In an opinion yesterday, Judge Ramos dismissed a suit brought by a well-known dressage coach, Michael Barisone, against the United States Equestrian Federation based on the events that led Barisone to shoot a former student, Lauren Kanarek, and that were featured in a Netflix documentary earlier this year.

Barisone was a leading figure in the dressage community, and allowed Kanarek, a fellow USEF member and his trainee, to live temporarily on his New Jersey farm.  He alleges that Kanarek refused to leave and became increasingly “unstable.” Matters escalated to the point that Barisone confronted, and then shot, Kanarek twice in the chest in 2019.  She survived, and he was charged with attempted murder but ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Barisone’s suit against USEF alleged that the group violated its own “Safe Sport” policy by not investigating and addressing multiple complaints about Kanarek’s allegedly erratic behavior.  Even though Judge Ramos found that Barisone had plausibly alleged facts that USEF breached its own policy, he found that the causal chain connecting that breach to Barisone’s alleged harm — his downfall from the shooting — was too speculative:

Continue Reading Judge Ramos: Speculative Causal Chain Dooms Suit Seeking To Hold Equestrian Governing Body Responsible For Shooting

In an opinion Wednesday, Judge Schofield ruled that there was New York jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action that a New York retailer, Rag & Bone, brought in response to trademark threats from a California volleyball company, Miramar Brands Group, Inc., finding that MBG’s campaign against Rag & Bone’s “Miramar” clothing line was sufficiently directed towards New York for case to proceed here.

The case focuses on Rag & Bone’s “Miramar” comfort-wear line, which it has sold for at least thirteen years. MBG, a California brand-management and licensing company, owns the registered MIRAMAR trademark for volleyball and volleyball-related beachwear. Last August, MBG’s counsel sent Rag & Bone a cease-and-desist letter into New York claiming exclusive rights and demanding Rag & Bone pull the collection. What followed was months of increasingly aggressive back-and-forth, including dueling letters between the parties’ respective New York counsel and an offer from MBG to license Rag & Bone the MIRAMAR name for ten years in exchange for a $10 million up-front fee plus escalating royalties. When Rag & Bone didn’t accept, MGS sent a wave of takedown notices to Amazon, Meta, Klaviyo, Nordstrom, and Saks demanding they stop carrying or advertising the Miramar collection.

Continue Reading Judge Schofield: A Cease-and-Desist Letter Plus a $10 Million Licensing Pitch Is Enough to Haul a California Volleyball Brand Into New York Court

On Friday, Judge Carter granted defendant Zealthy Inc.’s motion to dismiss claims brought by Novo Nordisk under the Lanham Act and New York General Business Law. Novo Nordisk alleged that Zealthy, which markets compounded GLP-1 medications, falsely represented to consumers that those products were equivalent to Novo Nordisk’s FDA-approved medications like Ozempic and Wegovy. Compounded medications (mixed by a doctor or pharmacist for an individual patient) are not FDA-approved, even if legal to prescribe.

Novo Nordisk pointed to a cluster of statements on Zealthy’s website: that “GLP-1 medications, with active ingredient semaglutide, are FDA-approved for type 2 diabetes”; that a clinician “might prescribe FDA-approved medications like Wegovy or its active ingredient, semaglutide”; that Zealthy offers “FDA-approved weight loss medications, including semaglutide”; and similar language elsewhere describing “FDA-approved medications such as semaglutide.” Novo Nordisk argued that these statements falsely indicate that Zealthy’s compounded products are FDA-approved.

Continue Reading Judge Carter Dismisses Novo Nordisk’s False Advertising Claims, Finding Statements About Compounded GLP-1s Were Susceptible To An Accurate Reading

In an opinion Monday, Judge Cronan dismissed a challenge brought by a coalition of interfaith advocacy groups to the composition of President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission (the “RLC”), rejecting arguments that the fourteen-member body—which includes Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Jewish members but no Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Buddhist voices—violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s (“FACA”) requirement that advisory committees be “fairly balanced.”

Plaintiffs argued that the RLC’s membership reflects a “Judeo-Christian framework” that excludes their perspectives, and sought to enjoin the RLC from publishing its forthcoming report on the state of religious liberty in America. Judge Cronan found that the organizational plaintiffs had standing to sue, based on the risk that an unrepresentative RLC would produce policy recommendations that undercut their advocacy work. But he rejected the underlying claim on the merits, applying what he described as the “highly deferential” review courts have historically given to FACA’s balance requirement. In doing so, he “reject[ed] the premise that there is a single ‘Judeo-Christian’ viewpoint”:

Continue Reading Judge Cronan: Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission Need Not Have “Perfect” Balance

In an opinion Monday, Judge Rochon denied a motion to dismiss a trademark suit brought by Danone, which makes STōK cold brew coffee against Chobani, which makes a “La Colombe”-branded competing product, over the phrase “BRIGHT & MELLOW” used on both packages as depicted below:

Danone has sold its STōK Cold Brew coffee under the “BRIGHT & MELLOW” label since January 2021, and alleges the phrase functions as both a flavor descriptor and an unregistered trademark. According to the complaint, La Colombe’s cold brew previously used the phrase “Bright & Flavorful” on a blue-and-yellow bottle—until Chobani acquired La Colombe in December 2023 and, Danone says, revised the packaging to more closely resemble STōK’s, including by swapping in “Bright & Mellow.”

Continue Reading Judge Rochon Allows Trademark Case To Proceed Over Competing “Bright and Mellow” Cold Brews

On Friday, Judge Liman granted Blake Lively’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, but denied her request for damages (including treble and punitive damages), following the court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Justin Baldoni and his production company accusing Lively of defamation arising from the filming of It Ends With Us (see our prior coverage of the cases here).

Last month, the parties settled their disputes, including Lively’s related lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, but left for the Court to decide Lively’s request for fees, costs, and damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1.

Enacted in 2023 in response to the #MeToo movement, Section 47.1 establishes a qualified privilege for communications made without malice concerning sexual harassment, assault, or discrimination, and it permits a prevailing defamation defendant to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and damages.

Continue Reading Judge Liman: Rule 54(d) Does Not Authorize Blake Lively To Recover “Damages” For Dismissed Defamation Action Against Her

In an opinion Friday, Judge Vyskocil exercised her discretion in refusing to adjudicate a declaratory judgment action filed by journalist Michael Wolff in state court (later removed) seeking a declaration that he did not defame Melania Trump. Ms. Trump’s lawyers had sent Wolff a letter demanding he retract statements in a Daily Beast article that the publication has since withdrawn. The letter invoked a pre-suit notice requirement under Florida law and stated that, absent a retraction, Wolff would be sued for $1 billion, presumably in Florida.

Judge Vyskocil concluded that Wolff’s lawsuit was an “abusively presented spat” because he engaged in “blatant forum shopping” by racing to file the case in New York, apparently in hopes of triggering New York’s more defendant-friendly anti-SLAPP law:

Continue Reading Judge Vyskocil Dismisses, For “Blatant Forum Shopping,” Journalist’s Preemptive Suit Against Melania Trump Over Defamation Threat

In an opinion filed on Thursday, Judge McMahon granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on their claims that the Government’s April 2025 mass termination of more than 1,400 National Endowment for the Humanities (“NEH”) grants was unconstitutional and ultra vires (see our prior coverage here). The court described a glaring departure from NEH’s established grant‑review process, under which officials affiliated with the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) directed that grants issued during the Biden Administration be reviewed for purported connections to subjects such as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (“DEI”), “environmental justice,” and “gender ideology.” The court found that DOGE officials “exercised decisive authority over the selection and termination of NEH grants” absent statutory authority.

Continue Reading “The Devil Made Me Do It” Defense Rejected: Judge McMahon Grants Summary Judgment Against Government’s AI‑Driven Mass Termination of NEH Grants

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Furman allowed former AUSA Maurene Comey to pursue her wrongful termination claims in federal court, denying DOJ’s argument that the claim belonged exclusively before the MSRB. Comey’s main allegation is that she was fired because her father is former FBI Director James Comey, a political foe of President Trump. Comey was told that she was being fired under Article II of the Constitution, without further explanation.

Judge Furman ruled that the governing statute does not channel all disputes over civil servant firings before the MSRB but only those “taken ‘for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.’” 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a). Comey “was not removed ‘for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service,’” but, “[i]nstead, Defendants cited one and only one reason for her removal: Article II of the Constitution.”

Judge Furman noted that this result may or may not be consistent with the underlying Congressional purpose to create uniformity for personnel actions. But, he added, this “gap” may be explained by the fact that Article II firings were not, until recently, “a thing”:

Continue Reading Judge Furman: New Practice Of “Article II” Firings Can Be Challenged In Federal Court Instead Of Before MSRB

In a decision Monday, Judge McMahon granted summary judgment in favor of the author of the Crave series of “romantasy” fiction in a suit accusing the author of allegedly lifting major aspects of the books from the plaintiff, an unpublished author who shared the same agent (see our prior coverage here).

Judge McMachon noted that, between the Crave series and in the plaintiff’s unpublished manuscripts (titled “Blue Moon Rising” and “Masqued” and referred to in the opinion as “BMR/Masqued”), she had read over 6,000 pages of “romantasy” fiction in an eight week period. The resulting opinion—157 pages—explains that the two series of novels are not “substantially similar” within the meaning of copyright law. Copyright “protection extends only to a work’s particular expression of ideas, not to the ideas themselves,” which is why, Judge McMahon explained, the “common trope of ‘boy meets girl from opposing factions/boy and girl fall in love/boy and girl end up dead’” is not protected, but specific expressions of that trope (Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story) are protected.

For the case at hand, Judge McMahon explained that many of the overlapping plot elements were nothing more than staples of “romantasy” genre, including ones common to the “granddaddy” of the genre, the Twilight series:

Continue Reading After Reading 6,000 Pages of “Romantasy” Fiction, Judge McMahon Dismisses Suit Over Allegedly Copycat Book Series