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

Gordon was admitted to the New York State bar in 1989. Following referral by the Second Circuit, the Committee on Admissions and Grievances found clear and convincing evidence that Gordon had engaged in misconduct in that Gordon had: filed several nearly identical “summary judgment” motions in at least nine cases that were not authorized by any rule of appellate procedure; failed to comply with an order directing him to either withdraw those motions or explain their legal basis; failed in 17 cases to file scheduling notification letters, in violation of court rules; failed in 11 cases to comply with court-imposed deadlines, resulting in dismissal of two cases; and failed to oppose the government’s motion for summary affirmance in at least one case. The Committee found that Gordon’s explanations for his failure to comply were “inconsistent, disingenuous, and lacking in credibility,” and that his lack of candor during its hearing violated New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1). After considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Committee recommended that Gordon be publicly reprimanded and required to attend continuing legal education classes in appellate immigration law. The Second Circuit adopted the Committee’s report, reprimanded Gordon, and suspended him from practice for two months. View "In re Gordon" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, law firms that seek to collect debts, obtained a judgment from the district court declaring that New York City's Local Law 15, which regulates debt collection agencies, was void as applied to plaintiffs. Because this case raises unresolved and significant issues concerning the scope of New York State's regulatory authority over attorneys, the court certified the following two questions: (1) Does Local Law 15, insofar as it regulates attorney conduct, constitute an unlawful encroachment on the State’s authority to regulate attorneys, and is there a conflict between Local Law 15 and Sections 53 and 90 of the New York Judiciary Law? and (2) If Local Law 15’s regulation of attorney conduct is not preempted, does Local Law 15, as applied to attorneys, violate Section 2203(c) of the New York City Charter? View "Eric M. Berman, P.C., et al. v. City of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Bradley Ian Berger and his law firm filed suit against debtor and his law partner in state court for outstanding fees owed to plaintiffs under a referral agreement between the parties. Berger had difficulty proving the amount of fees owed because debtor's partnership failed to file certain documents with the State. The failure led to discovery sanctions and the parties eventually settled. Berger subsequently filed an adversary proceeding against debtor in the bankruptcy court, arguing that 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(3) prevented debtor from obtaining bankruptcy relief. The court concluded that Berger failed to show that the facts of this case fell within the scope of section 727(a)(3) and the court rejected Berger's contention that the court's ruling permits debtor to evade his "legal and ethical duties" where debtor had already been sanctioned by the state court for failure to keep legally required documents. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's grant of debtor's motion for summary judgment.View "Berger & Assocs. Attorneys, P.C. v. Kran" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, five former seasonal and part-time police officers, filed suit against defendants, alleging wrongful termination and defamation claims. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of attorney's fees and costs to defendants under Rule 54(d) and 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). The court concluded that the County Defendants were the prevailing parties under Nemeroff v. Abelson. Plaintiffs' claims were frivolous from the outset, and required the County Defendants to litigate continuously at taxpayer expense since March 2007. Therefore, the award was within the district court's discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.View "Carter v. Incorporated Village of Ocean Beach" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs in favor of plaintiff. The district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) reinstating plaintiff's home health care benefits. The benefits were awarded to her based on her "prevailing party" status for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The court held that while the TRO caused plaintiff's coverage to be reinstated shortly after it had been terminated, the effect was simply a return to the status quo. Therefore, the issuance of the TRO is an insufficient basis on which to find that plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to an award of fees and costs under the EAJA. Further, the TRO involved no determination on the merits of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the order and judgment of the district court. View "Mastrio v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Mishkin appealed the district court's order denying an award of attorneys' fees for services performed as plaintiffs' liaison counsel in the bodily injury, non-respiratory cases arising out of the events of September 11, 2001. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying Mishkin a fee without further inquiry. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for the district court to determine whether Mishkin kept sufficiently detailed contemporaneous records as to be eligible for a fee award pursuant to New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, and if Mishkin kept such records. View "In Re: World Trade Center" on Justia Law

After the jury returned a verdict in favor of ING on its breach of contract claims, the jury awarded ING attorney's fees under Georgia law. UPS moved under Rule 59(e) to amend the judgment to set aside the award of attorney's fees or, alternatively, for a new trial on the issue of attorney's fees. The court held that the district court erred in setting the verdict aside in light of UPS's failure to move for relief under Rule 50(a) and the existence of evidentiary support in the record for the jury's verdict. The court also concluded that a new trial was not warranted. Accordingly, the court reversed the order granting UPS's motion and remanded with instructions to reinstate the verdict and resolve ING's motion to set attorney's fees. View "ING Global v. United Parcel Service Oasis Supply Corp." on Justia Law

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, thousands of lawsuits were filed against the City, private contractors, and the WTC Captive. Following years of litigation and extensive negotiations, the parties agreed on a comprehensive settlement process. In these consolidated appeals, three of the district court's orders regarding the settlement process are at issue. The court vacated the order of the district court with respect to the Bonus Payment and remanded for further proceedings in this respect; reversed the order of the district court as to the Contingent Payment; affirmed the order of the district court denying a contingency attorneys' fees as to the Bonus Payment; and dismissed the appeal from the order denying a contingency attorneys' fee as to the First Contingent Payment. View "Cirino et al. v. City of New York et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that New York City officers used excessive force when arresting her. On appeal, plaintiff primarily seeks a new trial on damages and challenges portions of the district court's order awarding attorney's fees and costs incurred prior to the date of defendants' Rule 68 Offer. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to give a separate charge as to future damages and plaintiff failed to establish that any potentially improper conduct by defense counsel prejudiced the jury's award of punitive damages. The district court properly applied Rule 68 and did not abuse its discretion by reducing the reasonable hourly rate of plaintiff's lead counsel. The court held that Rule 68 offers need not, as a per se rule, expressly apportion damages among multiple defendants. With respect to apportionment, a Rule 68 offer is operative so long as it is capable of being compared to the prevailing plaintiff's ultimate recovery. Because the Offer meets this standard, the court affirmed the district court's decision. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court erred in reducing the amount of her awardable attorney's fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and order of the district court. View "Stanczyk v. City of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's grant of plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and declaring New York Judiciary Law 470 unconstitutional as violative of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court reserved decision and certified a controlling question of state law to the New York Court of Appeals: Under New York Judiciary Law 470, which mandates that a nonresident attorney maintain an "office for the transaction of law business" within the state of New York, what are the minimum requirements necessary to satisfy that mandate? View "Schoenefeld v. State of New York, et al." on Justia Law