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

Peter Paul Biro, a controversial figure known in the art world for using fingerprint analysis to authenticate art in an effort to insert a measure of objectivity into a previously subjective process, filed suit against the New Yorker defendants as well as republishers for defamation after an article was published about him. Among other things, the article contained interviews of various individuals critical of plaintiff, and it suggested that he stood to profit from some of his more dubious authentications. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court held that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a limited‐purpose public figure to plead in a plausible way that defendants acted with actual malice. In this case, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that defendants acted with actual malice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Biro v. Conde Nast" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. 2333(a), the Alien Tort Statute Act (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, and federal common law, seeking judgments against Arab Bank for allegedly financing and facilitating the activities of organizations that committed the attacks that caused plaintiffsʹ injuries. The district court entered judgments on the pleadings as to the ATS claims. On appeal, plaintiffs argued principally that this Circuitʹs opinion in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (Kiobel I), when analyzed in light of the Supreme Courtʹs decision in Kiobel II, which was affirmed on other grounds, is no longer ʺgood law,ʺ or at least, does not control this case. The court declined to conclude that Kiobel II overruled Kiobel I on the issue of corporate liability under the ATS. The court noted that Kiobel II appears to suggest that the ATS allows for some degree of corporate liability. The court went on to say that one panelʹs overruling of the holding of a case decided by a previous panel is perilous. The court affirmed on the basis of Kiobel I. Finally, the court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in declining to permit the plaintiffs to amend their complaints. View "Jesner v. Arab Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Jay Peak to recover for injuries he claims were sustained as a result of Jay Peak's negligence. Plaintiff asserted that Jay Peak negligently permitted dangerous jumps on its ski trails and that, in consequence of such a constructed jump at the Kokomo-Northwest Passage intersection, plaintiff suffered a collision with another skier resulting in harm to his left side. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Jay Peak because plaintiff failed to establish that Jay Peak's negligence was the cause of plaintiff's injury. The court could not infer a causal link between Jay Peak’s assumed negligence in its maintenance of ski jumps and the injury incurred on the facts presented, and plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to support a link between his injuries and alleged theory of causation. View "Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a physician and airplane pilot, filed suit contending that LabCorp and other drug testing companies, engaged to administer a random drug test in accordance with federal regulations governing aviation safety, mishandled the test. The court reserved decision and certified the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: whether drug testing regulations and guidelines promulgated by the FAA and DOT create a duty of care for drug testing laboratories and program administrators under New York negligence law; and whether a plaintiff may establish the reliance element of a fraud claim under New York law by showing that a third party relied on a defendantʹs false statements resulting in injury to the plaintiff. View "Pasternack v. Laboratory Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, injured sailors and their spouses, filed suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1330, 1602 et seq., alleging that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack of the U.S.S. Cole and that the Republic of Sudan had provided material support to al Qaeda. Plaintiffs subsequently registered the default judgment and then sought to enforce it against funds held by New York banks. The district court issued three turnover orders. The court affirmed and held that (1) service of process on the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs via the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., complied with the FSIAʹs requirement that service be sent to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs, and (2) the District Court did not err in issuing the turnover orders without first obtaining either a license from the Treasury Departmentʹs Office of Foreign Assets Control or a Statement of Interest from the Department. View "Harrison v. Republic of Sudan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against a group of airlines and security contractors seeking to recover losses after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Plaintiffs alleged that, because defendants were negligent in overseeing airport security systems, the terrorists were able to hijack American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 and to fly those planes into the Twin Towers. The district court entered judgment for defendants. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs are entitled to compensation only for the amount of value that their leasehold interests lost due to the terrorist attacks, that they cannot recover their claimed consequential damages, and that, pursuant to CPLR 4545, their insurance recoveries correspond to, and offset, their potential tort award. The court also agreed that United had no duty to supervise the security checkpoints or detect the hijackers who boarded American Airlines Flight 11. However, the court concluded that the district court erred by using an incorrect methodology when calculating the value by which plaintiffs’ leasehold interests declined, and the district court wrongly decided that prejudgment interest accrues at the federal funds rate on the diminution in value of plaintiffs’ leasehold estates. The district court should have calculated prejudgment interest using New York’s statutory prejudgment interest rate, and assessed that interest based on the final damages award. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "World Trade Center Properties LLC v. American Airlines" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a travel company with which she booked a vacation tour, alleging negligence after one of defendant's employees sexually assaulted her during the trip. At issue was whether a hyperlink to a document containing a forum selection clause may be used to reasonably communicate that clause to a consumer. The court concluded that the forum selection clause in this case was enforceable. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court's holding that the United States was an improper forum because defendant had reasonably communicated the terms and conditions applicable to the tour, which included an enforceable forum selection clause that required plaintiff to litigate her claim in Canada. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Starkey v. G Adventures, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her parents filed suit against the Hotchkiss School after plaintiff contracted tick-borne encephalitis on a school-organized trip to China. The jury found the school negligent and awarded plaintiff $41.5 million in damages, $31.5 of which were non-economic damages. Although the court agreed with plaintiffs that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find plaintiff’s illness foreseeable, the court was unable to determine whether public policy supports imposing a legal duty on the school. Because this case implicates important and unresolved issues of Connecticut state law and public policy, the court certified two questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court: (1) Does Connecticut public policy support imposing a duty on a school to warn about or protect against the risk of a serious insect‐borne disease when it organizes a trip abroad? (2) If so, does an award of approximately $41.5 million in favor of the plaintiffs, $31.5 million of which are non‐economic damages, warrant remittitur? View "Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, against various corporations for allegedly aiding and abetting crimes committed during apartheid by the South African government against South Africans within South Africa's sovereign territory. The court held that knowledge of or complicity in the perpetration of a crime under the law of nations (customary international law) - absent evidence that a defendant purposefully facilitated the commission of that crime - is insufficient to establish a claim of aiding and abetting liability under the ATS; it is not a violation of the law of nations to bid on, and lose, a contract that arguably would help a sovereign government perpetrate an asserted violation of the law of nations; allegations of general corporate supervision are insufficient to rebut the presumption against extraterritoriality and establish aiding and abetting liability under the ATS; and, in this case, plaintiffs’ amended pleadings do not establish federal jurisdiction under the ATS because they do not plausibly allege that defendants themselves engaged in any “relevant conduct” within the United States to overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, against various corporations for allegedly aiding and abetting crimes committed during apartheid by the South African government against South Africans within South Africa's sovereign territory. The court held that knowledge of or complicity in the perpetration of a crime under the law of nations (customary international law) - absent evidence that a defendant purposefully facilitated the commission of that crime - is insufficient to establish a claim of aiding and abetting liability under the ATS; it is not a violation of the law of nations to bid on, and lose, a contract that arguably would help a sovereign government perpetrate an asserted violation of the law of nations; allegations of general corporate supervision are insufficient to rebut the presumption against extraterritoriality and establish aiding and abetting liability under the ATS; and, in this case, plaintiffs’ amended pleadings do not establish federal jurisdiction under the ATS because they do not plausibly allege that defendants themselves engaged in any “relevant conduct” within the United States to overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law