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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulently using access devices to obtain items valued at $1,000 or more. Defendant appealed his sentence of 27 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that his appeal waiver was enforceable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Coston" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Haiti, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision and rejecting his claim to automatic derivative citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a). The BIA found petitioner removable on the basis of his prior criminal conviction for sale of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a weapon, as well as other criminal convictions. The court rejected petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of section 1432(a)(3) and concluded that petitioner's argument based on the constitutional avoidance canon was barred by the plain language of the statute; the court rejected, on the merits, petitioner's Equal Protection Clause claim based on purported legitimacy discrimination; and the court rejected, on the merits, petitioner's Equal Protection claim based on gender discrimination. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Pierre v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action claim against defendants for violations of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act (WARN), 29 U.S.C. 2102(a)(1). Section 2102(a)(1) requires employers to give employees 60 calendar days notice in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. The court held that the district court correctly determined that the private equity defendants were investors, not single employers with their subsidiary within the meaning of WARN and were properly dismissed. The court held, however, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to HoldCo which operated the entity plaintiff worked for, because plaintiff raised a question of material fact as to whether HoldCo was a single employer with BH S&B Holdings. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "Guippone v. BH S&B Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

Entergy filed suit against Vermont seeking a declaratory judgment that Vermont's Electrical Energy Generating Tax was unconstitutional. On appeal, Entergy challenged the district court's grant of Vermont's motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At issue was whether the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, denied the federal courts jurisdiction to review Entergy's challenges to the Generating Tax. The Act prohibits federal courts from interfering with state taxation schemes so long as the state courts offer an adequate forum to litigate the validity of the tax. The court concluded that the Act applied to the Generating Tax and that Vermont provided a plain, speedy, and efficient mechanism for raising Entergy's objections to the validity of the tax. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Entergy Nuclear v. Shumlin" on Justia Law

Defendants, three GE employees, were convicted of offenses related to their involvement in a scheme to fix below-market rates on interest paid by GE to municipalities. The court reversed the convictions and remanded to the district court for dismissal of the indictment, holding that the government did not allege overt acts within the limitations period. View "United States v. Grimm" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants seeking monetary damages for breach of loan documents; tortious interference with contract; breach of an operating agreement; account stated; breach of fiduciary duty; and promissory estoppel. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss. At issue was an agreement for a loan from a lender to himself and his partner. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the documents at issue were ambiguous and precluded dismissal of the complaint. View "Karmely v. Wertheimer" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of Indonesia, sought review of the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen proceedings in her immigration case. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) claiming persecution on account of her ethnicity and religion. The BIA rejected petitioner's evidentiary submissions because she had not submitted a sworn statement in support of her motion and because her expert witness had not provided copies of the sources on which he relied. The court concluded that the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in attaching consequences to these previously unarticulated requirements in petitioner's case and, therefore, granted the petition for review. View "Indradjaja v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, a licensed medical doctor, was indicted on seven counts of sexual exploitation of children and twenty-nine counts of health care fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to quash grand jury subpoenas directed to his adult children and the denial of reconsideration of the motion. The court held that the district court's orders did not fall within the small class of rulings encompassed by the collateral order doctrine and were not otherwise final. Because they were not final decisions within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291, they were not immediately appealable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Punn" on Justia Law

American, a corporation in the business of transporting petroleum products by water, filed suit against the City for common law negligence and for violation of 33 U.S.C. 494, which required that a drawbridge over navigable water be opened promptly by the persons owning or operating such bridge upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats and other water craft. Due to a mechanical malfunction, which American alleged was the result of negligence, the City did not open the Pelham Parkway Bridge, delaying American's tug and barge for approximately two and a half days. At issue was whether, under maritime law, an owner of a vessel could be awarded damages for economic loss due to negligence in the absence of physical damage to its property. Although the court concluded that Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint has been overread to establish a rule barring damages for economic loss in the absence of an owner's property damage, the court believed that the rule has been so consistently applied in admiralty that it should continue to be applied unless and until altered by Congress or the Supreme Court. View "American Petroleum and Transport v. City of New York" on Justia Law

7WTC stood on the northern edge of the World Trade Center site and as the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, it damaged 7WTC. After burning for seven hours, 7WTC collapsed, destroying the electrical substation owned by Con Ed directly beneath the building. Con Ed, along with its insurers, filed suit against defendants, who designed, built, operated, and maintained 7WTC, alleging in relevant part that defendants' negligence caused the building to collapse. The court concluded that Con Ed failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants' negligence was the cause-in-fact of Con Ed's injury. The court had little trouble concluding that the confluence of events that day demonstrated that 7WTC would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs' experts to the design and construction of 7WTC more than a decade earlier. It was simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against defendants on this alternative ground. View "Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Center Co." on Justia Law