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

The Town and the State appealed from the district court's adverse summary judgment ruling in a suit where the Tribe challenged the Town's imposition of the State's personal property tax on the lessors of slot machines used by the Tribe at Foxwoods Casino. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction; the Tribe had standing; neither the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., nor the Indian Trader Statutes, 25 U.S.C. 261-64, expressly barred the tax; and, under the White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker test, federal law did not implicitly bar the tax because the State and Town interests in the integrity and uniform application of their tax system outweighed the federal and tribal interests reflected in IGRA. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the Tribe and in denying summary judgment for the Town and State. View "Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former Lehman employees, filed suit alleging that defendants, members of the Benefits Committee, and the company's Directors, breached their duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. In regards to plaintiffs' claims that the Benefits Committee Defendants breached their duty of prudence in managing the company's employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), the court concluded that plaintiffs have not rebutted the Moench v. Robertson presumption because they failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the Benefits Committee Defendants knew or should have known that Lehman was in a "dire situation" based on information that was publicly available during the class period. In regards to plaintiffs' claims that the Benefits Committee Defendants breached their duty of disclosure, the publicly-known information available to defendants did not give rise to an independent duty to investigate Lehman's SEC filings prior to incorporating their content into a summary plan description issued to plan-participants. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' remaining claims. View "In Re: Lehman Bros. ERISA Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, entities with rights or licenses to registered trademarks bearing the "Guggenheim" name, filed suit alleging trademark infringement and other federal and state law claims after defendant solicited investors to buy various financial products while presenting himself as "David B. Guggenheim." On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's entry of default judgment against him. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a default judgment against defendant where the district court was presented with a plethora of evidence to support its finding that he willfully defaulted. Moreover, defendant's asserted defense failed on the merits because his conduct plainly failed to satisfy the elements of a legitimate fair use defense, even if the district court erred by not specifically addressing this defense. View "Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of their complaints alleging that defendants failed to compensate them for work performed during meal breaks, before and after schedule shifts, and during required training sessions. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., gap-time, conversion, estoppel, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, claims. The court remanded, however, the FLSA and New York Labor Law claims, the NYLL gap-time claims, the breach of express and implied oral contract claims, the breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, the quantum meruit claims, and the unjust enrichment claims for amended pleading. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Nakahata, et al. v. New York-Presbyterian HealthCare System, Inc. et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his former employers (collectively, the "MTA") dispute whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of a special adjustment board. At issue was whether a party waived a challenge to the jurisdiction of a special adjustment board by explicitly conceding before the board that the board had jurisdiction. The court affirmed under these circumstances, holding that plaintiff conceded the Board's jurisdiction in his submission to the Board and the court declined to consider his waived jurisdictional challenge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sokolwski v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority" on Justia Law

Petitioners, undocumented aliens, petitioned for review of the Board's ruling that they were precluded from receiving an award of backpay from their employer pursuant to Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. The court granted the petition for review to the extent that the matter was remanded to the Board for consideration of issues relating to petitioners' request for conditional reinstatement where the ALJ Order did not recommend conditional restatement despite the findings in the ALJ Decision that reinstatement offers would be appropriate and that the company had not met its obligations to make such offers, and despite an explicit request by the General Counsel for an order requiring offers of conditional reinstatement; petitioners did not file any exceptions with the Board despite the failure of the ALJ Order to recommend conditional reinstatement; and the Board did not consider whether an order requiring offers of conditional reinstatement would be appropriate. The court considered petitioners' remaining arguments and found them to be without merit and, therefore, denied the petition for review to that extent. View "Palma v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to discovery, a hearing, or vacatur of his conviction based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his plea of guilty. The court concluded, however, that petitioner was entitled to resentencing and to be represented by competent counsel at the resentence where counsel's performance was deficient with regard to sentencing and petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's performance. View "Gonzalez v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography. The court concluded that because Vermont's statutory rape provision under which defendant was convicted was non-divisible, the district court should have applied a categorical approach, without recourse to the underlying facts of defendant's state convictions. The court also concluded that, under the categorical approach, Vermont's statutory rape provision was related to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2), thereby triggering that section's sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Barker" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing their complaint challenging the constitutionality of New York State Penal Law 400.00(14). Penal Law 400.00(14) permits New York City to set and collect a residential handgun licensing fee that exceeds the maximum fee allowable under state law in other parts of New York State. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Admin. Code 10-131(a)(2), which sets the residential handgun licensing fee in New York City at $340 for a three-year license, was a constitutionally permissible licensing fee; the court need not definitively answer the question of whether Admin. Code 10-131(a)(2) should be subject to any form of heightened scrutiny because the court concluded that it survived "intermediate scrutiny" in any event; Penal Law 400.00(14) was subject only to "rational basis" review under the Equal Protection Clause because it "neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class;" and Penal Law 400.00(14) survived "rational basis" review. View "Kwong, et al. v. Bloomberg, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of Gristede's supermarkets, moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether John Catsimatidis, the chairman and CEO, could be held personally liable for damages. The court affirmed the district court's decision so far as it established that Catsimatidis was an "employer" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(d), based on his actions and responsibilities. The court vacated and remanded, however, the grant of partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' New York Labor Law (NYLL), N.Y. Lab. Law 190(3), 651(6), claims in light of the possible disagreement between the parties regarding the need for the court to decide an issue of state law and in light of the absence of discussion of the issue in the district court's decision. View "Irizarry v. Catsimatidis" on Justia Law