, NY.
Case number: 21-2426

Denial of Application to Sell Flavored Nicotine Did Not Violate APA, Was in FDA Authority

In re McDonald's Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig.
Publication Date: 2023-02-07
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Food and Beverage | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Christine M. Mackintosh, Rebecca A. Musarra, Vivek Upadhya, Michael D. Bell, Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Barbara J. Hart, Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A., New York, NY; Geoffrey M. Johnson, Scott + Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, Cleveland Heights, OH; Jing-Li Yu, Scott + Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, New York, NY; Max R. Huffman, Scott + Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, San Diego, CA; Jeffrey M. Norton, Benjamin D. Baker, Newman Ferrara LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
For defendant: Garrett B. Moritz, S. Reiko Rogozen, Holly E. Newell, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ronald L. Olson, George M. Garvey, Robert L. Dell Angelo, Brian R. Boessenecker, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel C. Herr, Law Offices of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE; Shawn P. Naunton, Catherine S. Duval, Leila Bijan, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York, NY; Kathleen M. Miller, Julie M. O’Dell, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case number: 2021-0324-JTL

The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff shareholders successfully pled facts sufficient to establish a claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of a corporate vice president's behavior consisting of condoning sexual harassment and breaching the duty of oversight.

U.S. v. Donziger
Publication Date: 2022-06-28
Practice Area: Criminal Law | White Collar Crime
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Michael Park
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: For Appellee: Brian P. Maloney, Seward & Kissel LLP, New York, NY, on the brief, Rita M. Glavin, Glavin PLLC, New York, NY.
For defendant: For Defendant-Appellant: William W. Taylor, III, David A. Reiser, Leila Bijan, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington, DC; Martin Garbus, Offit Kurman, New York, NY; Ronald L. Kuby, New York, NY; Natali Segovia, Water Protector Legal Collective, Albuquerque, NM, on the brief, Stephen I. Vladeck, Austin, TX. For amicus curiae United States Department of Justice in support of Appellee: Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., Lisa H. Miller, on the brief, Robert A. Parker, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Case number: 21-2486

Special Prosecutors Did Not Breach Appointments Clause, 1987 Decision in 'Young'

Appellate Division, First Department: March 24, 2022
Publication Date: 2022-03-28
Practice Area: Civil Appeals | Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Appellate Division, First Department, Appeals & Motions
Judge: Unsigned
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: DOCKET

Appellate Division, First Department: March 24, 2022

Yoo v. U.S.
Publication Date: 2021-11-05
Practice Area: Criminal Law | International Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. - SDNY
Judge: District Judge Cathy Seibel
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Counsel for Petitioner: Shawn Naunton, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York, New York.
For defendant: Paul Shechtman, Bracewell LLP, New York, New York. Counsel for Respondent: Derek Wikstrom, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, White Plains, New York.
Case number: 21-CV-6184

Court Denies Habeas Corpus Relief From Extradition to Korea Under Treaty

United States ex rel. O'Bier v. TidalHealth Nanticoke, Inc.
Publication Date: 2021-05-26
Practice Area: Health Care Law
Industry: Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: John D. McLaughlin, Jr., Ferry Joseph, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Khouri, Khouri Law Firm, APC, Ir-vine, CA for plaintiffs.
For defendant: Brian J. McLaughlin, Katherine Randolph Fry, Offit Kurman, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jennifer J. Coyne, Todd Reinecker, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Baltimore, MD; Richard A. Robinson, Burr & Forman LLP, Wilming-ton, DE James A. Hoover, Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham, AL; Martin S. Himeles, Jr., Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Baltimore, MD; Thomas G. Macauley, Macauley LLC, Wilmington, DE; Daniel A. Griffith, Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case number: D69409

The court dismissed a complaint with prejudice because it failed to allege sufficient facts to support a cause of action under the federal False Claims Act with regard to an unlawful referral scheme.

In re: 650 Fifth Ave. Co. & Related Properties
Publication Date: 2021-03-16
Practice Area: Civil Rights | Constitutional Law
Industry: Real Estate
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Judge: Per Curiam
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: For Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant: Michael D. Lockard, Martin S. Bell, Samuel L. Raymond, Thomas McKay, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief, Daniel M. Tracer, Assistant United States Attorney, for Audrey Strauss, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York.
For defendant: For Claimants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees: Melissa Ginsberg, Diana M. Conner, on the brief, Daniel S. Ruzumna, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, New York, and Winston Paes, on the brief, John Gleeson, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, New York. For the Acosta, Beer, Greenbaum, Kirschenbaum, Havlish, Heiser, Peterson, Miller, and Rubin Claimants-Appellees: James L. Bernard, Curtis C. Mechling, Pamela S. Takefman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, New York; Timothy B. Fleming, Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher Goldfarb PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Dale K. Cathell, Richard M. Kremen, DLA Piper LLP (US), Baltimore, Maryland; Liviu Vogel, Salon Marrow Dyckman Newman & Broudy, LLC, New York, New York; Peter R. Kolker, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Washington, D.C., on the brief, Patrick N. Petrocelli, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, New York. For Hegna Claimants-Appellees: Ralph P. Dupont, Dupont Law Firm, Stamford, Connecticut.
Case number: 20-1212

Seizure of Manhattan Building, Rental Income Violated Claimants' Due Process Rights

Appellate Division, First Department:October 1, 2019
Publication Date: 2019-10-03
Practice Area: Civil Appeals | Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Appellate Division, First Department, Cases Decided
Judge: Unsigned
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: DOCKET

Appellate Division, First Department:October 1, 2019

Connecticut Fine Wine and Spirits LLC v. Seagull
Publication Date: 2019-09-12
Practice Area: Antitrust | Consumer Protection
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Judge: Unsigned
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: For Plaintiff-Appellant: William J. Murphy, John J. Connolly, Adam B. Abelson, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Baltimore, MD.
For defendant: James T. Shearin, Edward B. Lefebvre, Pullman & Comley LLC, Bridgeport, CT. For Defendants-Appellees: Clare E. Kindall, Solicitor General, Robert J. Deichert, Assistant Attorney General, for William Tong, Attorney General, Hartford, CT. For Intervenors-Defendants-Appellees: David S. Hardy, Damian K. Gunningsmith, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP, New Haven, CT. Michael J. Spagnola, Siegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell & Beck, P.C., Hartford, CT. Patrick A. Klingman, Klingman Law, LLC, Hartford, CT. Robert M. Langer, Benjamin H. Diessel, Wiggin and Dana LLP, Hartford, CT. Deborah Skakel, Craig M. Flanders, Blank Rome LLP, New York, NY. John F. Droney, Jr., Jeffrey J. Mirman, Hinckley Allen & Snyder, LLP, Hartford, CT.
Case number: 17-2003

CT Alcohol Pricing Scheme Permits De Facto State-Sanctioned Cartel of Wholesalers

Oneida Indian Nation v. Phillips
Publication Date: 2019-08-16
Practice Area: Native American Law
Industry: Real Estate
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
Judge: District Judge Glenn Suddaby
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Co-Counsel for Plaintiff: Meghan Murphy Beakman, Esq., of Counsel, Oneida Indian Nation, Verona, New York.
For defendant: Co-Counsel for Plaintiff: Michael R. Smith, Esq., of Counsel, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington, DC. Counsel for Defendants: Eric Nevins Whitney, Esq., Glenn J. Pogust, Esq., of Counsel, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, New York.
Case number: 5:17-CV-1035

Orchard Party Oneidas Do Not Have Right to Property That Was Part of Oneida Reservation

More from ALM

More from ALM

Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

Resources