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

Defendants, the children of the late Jack Kirby, one of the most influential comic book artists of all time, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Marvel. This case concerned the property rights in 262 works published by Marvel between 1958-1963. After defendants served various Marvel entities with Termination Notices purporting to exercise statutory termination rights under section 304(c)(2) of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 304, Marvel filed suit seeking a declaration that defendants have no termination rights under section 304(c)(2). The court concluded that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Lisa and Neal Kirby and, therefore, vacated the district court's judgment against them; Lisa and Neal are not indispensable parties and it was appropriate for the action against Barbara and Susan Kirby to have proceeded on its merits; the district court did not err in determining as a matter of law that the works at issue were "made for hire," made at Marvel's instance and expense, and that the parties had no agreement to the contrary; and the district court properly granted Marvel's motion for summary judgment as to Susan and Barbara, who were without termination rights under section 304(c). View "Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty of murder but his conviction was reversed on direct appeal and remanded for a new trial because of a mistake in swearing the venire panel from which the trial was selected. Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to prevent New York State from retrying him for murder. The court concluded that, because 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) required a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, without regard to the statutory section under which the habeas proceeding was filed, a state prisoner must secure such a certificate in order to appeal from the denial of habeas relief sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, 28 U.S.C. 2254, or any other provision of law. In this instance, the court excused petitioner's failure to seek a COA and granted his belated COA request nunc pro tunc. The court also concluded that petitioner was placed in jeopardy at the initial murder trial and no different conclusion was warranted by the fact that the venire panel was not sworn in accordance with New York law. Further, the evidence at petitioner's first trial was sufficient to permit a rational jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and thus the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar his retrial following reversal of his initial conviction based on the error in swearing in the venire panel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hoffler v. Bezio" on Justia Law

After defendants were found liable for securities fraud stemming from their practice of late trading in the mutual fund market, the district court ordered disgorgement and imposed a civil penalty. The court affirmed the district court's determination of liability and there was no abuse of discretion in the amount of disgorgement award. The court concluded, however, that, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gabelli v. SEC, the court must vacate the district court's civil penalty award and remand for reconsideration. In Gabelli, the Supreme Court held that the so-called "discovery rule," which tolls a statute of limitations for crimes that were difficult to detect, did not apply to toll the five-year statue of limitations for fraud cases in SEC enforcement actions. The court also concluded that the language in 15 U.S.C. 77t(d)(2) did not permit the district court's interpretation that the civil penalty be imposed jointly and severally. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's imposition of joint and several liability for the civil penalty, vacated the penalty, and remanded for further proceedings. View "SEC v. Pentagon Capital Management" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. The court concluded that defendant failed to show that any error affected his substantial rights because he failed to object in the district court to alleged Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(I) errors. The court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The United States appealed from the district court's entry of a post-verdict judgment of acquittal in favor of defendant, setting aside the guilty verdict on conspiring and violating the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA). Defendant's charges stemmed from his operation of a poker club in the back room of a warehouse, out of which he conducted a legitimate business selling electric bicycles. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that the plain language of the IGBA included defendant's poker business. View "United States v. DiCristina" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., against defendants, alleging trademark infringement based on a theory that defendants misappropriated and have unauthorized commercial use in the United States of certain United States-registered trademarks related to "Stolichnaya" - brand vodka (the "Marks"). At issue on appeal was whether plaintiffs have sufficient claim to the Marks to sue for infringement under the Act. The court concluded that FTE was neither (1) the Russian Federation's "assign" of the marks nor (2) its "legal representative." The court also concluded that Cristall could not sue, since its rights as a plaintiff were purely derivative of those held by FTE, and FTE could not grant rights greater than its own; the court rejected plaintiffs' joint argument that they were entitled to proceed because the Russian Federation had "ratified" their suit; and, therefore, neither plaintiff was entitled to sue for infringement under section 1114(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. View "Fed. Treasury Enter. v. SPI Spirits Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, Healthfirst, alleging that it failed to pay her overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), and New York Labor Law. The district court granted Healthfirst's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff did not plausibly allege that she worked overtime without proper compensation under the FLSA and, therefore, affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court need not decide whether the district court was also correct when it first concluded that plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged that she was an "employer" of Healthfirst within the meaning of the FLSA. Nonetheless, the court offered its views on this issue because the court disagreed with the district court's conclusion. View "Dejesus v. HF Management Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant, found incompetent to stand trial, is being detained at a hospital facility operated by the BOP pending trial on charges of, inter alia, drug trafficking, racketeering, and murder. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's grant of the government's motion to authorize BOP medical personnel to treat him with antipsychotic medications despite his unwillingness to undergo such treatment. The court affirmed the district court's order authorizing involuntary medication where the district court properly set out the standard established by Washington v. Harper. Harper established that there must be a showing that the inmate has a serious mental illness, he poses a danger to himself or others, and the proposed treatment is in the inmate's medical interest. The district court's decision had no error of law or fact and its order for the involuntary medication of defendant under the Harper standard was well within the range of permissible decisions. View "United States v. Bryant (Hardy)" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of possession of a firearm following a conviction for a felony. Defendant pulled up to a two-hour scheduled traffic-safety vehicle checkpoint in the Bronx where an officer ran defendant's license and noticed that defendant was on parole and out potentially after curfew. A handgun and a gravity knife were subsequently discovered on defendant. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the criminal history database search was a de minimis extension of the constitutional traffic checkpoint; the police had probable cause to believe that defendant was violating his parole; and defendant's arrest was constitutional, notwithstanding state laws prohibiting officers from arresting parole violators without a warrant in the absence of a crime or offense. View "United States v. Bernacet" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA), 18 U.S.C. 1832, and the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), 18 U.S.C. 2314, after he replicated his former employer's (the Bank) confidential computer code to give to a competitor in exchange for money. On appeal, defendant challenged the legal sufficiency of the charges in light of United States v. Aleynikov. The court concluded that, on plain-error review of defendant's defaulted legal sufficiency challenge to his EEA conviction, defendant failed to show that purported error in the pleading of the law's jurisdictional element affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings; on plain-error review of defendant's defaulted legal insufficiency challenge to his NSPA conviction, defendant failed to show that the theft of the computer code did not satisfy the law's goods, wares, or merchandise requirement; and defendant's remaining claims failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Agrawal" on Justia Law