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

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, a medical center and four of its employees. Plaintiff alleged that had any of the defendants performed their duties properly, they would have realized that she was never a danger to herself or others and that she should never have been certified for forcible sedation or involuntary hospitalization. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff failed to allege state action for the purpose of her 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims and that she failed to allege actionable discrimination for the purpose of her Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, claim. View "McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City, the NYPD, and four individual State and Federal law enforcement officials under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1988 and State law. Plaintiff claimed that a Federal agent presented false testimony to the State grand jury that returned the indictment against him. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's Bivens and section 1983 claims were foreclosed by Rehberg v. Paulk; plaintiff's allegation that his indictment was premised on faulty laboratory results failed to support a plausible fair trial claim; the district court correctly held that plaintiff failed to state a claim for abuse of process as to either the individual NYPD defendants or the agent; the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution; plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that defendants acted with discriminatory animus, as required to state a claim under sections 1981 or 1985; and the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim against the City and the NYPD for municipal liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint. View "Morales v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2), which requires a minimum term of imprisonment of ten years. The enhancement applied when a defendant is found guilty of possessing child pornography and was previously convicted under state law of a crime "relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." Defendant had previously been convicted in state court of first degree sexual abuse of his fifty-three year-old girlfriend. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that section 2252(b)(2) does not require that a prior state-law aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse conviction involve a minor. View "United States v. Lockhart" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that BOE is failing to provide them with meaningful access to its voting program, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794(a), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132. The district court concluded that pervasive and recurring barriers existed at poll sites operated by BOE and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The district court later ordered a remedial plan after the parties had the opportunity to develop and propose a joint plan of relief. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that BOE failed to grant voters with disabilities meaningful access to its voting program. The court also found that the district court's remedial order was a proper exercise of the district court's authority to grant equitable relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Disabled in Action, et al. v. Bd. of Elections in the City of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Barbados, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for illegal reentry in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2). At issue was whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Vartelas v. Holder required the court to find that defendant was eligible for relief from deportation under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). The court held that deeming noncitizens like defendant ineligible for section 212(c) relief merely because they were convicted after trial would have an impermissible retroactive effect because it would impermissibly attach new legal consequences to conviction that pre-date the repeal of section 212(c). In this instance, the court found that the district court erred because defendant was erroneously found to be ineligible for relief under section 212(c). The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of conspiracy to distribute with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine. Defendant challenged the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1. The court held that the four statements at issue did not show a willful intent to provide false testimony. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of foreign and domestic institutional investors, filed a putative class action against UBS and others, alleging violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice. The court concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. precluded claims brought under the Exchange Act by purchasers of shares of a foreign issuer on a foreign exchange, even if those shares were cross-listed on a United States exchange; claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq., based on disclosures made in connection with a UBS June 13, 2008 registered rights offering were properly dismissed because they were immaterial and/or inactionable "puffery;" and Exchange Act claims arising out of defendants' statements regarding positions in, and valuation of, mortgage-related assets were properly dismissed for failure to adequately plead a material misrepresentation or scienter. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "City of Pontiac v. UBS AG et al." on Justia Law

Allstate filed suit against defendants, alleging that defendants engaged in insurance fraud. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the New York Insurance Law and the contract provision required by that law granted them the right to arbitrate Allstate's claims. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the operative statute, regulation, and contract provision did not provide a right to arbitration in this context. View "Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mun" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's ex-wife, intoxicated and strung out, called the police and falsely accused plaintiff of assaulting her. Plaintiff was charged with assault and resisting arrest. After the charges were dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff filed suit against his ex-wife, the arresting officers, and the City, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The court held that because arguable probable cause existed to arrest plaintiff, his claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution were properly dismissed; plaintiff's claim for denial of his right to a fair trial was properly dismissed because he failed to meet the required pleading standards; and plaintiff's claims against the ex-wife were properly dismissed because she did not act under the color of state law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Betts v. Shearman, et al." on Justia Law

Cedar & Washington, a real estate developer, filed suit against the owners and lessees of the World Trade Center and others under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, seeking recovery of costs incurred in remediating a nearby building contaminated by the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. The court concluded that the attack constituted an "act of war" for purposes of CERCLA's affirmative defense. The attacks directly and immediately caused the release of harmful substances (WTC dust), and were the "sole cause" of the release because the attack "overwhelm[ed] and swamp[ed] the contributions of the defendant[s]." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Cedar & Washington's claim. View "In re: September 11 Litigation" on Justia Law