Yang v. Kellner

14 Citing cases

  1. Gallagher v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections

    477 F. Supp. 3d 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)   Cited 16 times
    Finding with "high degree of confidence" that ballots received within two days of the election day were mailed by the election day

    Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims against the NYSBOE, therefore, are barred by sovereign immunity. SeeYang v. Kellner , No. 20 Civ. 3325, 458 F.Supp.3d 199, 208–09, (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020), aff'd sub nom.Yang v. Kosinski , 805 F. App'x 63 (2d Cir. 2020), and aff'd 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020). But their federal claims against the NYSBOE's officers and Governor Cuomo, as well as Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims against the NYCBOE and its officers, are not barred.

  2. Murray v. Cuomo

    460 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declining to grant injunction where state proactively altered ballot access measures by shortening the period to collect signatures but also cutting the number of signatures required

    (internal quotation marks omitted)); Yang v. Kellner , 458 F.Supp.3d 199, 210-11 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020) (collecting cases). However, there is no freestanding "right to be a candidate" in an election.

  3. Lewis v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections

    8:24-CV-00849 (GTS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2024)

    Consequently, the New York State Board of Elections is entitled to sovereign immunity. See Yang v. Kellner, 458 F.Supp.3d 199, 208 (S.D.N.Y.) (“Because New York has not consented to be sued, and because Congress has not enacted legislation abrogating New York's Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to [the p]laintiffs' . . . causes of action, the claims against the [Board of Elections] as a state agency are barred by sovereign immunity.”), aff'd sub nom. Yang v. Kosinski, 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020); see also McMillan, 449 Fed.Appx. at 80 (affirming dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against the New York State Board of Elections as barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Ulanov v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 22-CV-193 (AMD/LB), 2022 WL 173112, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022) (“Accordingly, the New York State Board of Elections is immune from suit, and the plaintiff's claims against it must be dismissed.”)

  4. Ortiz v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections

    5:24-CV-00420-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    That is a sufficiently concrete injury in fact. See Yang v. Kellner, 458 F.Supp.3d 199, 206-07 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), (finding concrete injury in fact where election law removed candidate from ballot and denied him “the opportunity to compete for elective office”) aff'd 960 F.3d 119 (2020). What's more, the alleged harm from N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-96 and 163-98, as applied, is not only constitutionally sufficient injury in fact for West but also for the JFA.

  5. Voice of the Experienced v. Leblanc

    Civil Action 23-01304-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Jul. 2, 2024)

    Further, in response to Defendants' contention that injunctive relief at this juncture is premature because Plaintiffs have yet to move for class certification, such an argument is without merit. Defendants have cited to no case law for this proposition, and while the Court has yet to address the issue of class certification, this possibility does not preclude the Court from issuing a preliminary injunction that grants relief to any putative class member. See Alex A. v. Edwards, 2022 WL 3701169, at *3 (M.D. La. Aug. 26, 2022); see also Gooch v. Life Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 672 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2012); Yang v. Kellner, 458 F.Supp.3d 199, 218 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), aff'd, 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020). Put differently, [t]he lack of formal class certification does not create an obstacle to classwide preliminary injunctive relief when activities of the defendant are directed generally against a class of persons." Alex A., 2022 WL 3701169, at *3.

  6. Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Techs.

    719 F. Supp. 3d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2024)

    In determining whether the balance of equities tips in Thales's favor and whether granting the preliminary injunction would be in the public interest, the Court "must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief, as well as the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction." Yang v. Kellner, 458 F. Supp. 3d 199, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), aff'd sub nom. Yang v. Kosinski, 805 F. App'x 63 (2d Cir. 2020), and aff'd sub nom. Yang v. Kosinski, 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020). For the reasons discussed above, both the balance of equities and the public interest favor granting the preliminary injunction.

  7. Meadors v. Erie Cnty. Bd. of Elections

    1:21-CV-982 MJR (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 10, 2023)

    In Lerman v. Board of Elections, the Second Circuit held that a plaintiff had standing to challenge a requirement that all witnesses to ballot access petitions be residents of the political subdivision where the election was to take place, since “[t]he injury-in-fact [plaintiff] alleges concerns the very process of engaging in political activity in support of [her preferred candidate's] candidacy, and that injury is sufficient to confer standing under Article III.” 232 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2000). See also Gottlieb v. Lamont, 3:20-CV-00623, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22063 (D. Conn. Feb. 8, 2022) (plaintiffs had standing to challenge the constitutionality of certain ballot access provisions in New York where “all three plaintiffs have alleged injuries from their inability to vote for their preferred candidate”); Yang v. Kellner, 458 F.Supp.3d 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (denying voters an opportunity to cast ballots for an individual who represented their political views constituted an “

  8. Hulinsky v. Cnty. of Westchester

    670 F. Supp. 3d 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    "Here, the status quo ante is the state of affairs immediately prior" to the enactment of Chapter 425 on June 27, 2022. Yang v. Kellner, 458 F. Supp. 3d 199, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

  9. Alexa A. v. Edwards

    Civil Action 22-573-SDD-RLB (M.D. La. Aug. 26, 2022)

    Gooch v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of America, 672 F.3d 402, 433 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Simply put, there is nothing improper about a preliminary injunction preceding a ruling on class certification.”); Yang v. Kellner, 458 F.Supp.3d 199, 218 n.5 (S.D. N.Y. 2020), aff'd, 805 Fed.Appx. 63 (2d Cir. 2020), opinion issued, 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020) and aff'd, 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing Newberg on Class Actions) (“The Court need not formally certify a class in order to issue the requested preliminary relief.”); Nellson v. Barnhart, 2020 WL 3000961, *5 n.3 (D. Colo. 2020) (citing Newberg on Class Actions) (“[I]t is not necessary to resolve class certification before issuing preliminary injunctive relief.”)

  10. Bionpharma Inc. v. CoreRx, Inc.

    582 F. Supp. 3d 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)   Cited 10 times

    In determining whether the balance of the equities tips in the plaintiff's favor and whether granting the preliminary injunction would be in the public interest, the Court "must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief, as well as the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction." Yang v. Kellner, 458 F. Supp. 3d 199, 216 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd sub nom. Yang v. Kosinski, 805 F. App‘x 63 (2d Cir. 2020), and aff'd sub nom. Yang v. Kosinski, 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020). In this case, both the balance of equities and the public interest favor granting the preliminary injunction.