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

Articles Posted in December, 2013
by
Plaintiffs filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., against Xerox, the Plan, and the Plan Administrator. The Supreme Court reversed the court's most recent decision, holding that the court had erred in holding that, having found the Administrator's first interpretation of the retirement plan to be invalid, the district court properly refused to defer to the plan administrator's subsequent interpretation of the plan. On remand, the district court applied deferential review, holding that the Administrator's proposed offset was a reasonable interpretation of the retirement plan. The court held, however, that the proposed offset was an unreasonable interpretation of the retirement plan and that it violated ERISA's notice provisions. Although the court upheld the challenged discovery order, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Frommert v. Conkright" on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed from his sentence of 72 months' imprisonment for participation in a conspiracy to violate the federal narcotics laws and for participating in a money-laundering conspiracy. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to compel the government to provide him with a recommendation letter under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 or 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) pursuant to a Cooperation Agreement where the government had a good-faith belief that defendant had breached the Agreement by committing further crimes and exercised its discretion in deciding not to file the motion. The court also held that defendant's sentence was neither substantively nor procedurally unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed suit alleging that three masked correction officers (COs) sprayed him while he was in his cell with an unknown substance, apparently a mixture of fecal matter, vinegar, and machine oil. The COs were retaliating against plaintiff for reporting several prior assaults. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The court was unwilling to accept, as a matter of law, the proposition that spraying an inmate with a mixture of feces, vinegar, and machine oil constituted a de minimis use of force. Even assuming arguendo that the physical force allegedly used was de minimis, spraying an inmate with the mixture was undoubtedly "repugnant to the conscience of mankind" and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleged violations of his constitutional rights and that the applicable statute of limitations did not preclude plaintiff from amending his complaint to name certain John Doe defendants. View "Hogan v. Fischer" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's order denying their Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the district court's judgment dismissing sovereign defendants under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1330 1602 et seq. Plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment in order to appeal the district court's alternative ground for finding sovereign immunity - a ground that the court declined to reach in its prior opinion. The district court denied the motion under the impression that the court would be able to consider that unreviewed issue on appeal from the denial. But the court could not. Accordingly, the court concluded that this was an error of law and that "extraordinary circumstances" existed warranting relief under Rule 60(b). The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001" on Justia Law

by
John Doe appealed from a contempt order and an order compelling him to comply with a grand jury subpoena for financial records that the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 C.F.R. 1010.420, required him to maintain. The district court held that requiring Doe to produce the subpoenaed documents, over his objections, did not violate his right against self incrimination pursuant to the "required records" doctrine. The court concluded that the required records exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination still exists. The Act's requirement at issue here are "essentially regulatory," the subpoenaed records are "customarily kept," and the records have "public aspects" sufficient to render the exception applicable. Because Doe could not lawfully excuse his failure to comply with the subpoena, the district court was within its discretion to impose sanctions for his non-compliance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena dated February 2, 2012" on Justia Law

by
Appellant appealed from the district court's order decertifying a class of plaintiffs who asserted claims against the FDIC and denying plaintiffs' motion to permit appellant, who was not a named party to the action before the district court, to intervene. The court dismissed the appeal because appellant failed to notice an appeal of the denial of the motion to allow him to intervene. As a nonparty, he could not otherwise challenge the decertification order on appeal. View "Bloom v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

by
Petitioners sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Both petitioners premised their applications on pro-democracy activities in which they engaged after arriving in the United States, including the publication of articles criticizing the Chinese government. The court concluded that, although petitioners asserted that they revealed their participation in pro-democracy organizations on the Internet, neither adduced sufficient evidence that Chinese authorities were aware or likely to become aware of their political activities in the United States or that they would in any event be persecuted on that basis. Accordingly, the court denied Y.C.'s petition for review, and denied in part and dismissed in part X.W.'s petition for review. View "Y.C. v. Holder, X.W. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Andalex, alleging claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under federal and state law, as well as claims that Andalex failed to notify her of her right to continuing health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), 29 U.S.C. 1166 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Andalex and dismissed her claims. The court affirmed the district court's judgment except with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claims. Based on the discrepancies between the EEOC statement and subsequent testimony, a reasonable juror could infer that the explanation given by Andalex was pretextual, and that, coupled with the temporal proximity between the complaint and the termination, the complaint at issue was a but-for cause of defendant's termination. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to require denial of the summary judgment motion on the retaliation claims. View "Kwan v. The Andalex Group LLC" on Justia Law

by
Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and heroin. Defendants sought to suppress the evidence gathered with the aid of GPS data, arguing that the placement and tracking violated the Fourth Amendment. The court declined to reach the issue of whether the search was unconstitutional because it found that the government's actions in this case fell within the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule pursuant to Davis v. United States. The court found defendants' remaining arguments were without merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Aguiar" on Justia Law

by
Drawbridge appealed from the bankruptcy court's order granting recognition of a foreign main proceeding. 11 U.S.C. 109(a) provides: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, only a person that resides or has a domicile, a place of business, or property in the United States, or a municipality, may be a debtor under this title." The court vacated and remanded, finding that section 109(a) applies to the debtor in a foreign main proceeding under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. View "In re: Katherine Elizabeth Bar" on Justia Law