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

by
The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner's conviction under New York Penal Law 110.00, 130.45 for attempted oral or anal sexual conduct with a person under the age of fifteen constitutes sexual abuse of a minor, and was therefore an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court explained that petitioner's conviction under the New York statute did not encompass more conduct than the generic definition and could not realistically result in an individual's conviction for conduct made with a less than knowing mens rea. View "Acevedo v. Barr" on Justia Law

by
Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, and wire fraud, as well as postjudgment orders. The Second Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury convictions; the district court did not err in giving the jury a "no ultimate harm" instruction; the district court did not plainly err in charging the jury on the elements of bank fraud; the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a modified Allen charge to the jury; but the district court abused its discretion in ordering a restitution amount of over $18 million to be paid to the USDA because defendants did not proximately cause financial losses equating to that amount. Accordingly, the court reversed the restitution orders, vacated the conviction to the extent that they ordered defendants to pay restitution, and otherwise affirmed. View "United States v. Calderon" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
On expedited interlocutory appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in substantial part the district court's order denying President Trump's motion for a preliminary injunction preventing compliance with subpoenas seeking his financial records and denying President Trump's motion for a stay pending appeal. Specifically at issue was the lawfulness of three subpoenas issued by the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to two banks, Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corporation, seeking financial records of President Trump, members of his family, and the Trump Organization (collectively, "appellants"), and financial records from the Trump Organization and affiliated entities. The court held that those seeking to preliminarily enjoin compliance with subpoenas issued by congressional committees exercising their constitutional and duly authorized power to subpoena documents in aid of both regulatory oversight and consideration of potential legislation must satisfy the more rigorous likelihood‐of‐success standard. In this case, although appellants have established irreparable injury, the court held that appellants have not shown a likelihood of success on any of their statutory and constitutional claims. The court also held that the balance of the hardships and equities did not decidedly tip in favor of appellants, and the public interest in vindicating the committees’ constitutional authority was clear and substantial. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order in substantial part to the extent that it denied a preliminary injunction and ordered prompt compliance with the subpoenas, except that the case is remanded to a limited extent for implementation of the procedure set forth in this opinion concerning the nondisclosure of sensitive personal information and a limited opportunity for appellants to object to disclosure of other specific documents within the coverage of those paragraphs of the subpoenas listed in this opinion. The court dismissed as moot the appeal from the order to the extent that it denied a stay pending appeal. View "Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG" on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of Navidea's motion to dismiss on grounds that Platinum-Montaur lacked Article III standing. The court held that the district court erred by failing to determine whether there was complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and thus it was unclear whether it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Platinum-Montaur Life Sciences, LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

Posted in: Civil Procedure
by
The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for arson and possession of unregistered Molotov cocktails. The court held that defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court plainly erred in instructing the jury on attempt; even assuming instructional error, defendant failed to show prejudice; defendant's argument that New York's ban on Molotov cocktails made it impossible to comply with the federal law mandating registration was foreclosed by United States v. Shepardson, 167 F.3d 120, 123‐24 (2d Cir. 1999); the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the custodial statements defendant made to law enforcement; and defendant's challenges to the district court's handling of his criminal history at sentencing were rejected. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
The Second Circuit denied the petition for sua sponte reopening of petitioner's removal proceedings pending the outcome of his U-visa application, because petitioner's U-visa application has been denied. However, the court granted the petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to suppress evidence of petitioner's alleged alienage, finding that he made a prima facie showing of an egregious violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, petitioner established a prima facie case that his arrest was racially motivated and therefore constituted an egregious violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Rodriguez v. Barr" on Justia Law

Posted in: Immigration Law
by
The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment granting Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss. Relators alleged that the district court erred in concluding that fraudulent loan requests knowingly presented to one or more of the Federal Reserve System's twelve Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs) are not "claims" within the meaning of the False Claims Act (FCA), and thus do not give rise to FCA liability. The court held that the FCA's definition of a "claim" is capacious. The court explained that, although FRB personnel are not officers or employees of the United States, the FRBs administered the Federal Reserve System's emergency lending facilities on behalf of the United States, using authority delegated by Congress and money provided by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Therefore, the court concluded that the FRBs are agents of the United States within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(2)(A)(i). The court also held that the money requested by defendants and other Fed borrowers is provided by the United States to advance a Government program or interest within the meaning of section 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii). View "United States v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration of grievances raised by airlines in a dispute with the collective bargaining representatives of their pilots. The court held that the district court properly granted the employers' motion for summary judgment and to compel arbitration. The court held that the management grievances did not involve a major dispute; rejected the Union's argument that the case raised issues of representation that would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board; and held that the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over the dispute. The court also held that Atlas's motion to compel arbitration of its management grievance was timely. Finally, the court rejected the Union's three arguments with respect to the arbitrability of the employers' management grievances. In this case, Southern was entitled to file a management grievance with the Southern Board regarding the interpretation of Section 1.B.3 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA); the district court correctly determined that it lacked authority to decide whether the merger provisions of the Atlas CBA were prompted by the announced operational merger of Atlas and Southern; and nothing in the process of interpreting the provisions of the two collective bargaining agreements purports to bind Atlas or Southern pilots to the terms of another existing CBA. View "Atlas Air, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters" on Justia Law

by
This case arose out of the 2009 bankruptcy of Old GM, which resulted in a sale under 11 U.S.C. 363 of the bulk of its assets to a new entity that has continued the business (the new General Motors). The New General Motors assumed the liability of Old GM with respect to post‐Sale accidents involving automobiles manufactured by Old GM. The claims assumed included those by persons who did not transact business with Old GM, such as individuals who never owned Old GM vehicles and persons who bought Old GM cars after the Sale. At issue was whether the New General Motors was liable for punitive damages with respect to such claims. The Second Circuit held that the new General Motors did not contractually assume liability for punitive damages in its predecessor's bankruptcy sale, and thus the Post-Closing Accident Plaintiffs may not assert claims for punitive damages based on the predecessor's conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's decision on the issue of punitive damages. View "In re Motors Liquidation Co." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of his Federal Rule Civil of Procedure 60(b) motion to reconsider termination of the Milburn consent decree, which provided injunctive relief to inmates at Green Haven Correctional Facility seeking access to adequate medical care. The Second Circuit reversed and held that plaintiff had standing to invoke Rule 60(b) to challenge the termination because he was sufficiently connected with the underlying litigation and his interests were strongly affected by the termination. The court also held that the termination of the consent decree violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and the Due Process Clause because the class was inadequately represented at the times relevant to the termination proceedings. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Irvin v. Harris" on Justia Law