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

Plaintiffs filed suit to contest a wage freeze imposed in 2011 on Nassau County employees by the Nassau Interim Finance Authority (NIFA). The police unions contended that the wage freeze was imposed in violation of the Contracts Clause, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, and that the authority conferred on NIFA to impose such a freeze had expired under the terms of the applicable statute, N.Y. Pub. Auth. Law 3669(3). The district court granted summary judgment to the police unions on their state law claim without reaching the constitutional question. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district judge should have declined to reach the pendant state law claim, which required it to interpret, as a matter of first impression, an important state legislative scheme to prevent the fiscal demise of Nassau County. View "Carver v. Nassau County Interim Finance" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed as a pharmacist for CVS, filed suit against CVS seeking additional compensation. During the relevant time period, plaintiff's base salary was based on a forty-four hour work week and that base weekly salary exceeded $1250 at all pertinent times. His base salary was guaranteed, and CVS classified him as a salaried employee exempt from the time-and-a-half overtime requirement of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The court affirmed the judgment, agreeing with the district court's holding that plaintiff was exempt from the FLSA's time-and-a-half overtime requirement because of an exemption for highly-paid employees. View "Anani v. CVS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, New York Life, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of insurance agents. Plaintiff alleged state law claims seeking unpaid overtime wages and recovery of improper deductions, as well as statutory liquidated damages under New York Labor Law. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his complaint based on the "home state exception" to federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). The court held that the home state exception was not jurisdictional and must be - and in this case was - raised within a reasonable time. Further, the 2011 amendment to New York Labor Law was not retroactive and the district court's grant of partial summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's overtime claim was correct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gold v. New York Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, representative of the estate of her deceased son, filed suit against the City of New York, police officers, and others, alleging that they were liable for her son's death. A jury found in favor of defendants. The court held that, where a municipality acted in a governmental capacity, a plaintiff could not recover without proving that the municipality owed a "special duty" to the injured party. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving a special relationship, and where the plaintiff failed to meet this burden, the analysis ended and liability could not be imputed to the municipality that acted in a governmental capacity. The distinction between nonfeasance and misfeasance was irrelevant to the analysis and the existence of a special relationship was a question of law that could be properly submitted to the jury. In this instance, the court found no error entitling plaintiff to a new trial and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Velez v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction on both counts of a superseding indictment where a jury found him guilty of bank fraud and unlawful use of another person's means of identification in relation to the bank fraud. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his involvement in an operation to use names and identification documents of other persons to open bank accounts funded with forged checks and withdraw proceeds. The court concluded that, notwithstanding the failure of defendant's indictment to name the persons whose means of identification were used in the commission of bank fraud, the indictment was constitutionally adequate. The court also concluded that defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to postpone the trial date upon the filing of the superseding indictment to allow him additional time to prepare to meet the new charges was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stringer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that various foreign investment vehicles secretly funneled investors' assets to Madoff Securities. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against JPMorgan and BNY on the ground that the claims were precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), 15 U.S.C. 78bb(f), and, alternatively, by New York's Martin Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 352 et seq. In this instance, the allegations were more than sufficient to satisfy SLUSA's requirement that the complaint alleged a "misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that plaintiffs' claims against JPMorgan and BNY were properly dismissed as precluded by SLUSA. View "Trezziova v. Kohn" on Justia Law

U.S. Bank appealed the bankruptcy court's order authorizing AMR and American (collectively, "Debtors") to obtain postpetition financing; authorizing Debtors to repay certain prepetition notes held by U.S. Bank and secured by aircraft; and denying U.S. Bank's request to lift an automatic stay. The court concluded that: (1) under the language of the Indentures, American's voluntary petition for bankruptcy triggered a default and automatically accelerated the debt, the satisfaction of which required no make-whole payment; (2) ipso facto clauses in a nonexecutory contract were not unenforceable under 11 U.S.C. 365(e) or any other Bankruptcy Court provision identified by U.S. Bank; Debtors complied with its 11 U.S.C. 1110(a) elections to perform its obligations under the Indentures and cure any nonexempt defaults by making regularly schedule principal and interest payments; it was not required to cure its Section 4.01(g) default; and (4) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying U.S. Bank's motion to lift the automatic stay. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In re: AMR Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against New York state prison officials alleging that they substantially burdened his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1, and that they infringed his due process and First Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. This appeal arose when defendants instigated a disciplinary proceeding against plaintiff, an inmate and a Muslim, after an interaction in which plaintiff gave Chaboty a Quran. The court concluded that plaintiff's RLUIPA claim must fail because RLUIPA did not authorize monetary damages against state officers in their official capacities, and did not create a private right of action against state officers in their individual capacities. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's RLUIPA claim. View "Washington v. Gonyea" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possessing child pornography. The court concluded, under its recent decisions in United States v. Barker, that the district court should have applied the categorical approach - not the modified categorical approach - to decide whether defendant's prior conviction under 13 Vt. Stat. Ann. 2602 triggered 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2)'s sentencing enhancement. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the district court was ultimately correct in applying the mandatory ten-year minimum because, under the categorical approach, 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2) was a state law that related to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor under section 2252(b)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Simard" on Justia Law

Village Fuel appealed the district court's denial of attorney's fees in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., action. The court concluded that Village Fuel obtained some degree of success on the merits in defeating GHI's restitution claims and that, under ERISA, a favorable court judgment was not required to satisfy the threshold of awarding attorney's fees. The court vacated and remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine a reasonable amount of attorney's fees, if any, to be awarded to Village Fuel. View "Scarangella & Sons v. Group Health, Inc." on Justia Law