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

Plaintiffs, producers and owners of copyrighted television programming, sued defendants for streaming plaintiffs' copyrighted television programming over the Internet live and without their consent. The court, applying Chevron analysis, held that: (1) the statutory text was ambiguous as to whether defendant, a service that retransmitted television programming over the Internet, was entitled to a compulsory license under section 111 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 111; (2) the statute's legislative history, development, and purpose indicated that Congress did not intend for section 111 licenses to extend to Internet retransmissions; (3) the Copyright Office's interpretation of section 111 - that Internet retransmissions services did not constitute cable systems under section 111 - aligned with Congress' intent and was reasonable; and (4) accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the case. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding irreparable harm; in balancing the hardships; and considering the public interest. View "WPIX, Inc. v. IVI, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a conviction of knowingly receiving and possessing child pornography. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in employing the modified categorical approach to analyze the facts underlying his prior state conviction for endangering the welfare of a child, and that under the proper standard - the categorical approach - his prior state conviction did not qualify as a 18 U.S.C. 2252A(b)(1) predicate offense. The court agreed and therefore vacated his sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Beardsley" on Justia Law

National Union appealed from the district court's award of consequential damages to plaintiffs, following a jury trial, for National Union's breach of its duty to defendant plaintiffs in a securities arbitration. At issue was whether consequential damages, which were traditionally available for breach of contract claims, were also available for a claim of breach of a duty to defend an insured under Connecticut law, and if so, whether they could include damages for harm to reputation and loss of income. Absent a precedential decision from the Connecticut courts, the court certified the two issues. View "Ryan v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins." on Justia Law

This appeal and purported class-appeal primarily concerned two issues arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 28 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The first issue was whether trustees of a multi-employer pension fund acted as fiduciaries when they amended the pension plan. The second issue was whether the claims asserted in this case were time-barred. The court concluded that the dismissal of Counts I-V was proper because the trustees were not acting as fiduciaries in amending the Plan, and in reaching that conclusion, the court deemed the contrary rulings of the court in Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan and Siskind v. Sperry Retirement Program, to have been abrogated by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. The court also concluded that fact issues remained as to whether Counts VII-IX were properly dismissed as time-barred. View "Janese v. Fay" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a judgment resentencing him for attacking a correctional officer while he was an inmate. On appeal, defendant argued primarily that his resentencing by videoconference constituted a violation of his right to be physically present. The court agreed that the government had not satisfied its burden of proving that he waived his right to be present and that the district court erred in finding a valid waiver. However, this error did not prejudice defendant. The court also held that defendant's sentence was reasonable and therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Salim" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from convictions related to narcotics offenses and resisting arrest. The court affirmed the convictions on the narcotics counts but vacated his conviction for resisting arrest where there was no evidence that he engaged in any conduct whatsoever that demonstrated a desire to injure an agent or would cause an agent to apprehend immediate injury. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendants, an elementary school principal and two teachers, appealed from a denial of summary judgment by the district court on defendants' claims that qualified immunity shielded them from suit for alleged deliberate indifference to kindergarten and first-grade students' racial harassment of a classmate in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment as to claims that the kindergarten teacher and the principal were deliberately indifferent to racial name-calling by kindergarten students because there were questions of disputed fact for which the district court identified sufficient record evidence to support a verdict in favor of plaintiff. The court reversed the denial, however, as to claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to all other allegedly racially motivated physical misbehavior by kindergarten and first-grade students because no clearly established law permitted a finding that defendants had actual knowledge that commonplace physical misbehavior by children of this age was racially motivated in the absence of some objective evidence connecting the physical misbehavior to the earlier racial name-calling. Further, the first-grade teacher was entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because her transmittal of parental complaints of physical misbehavior to the principal for investigation could not be deemed "clearly unreasonable" as a matter of law. View "DiStiso v. Wolcott" on Justia Law

The Republic of Argentina appealed from an order of the district court granting NML Capital's motion to compel non-parties Bank of America and Banco de la Nacion Argentina to comply with subpoenas duces tecum and denying Argentina's motion to quash the subpoena issued to Bank of America. Argentina argued that the banks' compliance with the subpoenas would infringe on its sovereign immunity. The court concluded, however, that because the district court ordered only discovery, not the attachment of sovereign property, and because that discovery was directed at third-party banks, Argentina's sovereign immunity was not affected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of criminal possession of a weapon and assault, appealed from the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. At issue was whether petitioner had established prejudice for the procedural default of his claim that his Miranda rights were violated and whether petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during the Huntley hearing. The court held that the decision of the Appellate Division was not contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). Therefore, the court deferred to the determination made by the state court and held that petitioner was not prejudiced by Huntley counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. Further, because petitioner could not show that he was prejudiced by the alleged Miranda violation, the court affirmed the district court's holding that the Miranda claim was procedurally barred. View "Hawthorne v. Spitzer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of their suit for failure to state a claim and denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs, parents and/or legal guardians of seven children with disabilities, sought equitable relief preventing defendants from enforcing a prohibition on the use of aversive interventions. The court concluded that the State's prohibition of one possible method of reducing the consequences of a child's behavioral disability did not undermine the child's right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) or prevent administrators from enacting an individualized plan for the child's education. The court also concluded that New York's law represented a considered judgment by the State of New York regarding the education and safety of its children that was consistent with federal education policy and the United States Constitution. View "Bryant v. New York State Education Dept." on Justia Law