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

Entergy filed suit against Vermont seeking a declaratory judgment that Vermont's Electrical Energy Generating Tax was unconstitutional. On appeal, Entergy challenged the district court's grant of Vermont's motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At issue was whether the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, denied the federal courts jurisdiction to review Entergy's challenges to the Generating Tax. The Act prohibits federal courts from interfering with state taxation schemes so long as the state courts offer an adequate forum to litigate the validity of the tax. The court concluded that the Act applied to the Generating Tax and that Vermont provided a plain, speedy, and efficient mechanism for raising Entergy's objections to the validity of the tax. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Entergy Nuclear v. Shumlin" on Justia Law

Defendants, three GE employees, were convicted of offenses related to their involvement in a scheme to fix below-market rates on interest paid by GE to municipalities. The court reversed the convictions and remanded to the district court for dismissal of the indictment, holding that the government did not allege overt acts within the limitations period. View "United States v. Grimm" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants seeking monetary damages for breach of loan documents; tortious interference with contract; breach of an operating agreement; account stated; breach of fiduciary duty; and promissory estoppel. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss. At issue was an agreement for a loan from a lender to himself and his partner. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the documents at issue were ambiguous and precluded dismissal of the complaint. View "Karmely v. Wertheimer" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of Indonesia, sought review of the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen proceedings in her immigration case. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) claiming persecution on account of her ethnicity and religion. The BIA rejected petitioner's evidentiary submissions because she had not submitted a sworn statement in support of her motion and because her expert witness had not provided copies of the sources on which he relied. The court concluded that the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in attaching consequences to these previously unarticulated requirements in petitioner's case and, therefore, granted the petition for review. View "Indradjaja v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, a licensed medical doctor, was indicted on seven counts of sexual exploitation of children and twenty-nine counts of health care fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to quash grand jury subpoenas directed to his adult children and the denial of reconsideration of the motion. The court held that the district court's orders did not fall within the small class of rulings encompassed by the collateral order doctrine and were not otherwise final. Because they were not final decisions within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291, they were not immediately appealable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Punn" on Justia Law

American, a corporation in the business of transporting petroleum products by water, filed suit against the City for common law negligence and for violation of 33 U.S.C. 494, which required that a drawbridge over navigable water be opened promptly by the persons owning or operating such bridge upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats and other water craft. Due to a mechanical malfunction, which American alleged was the result of negligence, the City did not open the Pelham Parkway Bridge, delaying American's tug and barge for approximately two and a half days. At issue was whether, under maritime law, an owner of a vessel could be awarded damages for economic loss due to negligence in the absence of physical damage to its property. Although the court concluded that Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint has been overread to establish a rule barring damages for economic loss in the absence of an owner's property damage, the court believed that the rule has been so consistently applied in admiralty that it should continue to be applied unless and until altered by Congress or the Supreme Court. View "American Petroleum and Transport v. City of New York" on Justia Law

7WTC stood on the northern edge of the World Trade Center site and as the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, it damaged 7WTC. After burning for seven hours, 7WTC collapsed, destroying the electrical substation owned by Con Ed directly beneath the building. Con Ed, along with its insurers, filed suit against defendants, who designed, built, operated, and maintained 7WTC, alleging in relevant part that defendants' negligence caused the building to collapse. The court concluded that Con Ed failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants' negligence was the cause-in-fact of Con Ed's injury. The court had little trouble concluding that the confluence of events that day demonstrated that 7WTC would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs' experts to the design and construction of 7WTC more than a decade earlier. It was simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against defendants on this alternative ground. View "Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Center Co." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions related to their involvement in the robbery of a pharmacy. Defendant Taylor argued that he was incapacitated when he incriminated himself post-arrest and the admission of his statements violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. The court concluded that Taylor's post-arrest statements were not voluntary; admitting the statements into evidence was not harmless; the court vacated and remanded for a new trial; the admission of Taylor's statements, to the extent they could be used against Defendants Rosario and Vasquez, was not harmless error as to them; and the court vacated Rosario and Vasquez's conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms of marijuana. At issue was whether the October 2009 memorandum issued by the Department of Justice created a de facto "rescheduling" of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., such that defendant could not validly be charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The court held that the memo did not purport to reclassify marijuana from its current listing as a Schedule I substance under the CSA; the CSA mandated a particular rulemaking procedure through which the Attorney General may "reschedule" a substance; because the Attorney General did not follow that procedure here, marijuana remained a Schedule I substance; and a U.S. Attorney's decision to exercise prosecutorial discretion by not prosecuting uses of marijuana consistent with state law, in the circumstances presented here, did not conflict with the principles of federalism, preemption, or the supremacy of federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Canori" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal sua sponte of his class actin complaint brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on application of New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 901(b). CPLR 901(b) prohibits class action suits for statutory damages. The court concluded that, in light of Giovanniello v. ALM Media, LLC, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, not state law, governs when a federal TCPA suit may proceed as a class action. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bank v. Independence Energy Group LLC" on Justia Law