Carol Ruth, Inc. v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 101 F.3d 683 (2d Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Carol Ruth, Inc. v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 101 F.3d 683 (2d Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“n light of long historv as a vexatious litigant, did not abuse discretion by dismissing the petition without providing leave to amend.”
51 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Elijah Blaise Bien-Aime v. Lieutenant Stedman Ferguson, Corr. Counselor Debra Giebfried, Corr. Officer Anthony Cosme, Corr. Officer Anthony Caric, and Captain Carlos Rodriguez (nyed, 2025-11-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Elijah Blaise Bien-Aime v. Lieutenant Stedman Ferguson, Corr. Counselor Debra Giebfried, Corr. Officer Anthony Cosme, Corr. Officer Anthony Caric, and Captain Carlos Rodriguez
E.D.N.Y · 2025 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a transfer between prisons renders moot a suit for injunctive relief.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Johnson v. Erie County City Court
W.D.N.Y. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
n light of long historv as a vexatious litigant, did not abuse discretion by dismissing the petition without providing leave to amend.
discussed Cited "see" Hanna v. New York Hotel Trades Council
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2007 · signal: accord · confidence high
Health, 273 F Supp 2d 189, 192 [D Conn 2003] [summary judgment granted where plaintiffs prima facie case is weak and defendant’s explanation that no discrimination occurred is supported by substantial evidence]; accord Kemer v Johnson, 900 F Supp 677, 686 [SD NY 1995], affd 101 F3d 683 [2d Cir 1996], cert denied 519 US 985 [1996].) Retaliation (Second Cause of Action) It is well established that “a claim for retaliatory conduct does not necessarily fail by reason of a subsequent finding that the underlying discrimination complaint, upon which the claim of retaliation is premised, is withou…
discussed Cited "see" Ziemba v. Slater
D. Conn. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kemer v. Johnson, 900 F.Supp. 677, 681 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (holding that the Administrator of the General Services Administration is not an employer under the ADA), aff'd, 101 F.3d 683 , 1996 WL 219402 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 117 S.Ct. 441 , 136 *87 L.Ed.2d 338 (1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aquino v. Prudential Life & Casualty Insurance
E.D.N.Y · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 217 F.3d 72 , 73 (2d Cir.2000) (holding that Title II of the ADA is not applicable to the federal government); see also Kerner v. Johnson, 900 F.Supp. 677, 681 (S.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 101 F.3d 683 , 1996 WL 219402 (2d Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McCoy v. United States
E.D. Pa. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Gambino, 101 F.3d 683 (2d Cir.1996) (unpublished op.); see also United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 43 (3d Cir.1992) (finding that trial counsel is not required to “give [the] defendant anything approaching a detailed exegesis of the myriad arguably relevant nuances of the Guidelines”); Johnson v. Duckworth, 793 F.2d 898, 902 (7th Cir.1986) (involving a rejection of a guilty plea, finding that defense counsel is under duty to explain to defendant terms of agreement and consequences that attend its rejection); United States v. Gordon, 979 F.Supp. 337, 340-41 (E.D.…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Whaley v. United States
D. Neb. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Kemer v. Johnson, 900 F.Supp. 677, 681 (S.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 101 F.3d 683 (2nd Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 441 , 136 L.Ed.2d 338 (1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Richter v. Artuz
S.D.N.Y. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 260-62 , 109 S.Ct. 1038 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989); see also Bacchi v. Senkowski, 884 F.Supp. 724, 731 (E.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 101 F.3d 683 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 894 , 117 S.Ct. 237 , 136 L.Ed.2d 167 (1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Arkim v. Irvin
W.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
The issue is whether “the prosecutorial remarks were so prejudicial that they rendered the trial in question fundamentally unfair.” Garofolo v. Coomb, 804 F.2d 201, 206 (2d Cir.1986); see also Bacchi v. Senkowski, 884 F.Supp. 724, 733 (E.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 101 F.3d 683 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 237 , 136 L.Ed.2d 167 (1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Llanes v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
S.D. Fla. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
Hankins v. The Gap, Inc., 84 F.3d 797, 800-02 , (6th Cir.1996), citing Ansonia Bd. of Education v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 68-69 , 107 S.Ct. 367, 371-72 , 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); see also Kemer v. Johnson, 900 F.Supp. 677 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (holding that once a reasonable accommodation is made, the employer has fulfilled its obligation under the ADA), aff'd., 101 F.3d 683 (2d *1310 Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 441 , 136 L.Ed.2d 338 (1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carol Ruth, Inc. Pandora Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants
v.
Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees
95-9006.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 30, 1996.
101 F.3d 683
Unpublished
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 78%
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1) · W.D. New York (1)

101 F.3d 683

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
CAROL RUTH, INC.; Pandora Industries, Inc.,
Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants,
v.
PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.

No. 95-9006.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 30, 1996.

APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS: Daniel A. Zimmerman, Westbury, NY.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: William E. Kelly, Lane & Mittendorf LLP, New York, NY.

S.D.N.Y.

AFFIRMED.

Before MINER, MCLAUGHLIN and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

1

UPON CONSIDERATION of this appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, it is hereby

2

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

3

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record and was argued by counsel.

4

Appellants Carol Ruth, Inc. and Pandora Industries, Inc. (together "Pandora") appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Bernikow, M.J.), after a bench trial, dismissing Pandora's action to recover monies allegedly owed to it due to an improper draw down on a letter of credit.[1]

5

Appellee Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company ("Provident"), pursuant to a series of insurance agreements, (together, the "Insurance Agreement") provided group health insurance on a minimum premium basis to the employees of Wingspread Corporation ("Wingspread").

6

State law required Provident to maintain reserves to cover minimum premium coverage. Pursuant to the Insurance Agreement, Wingspread was required to fund the reserves, but, as an alternative, Wingspread was permitted to provide funding through a letter of credit ("LOC") established in Provident's favor and issued by North Carolina National Bank ("NCNB"). On April 6, 1987, Wingspread filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and, on May 13, 1988, Wingspread sold its assets to Pandora, free of all liens, claims, encumbrances, and liabilities, except for those specifically assumed by Pandora. At Pandora's direction, Pandora's bank, Congress Financial Corporation ("Congress"), provided NCNB with a letter of indemnity (the "Letter of Indemnity"), in which Congress agreed to indemnify NCNB from any calls on the LOC.

7

On September 27, 1988, Provident submitted a sight draft to NCNB and drew down the total amount of the LOC, which at that time was $205,000. After NCNB paid the $205,000 drawn on the LOC, NCNB charged the same amount to Congress under the Letter of Indemnity. In turn, Congress charged Pandora's account on October 14, 1988.

8

On April 9, 1990, Pandora commenced the action giving rise to this appeal. Pandora claimed that it was entitled to recover from Provident the sum of $121,442 of the $205,000 charged to its account, and advanced a number of theories of liability in support of its claim: monies had and received, breach of contract, and subrogation. The district court rejected the various theories of recovery advanced by Pandora in a comprehensive Opinion and Order dated March 24, 1995.

9

On appeal, Pandora makes the same arguments that it made in the district court, and puts forward the additional theory of constructive trust. However, this court generally refuses to consider an argument that was not made in the district court, see Hutton Constr. Co. v. County of Rockland, 52 F.3d 1191, 1193 (2d Cir.1995), and we see no reason to depart from our usual practice here.

10

We affirm, substantially for the reasons given in the Opinion and Order of the district court.

1

The district court, in dismissing Pandora's claim, used the language "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." This language traditionally has been used when granting a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion. However, as is apparent from its cite to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), the district court meant that Pandora failed to prove any facts that warranted relief