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

Defendant, a reinsurer, appealed from a district court’s ruling granting summary judgment to Plaintiff, its reinsured. On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court erroneously held that its reinsurance obligations to Plaintiff are co-extensive with Appellee’s separate insurance obligations to a third party and that it presented no triable issue of fact on its late-notice defense.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that the district court correctly determined that English law, which governs the relevant reinsurance policy, would interpret that policy to provide coverage that is coextensive with Plaintiff’s separate insurance obligations. The district court also correctly rejected Defendant’s late-notice defense because Defendant has not shown the extreme facts necessary under English law to support recognition of that defense where, as here, timely notice is not a condition precedent to coverage. View "The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Equitas Insurance" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Tutor Perini Building Corp. appealed from the district court’s order affirming an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court, which held that Plaintiff may not use 11 U.S.C. Section 365(b)(1)(A) to assert a “cure claim” against the Trustee for the Trustee’s assumption of an unexpired lease to which Plaintiff was neither a party nor a third-party beneficiary.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that a creditor who seeks to assert a “cure claim” under Section 365(b)(1)(A) must have a contractual right to payment under the assumed executory contract or unexpired lease in question, and the court agreed that Plaintiff is not a third-party beneficiary of the assumed lease. The court explained that Tutor Perini’s expansive view of the priority rights conferred by 11 U.S.C. Section 365(b)(1)(A) is inconsistent with applicable principles of Bankruptcy Code interpretation, and its third-party beneficiary argument is inconsistent with controlling principles of New York contract law. View "In re: George Washington Bridge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Union Mutual”) appealed from a district court judgment. On March 4, 2017, a fire started at Liberty Avenue in Queens, New York, spreading to and damaging four neighboring buildings insured by Union Mutual. After an investigation, the fire marshals concluded, but could not determine with certainty, that the fire originated in the extension cords used by Ace Caribbean Market. Union Mutual paid proceeds to the damaged neighboring buildings and subrogated into their owners’ tort claims. Union Mutual then sued Ace Caribbean Market and others (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that their negligent use of the extension cords caused the fire. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. At issue on appeal is whether evidence that a fire may have originated in the extension cords is sufficient to show that (a) the owners and proprietors were negligent in their use of the extension cords and (b) if they were negligent, that negligence was the cause of the fire.   The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that such evidence is not sufficient. The court held that, at most, Union Mutual produced weak circumstantial evidence that something wrong with the extension cords caused the fire. But, even assuming a reasonable jury could so conclude, Union Mutual showed no evidence of negligence whatsoever on Defendants’ part, and evidence of causation by itself is not evidence of negligence. The court concluded that there may have been negligence and that negligence may have been the cause of the fire. But no inference that it was Defendants’ negligence is permissible on the facts. View "Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ace Caribbean Mkt." on Justia Law

Argonaut Insurance Company (“Argonaut”) appealed from an order of the district court remanding this breach-of-bond action, brought by LeChase Construction Services, LLC (“LeChase”), to New York state court after Argonaut removed it on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The district court purported to issue its remand order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(e), which authorizes remand if, after removal, a plaintiff joins defendants whose inclusion would destroy diversity jurisdiction. The district court expressly acknowledged that section 1447(e) is facially inapplicable here, as LeChase was not seeking to join a non-diverse defendant or otherwise contesting the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the district court reasoned that, since remand would facilitate this case’s consolidation with two related actions then pending in New York state court, thus conserving judicial resources and avoiding the risk of inconsistent outcomes, it was appropriate under the “rubric” of section 1447(e). At issue was: (1) whether the Second Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s remand order notwithstanding Section 1447(d; and (2) if the court does, whether the district court issued such order in excess of its statutory authority under section 1447(e).   The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded. The court concluded, as a matter of first impression, that “[section] 1447(d) permits appellate review of a district-court remand order that dresses in [section 1447(e)’s] jurisdictional clothing a patently non-jurisdictional ground,” such as the prudential considerations invoked by the district court here. The court concluded – for essentially the reasons acknowledged by the district court itself – that its remand order here was unauthorized under section 1447(e). View "LeChase Constr. Servs. LLC v. Argonaut Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision dismissing her claims against New York University (NYU) and declining to allow her to amend her complaint to add another plaintiff. Plaintiff s a parent of an adult student who attended New York University (NYU) (Defendant-Appellee) during the Spring 2020 semester—a semester during which NYU suspended its in-person operations and transitioned to remote instruction. Alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims, Plaintiff brought a putative class action suit against NYU to partially recover the tuition and fees she paid for her daughter’s Spring 2020 semester. The district court granted NYU’s motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff lacked standing and denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add a current NYU student as an additional plaintiff because it concluded that amendment would be futile.   The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims because she has not alleged an injury-in-fact to herself, rather than to her daughter. The court held that Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a claim for conversion. The court wrote that for these reasons, the district court properly dismissed her claims. However, the court concluded that amending the complaint to add a current student as plaintiff would not be futile. The student plaintiff plausibly alleged claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and money had and received that would survive a motion to dismiss. View "Christina Rynasko v. New York University" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), arguing that Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Co. miscalculated residual annuities based on an erroneous interpretation of its retirement income plan and improperly used a pre-retirement mortality discount to calculate residual annuities, thereby working an impermissible forfeiture of benefits under ERISA. The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on these claims. Colgate appealed that order and the final judgment of the district court.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the text of the RAA is unambiguous and requires Colgate to calculate a member's residual annuity by subtracting the AE of LS from that member's winning annuity under Appendix C Section 2(b). Further, the court wrote that Colgate's "same-benefit" argument does not disturb our conclusion that the RAA's language is unambiguous. Because "unambiguous language in an ERISA plan must be interpreted and enforced in accordance with its plain meaning," the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the class Plaintiffs as to Error 1. View "McCutcheon v. Colgate-Palmolive Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a franchisor of tax preparation services, appeals from the district court’s denying its motion for preliminary injunctive relief to enforce, among other things, covenants not to compete or solicit former clients against Defendants, its former franchisees. On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court erroneously applied a heightened standard for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief, failed to credit an undisputed fact that Plaintiff had grounds to terminate the franchise agreements because Defendants were violating federal tax laws, and was compelled as a matter of law to find that it would suffer irreparable harm to its goodwill and client relationships in the absence of an injunction.   The Second Circuit affirmed the order denying preliminary relief. The court concluded that the district court applied the appropriate standard, permissibly credited Defendants’ denials that they violated federal tax laws, and acted well within its discretion in concluding that Plaintiff would not suffer irreparable harm. The court reasoned that nothing in the court’s precedents compels a district court to find irreparable harm to goodwill and client relationships in covenant-not-to-compete or -solicit cases simply because irreparable harm is often found in such cases. Instead, a plaintiff must present the district court with actual evidence. On that record, the court wrote it cannot conclude that the district court’s finding that Plaintiff had failed to make a strong showing of irreparable injury represented a clear error or exceeded the court’s discretion. View "JTH Tax d/b/a Liberty Tax Service v. Agnant" on Justia Law

The case presents an apparently unresolved question in the Second Circuit: whether a district court’s order granting a purportedly final judgment on a noteholder’s claims seeking (1) foreclosure on a mortgage, (2) foreclosure on a security interest in real property and (3) possession of said real property is an appealable final judgment – even though the order also refers the case to a magistrate judge to calculate the amount of the judgment of foreclosure and sale. The district court struck the Borrower’s and Guarantors’ affirmative defenses, granted the motion for summary judgment on the Foreclosure Claims, and granted the motion to sever the Guaranty Claim in an opinion and order dated December 2, 2021. On appeal, the Borrower contends that the district court improperly struck certain affirmative defenses prior to entering summary judgment for the Noteholder on the Foreclosure Claims.   The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that such a judgment is not, in fact “final” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 and that no other basis for appellate jurisdiction exist. The court explained that the district court did not certify its judgment as final and appealable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in its December 2, 2021, Order and Judgment. And even if it did, the Court would have to “consider for itself whether the judgment satisfies the requirements of that rule.” View "RSS WFCM2018-C44 - NY LOD, LLC v. 1442 Lexington Operating DE LLC" on Justia Law

Admiral Insurance Co. (“Admiral”) sought a declaration that it need not defend or indemnify its historical insured, Niagara Transformer Corp. (“Niagara”), in potential litigation between Niagara and nonparties Monsanto Co., Pharmacia LLC, and Solutia Inc. (collectively, “Monsanto”) over harms caused by polychlorinated biphenyls that Monsanto had sold to Niagara in the 1960s and 1970s. Admiral appealed from the order of the district court dismissing its action for lack of a justiciable “case of actual controversy” within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act (the “DJA”). The district court principally relied on (1) the fact that Monsanto has not commenced or explicitly threatened formal litigation against Niagara, and (2) its assessment that Monsanto would not be likely to prevail in such litigation.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Admiral’s action to the extent that it sought a declaration of Admiral’s duty to indemnify Niagara, and remanded for the district court to determine whether there exists a practical likelihood that Monsanto will file suit against Niagara. The court explained that while the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to declare Admiral’s duty to indemnify Niagara, it did not adequately distinguish between that duty and the insurer’s separate duty to defend its insured. Because a declaratory-judgment action concerning either duty becomes justiciable upon a “practical likelihood” that the duty will be triggered, the justiciability of Admiral’s duty-to-defend claim turns on the practical likelihood that Monsanto will file suit against Niagara – not on whether Monsanto has already in fact done so. View "Admiral Ins. Co. v. Niagara Transformer Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (“Allianz”) in Plaintiff’s capacity as a trustee of the Zupnick Family Trust 2008A (“Trust”). Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that an Allianz life insurance policy (“Zupnick Policy”), which Plaintiff contends is owned by the Trust, remains in effect. The district court concluded that the Trust was not the actual owner of the Zupnick Policy under New York law because any assignment of the policy to the Trust failed to comply with the Zupnick Policy’s provision that assignment would be effective upon Allianz’s receipt of written notice of the assignment. The district court held that the Trust lacked contractual standing to sue on the Zupnick Policy, and granted Allianz’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that failure to comply with the provisions of a life insurance policy requiring written notice of assignment cannot, under New York law, render an assignment ineffective.   The Second Circuit certified the question to the Court of Appeals because the argument turns on a question of state law for which no controlling decision of the New York Court of Appeals exists. The court certified the following question: Where a life insurance policy provides that “assignment will be effective upon Notice” in writing to the insurer, does the failure to provide such written notice void the assignment so that the purported assignee does not have contractual standing to bring a claim under the Policy? View "Brettler v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America" on Justia Law