In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee

SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 3 – The day after U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Ronnie Abrams sentenced bottle recycling fraudster Eldar Rakhamimov to 15 months in a courtroom half filled with the defendant's family and employees, on April 3 Judge Abrams in an empty courtroom made final preparations for a one or two day trial about employment conditions in a Chinese restaurant. She told the litigants to share the costs of interpretation and that they will not need to ask permission to approach a witness to refresh their recollection. Two of the defendants no longer work at the restaurant; one of the lawyers cannot be contacted on the phone number he has listed in ECF.  But it is a Federal case; there are alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA) 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.. And so it moves to trial. The case is Wang v. Happy Hot Hunan Restaurant, Inc., et. al., 17-cv-2013(RA)(JLC).

  On April 2, Eldar Rakhamimov appeared for sentencing for inflating the number of Pepsi and Canada Dry bottles returned through his business before Judge Abram; he had many of his employees and family members with him. His lawyer Tony Mirvis pointed them out, arguing that if not sentenced to jail he could pay back the $700,000 restitution faster. But half of the debt is to the State of New York; recently Judge Abrams rejected just such has argument from a medical software company executive on tax fraud. Here, Judge Abrams went below the 37 to 46 month guideline sentence, to 15 months with two years of supervised released - the books of his recycling company will be open - and a $15,000 fine. Two of his employees were asked to take off their caps by the Court Security Officers. The prosecutor said, It would not be a bad thing if his company just fell apart. The case is US v. Eldar Rakhamimov,  18 – CR – 72 (RA).

The day before in a class action lawsuit against BHH's rodent repellers creeps toward trial or settlement, SDNY Judge William Pauley heard arguments and ruled on no fewer than 14 motions in limine. There were nine from the class action plaintiffs, mostly successful, and five from the defendant, most unsuccessful.

During the three hours of argument, Judge Pauley said today is not the day to admit anonymous customer reviews from Amazon.com from the likes of "TaterSpud59" (whom he referred to as Tater Tot), and said that FTC press releases dubious about repellers will or would be admissible at trial, with a possible limiting instruction.

There was discussion of experts including a Michigan State University protocol which Judge Pauley shot down, adding that after MSU's victory over Duke, he is not disposed toward them. Judge Pauley took more time listening to arguments than many other judges would, and said he said spent the rainy Sunday - on which Duke was eliminated from NCAA March Madness - to read all of the papers. The sense, after the mouse motion marathon, was that the plaintiffs are in the driver's seat, and that the case may settle. There is a mediation scheduled for April 9 before Hon. John S. Martin (Ret). But Inner City Press will be cover it and what happens in the SDNY either way. The case is Hart, et al. v. BHH, LLC d/b/a Bell + Howell, et al., 15-cv-04804; class counsel is Yitzchak Kopel  and BHH is now represented by Quinn Emanuel We were also at Judge Pauley's courtroom on the news there would be a proceeding in US v Genovese, a hedge fund fraud prosecution. But it was not there - once we left the courtroom and retrieved electronics, we were able to ask and learned Genovese was adjourned to April 10. We'll have more on this. Back on March 28 an insider trading action by the SEC was under heavy fire in SDNY courtroom of Judge Richard M. Berman. The SEC had in 2017 grand alleged that "Ariel Darvasi and Amir Waldman were in possession of material nonpublic information about the impending acquisition when they purchased Mobileye securities" just prior to its acquisition by Intel. But on March 28 the defendants' lawyers, moving for summary judgment, mocked the arguments. They said Waldman was "not a direct insider;" they said suspicious trades are not enough, mere contact with an insider is not enough. The SEC lawyer responded with tales of MobileEye's founders private jet flight to New York to nail down the Intel deal. Much of the argument came down to whether a response by Waldman during deposition, that he had been aware of the trip - "yes" - before the words, for the merger, were said, should go to a jury. The defendants insisted on their video. There was no other media in the court room but Inner City Press, still without its electronics. So what of general deterrence? What of transparency? In the SDNY there is no comprehensive calendar, and for now the Press that seeks to report on as much as possible is still restrained. We'll have more on this. Back on March 20 in a lawsuit brought by Sony the correct meaning of natural evolution, Darwinistic or as term of art, was debated for an hour before SDNY Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Sony's lawyer began by pointing out the executives who traveled from Tokyo and London for this argument, at which there was only one media present: Inner City Press. Judge Rakoff began by criticizing the pro hace vice lawyers for defendant EVS Codec Technologies, LLC for ignoring the local rules and not saying undisputed or disputed with citatation for each paragraph in Sony's motion to dismiss. But Sony didn't provide citations either and on balance EVS Codec gave as good as it got. Did the covenant not to sue which only covered upgrades, enhancements and natural evolutions carry over to new codec (audio to 0/1 digital) technology? It was EVS which better explained the differences between AMR to EVS, as Judge Rakoff returned several times to an analogy between the evolution, natural or otherwise, from the Model T to the Cadillac. Judge Rakoff said he will issue a "who will win" ruling in a week, with something longer to follow, in this case 1:18-cv-09518-JSR, Sony Mobile Communications Inc. v. EVS Codec Technologies, LLC. It's a big money case, but there was no other media covering it. It is hard to know, in the SDNY courthouse, what is going on; it is harder still to cover it with laptop and, yes, smart phone taken at the metal detectors. Is the entire courthouse, at least publicly, only about Trump? The beat goes on, between Bronx murders and attempts to seize the Colombian FARC rebels' condos and bank accounts with BB&T. Across Pearl Street earlier on March 20, plaintiffs pursuing assets of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or FARC before SDNY Judge Andrew L. Carter named the banks involved, including not only Citigroup, Safra and UBS but also BB&T, which is applying to the US Federal Reserve to buy Suntrust. The plaintiffs' lawyers described the bank accounts, condominia in the Four Seasons and luxury ships of 100 and 200 feet. Some are being pursued in Florida but also in New York. Judge Carter wanted to know the difference between the two actions. Raymond James, the financial institution, appeared to be the only answer. But on the kingpins and other banks, we'll have more.