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

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's order denying their motion for remand to state courts. This is an interlocutory appeal of a question certified by the district court, calling for interpretation of the jurisdictional provisions of the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. 632. Whether the district court's denial of remand was proper turns on whether the dispute falls within section 632. The court concluded that the dispute did not fall within section 632's grant of jurisdiction so that removal from state to federal court was not authorized by the statute. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's order denying remand. View "AIG v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three counts of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. Defendant raised several challenges on appeal. The court concluded that the district court properly resentenced defendant after one of the initial five counts was vacated. The court considered defendant's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Weingarten" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiring to violate sex trafficking laws and two substantive sex trafficking counts. Defendant raised several challenges to her conviction. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty of the offenses for which she was convicted; the court found no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings; and defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court found defendant's remaining arguments to be without merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Cho" on Justia Law

Morning Mist appealed from the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the bankruptcy court, which determined that the debtor had its "center of main interests" (COMI) in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), and therefore recognized debtor's liquidation in the BVI as a "foreign main proceeding" under 11 U.S.C. 1517. To determine the proper COMI, the court considered the relevant time period for weighing the interests, and the principles and factors for determining which jurisdiction predominated. The court concluded that the relevant time period was the time of the Chapter 15 petition, subject to an inquiry into whether the process had been manipulated. The relevant principle was that the COMI lies where the debtor conducts its regular business, so that the place was ascertainable by third parties. The statute included a presumption that the COMI was where the debtor's registered office was found. Among other factors that could be considered were the location of headquarters, decision-makers, assets, creditors, and the law applicable to most disputes. Applying these principles, the court affirmed the decision of the district court recognizing the BVI liquidation as a foreign main proceeding. View "Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys" on Justia Law

This appeal involved claims by families and the estates of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This opinion addressed only the claims against the 37 defendants dismissed by the district court for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court agreed with the district court that it lacked personal jurisdiction over most of these defendants pursuant to the court's decision in In re Terrorist Attacks III, because plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to show that most of these defendants expressly aimed their allegedly tortious conduct at the United States. The court concluded, however, that jurisdictional discovery was warranted with regard to 12 defendants. View "In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a two-count superseding information charging him with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable. The court held that the above-guidelines sentences must be justified by reference to specific reasons that place the case outside the run of ordinary cases, and that the further the sentence departed from the typical sentence imposed for the conduct of conviction, the greater the justification that was required. The court concluded that the district court gave sufficient reasons to support its unusually long sentence in this case and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of her claims of employment discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and New York City law. Plaintiff claimed that defendants unfairly reprimanded her, observed her classroom with unusual frequency, evaluated her classroom performance negatively, and gave her less desirable classroom assignments and duties. She argued that these actions were unwarranted and motivated by discriminatory and retaliatory animus. Defendants acknowledged that they increased their supervision of and attention toward plaintiff, but they contended that they did so to address her performance and behavioral issues. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants for substantially the reasons articulated by the district court. With respect to plaintiff's retaliation claims, even if the court assumed that defendants' actions resulted in adverse employment action, no reasonable jury could find that such actions were motivated by a retaliatory animus. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "Sotomayor v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of the United States' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints against the SEC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs also appealed from the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Plaintiffs sought to hold the United States liable for SEC employees' failure to detect Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme and for the financial losses that plaintiffs claimed they suffered as a result. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, finding that the SEC's actions, along with its regrettable inaction, were shielded by the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2680(a). View "Molchatsky, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, formerly a participant in the Justice Department's Witness Security Program, brought suit pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, alleging that he was terminated from the Program without being afforded procedural due process. Plaintiff also alleged that following his termination he was placed in a Segregated Housing Unit (SHU) for 188 days and that this confinement violated due process and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim concerning his termination based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of 18 U.S.C. 3521(f). However, with respect to SHU detention, the district court should have sua sponte granted plaintiff leave to replead before sua sponte dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "J.S. v. T'Kash" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of a letter written by the FAA to the City of New York which endorsed a series of recommendations made by a panel of experts regarding the impact of a proposed marine trash-transfer facility on safe airport operations at LaGuardia Airport. The court held that, because the letter was not a final order for purposes of 49 U.S.C. 46110(a), the court was without jurisdiction to review it and, therefore, dismissed the petition. View "Paskar v. USDOT" on Justia Law