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

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of the United States' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints against the SEC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs also appealed from the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Plaintiffs sought to hold the United States liable for SEC employees' failure to detect Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme and for the financial losses that plaintiffs claimed they suffered as a result. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, finding that the SEC's actions, along with its regrettable inaction, were shielded by the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2680(a). View "Molchatsky, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, formerly a participant in the Justice Department's Witness Security Program, brought suit pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, alleging that he was terminated from the Program without being afforded procedural due process. Plaintiff also alleged that following his termination he was placed in a Segregated Housing Unit (SHU) for 188 days and that this confinement violated due process and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim concerning his termination based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of 18 U.S.C. 3521(f). However, with respect to SHU detention, the district court should have sua sponte granted plaintiff leave to replead before sua sponte dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "J.S. v. T'Kash" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of a letter written by the FAA to the City of New York which endorsed a series of recommendations made by a panel of experts regarding the impact of a proposed marine trash-transfer facility on safe airport operations at LaGuardia Airport. The court held that, because the letter was not a final order for purposes of 49 U.S.C. 46110(a), the court was without jurisdiction to review it and, therefore, dismissed the petition. View "Paskar v. USDOT" on Justia Law

The County appealed from a judgment of the district court finding that the County was in violation of its duty to promote source-of-income legislation under a Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal (consent decree) entered into by the County with the United States to resolve a qui tam action initially brought by relator, ADC, under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-33, alleging the submission of false claims by the County to HUD in order to obtain federal grant monies for fair housing. As a preliminary matter, the court held that the district court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the reviewing magistrate judge under the consent decree. On the merits, the court held that the County violated the terms of the consent decree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Westchester County, New York" on Justia Law

FHFA, as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, sued UBS for fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the marketing and sale of mortgage-backed securities. The district court denied UBS's motion to dismiss and certified its decision for interlocutory appeal. The court held that the "extender statute" in section 4617(b)(12) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), Pub. L. No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, applied to this action, and thus concluded that the district court correctly denied UBS's motion to dismiss for untimeliness. The court further held that FHFA had standing to bring this action and the district court correctly denied UBS's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. View "Federal Housing Fin. Agency v. UBS Americas Inc." on Justia Law

Livecchi appealed from an amended judgment of the district court following partial summary judgment in favor of the government's equity-skimming claim (Livecchi I), and a subsequent bench trial rejecting Levecchi's counterclaim for recoupment and granting the government's application for double damages and prejudgment interest (Levecchi II). The court concluded that Livecchi's interpretation of the equity-skimming statute was inconsistent with the statute's clear purpose; the government's authority to foreclose on a HUD-insured mortgage could not preclude the government from subsequently recovering assets or rental income retained in violation of a related regulatory agreement; as for the limitations period, Levecchi failed to establish that HUD had any knowledge of his equity skimming prior to August 21, 2000, the date HUD first acquired Levecchi's financial records; and therefore, the court affirmed the amended judgment in all respects. View "United States v. Livecchi" on Justia Law

MES claimed that the Corps unfairly terminated three of its construction/renovation contracts. On appeal, MES and its President contended that the district court erred as a matter of law in ruling that their Bivens action was precluded by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. The court held as a preliminary matter that it lacked jurisdiction to review MES's President's claim because the text and caption of the original timely notice of appeal failed to identify MES's President as a party appealing from the judgment. Accordingly, the court dismissed MES's President's appeal and only address MES's challenge to the judgment of dismissal. The court concluded that, in enacting the CDA, Congress created a comprehensive scheme for securing relief from the United States for any disputes pertaining to federal courts. The existence of that statutory scheme precluded MES from pursuing Bivens claims against federal employees in their individual capacities for alleged violations of due process or the First Amendment in terminating MES's federal construction contracts with the Corps. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "M.E.S., Inc. v. Snell" on Justia Law

The NRDC appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government. At issue was whether the NRDC had standing under Article III to bring this action to compel the FDA to finalize its regulation of triclosan and triclocarban, two chemicals used in over-the-counter antiseptic antimicrobial soap. The court held that the NRDC presented sufficient evidence of standing to withstand summary judgment as to the regulation of triclosan because standing could be based on exposure to a potentially dangerous product. The NRDC's evidence established that triclosan is potentially dangerous and that at least one of its members was frequently exposed to triclosan-containing soap. The court held, however, that the NRDC presented no evidence of members' direct exposure to triclocarban and failed to establish a particularized injury. View "Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Food and Drug Admin." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the ARB of the DOL affirming an ALJ order dismissing petitioner's retaliation claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1514A. The court held: (1) To prevail on a whistleblower claim under the Act, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she engaged in a protected activity; the employer knew that he or she engaged in the protected activity; he or she suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action. If the employee proved these four elements, the employer could rebut this prima facie case with clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the protected behavior. (2) The ARB did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, or abuse its discretion, in affirming the ALJ's dismissal of the complaint under the correct legal standard. (3) Petitioner's remaining claims lacked merit. View "Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd." on Justia Law

The County sued defendants to recover its expenditures in responding to, and cleaning up after, the 2009 crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the County's claims were barred by New York law. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that public services provided in response to an emergency were not subject to reimbursement. View "County of Erie, New York v. Colgan Air, Inc." on Justia Law