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

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release and sentence. At issue was whether 18 U.S.C. 3583(h), which covers the calculation of the maximum term of supervised release following revocation of a previous term of supervised release, requires that the term be reduced by all prior post-revocation terms of imprisonment imposed on the same underlying offense, or by only the most-recent term of imprisonment. The court held that, when imposing the maximum term of supervised release following revocation of a previous term of supervised release, section 3583(h) requires that the term be reduced by all post‐revocation terms of imprisonment imposed with respect to the same underlying offense, not only by the most-recent term of imprisonment. Accordingly, the court remanded for entry of judgment reducing defendant's term of supervised release. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, residents of New Jersey and New York, filed suit challenging a TBTA program that provides discounted tolls to residents of Staten Island, the Rockaway Peninsula, and Broad Channel Island for crossings over certain bridges. The discounted tolls allow residents of Staten Island to pay a reduced rate on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, which serves as the only direct vehicular artery connecting Staten Island with the rest of New York City. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court held, for substantially the reasons articulated by the district court, that the toll discount scheme at issue neither violates the constitutional right to travel nor the dormant Commerce Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Janes v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, pension funds, filed suit, seeking to hold BNYM responsible for the losses allegedly caused by Countrywide's breach of its representations and warranties in connection with 530 residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) created between 2004 and 2008 for which BNYM acts as trustee. The court affirmed the portion of the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' claims related to the trusts in which they did not invest for lack of standing because plaintiffs' claims do not implicate the "same set of concerns" as those of absent class members who purchased certificates issued by trusts in which no named plaintiff invested; reversed the portion of that order denying BNYM's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Trust Indenture Act (TIA), 15 U.S.C. 77aaa-77aaaa, claims related to the PSA-governed (pooling and servicing agreements) New York trusts where the New York certificates at issue are exempt from section 304(a)(2) of the TIA; and the court remanded in part for further proceedings. View "Retirement Board v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

Goldman appealed from the denial of its motion to compel arbitration of a suit brought against it by NCUA. The court concluded that NCUA successfully repudiated the Cash Account Agreement (CAA), including the arbitration provision. The court rejected Goldman's arguments that NCUA's repudiation of the CAA in this case should not be understood to encompass repudiation of the arbitration clause contained in the overall agreement where 12 U.S.C. 1787(c)'s grant of authority to NCUA in its role as liquidating agent to repudiate contracts includes authority to repudiate arbitration agreements. In this case, NCUA's lack of awareness of the CAA, and its consequent delay in repudiating it, cannot be deemed unreasonable. Once Goldman brought the CAA to NCUA's attention, NCUA repudiated the contract within nine days. The court rejected Goldman's challenge to the timeliness of the repudiation given NCUA's excusable unawareness of the CAA until Goldman disclosed it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order denying arbitration. View "National Credit Union Admin. Bd v. Goldman, Sachs & Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individual CIGNA Plan participants, filed suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging that CIGNA defendants made misleading communications in regards to the terms of the Plan. Subsequently, on remand, the court concluded that the district court acted within the scope of its discretion in denying CIGNA's motion to decertify the plaintiff class; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the elements of reformation have been satisfied and that the Plan should be reformed to adhere to representations made by the plan administrator; and, in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting relief to A+B benefits rather than ordering a return to the terms of CIGNA's original retirement plan. View "Amara v. CIGNA Corp." on Justia Law

The district court granted a D.I.D. a temporary restraining order against Windstream, requiring D.I.D. to post security with the court clerk under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court later denied D.I.D.'s motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO, concluding that D.I.D. failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying suit. D.I.D. filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and Windstream moved for an award of costs and damages from the TRO security. The court agreed that a district court may grant recovery from a TRO security after the plaintiff files a notice of voluntary dismissal. The court held that recovery from a TRO security requires only a determination that the defendant was wrongfully restrained, and not necessarily a final adjudication on the merits. The court vacated the district court's judgment because it never made this specific determination. The court remanded for the district court to determine, whether, and for what time period, Windstream was wrongfully restrained by the TRO, and to calculate the damages accordingly. View "U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed a defamation action against defendants based on statements that they made in an online petition and press release. The district court dismissed the action. The court reserved decision and certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court: (1) Does a hyperlink to source material about judicial proceedings in an online petition suffice for purposes of applying the common law fair report privilege? and (2) Did Nevada’s anti-strategic litigation against public participation (“anti-SLAPP”) statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.653-41.670, as that statute was in effect prior to the most recent amendments in 2013, cover speech that seeks to influence an election but that is not addressed to a government agency? View "Adelson v. Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a longtime steelworker in Lackawanna, New York, endured racial insults, intimidation, and degradation over more than three years, including slurs, evocations of the Ku Klux Klan, statements comparing black men to apes, death threats, and placement of a noose dangling from the plaintiff’s automobile. Supervisorsʹ meager efforts failed to stop the escalating abuse. Managers often appeared to condone or participate in part in the harassment. A jury awarded $1.32 million in compensatory damages for hostile or abusive work environment because of his race and the state tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury also assessed $24 million in punitive damages, mostly against the employer and its parent company, subsequently reduced to $5 million. The court also awarded the plaintiff substantial attorney fees and costs. The Second Circuit affirmed, but remanded for further reduction of punitive damages, holding that the district court correctly instructed the jury as to employer liability, that the jury could find that the plaintiff’s direct employer and the parent company constituted a single employer, that the jury verdict as to intentional infliction of emotional distress was supported by the evidence, and that the compensatory damages award was proper. View "Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc." on Justia Law

James G. Paulsen, a Regional Director for the NLRB, appealed the district court's order denying his petition under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 160(j), for an injunction prohibiting respondent from engaging in unfair labor practices and ordering the immediate reinstatement of certain discharged employees. Paulsen also appealed an August order denying his motion for an injunction ordering the immediate reinstatement of the discharged employees. Separately, Remington appealed from the district court's August order insofar as it denied its motion to dismiss Paulsen's petition on the ground that the NLRB had been improperly constituted under the Recess Appointments Clause and enjoined Remington from engaging in unfair labor practices. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss; concluded that because Remington's arguments concerning the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq., were not raised and do not implicate the court's jurisdiction, they are forfeited; affirmed the district court's denial of reinstatement to the housekeeping employees; and because the district court did not directly address Margaret Loiacono’s status, and because she was not offered re‐employment, the court reversed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief with respect to her and remanded to the district court with instructions to order that an offer of reinstatement be extended to her. View "Paulsen v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellee, a Swiss criminal complainant, sought from appellants the production of documents relating to the examination of Rajiv Jaitly to provide to a Swiss investigating magistrate overseeing a criminal inquiry into a Bernard Madoff feeder fund in Switzerland. At issue was whether 28 U.S.C. 1782, which authorizes federal courts to order document production for use in certain foreign proceedings, permits discovery for use in a foreign criminal investigation conducted by a foreign investigating magistrate. The court held, based on the plain reading of the statute, as well as the statute's legislative history, that the statute applies to a foreign criminal investigation involving an investigating magistrate seeking documents in the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "Optimal Investment Serv. v. Berlamont" on Justia Law