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

The United States government brought a civil forfeiture action against a luxury superyacht, alleging that it was beneficially owned by a Russian national subject to U.S. sanctions. Two claimants, an individual and his company, asserted that they—not the sanctioned individual—owned the yacht, both legally and beneficially. The government, however, argued that these claimants were mere straw owners holding title on behalf of the sanctioned individual and therefore lacked constitutional standing to contest the forfeiture.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes regarding the claimants’ standing. The court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimants had relinquished all meaningful ownership and control over the yacht through a memorandum of agreement executed in September 2021. As a result, the court concluded that the claimants were only bare title holders, acting as straw owners, and lacked Article III standing to object to the forfeiture. The court granted the government’s motion to strike the claim and entered default and final judgments of forfeiture when no other claims were filed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the claimants’ legal title alone did not establish standing where the evidence showed they retained no substantive ownership interest after the September 2021 agreement. The court also upheld the district court’s exclusion of a hearsay declaration and concluded there was no procedural error in the conduct of the evidentiary hearing. The judgment of forfeiture was affirmed. View "United States v. The M/Y Amadea" on Justia Law

Union Plaintiffs, comprised of two labor organizations, challenged the federal government's termination of approximately $400 million in funding to Columbia University and its demand for significant reforms at the institution. Columbia University was not a party in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to restore funding, prevent enforcement of the government’s reform demands, protect future grants and contracts, and recover damages.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case for lack of standing. After this dismissal, the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. While the appeal was pending, Columbia and the government reached an agreement whereby most of the disputed funding was restored and Columbia agreed to implement certain reforms. Following this, the plaintiffs withdrew their requests for prospective equitable relief and damages, citing changed circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed a joint motion from both parties to dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court’s order, and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. The court held that the case was moot for reasons not fairly attributable to the plaintiffs and granted the joint motion in full. The court dismissed the appeal as moot, vacated the district court’s order, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot, emphasizing that vacatur was appropriate due to circumstances beyond the plaintiffs’ control and the agreement between the parties. View "Am. Ass'n of Univ. Professors v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Two Vermont residents who worked as delivery drivers for a baked goods company sued the company, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because they were not paid overtime despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week. The company classified them as independent contractors, not employees, and both the drivers and the company are located in different states: the drivers in Vermont, and the company is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The drivers brought the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, both on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated delivery drivers.After the case was filed, the plaintiffs asked the district court to allow notification of potential collective action members not just in Vermont, but also in Connecticut and New York. The company objected, arguing that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state drivers. The district court disagreed, concluding that it did have personal jurisdiction over the company regarding claims by non-Vermont drivers, and permitted notification to potential plaintiffs in all three states. The district court then certified the personal jurisdiction issue for interlocutory appeal and stayed its decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court. The appellate court held that, unless Congress has provided otherwise (which it has not in the FLSA), a federal district court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant for out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims is limited by the same rules that bind state courts. Because there was no showing that the claims by Connecticut and New York drivers arose out of the company's contacts with Vermont, the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over those claims. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Provencher v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution LLC" on Justia Law

Adidas America, Inc. brought a lawsuit against Thom Browne, Inc., alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, based on Thom Browne’s use of certain stripe motifs on its apparel. Adidas’s claims focused on Thom Browne’s Four-Bar Signature and Grosgrain designs, which adidas argued infringed on its well-known Three-Stripe Mark, particularly in a new line of activewear. At trial, the jury heard extensive evidence, including testimony from sixteen witnesses and more than four hundred exhibits, and ultimately found Thom Browne not liable on all counts.Subsequently, during related litigation in the United Kingdom, adidas discovered that Thom Browne had failed to disclose several relevant emails during discovery in the U.S. action. These emails contained internal discussions among Thom Browne employees acknowledging the potential for confusion between Thom Browne’s stripe designs and adidas’s mark. Adidas moved in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for relief from the final judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) and 60(b)(3) (misconduct), arguing that the emails warranted a new trial. The district court denied the motion, finding that the emails probably would not have changed the verdict and that Thom Browne’s discovery violation was, at most, negligent rather than intentional misconduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Second Circuit held that adidas failed to demonstrate that the newly discovered emails probably would have altered the outcome at trial, as required under Rule 60(b)(2). The court further held that “misconduct” under Rule 60(b)(3) does not include merely negligent discovery violations; only intentional or reckless conduct could justify such relief. Therefore, adidas was not entitled to a new trial. View "Adidas America, Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc." on Justia Law

A New York citizen brought suit in federal court against a federally chartered corporation headquartered in Washington, D.C., alleging disability discrimination under New York law. The plaintiff invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, arguing that the defendant should be considered a citizen of the District of Columbia based on its principal place of business, even though it was not incorporated under the laws of any state.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that federally chartered corporations are not citizens of any state for diversity purposes absent unusual circumstances. The plaintiff initially argued for a judge-made expansion of diversity jurisdiction but later abandoned this theory in favor of a statutory argument based on § 1332(c)(1). The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that diversity jurisdiction was not established because the statute does not extend state citizenship to federally chartered corporations. The court also denied the plaintiff’s post-judgment motions for reconsideration and to reopen the case to pursue possible federal claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that § 1332(c)(1) applies only to corporations incorporated by a state or foreign state, not to federally chartered corporations. The court reasoned that the statute’s principal-place-of-business provision does not operate independently of the state-of-incorporation provision, and Congress did not intend to expand diversity jurisdiction to reach federally chartered corporations generally. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its refusal to reconsider or reopen the case. View "Schneiderman v. American Chemical Society" on Justia Law

Two lender plaintiffs provided a large loan to several special purpose entities (“Borrowers”) under a Loan and Security Agreement, which secured the loan with the Borrowers’ assets. The ultimate parent companies of the Borrowers (“Guarantors”) guaranteed repayment of the loan but did not pledge any of their own assets as collateral. After the lenders received information suggesting the Borrowers’ collateral was insufficient or encumbered, they accelerated the loan and demanded immediate payment of over $609 million. When neither the Borrowers nor the Guarantors could pay, the lenders filed suit for breach of contract and requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to freeze the assets of both the Borrowers and the Guarantors, expressing concern that these assets would be dissipated before a judgment could be enforced.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the injunction, including against the Guarantors’ assets. The Guarantors and related parties argued that, under Grupo Mexicano De Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., the District Court lacked authority to freeze their assets because the plaintiffs had no lien or equitable interest in them. The District Court found Grupo Mexicano distinguishable and declined to modify the injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the lenders did not have a lien or equitable interest in the Guarantors’ assets, as their claim was for contract damages and not for relief giving rise to an equitable interest in specific property. The court concluded that Grupo Mexicano precluded the freezing of the Guarantors’ assets under these circumstances. The Second Circuit vacated the portion of the District Court’s preliminary injunction restraining the Guarantors’ assets and remanded for further proceedings. The court made no ruling regarding the Borrowers’ assets, as that part of the injunction was not challenged. View "Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP v. Advantage Capital Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

A former corrections officer brought suit against several supervisory employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, alleging that his rights under the Equal Protection Clause were violated due to race discrimination and retaliation after he complained about such discrimination. He claimed that, while employed at Downstate Correctional Facility, he was denied requests for outside employment that were granted to white colleagues, suspended without pay in circumstances where white officers were suspended with pay, and barred from returning to work after filing discrimination and workplace violence complaints. The defendants disputed these allegations, offering alternative explanations for their actions and contesting whether Miller was similarly situated to the relevant comparators.After extensive discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to arguing that the summary judgment record did not reveal any material factual disputes, they asserted that, even on the pleadings, Miller failed to state a viable claim. Instead of evaluating the evidence produced during discovery, the district court considered only the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), effectively converting the summary judgment motion into a motion to dismiss.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court erred procedurally by disregarding the summary judgment record and resolving the dispute solely under the pleading standard after discovery had closed. The court explained that once discovery is complete and summary judgment is sought, the correct standard requires assessment of the record evidence, not just the pleadings. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying claims or the sufficiency of the evidence. View "Miller v. Lamanna" on Justia Law

A group of bondholders sought to recover principal payments owed on defaulted Argentine sovereign bonds. These investors had previously participated in Argentina’s Tax Credit Program, depositing their bonds with an Argentine trustee, Caja de Valores S.A., in exchange for certificates representing principal and interest. After the Republic failed to pay the principal at maturity, the bondholders initially sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That court dismissed the case primarily on the ground that, under Argentine law, only the trustee had authority to sue on the bonds, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The bondholders then obtained authorization from an Argentine court to sue and filed a new complaint in New York.The district court again dismissed their claims, mainly for two reasons. First, it found all claims were barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, holding that the state’s “savings statute” (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 205(a)) did not apply because the prior dismissal was for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also concluded that tolling provisions in New York’s COVID-era executive orders did not apply absent an equitable showing. Second, the court held that collateral estoppel barred the bondholders from relitigating issues related to standing and jurisdiction previously decided.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed that the savings statute did not apply but held that the COVID-era executive orders tolled the limitations period automatically, without any equitable showing. This made some claims timely (those on the AR16 Bonds) but not others (those on the GD65 Bonds). The Second Circuit further ruled that collateral estoppel did not preclude the bondholders from litigating whether they had authority to sue, and that—under Argentine law, with the new court authorization—they now had such authority. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bugliotti v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

SBK ART LLC, a special purpose vehicle formerly owned by Sberbank and holding a substantial interest in a Croatian company called Fortenova Grupa, became subject to international sanctions after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Following Sberbank’s sale of SBK to an Emirati investor, Fortenova continued to treat SBK as a sanctioned entity, citing uncertainty about the change of control. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, acting as Fortenova’s counsel, issued a memorandum (the “Akin Opinion”) questioning the legitimacy of the sale and compliance with EU sanctions. This opinion was allegedly shared with the EU Council, which imposed sanctions on SBK. Subsequently, SBK was excluded from corporate governance decisions and lost its interest in Fortenova, prompting SBK to initiate litigation in the General Court of the European Union and the Civil Court of Malta, and to contemplate further proceedings in the Netherlands.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, after referral to a Magistrate Judge, granted SBK’s petition under 28 U.S.C. §1782 for discovery from Akin, but limited it to non-privileged materials relating to the sale, the Akin Opinion, and governance changes, within a defined timeframe. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations, overruling Akin’s objections, particularly those based on the Second Circuit’s prior decision in Kiobel by Samkalden v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion by granting discovery from Akin even though the documents sought were not discoverable from Akin’s client in the relevant foreign jurisdictions. The Second Circuit held that Section 1782 does not impose a foreign-discoverability requirement, distinguishing Kiobel and affirming the District Court’s order. Any objections regarding privilege or undue burden must be resolved under ordinary discovery rules. The District Court’s order was affirmed. View "In Re: Ex Parte Application of SBK ART LLC" on Justia Law

Lanesborough 2000, LLC and Nextres, LLC entered into a loan agreement for the funding of a self-storage facility in Corning, New York. The deal included an arbitration agreement that required disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration. Lanesborough alleged that Nextres breached the agreement by failing to disburse loan funds as promised. An arbitrator found in favor of Lanesborough, awarding consequential damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees based on Nextres’s bad faith conduct. The arbitration agreement contained a waiver of the “right to appeal,” but did not specify its scope.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York partially confirmed the arbitrator’s awards. It confirmed the awards of consequential damages, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees, finding that the fee award was permissible because it was based on a finding of bad faith. The District Court also granted Lanesborough’s requests for injunctive relief by ordering Nextres to comply with the loan agreement and enjoining Nextres from pursuing foreclosure actions, including a pending state court foreclosure against a related party. The District Court awarded Lanesborough post-award prejudgment interest and stayed enforcement of its judgment pending appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit first held that the parties’ contractual waiver of the “right to appeal” was ambiguous and not sufficiently clear or unequivocal to preclude appellate review. On the merits, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s awards and its grant of post-award prejudgment interest. However, it vacated the district court’s injunction barring the state-court foreclosure action because the lower court had not considered whether the injunction was consistent with the Anti-Injunction Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC" on Justia Law