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

Appellants appealed the denial of their motion for a writ of execution against Garrison Services. The motion was based on default judgments appellants had earlier obtained against Lyons. The court denied the motion as a sanction for appellants' counsel's repeated failures to comply with the court's orders. The court held that although the district court had an adequate basis to sanction counsel and accorded the required procedural safeguards, further findings were needed to support a sanction that fell entirely on the clients rather than principally on the lawyer. View "Mitchell v. Lyons Professional Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of current and former UBS and UBSFS employees, alleging that defendants violated various fiduciary duties imposed on them by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in analyzing their claim for breach of the duty of prudence, as it applied a presumption of prudence to the fiduciaries of both investment plans at issue. The court held that the district court wrongly applied the presumption as to one of the two plans, the Savings and Investment Plan (SIP), as the SIP Plan Document neither required nor strongly encouraged investment in UBS stock or the UBS Stock Fund. The court held, however, that the District Court correctly applied the presumption of prudence as to the second plan, the Plus Plan, which required plan fiduciaries to invest in the UBS Stock Fund. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal order of the district court in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs' remaining arguments were addressed in a companion Summary Order. View "Taveras v. UBS AG et al." on Justia Law

The Board petitioned for enforcement of its decision and order finding that Special Touch violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3), by failing to immediately reinstate striking workers, home health care aides, engaged in protected conduct. The court held that the aides' actions were unprotected because their uncorrected affirmative misrepresentations regarding their plans to strike in response to the pre-strike poll placed 48 of Special Touch's patients in foreseeable imminent danger; the 48 aides engaged in indefensible conduct that was not protected by the NLRA; and Special Touch's failure to immediately reinstate these employees did not violate Section 8(a)(1) or (3). Accordingly, the court denied the petition for enforcement. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Special Touch Home Care Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a white male employed as captain of the City of Buffalo Police Department, sued the Department and its police chief claiming that their failure to promote him was impermissibly motivated by race. Plaintiff claimed racial discrimination after the results of a civil service examination were replaced by the results of an updated version. The court declined to address the 42 U.S.C. 1983, defamation, and equal protection claims because they were insufficiently argued; the court agreed with the district court that Ricci v. DeStefano did not indicate that defendants' actions were prohibited; plaintiff provided no other evidence of unlawful discrimination and his Title VII claim failed; and plaintiff's remaining claims were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Maraschiello v. City of Buffalo Police Dept." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, manufacturers and distributors of smokeless tobacco products, filed suit challenging the validity of a New York City ordinance governing the sale of flavored tobacco products. Plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance, New York City Administrative Code 17-715, was preempted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, 21 U.S.C. 387 et seq., and sought an injunction against enforcement. The district court awarded summary judgment to the City and plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that the ordinance was a regulation of sale and not a veiled attempt to regulate the manufacture of tobacco products. The ordinance represented an exercise of local police power that Congress specifically allowed in enacting the Act and was therefore not preempted. View "U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Mfg. Co., et al. v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of charges stemming from an identity theft scheme. At issue on appeal was defendant's conviction under 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(A), which criminalized the use of social security numbers assigned on the basis of false information. Defendant's social security number was assigned in 1972, on the basis of information the government conceded, for purposes of this case, was entirely accurate. Therefore, the court found that the government failed to prove an element of the offense, namely, that the social security number was assigned on the basis of false information. Therefore, the court affirmed defendant's convictions on all charges except as to Count Five, which the court reversed and vacated, remanding for resentencing. Defendant's remaining arguments on appeal were rejected by the court in a separate summary order. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Appellants, investors who lost money in the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme perpetrated by BLMIS, appealed from the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court order affirming the trustee's denial of appellants' claims against BLMIS under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq., based on the trustee's determination that appellants did not qualify as BLMIS "customers" under SIPA. The court agreed and affirmed the judgment, concluding that appellants could not reasonably have thought that the Feeder Funds deposited their money with or established accounts for them at BLMIS. The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the Feeder Funds were not BLMIS agents. View "In Re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed an order and judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Hofstra and dismissing her suit claiming harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2000e-17; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-88; and corresponding provisions of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Exec. Law 290-301. Plaintiff claimed that she experienced harassment and retaliation while employed by Hofstra as a team manager for the university's football program. Because defendants took the needed remedial action in this case, the harassment carried out by some players on the football team could not be imputed to the university or its personnel. The district court erred, however, in its analysis of the McDonnell Douglas factors by holding that plaintiff could not prevail on any of her three retaliation claims based on her supposed failure to demonstrate that she had engaged in protected activity and the requisite causation. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to withstand a grant of summary judgment with respect to her retaliation claims, but not as to her sexual harassment claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Summa v. Hofstra University" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's denial of his application for disability benefits. The court held that the ALJ erred in her treatment of plaintiff's claim that he suffered from fibromyalgia by failing to accord the proper weight to the opinion of plaintiff's treating physician, by misconstruing the record, and by failing to evaluate the claim in light of medically accepted diagnostic criteria. The court also held that the ALJ's determination that plaintiff could perform light work was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the ALJ further erred by not determining whether plaintiff's reaching limitation was non-eligible and would therefore require the testimony of a vocational expert. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Selian v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Lehigh appealed the district court's award of damages to plaintiffs under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. 2801-2841. At issue was whether a franchisor could be held under the PMPA for failing to provide notice to a "trial franchisee" prior to termination of its franchise. The court held that the PMPA provided a right of action, both to "full" and "trial" franchisees, when a franchisor failed properly to notify it prior to terminating the franchise. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and interest. View "Jimico Enterprises, Inc. v. Lehigh Gas Corp." on Justia Law