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

These appeals arose out of LJL's exercise of its contractual option to purchase Pitcairn's ownership stake in a jointly owned high-rise luxury residential building in New York City, after which the parties pursued an arbitration to determine the value of the property. Both parties subsequently appealed from the district court's judgment. In LJL's appeal, the court agreed with its contention that the arbitrator's exclusion of Pitcairn's hearsay exhibits was within the arbitrator's authorized discretion and, therefore, vacated the district court's order overturning the arbitrator's determination of the Stated Value. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the arbitrator acted in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement in refusing to determine the Purchase Price and, therefore, remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitration award in its entirety. In Pitcairn's appeal, the court found no error in the district court's dismissal of Pitcairn's claims for breach of fiduciary duties and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "LJL 33rd Street Associates, LLC v. Pitcairn Properties Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the BIA's decision reversing the IJ's grant of their motion to suppress evidence obtained in egregious violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and termination of removal proceedings. Relying on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, the BIA found that it need not determine whether petitioners suffered an egregious violation because birth certificates and arrest records were obtained after the Government had determined their identities. The court joined the Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits in finding that Lopez-Mendoza reaffirmed a long-standing rule of personal jurisdiction; it did not create an evidentiary rule insulating specific pieces of identity-related evidence from suppression. Therefore, the BIA erred in concluding that the Government had met its burden of establishing that certain alienage-related evidence had been obtained independent of any constitutional violation. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the BIA to reach the issue of whether Government agents seized evidence of alienage from petitioners in the course of committing an egregious Fourth Amendment violation. View "Pretzantzin v. Holder" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was involved in a verbal altercation with Defendant Leifer, Leifer used plaintiff's license plate number to obtain the name and home address of plaintiff. Leifer then embarked on a campaign to harass plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff filed suit under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, against Leifer and the entities and individuals who obtained the information from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and released it to Leifer. The court held that Defendant Resellers were not strictly liable for Leifer's improper use of plaintiff's personal information because neither the text nor the legislative history of the Act supported a reading of a strict liability standard into the Act; while Defendant Softech disclosed plaintiff's personal information for a permitted use, a material question of fact existed as to the propriety of the disclosure; the Act imposed a duty on resellers to exercise reasonable care in responding to requests for personal information drawn from motor vehicle records; nothing in the record suggested that, in complying with the information request, Softech acted unreasonably; and a reasonable jury could find that Arcanum failed to exercise reasonable care when it disclosed plaintiff's personal information to Leifer. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court to the extent it granted summary judgment in favor of Softech and Rodriquez, vacated the judgment to the extent it granted summary judgment in favor of Arcanum and Cohn on plaintiff's claims under the Act, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gordon v. Softech Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. After the Government instituted removal proceedings, petitioner filed a motion to suppress the Government's evidence, arguing that ICE officers obtained the evidence in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when they forcibly gained entrance to his home and arrested him without a warrant or probable cause. The court concluded that the IJ erred in finding that petitioner's submissions were insufficient to shift the burden to the Government to establish consent and erred in concluding that the facts alleged, even accepted as true, were insufficient to yield an egregious Fourth Amendment violation requiring suppression. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Cotzojay v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of drug-related charges stemming from his involvement in a group that sold marijuana in the East Flatbush area of Brooklyn, New York. The court concluded that defendant's contentions on appeal were without merit, except with respect to the statute-of-limitations challenge to his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court declined to uphold defendant's conviction under section 924(c) on the basis of the fiction that, simply because he continued to sell marijuana, he continued to possess the gun in question after it was seized from him by the police. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's conviction as to that count but affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Jones (Praddy)" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a due-process complaint against the DOE seeking tuition reimbursement after plaintiffs enrolled their autistic child in a private school because the DOE failed to provide the child with a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court affirmed the state review officer's determination that the hearing record did not support the impartial hearing officer's determination that the lack of a functional behavior assessment (FBA) rose to the level of denying the child a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) where the individualized education program (IEP) addressed behavioral needs. Further, the IEP's failure to include parental counseling did not deny the child a FAPE; the SRO did not rely upon impermissible retrospection and the court deferred to her analysis; and the court found plaintiffs' remaining arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. View "M.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ." on Justia Law

This case involved long-running multidistrict litigation concerning contamination of groundwater by the organic compound MTBE, which was used as a gasoline additive by Exxon and others. The court concluded that the state law tort verdict against Exxon was not preempted by the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401; the jury's finding that the MTBE levels in Station Six Wells will peak at 10ppb in 2033 was not inconsistent with a conclusion that the City had been injured; the City's suit was ripe because the City demonstrated a present injury and the suit was not barred by the statute of limitations; the jury's verdict finding Exxon liable under state tort law theories was not precluded by the jury's concurrent conclusion that the City had not carried its burden, in the design-defect context, of demonstrating a feasible, cost-reasonable alternative to MTBE available to satisfy the standards of the now-repealed Reformulated Gasoline Program; Exxon's demand for a retrial because of an incident of juror misconduct was unavailing; the jury properly offset the gross damages award by amounts it reasonably attributed to cleanup of contaminants other than MTBE; and the City was not entitled to a jury determination of Exxon's liability for punitive damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in its entirety. View "In re: MTBE Products Liability Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a recipient of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, appealed from the district court's judgment sua sponte dismissing his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff sought an Order to Show Cause, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from levying against his SSI benefits to enforce a child support order. At issue was whether 42 U.S.C. 659(a) authorized levy against SSI benefits provided under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 et seq., to satisfy the benefits recipient's child support obligations. The court concluded that SSI benefits were not based upon remuneration for employment within the meaning of section 659(a); section 659(a) did not preclude plaintiff's claims; and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the exception to federal jurisdiction for divorce matters did not preclude the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment to the extent the district court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the agency defendants and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the portion of the judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against Bank of America because his complaint had not alleged facts establishing that the bank was a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983. View "Sykes v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the Animal Rights Front (ARF) and two of its members, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that defendant, a Hartford Police Sergeant, violated their constitutional rights when he arrested two of ARF's members at a children's foot race while they were protesting the treatment of animals by the race sponsor Ringling Brothers. The court concluded that the district court properly entered judgment in favor of defendant on the basis of qualified immunity because there was arguable probable cause that plaintiffs engaged in disorderly conduct with the predominant intent required by Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-182(a)(5). The court remanded for clarification as to whether the district court awarded costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 26(g)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zalaski v. City of Hartford" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, and 1349. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in a conspiracy to defraud a non-existent investor of three billion dollars. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that any misrepresentations defendants made were material. The court concluded, however, that defendants' sentences were procedurally unsound where the court was uncertain whether the district court weighed the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Juncal" on Justia Law