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

Plaintiff filed suit against two officers and their employers, alleging that the officers knowingly falsified and omitted material facts from police reports, lied to the district attorney and the grand jury, and conspired to do the same, resulting in plaintiff's malicious prosecution. The district court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Buonora's motion to dismiss based on absolute and qualified immunity. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court to the extent it denied Buonora absolute and qualified immunity from suit on certain of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims unrelated to his grand jury testimony. The third amended complaint alleges misconduct by Buonora that is not based on his grand jury testimony and the district court properly found that absolute immunity is inappropriate. In regards to qualified immunity, the alleged falsification of evidence and the related conspiracy, if true, constitute a violation of clearly established law, and no objectively reasonable public official could have thought otherwise. The court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Buonora's other claims of error at this interlocutory stage. Accordingly, the court dismissed the remainder of the appeal. View "Coggins v. Buonora" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of New York State's requirement that all children be vaccinated in order to attend public school. The statute provides two exemptions from the immunization mandate: a medical exemption and a religious exemption. Rejecting plaintiffs' substantive due process, free exercise of religion, equal protection, and Ninth Amendment challenges, the court concluded that the statute and regulation are a constitutionally permissible exercise of the State's police power and do not infringe on the free exercise of religion. The court further concluded that plaintiff's remaining arguments are either meritless or waived. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss. View "Phillips v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, residents of New Jersey and New York, filed suit challenging a TBTA program that provides discounted tolls to residents of Staten Island, the Rockaway Peninsula, and Broad Channel Island for crossings over certain bridges. The discounted tolls allow residents of Staten Island to pay a reduced rate on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, which serves as the only direct vehicular artery connecting Staten Island with the rest of New York City. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court held, for substantially the reasons articulated by the district court, that the toll discount scheme at issue neither violates the constitutional right to travel nor the dormant Commerce Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Janes v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, pension funds, filed suit, seeking to hold BNYM responsible for the losses allegedly caused by Countrywide's breach of its representations and warranties in connection with 530 residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) created between 2004 and 2008 for which BNYM acts as trustee. The court affirmed the portion of the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' claims related to the trusts in which they did not invest for lack of standing because plaintiffs' claims do not implicate the "same set of concerns" as those of absent class members who purchased certificates issued by trusts in which no named plaintiff invested; reversed the portion of that order denying BNYM's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Trust Indenture Act (TIA), 15 U.S.C. 77aaa-77aaaa, claims related to the PSA-governed (pooling and servicing agreements) New York trusts where the New York certificates at issue are exempt from section 304(a)(2) of the TIA; and the court remanded in part for further proceedings. View "Retirement Board v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed a defamation action against defendants based on statements that they made in an online petition and press release. The district court dismissed the action. The court reserved decision and certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court: (1) Does a hyperlink to source material about judicial proceedings in an online petition suffice for purposes of applying the common law fair report privilege? and (2) Did Nevada’s anti-strategic litigation against public participation (“anti-SLAPP”) statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.653-41.670, as that statute was in effect prior to the most recent amendments in 2013, cover speech that seeks to influence an election but that is not addressed to a government agency? View "Adelson v. Harris" on Justia Law

Dynegy filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Charles Silsby then filed a securities class action complaint against Dynegy and others alleging dissemination of false and misleading information and failure to disclose material facts about Dynegy's financial performance and prospects, in violation of securities laws. Stephen Lucas was appointed lead plaintiff in Silsby v. Icahn, the securities class action litigation. In this appeal, Lucas challenged the district court's conclusion that he lacked standing to opt out of or object to the joint reorganization plan on behalf of the putative class in the securities litigation. The court concluded that Lucas' status as lead plaintiff of the putative class in the district court securities litigation did not automatically extend to the bankruptcy proceedings; because Lucas did not seek application of Rule 23 in bankruptcy court, he represented no one but himself; and since he opted out of the release in his individual capacity, Lucas lacks standing to appeal the order confirming the Plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re: Dynegy, Inc.," on Justia Law

This case arose out of the collapse of SIV, managed by Cheyne and structured by Morgan Stanley. PSERS and Commerzbank appealed from the final order of judgment denying class certification, dismissal of Commerzbank's claim for lack of standing; and dismissal of PSERS's claim because its presence as a party would destroy complete diversity, the sole basis of subject matter jurisdiction. The court affirmed the denial of class certification and dismissal of PSERS; held that it was not a permissible exercise of discretion for the district court to limit Commerzbank's ability to establish its standing; certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question of whether a reasonable trier of fact could find that Commerzbank had acquired from a third party that had purchased securities a fraud claim against Morgan Stanley; and certified the question whether, if Commerzbank has standing, a reasonable trier of fact could hold Morgan Stanley liable for fraud based on the present record. View "Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System v. Morgan Stanley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Hartford and Officers O'Hare and Pia for damages stemming from the officers' warrantless entry into plaintiffs' home where O'Hare shot and killed the family dog. Because the police officers lacked a warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances to invade plaintiffs' curtilage, and because defendants cannot offer any other basis on which the officers' intrusion would be lawful, the court concluded that defendants violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights; defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for this violation because, under the undisputed facts, it would not have been objectively unreasonable for them to have believed that their conduct was lawful; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Harris v. O’Hare, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Golodner and STS filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and two officials, alleging retaliation against Golodner for exercising his rights under the First Amendment when he filed an earlier suit against the City and others. The court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment where the complaint in the earlier suit constituted speech on a matter of public concern protected under the First Amendment and Golodner's right to engage in this form of speech was clearly established at the time of the alleged retaliation. Golodner's speech was an attempt to vindicate his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in the face of alleged police misconduct directed against him as a private citizen. The court remanded for continued proceedings. View "Golodner v. Berliner, et al." 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