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

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City of New York and police officers, asserting claims of constitutional torts involving arrest without probable cause and malicious prosecution. In regards to the timeliness of plaintiff's suit against the John Doe officers, the court concluded that plaintiff waived the arguments he raised on appeal by failing to raise them in the trial court. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims of municipal liability against the City should not have been dismissed by reason of Officer Symon's entitlement to qualified immunity and the untimeliness of plaintiff's suit against the Doe defendants. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment in favor of the City and remanded those claims for further consideration. View "Askins v. City of New York et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed putative class-action suits over ten years ago under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, on behalf of those harmed by the South African legal regime known as "apartheid." Plaintiffs asserted that defendants aided and abetted violations of customary international law committed by the South African government by selling cars and computers to the South African government. Defendants petitioned for mandamus relief. The court concluded that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., issuance of the writ was unnecessary in this case because defendants have an adequate means of relief through a motion for judgment on the pleadings; plaintiffs' arguments that Kiobel did not apply where defendants were American citizens, or where the case involved American interests, were without merit; and, because the Kiobel decision plainly foreclosed plaintiffs' claims as a matter of law, the court need not consider whether defendants have asserted a valid basis for "collateral order" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for mandamus relief and vacated the stay placed by the court on proceedings in the district court. View "Balintulo v. Daimler AG" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of firearms by a convicted felon and possession of a machinegun by any person. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearms, which were discovered after a warrantless entry into defendant's motel room, based on the inevitable discovery doctrine. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that the record supported a finding that the evidence at issue would inevitably have been discovered. The district court's inevitable discovery analysis was erroneous in several respects and the court held that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the guns and ammunition would inevitably be discovered. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction, reversed the denial of the suppression motion, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Stokes" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, UPRS and Bernard Gelb, authorized the clients of defendant to file a legal complaint and exhibits that were written and compiled by Gelb and in which UPRS and Gelb claimed copyright. Plaintiffs contend that defendant's subsequent amendment of the original documents and filing of amended pleadings infringed their copyrights. At issue was whether the holder of a copyright in a litigation document who has authorized a party to a litigation to use the document in the litigation could withdraw the authorization after the document had already been introduced into the litigation and then claim infringement when subsequent use was made of the document in the litigation. The court held that such an authorization necessarily conveyed, not only to the authorized party but to all present and future attorneys and to the court, an irrevocable authorization to use the document in the litigation thereafter. View "Unclaimed Property Recovery Service, Inc. v. Kaplan" on Justia Law

Lead Plaintiffs filed suit under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k(a), 77(a)(2), and 77o, alleging that defendants made material misstatements and omissions in the offering of materials associated with the sales of Callable Dollar Preference Shares of Barclays. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice because the claims were either time-barred, inadequately pled or without an adequate lead plaintiff. After the district court's decision, this court decided Fait v. Regions Fin. Corp., which held, inter alia, that defendants could be liable under section 11 and 12(a)(2) for misstatements of belief and opinion. The court concluded that Lead Plaintiffs' proposed amendments satisfactorily incorporated the clarification in the applicable law that occurred after the district court's decision and also addressed the other concerns identified by the district court. Accordingly, the court remanded to give Lead Plaintiffs the opportunity, with respect to the Series 5 Offering, to proceed with the claims in the Proposed Complaint and with a new-Lead Plaintiff. The court affirmed the dismissal of Series 2, 3, and 4 Offering claims as time-barred. View "In Re: Barclays Bank PLC Security" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from an order of the district court denying Argentina's motion to dismiss a petition to confirm an arbitration award filed by Blue Ridge on foreign immunity grounds. The court held that it had jurisdiction to consider the district court's rejection of Argentina's assertion of foreign immunity under the collateral order doctrine; the court declined to exercise appellate jurisdiction to consider whether the district court erred in concluding that Blue Ridge, as an assignee, could state a claim to confirm the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes award because that issue was not "inextricably intertwined" with the district court's foreign sovereign immunity decision; the district court correctly concluded that Argentina waived its foreign sovereign immunity pursuant to two separate and independent exceptions to the immunity from suit provided by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the implied waiver exception and the arbitral award exception, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(1), (2), and (a)(6). Accordingly, the court affirmed insofar as the district court concluded that Argentina waived its foreign sovereign immunity and remanded for further proceedings. View "Blue Ridge Investments, L.L.C. v. Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after her arrest and detention pursuant to a material witness warrant. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of her motion for reconsideration as to the individual defendants. Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in finding that detaining an individual for two days pursuant to a material witness warrant was a prosecutorial function entitled to absolute immunity. The court agreed and held that defendants were not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity with respect to plaintiff's allegation that she was unlawfully detained for investigative interrogation. In the absence of any discovery by plaintiff, the record was insufficiently developed at this stage. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Simon v. City of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Dongguk, a prominent Korean university, filed suit against Yale claiming that Yale acted negligently and engaged in reckless and wanton conduct when responding to an inquiry about whether Jeong ah Shin had received a Ph.D. from Yale. Yale mistakenly confirmed Shin's doctoral degree and Dongguk hired Shin as an art history professor. The court concluded that Dongguk has failed to present any evidence that any individual at Yale who was responsible for publication of a defamatory statement acted with actual malice and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in Yale's favor on the defamation claim. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of Dongguk's negligence claim where Dongguk failed to demonstrate any genuine issue of material fact as to whether Yale's Associate Dean's statement caused Dongguk reputational injury, Yale Deputy General Counsel acted with actual malice when making a negligent statement, or additional harm occurred as a result of Yale's delay in correcting its misstatements. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the reckless and wanton conduct claim given the absence of evidence or allegations that Yale's conduct created a risk of bodily harm to an individual at Dongguk. View "Dongguk University v. Yale University" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for committing an assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The court agreed with defendant that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) was within "the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Even though the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the jurisdictional element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the court affirmed the judgment because the jurisdictional status of the MDC was a "legislative fact" of which the court could take judicial action. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims in a separate summary order. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Entergy, owner and operator of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, filed suit against Vermont, raising claims challenging Vermont statutes governing Vermont Yankee (Acts 74, 160, and 189) and other claims related to Vermont's attempt to condition its grant of permission to operate Vermont Yankee on the execution of a power purchase agreement that favored Vermont retail consumers. The court affirmed the district court's grant of declaratory judgment that Act 74 and Act 160 were facially preempted by the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2011-2281; reversed the district court's determination that Vermont's efforts to condition a new Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee on the execution of a favorable power purchase agreement violated the dormant Commerce Clause; affirmed the district court's determination that Entergy's challenge under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791-828c, was unripe; affirmed the district court's grant of a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from enforcing sections 6522(c)(2) or 6522(c)(4) in title 10 of the Vermont Statutes, as enacted by Act 74, or sections 248(e)(2), 248(m), or 254 in title 30 of the Vermont Statutes, as enacted by Act 160; and vacated the district court's permanent injunction enjoining defendants from conditioning the issuance of a Certificate of Public Good on the execution of a below-wholesale-market power purchase agreement between Entergy and Vermont utilities or otherwise requiring Vermont Yankee to sell power to Vermont utilities at preferential rates.View "Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee v. Shumlin" on Justia Law