Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, black and Hispanic registered voters in Albany County, sued the County and the Board of Elections (collectively, defendants) for enacting a redistricting plan for the Albany County Legislature (Local Law C) in response to the 2010 United States census that allegedly diluted black and Hispanic voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973, by failing to provide for five majority-minority districts (MMDs). The court concluded that plaintiffs' appeal was not moot, even though the challenged elections have not taken place. While the court identified legal error in the district court's determination that plaintiffs failed to make the majority-minority showing required to satisfy the first step of a vote dilution claim as identified in Thornburg v. Gingles, the court identified no error in the district court's determination that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success as the third majority bloc-voting step of the Gingles inquiry, or in the court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief on that ground. View "Pope v. County of Albany" on Justia Law

The Mission brought this interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611. At issue was whether the Mission could be sued for the damage to an adjoining property caused by its alleged failure to comply with the New York City Building Code, N.Y. City Admin. Code tit. 28, ch.1. The court rejected the Mission's argument that the immunity accorded to its decision to base its operations in a townhouse and to renovate the building for such use extended to the tort allegedly committed during its implementation of that decision. Although the Mission was not under an obligation to construct the chancery at any particular location, once it decided to do so it could not disregard the nondelegable duty of care imposed upon it by the city's Building Code. Accordingly, the court held that the obligation to protect the party wall was not discretionary and that the Mission could not avail itself of the protection of the FSIA's discretionary function exception. View "USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. Permanent Mission Of The Republic of Namibia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed an order of the district court denying leave to amend its complaint alleging violations of section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k, 77l(a)(2), 77o. The proposed complaint alleged that defendant was required to disclose, and failed adequately to disclose, in connection with a March 2006 secondary offering of its securities, known defects in the company's semiconductor chips. The court held that the proposed complaint stated a claim because it plausibly alleged that the defects constituted a known trend or uncertainty that the company reasonably expected would have a material unfavorable impact on revenues. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to permit the filing of the complaint. View "Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appealed an order of the district court dismissing her 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim for failure of timely service and a subsequent order denying her Rule 60(b) "motion to open." The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's action or in denying Rule 60(b) relief, despite her attempt to effect service with the aid of the U.S. Marshals Service. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Meilleur v. Strong" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the adoption by the district court of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to revoke his supervised release for violating a mandatory condition of supervision that he "shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime." Defendant principally disputed the district court's determination that, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1, good cause existed to allow the government to introduce hearsay evidence during his Violation of Supervised Release (VOSR) hearing. The court held that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; the evidence presented at the VOSR hearing was sufficient to support the district court's finding that defendant committed felony assault under New York law; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's request to reopen the VOSR hearing. View "United States v. Carthen" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court granted a certificate of appealability as to whether petitioner's representation was per se ineffective under the Sixth Amendment when, although he had a licensed attorney of record, a disbarred attorney acted as his de facto counsel. The court concluded that if the performance of the licensed attorney passed muster under Strickland v. Washington, the defendant's decision to rely upon other sources did not violate the Sixth Amendment. If the licensed attorney's performance did not pass muster under Strickland, the defendant's rights were protected. Accordingly, the per se ineffectiveness rule did not apply in this case and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Elfgeeh v. United States" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the determination of the proper royalty ASCAP was entitled to receive for a blanket public performance license for music in the ASCAP repertory that was embodied in television and radio content to be delivered to viewers and listeners using mobile telephones (handsets). The applicant for the license was Mobi, which purchased programming from cable television networks and transmitted it to the wireless carriers to which consumers subscribe to obtain wireless service on their headsets. The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that the retail price paid by customers for a service that delivered video and audio channels containing music to their headsets was not a good measure of the value of the music itself; the district court did not err in using a wholesale revenue base; and ASCAP's remaining objections were properly rejected by the district court. View "ASCAP v. MobiTV, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were awarded a judgment in August 2006 in a state-court negligence action against TFD, one of whose buses had struck a vehicle operated by one of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the district court's dismissal of their complaint seeking a judgment declaring that defendant Lancer, an insurer of TFD, was obligated to pay each plaintiff $5 million or more in satisfaction of the essentially unpaid Negligence Action Judgment, and ordering Lancer to pay those amounts. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint on the ground that the relevant insurance overage was limited to interstate trips and that the TFD bus trip that resulted in the injury at issue was a trip wholly within New York State. The court considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. View "Lyons v. Lancer Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Government appealed from the district court's judgment requiring the Government to disclose, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, information redacted from two memoranda prepared by the OLC. The Government contended that the redactions were justified under FOIA because the information pertained to a highly classified, active intelligence method. The court concluded that the Government could withhold this information under FOIA Exemption 1. Plaintiffs challenged the judgment insofar as it sustained the Government's withholding of certain records relating to the use of waterboarding and a photograph of a high-value detainee in custody. The court agreed with the district court that the materials at issue were exempt from disclosure. The district court erred, however, in requiring the Government to disclose the classified information redacted from the two memoranda. View "American Civil Liberties Union v. Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of the suppression of defendant's station house confession to unlawful dealings in firearms. That confession followed an incriminating statement made in response to brief questioning at the apartment where defendant was arrested earlier that day. The confession followed Miranda warnings; the earlier incriminating statement did not. The district court suppressed the station house confession as the product of a deliberate, two-stage interrogation strategy barred by Missouri v. Seibert. Relying on the court's decision in United States v. Capers, the district court reasoned that the admissibility of defendant's station house confession turned on whether the decision to forego Miranda warnings at the apartment was "legally justifiable." Finding that it was not, the district court suppressed the station house confession. The court concluded that the district court's determination rested on a misapplication of Capers. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law