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

The parties disputed ownership of life insurance policies and, according to their contract, submitted the dispute to a rabbinical arbitration panel. The arbitration panel appointed by the parties entered an award mandating the immediate transfer of the insurance policies at issue to Kolel and appellants subsequently appealed. The court concluded that the district court properly denied vacatur based on claims of bias and corruption; properly denied vacatur based on claims of premature decision and failure to consider evidence; and properly denied appellants' motion for reconsideration. Therefore, appellants have not presented any evidence that meets the high burden of proof necessary to vacate an arbitration award, and therefore the district court properly denied their motion for vacatur and granted Kolel's motion for confirmation of that same arbitration award. View "Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil v. YLL et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that USF engaged in a fraudulent scheme by which it artificially inflated the cost component of its cost-plus billing and then disguised the proceeds of its own inflated billing through the use of purported promotional allowances. At issue on interlocutory appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying a nationwide class consisting of about 75,000 USF "cost-plus" customers. The court affirmed the district court's certification of the class, concluding that, despite the size of the class and the fact that it implicated the laws of multiple jurisdictions, the district court correctly concluded that both the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68, and contract claims were susceptible to generalized proof such that common issues would predominate over individual issues and a class action was superior to other methods of adjudication. View "In Re: US Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig." on Justia Law

Pacific issued a fire insurance policy to plaintiff on a home that was destroyed by fire during the policy period. On appeal, Pacific challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on its claim for a declaratory judgment that an apportionment-of-loss clause in the policy was void as a matter of New York law, and that Pacific was liable to plaintiff for the entire amount of loss coverage shown in the fire insurance policy. Plaintiff cross-appealed from so much of the judgment as ruled that it was not entitled to recover replacement costs in excess of the stated loss coverage amount on the house. The court concluded that plaintiff's contentions were without merit and affirmed to the extent that the district court dismissed plaintiff's claim for extended replacement costs. In regards to Pacific's appeal, the court certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals. View "Quaker Hills, LLC v. Pacific Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the restitution order entered against him under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A. The order awarded over $17 million to victims for losses stemming from defendant's role in the manipulation of the price of a publicly traded security. The court concluded that the district court was authorized to enter the restitution order despite section 3664(d)(4)'s ninety-day requirement; the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution despite the complexity and duration of the restitution proceedings; the district court's decision that it was not required to expand the evidentiary hearings to include the live testimony and cross-examinations of affiants was within its discretion and did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment right to due process; the district court carried its burden under the Act where it credited the government's expert's well-supported proffer of a widely accepted methodology, trained towards a logical measure of loss, and tailored to the particular circumstances of this case; and the court rejected defendant's remaining grounds for appeal which all focused on the accuracy of the amount of the district court's restitution award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gushlak" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City and its officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging arrest without probable cause and conduct of a visual body cavity search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that there was "arguable" probable cause and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff's false arrest claim under section 1983; defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where a reasonable officer would not have understood that conducting an otherwise suspicionless visual body cavity search of a person arrested for a felony drug offense was unlawful; and plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim failed where plaintiff was in fact guilty of at least criminal possession of a controlled substance. View "Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady" on Justia Law

This case arose when appellant settled an environmental enforcement action brought against him by the United States through a consent decree providing, inter alia, that defendant would pay the government an amount equal to the fair market value of a parcel of real property owned by appellant. At issue on appeal was whether a district court, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), and the Anti-Injunction Act, 22 U.S.C. 2283, had the authority to enjoin a party from litigating in state court issues arising out of the consent decree which settled the civil action brought against the party in federal court by the United States. The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not permit the district court in this case to enjoin appellant's state court suit. Accordingly, the court vacated the injunction, concluding that the district court erred by relying on the "in aid of jurisdiction" exception to the Anti-Injunction Act in enjoining appellant's state court suit. View "United States v. Manne" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit to recover withheld Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), 26 U.S.C. 3101, taxes from Credit Suisse and the IRS, to which Credit Suisse had forwarded the withheld taxes. Plaintiff had filed a complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., against Credit Suisse and the parties subsequently settled on a lump sum payment of $250,000. At issue was whether, under FICA, these settlement proceeds were fairly characterized as "wages" received by plaintiff "with respect to employment," and were thus subject to FICA taxes. The court concluded that plaintiff had not offered sufficient evidence to suggest that the settlement payment was anything else but the "[w]ages, tips, other comp[ensation]" that Credit Suisse had classified the settlement payment as. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the IRS summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against Credit Suisse. View "Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to charges related to his role in a drug conspiracy. At issue on appeal was whether a plea was "voluntary," under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(2), even though the district court did not inquire into a separate confidential cooperation agreement before accepting defendant's plea. The court concluded that the district court did not commit plain error by doing this because defendant's plea agreement did not depend on the cooperation agreement; the government did not breach its cooperation agreement with defendant; and defendant's ineffective assistance claims were dismissed without prejudice so that defendant could raise these claims in a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Tarbell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts relating to illegally bringing an alien into the United States. At issue on appeal was the government's use of evidence that defendant asked to speak to a lawyer when a border patrol agent initiated an interview prior to his arrest. The court concluded that this use of evidence in the government's case in chief violated defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Okatan" on Justia Law

Four defendants appealed their convictions for planning and attempting to carry out domestic terrorism offenses involving a plot to launch missiles at an Air National Guard base at Stewart Airport in Newburgh, New York and two synagogues in the Bronx. Defendants raise several issues on appeal. The court rejected claims of entrapment as a matter of law, claims of outrageous government conduct and knowing use of perjured testimony in violation of the Due Process clause, and defendants' remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Cromitie (Williams)" on Justia Law