New York, NY – A federal judge has issued a mixed ruling in a workplace discrimination case brought by a former narcotics investigator against the New York State Department of Health, allowing some of the claims to move forward while dismissing others.

Background of the case

Plaintiff Chareé Carey, a former Investigative Specialist with the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (BNE), sued the New York State Department of Health (DOH) and several supervisors, alleging sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. Carey joined the agency in September 2021 after two decades in federal law enforcement.

Her role at BNE involved inspections and oversight of controlled substance handling. During her year-long probationary period, she reported to Senior Investigator Danny Vazquez, who in turn reported to Chief Investigator Michael Shelhamer and BNE Director Joshua Vinciguerra. Carey’s lawsuit also named other supervisors, including Rick Boettcher and unidentified John and Jane Doe defendants.

Court’s ruling

U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The decision dismissed some of Carey’s claims but preserved others, ensuring the case will proceed to trial or further litigation on surviving counts.

The court noted that Carey’s Title VII claims against DOH, along with certain NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against individual supervisors, presented disputes of fact that must be resolved by a jury. However, other claims were dismissed, narrowing the scope of the case.

What comes next

The decision means Carey will still have the opportunity to argue her remaining claims in court, keeping alive allegations that she was subjected to workplace discrimination and retaliation during her time at BNE. The ruling also underscores the heightened scrutiny on state agencies and managers facing bias allegations under both federal and New York law.

Key Points

• Former narcotics investigator Chareé Carey sued the New York State Department of Health, alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
• Judge Lorna G. Schofield dismissed some claims but allowed others to proceed, meaning the case will continue.
• The lawsuit targets both the DOH and multiple individual supervisors in the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.

The fight over Carey’s treatment at the health department is now far from over.

Brooklyn, NY – A federal magistrate judge has ruled that several Long Island water districts must produce documents they tried to shield under attorney-client privilege in a sprawling contamination lawsuit against Dow Chemical and others.

Dispute over outside engineers’ role

The Albertson Water District and seven neighboring districts sued Dow, Vulcan, and Vibrantz, alleging their chemicals tainted public drinking water. During discovery, defendants sought communications between the districts’ attorneys and their outside engineering consultants, H2M Architects & Engineers and D&B Engineers & Architects.

Plaintiffs argued the engineers were “de facto employees,” making their communications privileged under the “functional equivalent” doctrine. They also invoked a “common interest privilege” tied to the Long Island Water Conference.

Court narrows privilege claims

Magistrate Judge James R. Cho rejected the broad privilege claims, noting that the Second Circuit has never formally recognized the “functional equivalent” exception. He emphasized that sharing attorney communications with third parties typically waives privilege unless narrowly justified.

Following an earlier March 2025 ruling on the “common interest” issue, the plaintiffs already agreed to produce 30 previously withheld documents. But they continued to hold back 54 documents, including five under the disputed common interest claim. The court has now ordered production of those materials.

Implications for the contamination fight

The order strengthens the defendants’ hand as they press their defense in high-stakes litigation over cleanup and remediation costs. The case is one of several pending in the Eastern District of New York over alleged toxic contamination of Long Island water supplies.

Key Points

• Long Island water districts sued Dow, Vulcan, and Vibrantz over chemical contamination.
• Plaintiffs claimed attorney-client privilege extended to outside engineers’ communications.
• Judge Cho ordered production of withheld documents, rejecting broad privilege claims.

The ruling cracks open files the water districts fought to keep closed as the toxic water battle deepens.

New York, NY – A federal judge on Thursday denied an Ashton Plaintiff’s attempt to reopen or reconsider a prior ruling that rejected a damages claim tied to the September 11 attacks, holding firm that the plaintiff did not meet the stringent standards required to disturb the court’s earlier decision.

Court rejects “functional equivalent” argument

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels refused a motion by Plaintiff Maxwell Sivin seeking vacatur—or, alternatively, reconsideration—of the court’s May 29 order that denied final damages judgments for claimants who are not immediate family members but argued they were the “functional equivalent.” The latest ruling leaves intact the denial of Sivin’s solatium claim and does not alter the court’s prior adoption of recommendations that limited solatium awards to those recognized as immediate family members under the framework used in the multidistrict litigation.

The motion was brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6), and, in the alternative, under Local Civil Rule 6.3 of the Southern District of New York. The court denied both avenues of relief, concluding that no basis existed to vacate the earlier order or to reconsider it.

Strict bar for reopening judgments

In laying out the legal standards, the court noted that Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment in limited scenarios—including mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud—and that subsection (6) is a narrow catchall reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.” Citing Supreme Court guidance, the decision emphasized that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is available only in rare situations and that a movant seeking reconsideration must identify controlling authority or data the court overlooked that would reasonably change the outcome. The court found Sivin’s submission did not meet those thresholds.

Local Civil Rule 6.3 imposes a similarly high bar, requiring a concise showing of matters or controlling decisions that were not considered. The court determined that the plaintiff’s arguments repackaged points already presented and rejected, and did not introduce new controlling law or evidence that would warrant a different result.

Long-running MDL background

The denial follows Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s Reports and Recommendations issued on December 19, 2019, and January 21, 2020, which advised granting solatium damages to certain immediate family members while denying claims by several non-immediate family members, including Sivin. On March 9, 2020, four Ashton Plaintiffs objected to the portions of those reports addressing non-immediate family claims. After a de novo review, the court adopted the reports in full on May 29, affirming the denial of solatium to claimants who did not qualify as immediate family.

Sivin’s latest motion sought to unwind or revisit that outcome as to his individual claim only. The court held that the standards for vacatur and reconsideration were not satisfied, and it denied the motion in its entirety. The ruling does not alter awards previously granted to immediate family members nor the framework applied across the 03-MDL-1570 proceedings.

Key Points

• Judge George B. Daniels denied a motion to vacate or reconsider the prior denial of a non-immediate family solatium claim.
• The court found no “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 60(b)(6) and no overlooked controlling law under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
• The decision leaves intact the May 29 order adopting recommendations that limit solatium awards to immediate family members in the 9/11 MDL.

Final word: the court’s message was clear—without new law or evidence, closed doors stay shut.

Trenton, NJ – A federal judge has denied consumers’ request to reconsider part of a ruling that trimmed their sweeping challenge to the alleged insulin pricing scheme led by Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

Motion for reconsideration denied

U.S. District Judge Brian R. Martinotti on Wednesday refused to alter his earlier order that granted in part and denied in part the drugmakers’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs, who filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in March 2024, had asked the court to reinstate certain claims that were dismissed in that ruling.

Case alleges artificial list price hikes

The litigation, which began in 2017, accuses the three manufacturers of conspiring to inflate list prices for insulin while secretly rebating portions of those prices to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in exchange for favorable formulary placement. Plaintiffs claim the practice caused consumers nationwide to overpay for life-sustaining drugs even as production costs dropped.

The case currently proceeds on narrowed claims brought by three putative classes: a nationwide mail-order RICO class, a nationwide New Jersey consumer fraud class, and several single-state consumer fraud classes.

Court keeps trimmed case moving forward

Judge Martinotti concluded plaintiffs had not shown grounds for reconsideration, such as clear error or new evidence, and emphasized that much of the case still remains active. Earlier this year, the court denied class certification but allowed amended pleadings with revised class definitions.

Key Points

• Insulin buyers asked the court to reconsider dismissal of some claims; the judge denied the request.
• Plaintiffs allege drugmakers and PBMs coordinated to inflate list prices while costs of production fell.
• Portions of the case remain alive, focused on narrower class-based claims.

The billion-dollar battle over insulin prices continues, but without a second chance at claims already cut.

Newark, NJ – A federal judge shut down an independent journalist’s civil-rights lawsuit on Thursday, granting multiple motion to dismiss bids from New Jersey officials and agencies and ending a case that challenged removals from public meetings and a church service.

Court grants Rule 12(b)(6) and abstention arguments

U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton granted motions to dismiss filed by Mayor–State Sen. Brian Stack, State Sen. Paul Sarlo, the City of Union City, the City of Jersey City, and the New Jersey State Police, disposing of Leonard Filipowski’s claims under Section 1983. The opinion cites Rule 12(b)(6) and the Colorado River abstention doctrine as the bases for dismissal.

Incidents at meeting, state hearing, and church underpinned claims

Filipowski, who publishes as “Leroy Truth,” alleged officials suppressed his speech and religious exercise through intimidation, ejections, and criminal complaints. He pointed to a July 16, 2024 Union City Board of Commissioners meeting where he was arrested after refusing to remain at the podium; a February 20 State Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where he was ruled out of order and removed; and a March 2024 church service in Jersey City where officers escorted him out at the pastor’s request.

Immunities and municipal liability defects proved decisive

Defendants pressed Eleventh Amendment and legislative immunities, qualified immunity, and failures to plead Monell liability or state action, along with abstention. Although Filipowski filed no opposition, the court evaluated the pleadings on the merits and concluded the complaint did not state viable First Amendment claims against the named public officials or municipalities. The case was dismissed in full.

Key Points

• Judge Susan D. Wigenton granted dismissal of a §1983 suit brought by an independent journalist against state and local officials.
• The ruling relied on Rule 12(b)(6) and Colorado River abstention; immunity and Monell arguments carried the day.
• Allegations stemmed from removals at a Union City meeting, a State Senate hearing, and a Jersey City church service.

A courthouse shutout leaves the political clash to the court of public opinion.

Philadelphia, PA – A Friday evening collision in West Philadelphia claimed the life of a 77-year-old woman after she was struck by a car that fled the scene, police said.

Deadly crash on Lancaster Avenue

At about 5:20 p.m., investigators say a black Infiniti with a Delaware paper tag was traveling east on Lancaster Avenue when it struck the woman near 54th Street. After the impact, the car reversed down Lancaster Avenue before fleeing south.

The driver later dropped off a female passenger at a pizza shop near 56th Street and Girard Avenue before continuing on. Medics rushed the victim to Lankenau Hospital, where she was pronounced dead at 5:52 p.m.

Police searching for suspect vehicle

The striking vehicle is described as a black Infiniti with front-end damage. Authorities are urging anyone with information about the driver or the vehicle to contact investigators as the search intensifies.

The incident remains under active investigation in the 19th District, with updates expected as police track down leads in the fatal hit-and-run.

Key Points

• A 77-year-old woman was struck and killed at 54th Street and Lancaster Avenue on Friday evening.
• The driver of a black Infiniti with Delaware paper tags fled after the crash, dropping off a passenger nearby.
• Police are asking for help locating the Infiniti, which has noticeable front-end damage.

West Philadelphia residents are left shaken as police hunt for the driver who sped away.