by
BWP appealed the district court's memorandum and order granting summary judgment to Polyvore on BWP's copyright claims for direct and secondary infringement and denial of BWP's cross-motion for summary judgment on direct infringement. BWP's claims arose from Polyvore's posting of BWP's photos on its website. The Second Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Polyvore on the direct infringement claim because there was a dispute of material fact regarding whether Polyvore created multiple copies of BWP's photos that were not requested by Polyvore users; questions of material fact precluded the court from holding at this stage that Polyvore satisfied the requirements for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) section 512(c) safe harbor, even though BWP has not shown that Polyvore's stripping of metadata disqualifies it from safe harbor protection; but Polyvore was entitled to summary judgment on BWP's secondary infringement claims of contributory, vicarious, and inducement of infringement because BWP abandoned those claims. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by declining to sanction BWP. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "BWP Media USA Inc. v. Polyvore, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice as a sanction for misrepresenting his litigation history. The court held that district courts may conduct limited inquiries into whether a litigant's fear of imminent danger under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) is plausible. In this case, the district court did not err by concluding that plaintiff's claim of imminent danger was "without foundation" where plaintiff's explanation for why he was in imminent danger was both circular and completely conclusory. Furthermore, plaintiff unquestionably received adequate notice, and had an opportunity to be heard, before the district court dismissed his action. View "Shepherd v. Commissioner Annucci" on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, based on forum non conveniens grounds, alleging claims for damages under federal and state law in connection with a ʺgoing private mergerʺ by which certain controlling defendants purchased American Depositary Shares (ADSs) from Dangdang's minority shareholders. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the forum selection clause contained in the relevant documents and its impact on the forum non conveniens analysis. The court rejected defendants' claim that plaintiffs waived their reliance on the forum selection clause by failing to raise the issue in the district court. The court also held that remand to the district court was necessary for the district court to consider the scope and enforceability of the forum selection clause. View "Fasano v. Li" on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for credit union robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. The court held that federal credit union robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), is categorically a "crime of violence" for the purposes of a conviction for using a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); although the district court abused its discretion in admitting the customer service representative's testimony regarding the robbery's impact on her in the aftermath of the crime, the error was harmless in light of the totality of circumstances presented in this record; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony from other victims of the robbery; the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a photograph of a third party that defendant claimed actually committed the robbery; and the district court did not err, much less plainly err, by sentencing defendant as a career offender under the residual clause of the 2014 edition of United States Sentencing Guidelines section 4B1.2(a)(2). View "United States v. Hendricks" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
Defendant appealed his sentence of 60 months in prison for cyberstalking and making hoax threats. The Second Circuit held that the district court erred in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2A6.2(b)(1)(A) for violation of a court protection order. In light of the new requirements Amendment 805 imposed, the district court erred by asking only whether, under New York law, defendant was on notice of the issuance and contents of the order. The court held that defendant did not receive service of the disputed ex parte order in accordance with New York law and thus, that the issuing court ever exercised personal jurisdiction over defendant. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
Defendants appealed the district court's order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that defendants, police officers, violated the United States Constitution and Connecticut state law in investigating and arresting plaintiff for assaulting a guest at a college New Year's Eve party. The Second Circuit reversed and held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The court held that police did not need probable cause to arrest plaintiff because he was not under arrest when he was interviewed by the policy on January 2, 2013; there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff based on a non-defective eyewitness identification without regard to plaintiff's allegedly coerced statements; plaintiff's statements were not necessary to establish probable cause and thus he could not claim that their use was in violation of the Fifth Amendment; and the police procedures used at plaintiff's interview were not so egregious or shocking as to violate Fourteenth Amendment due process or to support a state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. View "Mara v. Rilling" on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action alleging claims of retaliation and hostile work environment discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The court held that the district court erred in refusing to consider evidence of events that, though they preceded the actionable time period if viewed as discrete events, remain actionable as part of a hostile work environment and relevant as background for a claim of retaliation; that in assessing the claims of retaliation, the district court erroneously applied the standard applicable to claims of discrimination rather than claims of retaliation; and that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, sufficed to present triable issues of material fact as to the claims of hostile work environment and retaliation. View "Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit vacated defendant's 360 month sentence and five year term of supervised release for a single count of conspiring to distribute at least 200 grams of crack cocaine. Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in return for an estimated sentence of 108 to 135 months in prison. The court held that the government breached defendant's plea agreement when the government, based on information that it knew at the time of the plea, sought a substantially higher sentence than that estimated in defendant's plea deal. In this case, defendant could not have reasonably expected that the government would change its position in such a manner when he consented to the Pimentel estimate in his plea bargain. Accordingly, the court remanded to a different district court judge for resentencing. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a nonparty-movant's motion for a declaration that he was entitled to a share of the $25.6 million the United States received in a settlement against defendants under the False Claims Act (FCA). The action was brought after movant's voluntary dismissal of a qui tam action he had filed against two of the defendants. The court held that movant presented no viable basis for claiming coercion and that the district court correctly ruled that he was not entitled to share in the government's recovery in light of his prior voluntary dismissal of his qui tam action. View "United States v. L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying GEICO and CCC's motions to compel appraisal in a suit brought by a GEICO policyholder. The court held that it had jurisdiction over this appeal because it had appellate jurisdiction over an order denying a motion to compel arbitration and the appraisal process in the policy fell within the meaning of arbitration. The court held that appraisal was not appropriate in this case where the dispute concerned a legal issue about the meaning of Regulation 64, which was incorporated into the policy. Finally, the district court denied CCC's motion to compel appraisal because CCC was not a signatory to the policy and had no other contractual relationship with the policyholder. View "Milligan v. CCC Info Services" on Justia Law

Posted in: Insurance Law