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

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of this qui tam action and disqualifying plaintiff, its individual members - including a former general counsel to defendant - and its outside counsel from bringing a subsequent qui tam action on the basis that the suit was brought in violation of the general counsel's ethical obligations under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. The court concluded that the attorney, through his conduct in this qui tam action, did violate N.Y. Rule 1.9(c) which prohibited lawyers from using confidential information of a former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client. The court held that the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, and disqualifying plaintiff, its individual relators, and its outside counsel on the basis that such measures were necessary to avoid prejudicing defendants in any subsequent litigation on these facts. View "Fair Labor Practices Assocs. v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed an employment discrimination suit against his employer, Wal-mart. Plaintiff's attorney represented to the court that plaintiff had pled a gender discrimination claim when he had not. The district court subsequently reprimanded the attorney and imposed Rule 11 sanctions on her. The attorney appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard where the district court's analysis indicated that it was applying an objective reasonableness test. Under the proper standard, pursuant to In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP, sua sponte sanctions should issue only upon a finding of subjective bad faith. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the district court's judgment. View "Muhammad v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiff's suit against Sheraton, alleging state law claims and invoking subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). The district court dismissed plaintiff's first and second complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sheraton subsequently moved for "just costs" including attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1919 and the district court granted the motion, concluding that plaintiff's second complaint was engineered to re-assert diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that section 1919 did not authorize an award of attorney's fees and that, although such fees could be awarded on a non-statutory basis for bad faith in the conduct of litigation, fees were not warranted under the circumstances of this case. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded with directions to delete the award of attorney's fees. View "Castillo Grand, LLC v. Sheraton Operating Corp." on Justia Law

In this suit - which was originally filed in state court in California, later removed to federal court in California, and then voluntarily transferred to the district court - the district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the suit pursuant to California's anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) rule, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16, on the basis that New York law governed plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim. The court held that the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss under California's anti-SLAPP rule constituted an immediately appealable collateral order because it (1) conclusively determined the disputed issue; (2) resolved an important question that was completely separate from the merits of the action; and (3) would be effectively unreviewable in a later appeal. The court also held that the district court erred in concluding that California's anti-SLAPP rule could not apply to a claim transferred from a California federal court to a New York federal court and governed, under the Erie doctrine, by New York law. Accordingly, the district court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP rule was vacated, and the cause was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from appellant's attempt to intervene in a wrongful death law suit. After an appeal from a judgment of the district court, this court affirmed the district court's judgment denying appellant's motion to intervene, and ordered appellant and her attorney to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their conduct on appeal. The court concluded that appellant and her counsel's conduct in prosecuting the appeal was frivolous and offensive, warranting the imposition of sanctions. After review of their submissions and the totality of the circumstances, the court invoked the inherent power of the court and imposed sanctions in the form of double costs jointly and severally on appellant and her counsel. View "Ransmeier v. UAL Corporation, et al." on Justia Law

JDJ Marine moved to reinstate an appeal dismissed after its failure to comply with the court's second scheduling order for filing a brief. The court concluded that JDJ Marine had demonstrated a persistent indifference to the court's scheduling orders and local rules. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to reinstate the appeal. View "RLI Ins. Co. v. JDJ Marine, Inc." on Justia Law

Robert G. Smith, an Assistant Federal Defender for the Western District of New York, moved to withdraw from representing defendant in a criminal action pending in the district court. In this interlocutory appeal, Smith challenged the denial of his motion. The court did not reach the merits of Smith's argument based on his professional responsibility as an attorney because the court concluded on other grounds that the denial of the motion exceeded the limits of the district court's discretion. Defendant, having been informed of his right to counsel, stated that he did not wish to have appointed counsel, made no attempt to establish financial eligibility for appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 (CJA), 18 U.S.C. 3006A, and refused to recognize Smith as his attorney. Under these circumstances, Smith's appointment was improper from the outset, and he could not be required to continue serving as defendant's attorney. View "United States v. Barton" on Justia Law

Appellants appealed the denial of their motion for a writ of execution against Garrison Services. The motion was based on default judgments appellants had earlier obtained against Lyons. The court denied the motion as a sanction for appellants' counsel's repeated failures to comply with the court's orders. The court held that although the district court had an adequate basis to sanction counsel and accorded the required procedural safeguards, further findings were needed to support a sanction that fell entirely on the clients rather than principally on the lawyer. View "Mitchell v. Lyons Professional Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Langrock appealed, inter alia, from the district court's order requiring it to pay certain fees and costs incurred by Citigroup in connection with this action. Langrock was ordered to pay Citigroup as a sanction for filing opposition papers to Citigroup's motion to dismiss four days late, despite the fact that Langrock submitted a timely request for an extension of the filing deadline that the court later determined was supported by good cause. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sanction of attorneys' fees without explicitly finding that Langrock acted in bad faith, and by sanctioning Langrock without affording the attorneys prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's orders. View "Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP v. Citigroup" on Justia Law

The City of White Plains and certain individually named law-enforcement officers appealed from an award of $290,997.94 in costs, of which some $286,065.00 represented attorneys' fees, awarded in connection with a $30,000 judgment for plaintiffs ordered pursuant to an offer judgment under Rule 68. Defendants contended that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees because (1) their Rule 68 offer of judgment to settle "all claims" should have been interpreted to encompass costs, including attorney's fees; and (2) the fee award bore no relationship to plaintiffs' degree of success in the litigation. The court held that the Supreme Court's ruling in Marek v. Chesny compelled rejection of the first argument. As to the second, the court's "highly deferential" review of attorney's fees awards coupled with defendants' failure to adequately advance the issue, compelled its rejection. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Barbour v. City of White Plains" on Justia Law