His claims against the Media Defendants — under the First Amendment, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, and New York State law — appear to relate to their coverage of the protests surrounding the death of George Floyd.3 In particular, he appears to allege that the Media Defendants disseminated intentionally false and misleading material regarding the protests and the state of

Specifically, he appears to allege that Microsoft, following George Floyd’s death, adopted a discriminatory hiring policy that resulted in termination of his relationship with the company.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged something close to that — namely, a “First Amendment right to ‘receive information and ideas’” — but it has recognized “a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker.” Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 75 (2024) (quoting Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972)).

Instead, he asserts that he brings his claim generally to “defend the peoples [sic] rights,” FAC 4, and to stop a “national unmitigated disaster,” id. (emphasis in original).

Specifically, he claims that his injuries — lost earnings and the theft of his cellphone — were the indirect result of the Media Defendants’ coverage, which, in turn, incited riots by third parties, leading to racketeering activity involving at least one act of “murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, [or] robbery.” FAC 22.

American Broadcasting Companies was included due to corporation search confusion during the service of process phase.

Upon further research, antitrust analysis, and consideration of the Anti-Slapp higher substantial basis standard, Plaintiff moves to dismiss all anti-trust related claims although he believes Defendants do collude and harm the news information market and consumers and someone should investigate their relationship with the Associated Press.

Given that the executive Branch, Justice Department and Congress are now in agreement with the Supreme Court on the racist basis for the complaint against Microsoft and beginning to prosecute companies that behave in these racist ways, Plaintiff is soliciting an amicus brief from the Justice Department Civil Division and Civil Rights Division.

Plaintiff's requests to drop American Broadcasting Companies Inc. as a Defendant and to dismiss all antitrust claims are GRANTED.

Plaintiff's request for the Court to stay adjudication of Defendants' motions pending amicus briefing from the Department of Justice is DENIED.

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: In light of Defendants’ new motions to dismiss, see Docket Nos. 62, 65, Defendants’ earlier motions to dismiss filed at Docket Nos. 41, 44, are hereby DENIED as moot.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the new motions to dismiss is due by December 6, 2024.

Defendants’ replies, if any, are due by December 20, 2024.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 41, 44, and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

United States District Judge

Ontario County Clerk This sheet constitutes the Clerk’s endorsement required by section 319 of the Real Property Law of the State of New York

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between the Plaintiff Square Funding LLC D/B/A Square Advance (“Square”), and the Defendants DMS Apex Holdings LLC D/B/A Skip Barber Racing School, ADM Associates, Inc., Demonte Motor Sports Corp and Anthony Demonte (collectively, “Defendants,” together with Square, the “Parties”) by and through their respective counsel, that:

Parties agree to transfer this action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Ontario County to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County;

The time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint is hereby extended to the later of September 4, 2024, or seven (7) days after the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, opens the transferred action and makes the action available for e-filing.

Index #: 139027-2024 ORDER the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Ontario County to transmit all papers on file in the action bearing Index No. 139027-2024 to the Clerk of the County of Suffolk.

If Plaintiff believes that the pleading of additional facts will cure deficiencies identified in the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff should include those facts in the amended complaint.1 Plaintiff will not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss.

If no amended complaint is filed, Plaintiff shall serve any opposition to the motion to dismiss by August 22, 2024.

Either party may request an extension of the briefing schedule for the motion.

Finally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

United States District Judge If possible, Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint with a redline showing all differences between the original and revised filings, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 15.1, which is available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rules.

On November 28, 2022, the Court entered an order moving JLM’s deadline and allowing JLM until December 27, 2022 to file a corrected opposition brief.

JLM never previously shared this information with Hayley’s counsel, which only learned of Case 21-2535, Document 177, 01/24/2023, 3457608, Page4 of 8 points exclusively to the Court’s original scheduling order, which was entered on September 7, 2022 (Doc. No. 84).

Instead, JLM filed a motion on a day’s notice and sought to include improper and irrelevant materials in the appendix, like memoranda of law and letters to the District Court.

This Court should not entertain JLM’s attempt to reargue the Order denying JLM’s request for, inter alia, reimbursement for its filing costs.

Instead, the Court only provided JLM the courtesy of filing a supplemental appendix and corrected opposition brief in its Order denying JLM’s motion.

Case 21-2535, Document 212, 09/18/2023, 3569957, Page1 of 2 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S.

Upon registering with the courtroom deputy, the persons arguing the first case may take seats at the lectern.

The Court will continue to offer a livestream audio of the oral arguments.

All parties are advised that the Court may change the procedures for participating in oral argument on short notice based upon updated public health information.

Case 21-2535, Document 212, 09/18/2023, 3569957, Page2 of 2 to pandemic-related considerations, a hybrid argument may be held, combining in-person and remote participation by judges and parties.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: The Court clarifies its prior order at Dkt. No. 28 to state that the closure of this case shall be deemed with prejudice only with respect to Defendant Grande Cosmetics, LLC.

With respect to Defendants Macy’s, Inc. and Saloncentric Inc., the Court’s prior order at Dkt. No. 25 allowing the parties 45 days to reopen the case remains in effect.

Dated: May 13, 2024 New York, New York

United States District Judge

AMARTE USA HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, -against- GRANDE COSMETICS, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, et al., Defendants.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: The Court having been advised that that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, see Dkt. No. 24, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby DISMISSED and discontinued without costs (including attorneys’ fees) and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within 45 days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated.

To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis.

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

“Paragraph 10(e)” refers to the provision of the Contract that reads: “In the event that the Company files an application to register the Trademark or Trademarks, Employee agrees that for a period of five years following termination of her employment, she shall not be identified to the trade or consuming public as the designer, and her role as designer shall not be used to promote the sale, of any goods in competition with goods manufactured and sold by the Company.” The “Accounts” are the Instagram account, created on or about April 6, 2012, and the Pinterest account, created on November 3, 2011, that use the handle “@misshayleypaige.” (See docket entry no. 471 (the “Second Circuit Opinion”) at 5.)

“Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” MPD Accessories B.V. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No. 12-CV-6501-LTS-KNF, 2014 WL 3439316, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

A motion for reconsideration does not serve as “a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple.” Cohen v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 19-CV-3863-LTS-SDA, 2021 WL 2158018, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2021) (quoting Analytical Surv., Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012)).

The Court specifically analyzed the relevant “three-prong test” to assess the reasonableness of Paragraph 10(e) and concluded that “the restrictive covenant, which, inter alia, prohibits identification of Ms. Gutman as a designer in connection with competing goods, is not unreasonable, overbroad or unduly burdensome” under that test.

However, because Ms. Gutman points to no legal authority to support the distinction upon which this argument relies, she has not shown that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or otherwise committed clear error.