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

Defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to carry out acts of terrorism against JFK International Airport. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's various evidentiary rulings and the substantive reasonableness of their sentence. The court concluded that it saw no basis to fault the district court's empanelment of an anonymous jury in this case; the district court did not err in admitting a terrorism expert's testimony; the district court did not err in admitting certain photographs; the district court's decision not to declassify the remaining classified portions of the October 2006 Meeting Memo report and the identity of its author was not an abuse of discretion; the district court did not err in excluding certain tape recordings; and defendants' sentences were substantively reasonable. The court reviewed the remainder of defendants' arguments and found them to be without merit. The court also disposed of the appeal of a co-defendant and the motions relevant to that appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment and dismissed the co-defendant's appeal. View "United States v. Defreitas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs brought claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against defendants related to the auction of a company plaintiffs purchased. The court concluded that the district court, in its instructions to the jury, erred in its description of the English burden-shifting rule. Accordingly, the district court's order granting judgment for defendants on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim was vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial. The district court's dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation claim at summary judgment and of the fraudulent concealment claim as a matter of law were affirmed. View "Terra Firma Investments v. Citigroup" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, labor organizations and state employees, brought this action contending that defendants, state officials, violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association. The court concluded that, on the stipulated facts, defendants violated plaintiffs' rights by targeting union employees for firing based on their union membership. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants; remanded to the district court with instruction to grant summary judgment to plaintiffs on their First Amendment claim and to craft appropriate equitable relief; reversed the district court's dismissal on the pleadings of plaintiffs' claims against defendants in their individual capacities; and remanded those claims for further proceedings. View "State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland" on Justia Law

In this suit - which was originally filed in state court in California, later removed to federal court in California, and then voluntarily transferred to the district court - the district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the suit pursuant to California's anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) rule, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16, on the basis that New York law governed plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim. The court held that the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss under California's anti-SLAPP rule constituted an immediately appealable collateral order because it (1) conclusively determined the disputed issue; (2) resolved an important question that was completely separate from the merits of the action; and (3) would be effectively unreviewable in a later appeal. The court also held that the district court erred in concluding that California's anti-SLAPP rule could not apply to a claim transferred from a California federal court to a New York federal court and governed, under the Erie doctrine, by New York law. Accordingly, the district court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP rule was vacated, and the cause was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, owner of a motivational services business organized around the concept of "Own Your Power," appealed from the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss finding that defendants' use of the phrase "Own Your Power" was fair use. The district court dismissed plaintiff's counterfeiting, vicarious infringement, and contributory infringement claims on additional grounds. Defendants published a magazine cover, hosted an event, and built a section of a website all utilizing the phrase. Because the court found that defendants have not adequately established a fair use defense, the court vacated the judgment of the district court with respect to the trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and reverse confusion claims and remanded for further proceedings. The court agreed with the district court's holdings with respect to plaintiff's vicarious infringement, contributory infringement, and counterfeiting claims and affirmed with respect to these claims. View "Kelly-Brown, et al. v. Winfrey, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from two orders by the district court which reduced their terms of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), but declined to depart or vary in any respect from defendants' amended guidelines range. At issue was whether U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) constituted a valid exercise of the Sentencing Commission's authority, and thus bound district courts whenever they reduced a defendant's sentence under section 3582(c)(2); and whether, even if section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) bound district courts, it nonetheless permitted them to depart from a defendant's amended guideline range under U.S.S.G. 4A1.3. The court held that section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) prohibited the district court from departing or varying from defendants' amended guidelines ranges, and that the scope of this prohibition included departures under U.S.S.G. 4A1.3. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stith & Brantley" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former CEO of Medisys, was convicted of honest services mail and wire fraud and honest services fraud conspiracy, as well as conspiracy to commit bribery and violate the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 371. Defendant's convictions stemmed from bribing three legislators in exchange for their commitment to perform official acts "as specific opportunities arose" within the New York State legislature and State agencies. The court rejected defendant's argument that the federal bribery and honest services fraud statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct; there was sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the requisite quid pro quo arrangements and to support defendant's convictions beyond a reasonable doubt; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to compel the government to provide defense witness immunity to a partner at MediSys's outside general counsel. View "United States v. Rosen" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit against Forman Holt, a debt collector within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6), alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692g. Plaintiffs alleged that Forman Holt's collection notice violated the FDCPA by stating that plaintiffs could only dispute the validity of a debt in writing. The district court granted Forman Holt's motion to dismiss, concluding that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that section 1692g(a)(3) did not impose a writing requirement that required the consumer debtor to notify the debt collector in writing in order to dispute the validity of the debt. View "Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony and was sentenced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently sought review of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, arguing that changes in state law that lowered the maximum sentence applicable to a prior state court conviction rendered him no longer subject to sentencing under the ACCA. The court held that petitioner's prior drug convictions counted as a predicate "serious drug offense" under the ACCA. Coupled with the pair of violent felonies (robbery and attempted assault), petitioner's criminal record included three ACCA predicate felonies. Thus, the district court did not err by imposing the sentencing enhancement and, therefore, properly denied petitioner's motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rivera v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint alleging that his conditions of confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. First, he plausibly alleged conditions that, perhaps alone and certainly in combination, deprived him of a minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. Second, he plausibly alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to this deprivation. Third, he plausibly alleged violations of clearly established rights. In light of the specific allegations here, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Walker v. Schult" on Justia Law