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

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of their complaint under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, for failure to file a timely appeal because of plaintiffs' compliance with an individual calendar rule promulgated by a district judge. The court concluded that plaintiffs' dilatory motion for reconsideration failed to toll the time to appeal under FRAP 12 Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi), and plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was filed more than a year after judgment entered against them. Accordingly, under FRAP Rule 4(a)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. 2107(a), the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this appeal. View "Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former employees of the State of Vermont, filed suit against the State, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Plaintiffs first filed suit in state court and defendants removed to federal district court. The district court subsequently granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that, while defendants may, by removing the action, have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in a federal forum, defendants have not expressly waived Vermont’s general sovereign immunity from private FLSA suit, and their litigation conduct does not constitute such a waiver. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Beaulieu v. State of Vermont" on Justia Law

BBVA, a Spanish bank, appealed from the district court's orders directing BBVA, a third-party defendant, to comply with an information subpoena issued in connection with plaintiff Aldo Vera, Jr.’s attempt to enforce a $49 million default judgment against the Republic of Cuba. The second order denies reconsideration of the first order. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied staying the motion as moot because the appealed decisions are not final orders under 28 U.S.C. 1291. View "Vera v. Republic of Cuba" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, investment funds, filed suit seeking, by ex parte application, to discover certain documents from the defendant American and international accounting firms relating to audits conducted by their Middle Eastern affiliates. 28 U.S.C. 1782 provides assistance to litigants in proceedings before foreign and international tribunals. The statute authorizes a district court, “upon the application of any interested person,” to order a party “found” in the judicial district in which the court sits to produce discovery “for use” in a foreign proceeding. The court concluded that (1) assuming arguendo that the funds were “interested person[s]” in ongoing foreign proceedings, the funds did not establish that the evidence they sought was “for use” in those proceedings; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that additional proceedings that the funds asserted they intended to initiate were not “within reasonable contemplation” at the time the application was made. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the application. View "Certain Funds v. KPMG LLP" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from actions filed by holders of Argentina's bonds after the Republic of Argentina defaulted on sovereign debt. After previous panels of this court twice vacated aggregate judgments entered by the district court in favor of plaintiff classes, the court remanded with specific instructions. The district court, however, certified expanded plaintiff classes. The court concluded that the district court erred in following Hickory Sec. Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina's (Seijas II) mandate where, even though it did not expressly preclude recertification, Seijas II cannot be read to have permitted the district court to disregard the court's instructions and expand the plaintiff classes as a solution to a problem for which the court had already prescribed a specific response. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's orders and remanded. View "Puricelli v. Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from actions filed by holders of Argentina's bonds after the Republic of Argentina defaulted on sovereign debt. After previous panels of this court twice vacated aggregate judgments entered by the district court in favor of plaintiff classes, the court remanded with specific instructions. The district court, however, certified expanded plaintiff classes. The court concluded that the district court erred in following Hickory Sec. Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina's (Seijas II) mandate where, even though it did not expressly preclude recertification, Seijas II cannot be read to have permitted the district court to disregard the court's instructions and expand the plaintiff classes as a solution to a problem for which the court had already prescribed a specific response. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's orders and remanded. View "Puricelli v. Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's refusal to enter the parties' stipulation of settlement dismissing, with prejudice, plaintiff's claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(c), and New York Labor Law. The court agreed with the district court's holding that parties cannot enter into private settlements of FLSA claims without either the approval of the district court or the DOL. Therefore, in the absence of such approval, parties cannot settle their FLSA claims through a private stipulated dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are commercial trucking companies, their national trade association, and a putative class of commercial truckers. Plaintiff filed suit against the Thruway Authority under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the Thruway Authority charges excessive tolls in violation of the Commerce Clause because it diverts excessive highway tolls to fund maintenance and improvements of unrelated projects. The district court dismissed the suit under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join the State of New York as a necessary party under Rule 19. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that the district court abused its discretion because the State of New York is not a necessary party under Rule 19(a). View "Am. Trucking Ass'n v. N.Y. State Thruway Auth." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their putative shareholder derivative actions against Facebook and its directors and lead underwriters. Plaintiffs alleged that Facebook’s directors breached duties owed to the company because its Registration Statement failed to disclose the mid‐quarter impact of mobile usage on the company’s projected growth. The court concluded that it was not error for the district court to decide, as a threshold matter, whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded contemporaneous share ownership, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. The court affirmed the judgment because none of the putative plaintiffs satisfied this requirement. The court did not reach the additional bases for dismissal raised by the district court or Facebook. View "In re Facebook, Inc. IPO Derivative Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's wrongful termination claims because the court concluded that an affidavit attached as an exhibit to a complaint is not a "written instrument" that is deemed part of the complaint under Rule 10(c); affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint, a motion which was first made following the entry of the final judgment. View "Smith v. Hogan" on Justia Law