In this case, the most negative treatment the case has received, according to Shepard's, is that it has been "criticized." The case which allegedly criticizes it is the following, an otherwise unremarkable case deserving of little attention:
Significantly, following the issuance of Judge Brieant's oral ruling, there was the following exchange between counsel and the court:
[Counsel for the plaintiff:] . . . From now on claimants have the right under the holding of Your Honor to receive benefits for [the elimination period].
THE COURT: Please, there are certain district judges who think that's true. Please read the footnote in Gasperini against the Center for Humanities.
These findings and conclusions and judgment to be entered, if it survives a further appeal, will be binding upon the parties but it's not binding on any other judge in this district or anywhere else in the country. They can read that policy and they can apply their own views and judgments towards it. So no precedent is ever created in the district court. You wouldn't believe how many people think otherwise. You are not alone in thinking that. Please read Gasperini. It's in a footnote and it's very, very clear.
So I can't say that you have [benefitted] the rest of the beneficiaries by adjudicating this issue, even if the judgment is affirmed and as they treat the point, or if it's not appealed.
(Tufaro Decl., Ex. E at 16-17.) The Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. footnote referred to by Judge Brieant does not address collateral estoppel, but merely states that, as a general matter, a district court's legal conclusion does not bind other judges sitting within the same district. See 518 U.S. 415, 431 n.10, 116 S. Ct. 2211, 135 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1996) ("If there is a federal district court standard, it must come from the Court of Appeals, not from the over 40 district court judges in the Southern District of New York, each of whom sits alone and renders decisions not binding on the others."). Nevertheless, his reference to the footnote makes clear that Judge Brieant meant to convey that his decision was based on factors unique to the case before him.
As is fairly clear, the opinion does not criticize Gasperini itself, but instead, criticizes the erroneous interpretation of it by Judge Brieant. This signal is simply incorrect.
