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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard an appeal by Christopher Callahan against a judgment by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The district court had granted summary judgment to Suffolk County Police Officer Thomas Wilson and the County of Suffolk on claims related to the death of Callahan's brother, Kevin Callahan, which Callahan argued violated excessive force regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appellate court ruled that the district court violated the mandate rule by not conducting a new trial as earlier instructed by the appellate court. The court found that there were disputed issues of material fact regarding Wilson's entitlement to qualified immunity, thus summary judgment was not warranted. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Callahan's motion to amend his complaint to add a state law claim for battery. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "Callahan v. County of Suffolk" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard an appeal involving Timothy Daileader, the independent director and manager of an affiliated group of companies, collectively known as "Oaktree," which were in financial distress. Daileader was seeking coverage from his insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Syndicate 1861 (Syndicate 1861), for his defense in litigation involving Oaktree. However, Syndicate 1861 denied Daileader’s insurance claim. Daileader subsequently sought a preliminary injunction to enforce Syndicate 1861’s duty to defend. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Daileader’s motion, and Daileader appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Daileader's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court held that Daileader had not shown a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. The court also found that Daileader had not made a strong showing of irreparable harm. The court concluded that the Syndicate's refusal to continue paying under its policy did not disrupt the status quo of ongoing payments between the two parties. Therefore, the court determined that Daileader's desired injunction was mandatory and not prohibitory, thus subject to a more stringent standard for relief. View "Daileader v. Certain Underwriters" on Justia Law

The case was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit between Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the plaintiff-appellant, against Novartis Pharma AG and associates, the defendants-appellees. Regeneron appealed the judgment from the district court which dismissed its claims of antitrust violations and tortious interference with contract under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).Regeneron and Novartis both manufacture medications to treat overproduction of a specific protein. The crux of the dispute was whether the medications, which come in vials and prefilled syringes (PFSs), compete in the same or in different product markets. Regeneron claimed that Novartis and its co-defendant Vetter Pharma International GmbH concealed their collaboration to produce a PFS version of Novartis’s drug, thereby delaying the launch of Regeneron's own PFS version and allowing Novartis to increase its market share.The district court had granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that Regeneron failed to plausibly allege that the relevant antitrust market was limited to PFSs. The court also dismissed Regeneron’s tortious interference claim as untimely.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that Regeneron had provided a plausible explanation that the market for PFSs was distinct from that for vials. It also held that Regeneron adequately pleaded that Novartis was equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense to the tortious interference claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG" on Justia Law

Six full-time professors at the City University of New York filed a lawsuit challenging New York’s Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, known as the Taylor Law, alleging it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The professors argued that the law unfairly compelled them to be part of a bargaining unit represented exclusively by the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY (PSC), despite their vehement disagreement with PSC's political views, specifically on issues related to Israel and Palestine. They also challenged a specific section of the Taylor Law which allows PSC to decline representation of non-union employees in certain proceedings.The defendants filed motions to dismiss the claims, which were granted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The professors appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the professors' claims were foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, and that the professors failed to allege that the contested section of the Taylor Law violates the First Amendment. Thus, the court concluded that the PSC's exclusive representation of the professors in collective bargaining did not violate the First Amendment, and that the limited fiduciary duty imposed by the contested section of the Taylor Law did not burden their First Amendment rights. View "Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY" on Justia Law

The case pertains to Ariel Jimenez, who owned and operated a tax preparation business in Bronx, New York. Between 2009 and 2015, Jimenez led a large-scale tax fraud and identity theft scheme, purchasing stolen identities of children to falsely claim them as dependents on clients' tax returns. Through this scheme, Jimenez obtained millions of dollars, which he laundered by structuring bank deposits, investing in real estate properties, and transferring the properties to his parents and limited liability companies. Following a jury trial, Jimenez was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to tax-return claims, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering.On appeal, Jimenez raised two issues. First, he claimed that the district court’s jury instruction regarding withdrawal from a conspiracy was erroneous. Second, he alleged that the evidence supporting his conspiracy convictions was insufficient. The United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court held that the district court’s jury instruction on withdrawal from a conspiracy was a correct statement of the law and that the evidence supporting Jimenez's conspiracy convictions was sufficient. The court found that Jimenez had failed to effectively withdraw from the conspiracy as he continued to benefit from it. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

John D. Whitfield's application for a job as a Youth Development Specialist with the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) was rejected. Whitfield alleged that the rejection was discriminatory and violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He initially challenged the decision in New York State Supreme Court through an Article 78 proceeding, which was dismissed. He then initiated a federal court action, which was also dismissed by the District Court on res judicata grounds. The District Court determined that the state court proceeding was a “hybrid” proceeding where Whitfield could have pursued the claims he raises in the federal action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, concluding that the state court adjudicated the matter as a pure Article 78 proceeding, not as a hybrid. Therefore, the state court lacked the power to award Whitfield the full scope of relief he now seeks in this action, and the District Court erred by dismissing the amended complaint on res judicata grounds. The judgment of the District Court was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Whitfield v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the legality of an agreement between River 1, LLC, an American company, and Viking USA LLC, a subsidiary of a Swiss company, under federal maritime law. The United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) had confirmed the legality of the agreement as a "time charter" under 46 U.S.C. § 56101(a)(i). However, American Cruise Lines argued that the agreement should be construed as a "bareboat" charter which is not covered under the standing blanket approval of MARAD, and thus, grants a foreign company impermissible control of an American vessel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed MARAD's decision. It found that the agreement didn't grant Viking exclusive possession and control of the cruise ship in a way that blackletter maritime law recognizes as sufficient to create a bareboat charter. It noted that the ship's crew was provided by River 1, the vessel master was overseen by River 1, and River 1 bore primary responsibility for the ship’s day-to-day maintenance and care. Viking's ability to set the itinerary was consistent with the maritime law definition of a time charter.The court also rejected American Cruise Lines' allegations that MARAD failed to follow the notice and comment provisions applicable to this case. It concluded that MARAD fully complied with the new procedural requirements imposed by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021. View "American Cruise Lines v. United States of America" on Justia Law

The defendant-appellant, Alex Oliveras, was sentenced to sixty-three months' imprisonment and a three-year supervised release term for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. On appeal, Oliveras challenged the imposition of a special condition of his supervised release that allowed for suspicionless searches by a probation officer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the "special needs" doctrine of the Fourth Amendment permits, when sufficiently supported by the record, the imposition of a special condition of supervised release that allows suspicionless searches of the defendant's person, property, vehicle, place of residence, or any other property under their control by a probation officer. However, the court also found that the district court exceeded its discretion in imposing that special condition here. The court explained that the district court failed to make the individualized assessment required to support the special condition under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), including a sufficient explanation as to how the condition was reasonably related in this particular case to the applicable statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and involved no greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary under those factors. Therefore, the Court of Appeals vacated the Search Condition and remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of whether it is necessary to impose the Search Condition in this particular case and, if so, for the district court to explain the individualized basis for imposing the Search Condition. View "United States v. Oliveras" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of September 8, 2018, Mabior Jok was standing outside a bar in Burlington, Vermont, when Joseph Corrow, an officer of the Burlington Police Department, approached the group. The details of what happened next are fiercely disputed, but it's agreed that Corrow took Jok to the ground, resulting in Jok hitting his head, losing consciousness and being taken to the hospital. Jok was charged with disorderly conduct, but the charge was later dismissed. Subsequently, Jok brought a lawsuit against Corrow and others, alleging, among other things, that Corrow used excessive force against him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.Corrow moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied the motion, concluding that there were genuine disputes of material fact and hence, summary judgment could not be granted on the basis of qualified immunity. Corrow then filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial.The United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit found that Corrow failed to establish appellate jurisdiction because he continued to assert disputes of fact, and no pure question of law was presented for review. The Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity as the denial was based on the presence of disputed material facts. Therefore, the interlocutory appeal was dismissed due to lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Jok v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

The case in question involves a dispute over the use of the term "red gold" in the marketing of wristwatches. The plaintiff-appellant Solid 21, a luxury jewelry and watch business, owns a trademark in RED GOLD® since 2003. Defendant-appellee Breitling, a luxury watch manufacturer, uses the term “red gold” in its advertisements, product listings, and catalogues. Solid 21 argued that Breitling's use of the term amounted to trademark infringement, claiming it was likely to cause confusion, leading customers to mistakenly believe that Solid 21 was affiliated with Breitling’s products.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment for Breitling, finding that the company used the term “red gold” permissibly under the Lanham Act’s fair use defense. Solid 21 appealed this decision, insisting that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment for Breitling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court reasoned that Breitling used the term "red gold" in a descriptive sense, not as a mark, and in good faith. The court also pointed out that Solid 21 failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Breitling was acting in bad faith while using the term “red gold.” View "Solid 21, Inc. v. Breitling USA, Inc." on Justia Law