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

Acumen, the underwriter, filed suit against General Security, the reinsurer, for breach of a reinsurance underwriting agreement. The district court granted partial summary judgment for General Security, certified the judgment under Rule 54(b), and closed the case. The court dismissed Acumen's appeal, holding that the district court's entry of the Rule 54(b) order and judgment was erroneous because the district court did not address separate claims for relief. In the absence of a final judgment on a claim or an otherwise reviewable order, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Acumen Re Mgmt. Corp. v. General Security Nat. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his claims against Pfizer for alleged violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, and state law equivalents. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the court could not discern how much of the complaint the district court intended to dismiss. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.View "United States, ex rel. Dr. Jesse Polansky v. Pfizer, Inc." on Justia Law

TechnoMarine holds various trademark and copyright registrations for its word mark, logo, and watch dial. At issue in this appeal was whether a prior litigation between TechnoMarine and Giftports resolving claims of trademark infringement and other unfair business practices, and stemming from earlier conduct, bars the present suit of TechnoMarine over similar conduct that occurred after the settlement of the earlier suit. The court concluded that res judicata did not bar the trademark and other unfair business practice claims that arose after the original settlement agreement between the parties; the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the alternative basis that TechnoMarine failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted where TechnoMarine failed plausibly to plead its claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, tortious interference, unfair competition, or copyright infringement; and the court affirmed the district court's denial of TechnoMarine's request to amend its complaint because TechnoMarine failed to indicate how further amendment would cure its pleading deficiencies. View "Technomarine SA v. Giftports, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit pro se alleging that he received inadequate medical care while he was in a federal corrections facility. The district court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. A district court considering a Rule 42(b) dismissal must weigh five factors: the duration of plaintiff's failure to comply with the court order; whether plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal; whether defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay in the proceedings; a balancing of the court's interest in managing its docket with the plaintiff's interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard; and whether the judge has adequately considered a sanction less drastic than dismissal. In this case, the district court's order did not refer to any of the five factors relevant to the Rule 41(b) dismissal. The district court erred by failing to address the factors and, had it done so, the district court would not have dismissed the case. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Baptiste v. Sommers" on Justia Law

The Republic appealed the district court's dismissal of its claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., the Foreign Practices Act (FCPA), 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1 et seq., and common law. The Republic filed suit against defendants, alleging that they conspired with Iraq's former president, Saddam Hussein and others, to corrupt and plunder an United Nations humanitarian program called Oil-for-Food. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining claims. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the RICO claims were properly dismissed on the basis of in pari delicto; the Republic does not have a right of action under the FDCPA; and the common-law claims arose under state law, and the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. View "The Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs in favor of plaintiff. The district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) reinstating plaintiff's home health care benefits. The benefits were awarded to her based on her "prevailing party" status for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The court held that while the TRO caused plaintiff's coverage to be reinstated shortly after it had been terminated, the effect was simply a return to the status quo. Therefore, the issuance of the TRO is an insufficient basis on which to find that plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to an award of fees and costs under the EAJA. Further, the TRO involved no determination on the merits of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the order and judgment of the district court. View "Mastrio v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of well-known luxury items, filed suit claiming that defendants were selling counterfeit versions of plaintiffs' products on the Internet. In the instant appeal, Bank of China, a nonparty appellant, challenged an August 2011 order granting plaintiffs' motion to compel the Bank to comply with a document subpoena and an asset freeze injunction and denying the Bank's cross-motion to modify the court's orders; a May 2012 order denying the Bank's motion to reconsider; and a November 2012 order holding the Bank in civil contempt and imposing monetary penalties. The court concluded that the Bank's claim that the district court was without authority to issue orders restraining defendants' assets pending adjudication was without merit; the court vacated the August 2011 and May 2012 orders so that the district court may consider on remand whether it may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Bank to compel compliance with its orders and if so whether it should exercise such jurisdiction, properly applying principles of comity; and the court reversed the November 2012 order holding the Bank in civil contempt and imposing civil monetary penalties. View "Gucci v. Bank of China" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, Reliastar, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., after she was denied long term disability benefits. The district court found that Reliastar's benefits determination was arbitrary and capricious, and remanded to the company to calculate the amount of benefits owed. Reliastar appealed. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the remand order is not an immediately appealable final decision under either the traditional principles of finality or the court's precedents governing remands to administrative agencies. View "Mead v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the grant of summary judgment dismissing her medical leave, disability, employment discrimination, and retaliation claims and denial of her pro se request to reopen discovery. The court affirmed the judgment and clarified the obligations of a district court in granting judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court held that when a party, whether pro se or counseled, fails to respond to an opponent's motion for summary judgment, a district court may not enter a default judgment. Rather, it must examine the movant's statement of undisputed facts and the proferred record support and determine whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment. Where a partial response to a motion is made, a distinction between pro se and counseled responses is appropriate. In all cases in which summary judgment is granted, the district court must provide an explanation sufficient to allow appellate review. In this case, the district court fulfilled all these requirements. The court held that Vermont Teddy Bear v. 1-800 Beargram Co. has no bearing on this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on this matter and also affirmed the denial of plaintiff's pro se motion to reopen discovery. View "Jackson v. Federal Express" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, cleaning workers who purportedly were exposed to toxic contaminants while working in buildings on the periphery of the World Trade Center site following the September 11, 2001, attacks, filed suit against defendants, owners of various buildings in lower Manhattan that were damaged or destroyed in the attacks. At issue on appeal are two district court orders: 1) the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the claims of 211 plaintiffs who answered "none" to an interrogatory asking plaintiffs to identify "diagnosed" conditions, injuries, and diseases for which they were seeking recovery; and 2) the district court's dismissal of the claims of another 31 plaintiffs for failure to prosecute because they did not certify their interrogatory responses by a court ordered deadline. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiffs based solely on their answer "none" to the "diagnosed" condition interrogatory without considering the record as a whole. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims of the 31 plaintiffs for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "In Re: World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig." on Justia Law