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

Debtor, a New York City tenant, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed the value of her apartment lease on Schedule B as personal property exempt from the bankruptcy estate as a "local public assistance benefit." At issue was whether the value inherent in debtor's rent-stabilized lease as a consequence of the protections afforded by New York's Rent Stabilization Code, N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. tit. 9, 2520.1 et seq., made the lease, or some portion of its value, exempt from debtor's bankruptcy estate as a "local public assistance benefit" within the meaning of New York Debtor and Creditor Law 282(2). The court certified this unsettled issue to the New York Court of Appeals. View "Santiago-Monteverde v. Pereira" on Justia Law

United appealed the district court's order denying United's motion to dismiss an antitrust complaint brought against it by DHL. At issue was whether DHL had sufficient notice of the availability of the claim against a Chapter 11 debtor to satisfy due process requirements and render the claim discharged. The court concluded that the district court applied an incorrect standard in accepting as true DHL's allegation that it was not aware of, or with due diligence could not have become aware of, sufficient facts to plead an antitrust claim that would survive a motion to dismiss in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding. Therefore, the court remanded for further development of the facts concerning (a) what DHL knew or reasonably should have known in time to present an antitrust claim in the bankruptcy proceeding, or to file a late proof of claim or move to amend the reorganization plan and (b) what United knew or reasonably should have known concerning DHL's claim. View "DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, formerly employed as mortgage underwriters by the Bank, filed suit in state court asserting state law claims for unjust enrichment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Bank removed to federal court and the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., preempted plaintiffs' common law claims. In Gunn v. Minton, the Supreme Court explained that federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. In this case, the court concluded that the federal issue arising in these state law claims was not substantial, and the district court, therefore, lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Even if the court were to assume that plaintiffs' state common law claims raised a federal issue as pled, the federal issue was at best insubstantial. Accordingly, the court concluded that the federal courts were without subject matter jurisdiction in this case and vacated and remanded with instructions. View "Fracasse v. People's United Bank" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after he was deported because of an aggravated felony conviction. Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the government failed to prove his physical departure from the United States on March 7, 1992 airline flight from JFK Airport to Kingston, Jamaica. The court held that a properly executed warrant of deportation, coupled with testimony regarding the deportation procedures followed at that time, was sufficient proof that a defendant was, in fact physically deported from the United States. In this instance, the warrant of deportation specifically indicated that the immigration officer "witnessed" defendant's departure, and set forth the date, flight number, and time it was affected. Further, defendant stipulated that he signed the warrant and that it contained his fingerprints. Accordingly, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law

Defendant, a member of the board of directors of Goldman Sachs, appealed his conviction for three counts of securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78ff, and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The prosecution arose out of a multiyear government investigation of insider trading at Galleon which included court-authorized wiretaps of Galleon's founder's cell phone. The court concluded that the trial court did not err by admitting statements of a coconspirator, recorded in wiretapped telephone conversations to which defendant was not a party where the statements were admissible both as nonhearsay statements in furtherance of the conspiracy and under the exception for statements against penal interest. The court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding relevant evidence offered by defendant. Accordingly, the court found defendant's arguments on appeal were without merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gupta" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed discrimination and retaliation claims against the Bank under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., as well as state and local laws. At issue was whether an employee's inability to sit for a prolonged time may constitute a disability under the ADA. The court held that impairments that limit the ability to sit for long periods of time do not categorically fail to qualify as disabilities under the ADA. The court vacated the district court's judgment relating to plaintiff's claim of discrimination under the ADA and leave for the district court to determine in the first instance on remand if the record reflected a genuine dispute of fact as to whether plaintiff's inability to sit for a prolonged period of time constituted a substantial limitation of a major life activity, and to address remaining arguments advanced by the Bank in its summary judgment motion. The court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to plaintiff's claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., as well as her claim of retaliation under the ADA. The court vacated the district court's judgment with respect to plaintiff's claim of discrimination under the ADA and her claims under state law, remanding for further proceedings. View "Parada v. Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a forfeiture order in connection with a conviction for, inter alia, three counts of mortgage fraud (Counts Seven, Eight, and Nine). At issue was whether the district court erred by ordering forfeiture on Count Seven under a statute which, while applicable to Count Seven, was onlly charged in the indictment in connection with Counts Eight and Nine - an oversight that was not corrected by the Government or the district court before or during sentencing. The court concluded that forfeiture was limited to that authorized by the statute listed in the indictment, even if greater forfeiture would have been authorized by a different statute, where the government fails to invoke the harsher forfeiture provision prior to or during sentencing; 28 U.S.C. 982(a) authorizes forfeiture of the full amount of the loans fraudulently obtained in Counts Eight and Nine, without an offset for any portion of the loan that has been repaid; and 28 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(c), the only forfeiture provision charged in Count Seven, permitted an offset for that portion of the loan that was repaid with no loss to the victim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the forfeiture order on Counts Eight and Nine, and remanded with instructions to vacate the forfeiture order on Count Seven. View "United States v. Annabi" on Justia Law

Liquidators challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Brazil, concluding that a forfeiture judgment entered by a Brazilian court pursuant to Brazil's successful criminal prosecution of Kesten's former principals and owners took precedence over the Liquidators' Cayman Islands civil default judgment against Kesten. The court concluded that the penal law rule awarding summary judgment in favor of Brazil based on a forfeiture judgment of that sovereign grounded in a violation of Brazil's penal laws; however, the court recognized that 28 U.S.C. 2467 is a statutory exception to the penal rule; while no section 2467 request from Brazil is presently before the Attorney General, that nation's counsel advised the court at oral argument that if the challenged summary judgment decision were vacated based on the penal law rule, Brazil would promptly file a section 2467 petition pursuant to the nations' mutual legal assistance treaty; and therefore, the court remanded with instructions to the district court that it afford Brazil and the Attorney General a reasonable period of time to satisfy the section 2467's exception to that rule before reaching a final decision in this interpleader action. View "Federative Republic of Brazil v. Fu" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a conviction for violating a condition of supervised release imposed in connection with his earlier conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced defendant to an additional two-term of supervision for the violation. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because his original three-year term of federal supervision expired before the challenged judgment was entered and while he was incarcerated for a violation of state parole. In this instance, defendant's parole obligation derived directly from his state criminal conviction, and his violation required him to continue serving the sentence imposed for that conviction from which he had earlier been released. Therefore, the court held that defendant's New York incarceration was "in connection" with his underlying conviction for unlawful weapon possession, and that, as such, the district court still had jurisdiction to revoke his federal supervision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bussey" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, among other things, that defendants violated their First Amendment and substantive due process rights by closing down Royal Crown's day care facility in retaliation for a letter of complaint that Royal Crown sent to a New York State senator. On appeal, the individually named defendants challenged from the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and from the denial of their motion to reconsider. The court concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity solely because closing down Royal Crown may have been justified under the Health Code; defendants' motivation in closing down Royal Crown was material to Royal Crown's First Amendment and substantive due process claims and the court did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the dispute about defendants' motivation was genuine; properly assuming on this interlocutory appeal that defendants retaliated against Royal Crown for speech protected by the First Amendment, defendants' action was not objectively reasonable; Royal Crown's First Amendment and substantive due process rights to be free from retaliation and irrational government action in response to its letter to the Senator were clearly established at the time that defendants closed down plaintiff's day care facility; and therefore, defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene" on Justia Law