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

Petitioners, family members of victims of state sponsored terrorism, sought enforcement of their 2010 judgment obtained against North Korea by attaching the blocked assets of that state under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), 28 U.S.C. 1610 note, and sections 1610(f)(1) and 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1610(f)(1) and 1610(g). Petitioners sought to satisfy their judgments from electronic fund transfers (EFTs) blocked in United States banks pursuant to the sanctions regimes imposed upon North Korea by the United States government. The court concluded that petitions may not attach the EFTs at issue under section 201(a) of the TRIA because their judgment was not issued against a terrorist party. In regard to claims under section 1610(g)(1) of the FSIA , the court remanded in order for the parties to conduct discovery aimed at resolving the factual issues surrounding whether the entities that transmitted the EFTs to respondents banks were agencies or instrumentalities of North Korea. In regards to claims under section 1610(f)(1) of the FSIA, the court held that petitioners' claim for relief pursuant to that statutory provision is without merit for the simple reason that a party's right to proceed under that section was eliminated by a valid executive order that no subsequent presidential administration has rescinded. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Calderon-Cardona v. BNY Mellon et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Iraqi women who were the victims of torture by agents of the Saddam Hussein regime or whose husbands were the victims of such torture, filed suit against Chevron and others, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered harms cognizable under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350; the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. 1350 note.; and New York common law. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant corporations aided and abetted the abuses of the Saddam Hussein regime by paying the regime kickbacks and other unlawful payments, which enabled the regime to survive and perpetrate the abuses suffered by plaintiffs or their husbands. The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Mohammad v. Palestinian Authority indisputably forecloses plaintiffs' TVPA claims. The court concluded that it does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs' ATS claims under the Supreme Court's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., or the court's holding in Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. In this case, the complaint failed plausibly to plead that defendants' conduct related to aiding and abetting the alleged violations of customary international law was intentional, and accordingly, the conduct cannot state a claim for aiding and abetting liability under the ATS and cannot form the basis of the court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Mastafa v. Chevron Corp." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for racketeering conspiracy, racketeering, extortion, and receiving unlawful labor payments. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their demands for money from union members by using threats of economic and physical harm. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of witnesses' beliefs that defendants were connected to organized crime; declining to give Defendant Fazio Junior's requested jury instructions that refined the distinction between a bribe to obtain a preferential treatment and an extortion payment made out of fear of economic loss; and dismissing Juror No. 5 where the juror continued to violate the instructions of the court such that the district court had reasonable cause to believe that the juror could no longer serve according to her oath. The court considered defendants' remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Fazio" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, convicted of attempting to commit a criminal sexual act against his ex-wife and twenty-two counts of criminal contempt for violating a protective order that his ex-wife obtained against him, filed a pro se complaint alleging that he had been convicted in violation of his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process. The district court construed his amended complaint as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 but dismissed it for failure to allege that he was still in custody, or that he had exhausted his state remedies. The court assumed, without deciding, that plaintiff has a cognizable cause of action directly under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court also considered plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court concluded that, under any of these bases, defendant failed to state a claim of relief where the only actors whom plaintiff asserts violated his constitutional rights are entitled to absolute immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court on an alternative ground. The court dismissed without considering the Heck v. Humphrey issues discussed by the district court. View "Teichmann v. State of New York" on Justia Law

Security Plans, a credit insurer, filed suit against CUNA, alleging breaches of contract and of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted summary judgment to CUNA and Security Plans appealed. The court concluded that the district court properly declined to rely on parol evidence to reinterpret the contract and rejected Security Plan's argument that the doctrine of promissory estoppel bars CUNA from deducting excess service fees. Therefore, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the service fee claim. The court concluded, however, that the record on appeal presents sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to CUNA's handling of the earnout calculation. A rational trier of fact could properly conclude that it was arbitrary for CUNA to refuse to revise the earnout calculation in order to correct for the suspect numbers. Accordingly, the court vacated the grant of summary judgment as to the implied covenant claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Security Plans v. CUNA Mutual" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against MAB, a collection agency, alleging that MAB sent numerous telephone calls to his mobile phone number in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. MAB made the calls in an attempt to collect plaintiff's deceased mother-in-law's unpaid $68 electric bill. The district court concluded that plaintiff consented to the calls when he contacted the electric company to discontinue service after the mother's death. However, the court concluded that plaintiff did not consent to giving his phone number "during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed" where he provided his number long after the debt was incurred and was not responsible for the debt. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to MAB where plaintiff did not consent to the calls and the calls were prohibited by the TCPA. The court reversed and remanded. View "Nigro v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Italy, sought review of the BIA's order determining that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) for the unlawful possession of ammunition qualifies as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). Petitioner argued that his conviction for the unlawful possession of ammunition does not constitute an offense "relating to firearms." The BIA held, however, that the "relating to" parenthetical in section 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) was purely descriptive and not restrictive, classifying only a subset of the crimes defined in section 922(g)(1) as aggravated felonies. The court concluded that the BIA's descriptive reading of section 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) is reasonable because it harmonized the broader structure of section 1101(43) and judicial precedent. Under Chevron deference, the court concluded that the BIA's ruling is a permissible construction of the statute. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Oppedisano v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's order of removability. The court concluded that the record supports the BIA's determination that petitioner's conviction of a controlled substance offense remains a removable offense even after the state court vacated the conviction under ARS 13-907 because she sought and obtained vacatur solely for rehabilitative reasons and to avoid adverse immigration consequences. Consequently, petitioner's conviction remains valid for federal immigration purposes. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Sutherland v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are health-service providers designated under federal law as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and a trade association representing a number of FQHCs. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging New York's methods of reimbursing them for services they provide under Medicaid, seeking injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court upheld for the most part the Commissioner's methods for reimbursing FQHCs but granted prospective relief to plaintiffs for reimbursement for certain services they provide to patients enrolled with Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (MCOs). The court concluded that, as to the questions presented on appeal - with only one exception - there are no disputed issues of material fact, and that summary judgment was appropriate; the court agreed with the district court's approach to, and analysis of, the majority of the issues before the court; the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner on most issues involving his methodologies for reimbursing FQHCs, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the FQHCs on issues involving their reimbursement for services provided to MCO enrollees; the court found that the district court erred in concluding that there were no disputed issues of material fact with respect to the Commissioner's methodology for calculating its prospective obligation to make a wraparound payment to FQHCs that provide services under a contract with an MCO; and the court vacated in limited part the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner and remanded for further proceedings. View "Community Health Care Assoc. of N.Y. v. Shah" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, the police department, the police union, and five police supervisors, alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and other federal and state laws. On appeal, the supervisors challenged the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on the employment discrimination claims. The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Defendant Carlone on Plaintiff Raspardo's hostile work environment claim where Carlone's behavior was sufficient to permit a jury to find a hostile work environment, and where Carlone's conduct was clearly established as unlawful sexual harassment at the time of the events in question and that objectively reasonably officers would not disagree that Carlone's conduct constituted sexual harassment. The court concluded that the five individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Raspardo v. Carlone" on Justia Law