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

A group of shareholders in seven small-to-mid cap companies brought coordinated class actions against two major financial institutions, alleging that these institutions enabled Archegos Capital Management to amass large, nonpublic, and highly leveraged positions in the companies’ stocks through total return swaps and margin lending. When the value of these stocks declined and Archegos was unable to meet margin calls, the financial institutions quickly sold off their related positions before the public became aware of Archegos’ impending collapse. The shareholders claimed that this conduct constituted insider trading, arguing that the institutions used confidential information to avoid losses at the expense of ordinary investors.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York first dismissed the shareholders’ complaints, finding insufficient factual allegations to support claims under both the classical and misappropriation theories of insider trading. The court allowed the shareholders to amend their complaint, but after a second amended complaint was filed, the court again dismissed the claims with prejudice. The district court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Archegos was a corporate insider or that the financial institutions owed a fiduciary duty to Archegos. It also found the allegations of tipping preferred clients to be unsupported by sufficient facts. The court dismissed the related claims under Sections 20A and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for lack of an underlying securities violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the shareholders failed to plausibly allege that the financial institutions engaged in insider trading under either the classical or misappropriation theories. The court found no fiduciary or similar duty owed by Archegos to the issuers or by the financial institutions to Archegos, and determined that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support a tipping theory. The court also affirmed dismissal of the Section 20A and 20(a) claims. View "In Re: Archegos 20A Litigation" on Justia Law

Two former employees of a fire alarm and sprinkler company provided fire alarm testing and inspection services on public works projects in New York. They alleged that their employer failed to pay them the prevailing wages required by New York Labor Law § 220, which mandates that workers on public works projects receive at least the prevailing rate of wages. The contracts between the employer and various public entities included clauses that either disclaimed the applicability of prevailing wage laws, were silent on the issue, or referenced prevailing wage rates. Many contracts also contained a provision shortening the statute of limitations for any action against the company to one year.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted partial summary judgment in favor of the employer on all prevailing wage-related claims. The court found that: (1) the contracts did not expressly promise to pay prevailing wages; (2) the one-year contractual limitations period barred the claims; and (3) fire alarm testing and inspection work was not covered by § 220’s prevailing wage requirement. The court also dismissed related quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims and later approved a class action settlement on other claims, with the prevailing wage claims reserved for appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, based on a 2009 New York State Department of Labor opinion letter and relevant precedent, fire alarm testing and inspection work is covered by § 220, entitling the plaintiffs to prevailing wages. However, the Second Circuit found New York law unsettled on whether a promise to pay prevailing wages is implicit in every public works contract (even if not expressly stated) and whether a contractual one-year limitations period is enforceable against workers’ third-party beneficiary claims. The court therefore certified these two questions to the New York Court of Appeals for resolution. View "Walton v. Comfort Systems" on Justia Law

A former dancer at two adult entertainment clubs in Manhattan filed a class charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging pervasive sexual harassment and a hostile work environment affecting herself and other female dancers. She claimed that the clubs’ policies and practices fostered this environment, including being forced to change in open areas monitored by video and being pressured to engage in sexual acts with customers. After receiving the charge, the EEOC requested information from the clubs, including employee “pedigree” data such as names, demographics, and employment details. The clubs objected, arguing the requests were irrelevant and burdensome, but the EEOC issued subpoenas for the information.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the EEOC’s petition to enforce the subpoenas, finding the requested information relevant to the investigation and not unduly burdensome for the clubs to produce. The clubs appealed and, while the appeal was pending, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter to the charging party, who then filed a class action lawsuit in the same district court. The clubs argued that the EEOC lost its authority to investigate and enforce subpoenas once the right-to-sue letter was issued and the lawsuit commenced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the EEOC retains its statutory authority to investigate charges and enforce subpoenas even after issuing a right-to-sue letter and after the charging party files a lawsuit. The court also found that the employee information sought was relevant to the underlying charge and that the clubs had not shown compliance would be unduly burdensome. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s order enforcing the subpoenas. View "EEOC v. AAM Holding Corp." on Justia Law

Ferdinand E. Marcos, former President of the Philippines, deposited approximately $2 million in a New York Merrill Lynch account in 1972, which grew to over $40 million. These funds, known as the Arelma Assets, were proceeds of Marcos’s criminal activities. After Marcos’s ouster, multiple parties—including the Republic of the Philippines, a class of nearly 10,000 human rights victims, and the estate of Roger Roxas (from whom Marcos had stolen treasure)—asserted competing claims to these assets. The Republic obtained a forfeiture judgment from a Philippine court and requested the U.S. Attorney General to enforce it under 28 U.S.C. § 2467.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the enforcement application. The court rejected the class’s affirmative defenses, which included arguments based on statute of limitations, subject matter jurisdiction, lack of notice, and fraud. The court also found that Roxas lacked Article III standing because she failed to show a sufficient interest in the Arelma Assets, and denied her leave to amend her answer. The court entered judgment for the Government, allowing the assets to be returned to the Republic of the Philippines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the class failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of its affirmative defenses and that Roxas lacked standing to participate as a respondent. The court also upheld the denial of intervention by Golden Budha Corporation, finding its interests adequately represented and lacking standing. The main holding is that the Government’s application to enforce the Philippine forfeiture judgment was timely and proper, and that neither the class nor Roxas could block enforcement or claim the assets. View "In re: Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment" on Justia Law

Brian Flores, a current NFL coach, brought a putative class action against the National Football League and several of its member clubs, including the Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans, alleging racial discrimination under federal, state, and local law. Flores’s claims stemmed from his interviews and employment experiences with these teams, during which he alleged discriminatory hiring practices. His employment contracts with various NFL teams incorporated the NFL Constitution, which contains a broad arbitration provision granting the NFL Commissioner authority to arbitrate disputes between coaches and member clubs.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based on Flores’s employment agreements. The District Court granted the motion for claims against the Miami Dolphins, Arizona Cardinals, and Tennessee Titans, but denied it for Flores’s claims against the Broncos, Giants, Texans, and related claims against the NFL. The court found the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision illusory and unenforceable under Massachusetts law, as it allowed unilateral modification by the NFL and lacked a signed agreement in one instance. The District Court also denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders. The Second Circuit held that the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision, which vested unilateral substantive and procedural authority in the NFL Commissioner, did not qualify for protection under the Federal Arbitration Act and was unenforceable because it failed to guarantee Flores the ability to vindicate his statutory claims in an impartial arbitral forum. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration, concluding there was no abuse of discretion. View "Flores v. N.Y. Football Giants" on Justia Law

A group of federally funded health centers and clinics serving low-income populations alleged that several major drug manufacturers conspired to restrict drug discounts offered through the federal Section 340B Drug Discount Program. The plaintiffs claimed that, beginning in 2020, the manufacturers coordinated efforts to limit the availability of discounted diabetes medications at contract pharmacies, resulting in significant financial losses for safety-net providers. The manufacturers, who are direct competitors in the diabetes drug market, allegedly implemented similar policies within a short timeframe, each restricting or eliminating the discounts in ways that had a comparable anticompetitive effect.After the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed their first amended complaint and denied leave to file a second amended complaint. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient parallel conduct or factual circumstances suggesting a conspiracy, and thus found the proposed amendments futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and applied a de novo standard to both the dismissal and the denial of leave to amend. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint alleged enough facts to plausibly infer a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court found that the complaint sufficiently pled both parallel conduct and “plus factors” such as a common motive to conspire, actions against individual economic self-interest, and a high level of interfirm communications. The court also determined that Supreme Court precedents cited by the defendants did not bar the plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to file their second amended complaint. View "Mosaic Health, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corporation, alleging that the company falsely advertised its bathroom wipes as flushable, leading consumers to pay a premium and causing plumbing damage. The parties reached a settlement where Kimberly-Clark agreed to pay up to $20 million in compensation to the class and up to $4 million in attorney’s fees. However, class members claimed less than $1 million. The district court approved the settlement under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate. Objector Theodore H. Frank appealed, arguing that the settlement disproportionately benefited class counsel, who received most of the monetary recovery. Frank contended that the district court failed to properly assess the allocation of recovery between the class and class counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with Frank that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in its Rule 23(e) analysis. The appellate court clarified that Rule 23(e) requires courts to compare the proportion of total recovery allocated to the class with the proportion allocated to class counsel. The court vacated the district court’s order and judgment approving the settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The appellate court did not reach a conclusion on whether the settlement was fair but emphasized the need for a proper proportionality analysis. View "Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp." on Justia Law

In spring 2020, Czigany Beck, a full-time student at Manhattan College, paid tuition and a comprehensive fee for the semester. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the college transitioned to remote learning in March 2020, and Beck received only 46% of her education in person. Beck filed a class action lawsuit against Manhattan College, claiming breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment for not refunding a portion of her tuition and fees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Beck's claims. The court found that the college's statements were not specific enough to constitute a promise for in-person classes or access to on-campus facilities. The court also ruled that the comprehensive fee was nonrefundable based on the college's terms, and thus Beck's unjust enrichment claim for fees was barred. The court granted summary judgment to Manhattan College on Beck's remaining unjust enrichment claim for tuition, concluding that the college's switch to online instruction was reasonable given the pandemic.Beck appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court's judgment should be reversed based on the decision in Rynasko v. New York University. Manhattan College countered with decisions from the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division, which supported affirming the district court's judgment. The Second Circuit identified a split between federal and state courts on New York contract-law principles and certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals: whether New York law requires a specific promise to provide exclusively in-person learning to form an implied contract between a university and its students regarding tuition payments. The Second Circuit reserved decision on Beck's appeal pending the New York Court of Appeals' response. View "Beck v. Manhattan College" on Justia Law

Three former employees of Amazon filed a class action complaint seeking payment for straight-time and overtime wages under Connecticut’s wage laws for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings after clocking out. The employees argued that this time should be compensable under state law. Amazon required employees to pass through security screenings when exiting the secured area of their fulfillment centers, but not upon entry. The screenings involved metal detectors and varied based on the personal belongings employees carried. Employees were not compensated for the time spent in these screenings.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon, dismissing the employees' complaint. The court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, which held that time spent in mandatory security screenings is not compensable under federal law. The employees appealed the decision and moved to certify a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding the applicability of Connecticut’s wage laws to their case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the question of whether Connecticut’s wage laws require compensation for time spent in mandatory security screenings is unresolved. The court decided to certify this question to the Connecticut Supreme Court for a definitive resolution. Additionally, the court asked the Connecticut Supreme Court to address whether a de minimis exception applies to such compensable time and, if so, what amount of time is considered de minimis. The Second Circuit reserved its decision and dismissed the employees' motion to certify as moot, pending the Connecticut Supreme Court's response. View "Del Rio v. Amazon.com.DECE, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing a putative class, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Grubhub Inc., Postmates Inc., and Uber Technologies, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its state analogues by entering into no-price competition clauses (NPCCs) with restaurants, which prevented the restaurants from offering lower prices through other channels. The plaintiffs claimed that these NPCCs led to artificially high prices for restaurant meals. The class included customers who purchased takeout or delivery directly from restaurants subject to NPCCs, customers who dined in at such restaurants, and customers who used non-defendant platforms to purchase from these restaurants.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court held that the scope of the arbitration clauses was an issue for the court to decide and that the clauses did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims as they lacked a nexus to the defendants' Terms of Use. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not agreed to Grubhub's Terms of Use.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, ruling that the question of arbitrability for the plaintiffs' claims against Grubhub is for the court to decide and that Grubhub's arbitration clause does not apply to the plaintiffs' antitrust claims. However, the court reversed the district court's decision in part, finding that Grubhub had established an agreement to arbitrate with the plaintiffs and that the threshold question for the plaintiffs' claims against Uber and Postmates is for the arbitrator to decide. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Davitashvili v. Grubhub" on Justia Law