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

Plaintiff filed a qui tam action against defendants under the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and under the New York False Claims Act, N.Y. Fin. Law 187 et seq. Before defendants filed an answer or made a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff sought to voluntarily dismiss the action. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice as to the United States and the State of New York, but with prejudice as to plaintiff. The court disagreed with the district court that the statement by plaintiff's counsel that plaintiff would not "pursue this matter any further" constituted "the plain English equivalent of a request that the Court dismiss the claim with prejudice." The court concluded that the plain language of the letter supplied no reason to conclude that plaintiff's counsel was requesting a dismissal with prejudice. In the absence of any indication by the plaintiff, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), which governs the voluntary dismissal of an action, presumes that a voluntary dismissal under these circumstances is without prejudice. Accordingly, the district court erred by dismissing the case with prejudice. The court also rejected defendants' alternative argument that the dismissal should be analyzed under Rule 41(a)(2). The court vacated and remanded. View "Youseff v. Tishman Construction Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for nine counts of various fraud crimes, including three counts of aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A. The district court ordered that defendant's terms of imprisonment for all three of his section 1028A crimes run consecutively with each other even though two of those crimes may fall within U.S.S.G. 5G1.2 Application Note 2(B)(ii), which describes when the sentences for section 1028A crimes should generally run concurrently with each other. Here, the facts sufficiently suggested that at most two of the offenses underlying defendant's section 1028A offenses - counts three and eight - were groupable and therefore it was plain error for the district court not to discuss groupability. Count five, however, was clearly not groupable with counts three and eight. Therefore, the court found no error in the district court's failure to discuss groupability with respect to the sentence for this crime. The court remanded to the district court for further proceedings in connection with the sentences on counts four and nine; the court found no plain error with respect to the district court's decision to run the sentence for count six consecutively to all other sentences; and the court rejected defendant's other sentencing challenges. View "United States v. Chibuko" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Citibank defendants engaged in tortious conduct and breached contractual obligations owed to him in connection with private equity investments in Brazil. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the case under the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. 632, because plaintiff's claims arose out of a foreign financial operation. The court also concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's tort and contract claims against the Citibank defendants under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Wilson v. Dantas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of her state-law tort claims as time-barred, arguing that the statute of limitations applicable to her tort claims was tolled by her filing of a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The court joined the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in holding as a matter of federal law that filing an EEOC charge did not toll the limitations period of state-law tort claims, even if those claims arose out of the same factual circumstances as the discrimination alleged in the EEOC charge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's tort claims. View "Castagna v. Luceno" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging claims of medical malpractice, breach of contract, and negligence based on alleged failures by SGU to appropriately treat plaintiff's son's mental illness. The court concluded that the case was properly removed where a real party defendant in interest that owns and operates a non-juridical entity that was improperly sued in state court may remove a diversity case to federal court without filing an appearance in the state court prior to attempting removal. The court also concluded that the complaint was properly dismissed as time-barred where New York's rule tolling a limitations period because of a plaintiff's insanity, N.Y. C.P.L.R. 208, applied to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "La Russo v. St. George's University School of Medicine" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy and attempt to possess and distribute controlled substances. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's grant of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence. The court held that a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the charged crimes proven beyond a reasonable doubt where the jury was entitled to infer that defendant's knowledge that the highly valuable bag that he was poised to receive from a co-conspirator contained illegal drugs. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hakimi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, injured while working on the Motor Vessel Liberty Sun, filed suit against his employer and others asserting claims for damages under a negligence theory and an admiralty cause of action against the owners of "unseaworthy" vessels. The court declined to adopt the maritime rescue doctrine and held that the correct standard of care in maritime injury cases is that of a reasonable mariner under the circumstances. Since evidence supported the conclusion that abnormal forces were acting on the Liberty Sun at the time, she was not unseaworthy as a matter of law. The court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Barlow, Jr. v. Liberty Maritime, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs unilaterally placed their child, a child with autism, in a private placement. Plaintiffs then sought reimbursement of school placement expenses for the 2008-2009 school year under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The district court affirmed the SRO's decision denying the request. The court applied the three-pronged Burlington/Carter Test to determine eligibility for reimbursement and concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "C.F. v. New York City Dept. of Educ." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of misprision of felony, sought a writ of error coram nobis on the ground that his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance by giving erroneous advice concerning deportation consequences of pleading guilty. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of the petition. The court concluded that, at the time petitioner's conviction became final, no reasonable jurist could find a defense counsel's affirmative misadvice as to the immigration consequences of a guilty plea to be objectively reasonable. The court also concluded that petitioner has sufficiently shown that he could have negotiated a plea that would not have impaired his immigration status, and that even if he could not, he would have litigated an available defense. Consequently, the court found that petitioner has made a showing of prejudice based on his ability to negotiate an alternative plea. Petitioner established his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and satisfied the requirements of coram nobis relief. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to issue the writ and vacate the conviction. View "Kovacs v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged HUD's refusal to authorize reimbursement of defense costs plaintiff incurred while successfully defending criminal charges stemming from a series of transactions involving Middletown's use of funds it received from HUD. The court held that HUD acted arbitrarily and capriciously by incorrectly determining that plaintiff's legal fees were a result of his acting solely as Middletown's mayor's private counsel. The court held that the legal fees and expenses incurred by plaintiff in successfully defending the criminal charges were legal expenses required in the administration of federal programs under the OMB Circular. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and ordered HUD to authorize Middletown to reimburse the criminal defense costs to plaintiff. View "Guertin v. United States" on Justia Law