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

Plaintiffs sued defendants, Nassau County, New York and/or MTA Long Island Bus ("MTA"), asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., where the gravamen of the lawsuits was that defendants implemented substantial reductions in paratransit services without allowing for the public participation of users of the services required by the ADA regulations and failed to make reasonable modifications to existing services so as to ameliorate the effect of the service reductions. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' cases on the grounds that the regulations did not apply to the service cuts in question and that the Department of Justice's ("DOJ") reasonable modifications requirement did not apply to paratransit services. The court held that 49 C.F.R. 37.137(c) of the ADA could not be enforced in a private right of action based on 49 C.F.R. 12143 where the failure to permit public participation did not constitute discrimination under section 12143. The court also read section 12134 to mean that the DOJ's reasonable modifications regulations did not apply to public entities providing paratransit services outside the ADA service area. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' cases.

Plaintiffs sued defendants, the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, alleging that defendants discriminated against them in administering New Haven's Housing Choice Voucher ("Section 8") program in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. 3604(d); the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHAA"), 42 U.S.C. 3604(f), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, as well as regulations promulgated thereunder, 24 C.F.R. 8, 28, 100.204. At issue was whether the district court erred in concluding that 24 C.F.R. 8, 28, and 100.204 could not be privately enforced through 42 U.S.C. 1983; in the analysis of plaintiffs' intentional discrimination claim under the FHAA; in factual findings regarding the provision of Section 8 services to the class; in rulings on certain discovery issues; and in decertification. The court adopted the district court's findings and conclusions and held that the district court carefully considered and thoroughly discussed these issues. The court also considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and held that they were without merit.

Plaintiff filed a qui tam action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3729 alleging that defendants fraudulently billed Medicare/Medicaid for medical procedures performed by unsupervised residents. At issue was whether the court had appellate jurisdiction over plaintiff's appeal from the district court's judgment and order dismissing his complaint and denying leave to amend. Also at issue was whether the district court abused its discretion by declining to reconsider its order that denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend. Further at issue was whether the district court erred in imposing an order granting sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or, alternatively, 28 U.S.C. 1927. The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction where plaintiff's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion failed to toll his deadline to timely file a notice of appeal. The court also held that the district court properly exercised its discretion when it denied plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion where plaintiff had not requested permission to amend as of right and that it made no mistake in not divining that he actually intended to do so. The court further held that the district court properly exercised its discretion to sanction pursuant to section 1927 and did not need to reach the court's alternative Rule 11 sanctions ruling.