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

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his discrimination claim against his former employer under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue. Defendants moved to dismiss on the basis of a clause contained in plaintiff's employment contract, which indicated that English law governed the agreement and that "any dispute arising hereunder shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts." The court affirmed, holding that where a contract contained both a valid choice-of-law clause and a forum selection clause, the substantive law identified in the choice-of-law clause governed the interpretation of the forum selection clause, while federal law governed the enforceability of the forum selection clause; under English law, plaintiff's discrimination claims arose under the employment agreement, within the meaning of the forum selection clause; and the forum selection clause was enforceable under federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Martinez v. Bloomberg LP" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being voluntarily present and found in the United States, arguing that he was not in the United States when he was found. The court concluded that, although defendant had indisputably been present in the United States illegally for nearly a decade, defendant was not "found" while has in the country. When he was found - admittedly not long after his departure from the United States - defendant had neither a physical nor a legal presence in the country. When defendant had been "found" at the Canadian border, he had been returned involuntarily with neither a desire to enter, nor a will to be present in, the United States. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that defendant was not "found in" the United States within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1326. View "United States v. Vasquez Macias" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals arose out of a permanent injunction entered by the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed by the district court, enjoining state law tort actions asserted by appellants, two of Madoff's defrauded investors, against the estate of one of Madoff's alleged co-conspirators and related defendants (Picower defendants). The court concluded that appellants' complaints impermissibly attempted to "plead around" the Bankruptcy Court's injunction barring all claims "derivative" of those asserted by the Trustee. The court also concluded that the Bankruptcy Court operated within the confines of Article III, as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Stern v. Marshall. Accordingly, the court held that the Bankruptcy Court did not exceed the bounds of its authority under the Bankruptcy Code or run afoul of Article III. View "In Re: Bernard Madoff" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Jamaican citizen, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 77 months' imprisonment, arguing that the district court lacked the authority to deny the Government's motion for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1. The court affirmed, concluding that the plain text of section 5K3.1 foreclosed defendant's arguments and holding that a district court may, but need not, depart downward upon an appropriate motion by the Government under section 5K3.1. View "United States v. Shand" on Justia Law

After debtor filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 701 et seq., the trustee brought proceedings against defendant and others, alleging that these defendants had received fraudulent transfers from debtor prior to debtor's Chapter 7 filing. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to dismiss the complaint as untimely, as the bankruptcy court's order constituted a de facto Rule 7021 severance; nor did it err in applying state law to the award of prejudgment interest; in the absence of further explanation, the court remanded for the district court to either exercise its discretion or to explain that it was aware of and in fact exercised its discretion; the district court should articulate its reasons for any grant of interest; and the remainder of defendant's arguments have been considered in the summary order filed along with this opinion. View "In re: Douglas Palermo" on Justia Law

Respondent, the mother, appealed the district court's grant of petitioner's, the father, petition for the return of his daughter from New York to New Zealand under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 90, and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq. The court held that New Zealand was the daughter's habitual residence immediately prior to her removal to New York; petitioner had some custody rights to the daughter and did not consent to the mother taking her to New York indefinitely; the daughter had not "acclimated" to life in New York such that it was the equivalent of a new habitual residence; and the district court should determine, in the first instance, whether to order respondent to pay petitioner the costs associated with bringing this action in the district court and on appeal. View "Hollis v. O'Driscoll" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging, inter alia, unlawful discrimination and hostile work environment. The court concluded, inter alia, that the jury was precluded from finding that plaintiff had not actually engaged in the conduct charged against him in the section 75 of the New York State Civil Service Law hearing. Inasmuch as the district court did not expressly instruct the jury that its fact-findings were cabined in this regard, the jury charge was in error. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court with respect to the state law claims and its award of backpay to plaintiff; affirmed the judgment as to plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against the ECWA and the concomitant award of punitive damages against the ECWA; reversed the judgment imposing liability against the individual defendants on plaintiff's section 1983 claims against them, and therefore also reversed the judgment insofar as it awarded punitive damages against the individual defendants; and affirmed the district court's attorney's fee award. View "Matusick v. Erie Cnty Water Auth., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., against Xerox, the Plan, and the Plan Administrator. The Supreme Court reversed the court's most recent decision, holding that the court had erred in holding that, having found the Administrator's first interpretation of the retirement plan to be invalid, the district court properly refused to defer to the plan administrator's subsequent interpretation of the plan. On remand, the district court applied deferential review, holding that the Administrator's proposed offset was a reasonable interpretation of the retirement plan. The court held, however, that the proposed offset was an unreasonable interpretation of the retirement plan and that it violated ERISA's notice provisions. Although the court upheld the challenged discovery order, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Frommert v. Conkright" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his sentence of 72 months' imprisonment for participation in a conspiracy to violate the federal narcotics laws and for participating in a money-laundering conspiracy. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to compel the government to provide him with a recommendation letter under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 or 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) pursuant to a Cooperation Agreement where the government had a good-faith belief that defendant had breached the Agreement by committing further crimes and exercised its discretion in deciding not to file the motion. The court also held that defendant's sentence was neither substantively nor procedurally unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed suit alleging that three masked correction officers (COs) sprayed him while he was in his cell with an unknown substance, apparently a mixture of fecal matter, vinegar, and machine oil. The COs were retaliating against plaintiff for reporting several prior assaults. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The court was unwilling to accept, as a matter of law, the proposition that spraying an inmate with a mixture of feces, vinegar, and machine oil constituted a de minimis use of force. Even assuming arguendo that the physical force allegedly used was de minimis, spraying an inmate with the mixture was undoubtedly "repugnant to the conscience of mankind" and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleged violations of his constitutional rights and that the applicable statute of limitations did not preclude plaintiff from amending his complaint to name certain John Doe defendants. View "Hogan v. Fischer" on Justia Law