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

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the USCIS and the agency's New York District Director. The district court determined that the statements plaintiff submitted to show that he was entitled to derivative United States citizenship were inadmissible hearsay. Plaintiff's brother was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 by Libyan terrorists, and if plaintiff were able to prove derivative citizenship, he could ostensibly be entitled to compensation. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements under the family history exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to derivative citizenship because he submitted no sufficient admissible evidence establishing his mother's age at relocation. View "Porter v. Quarantillo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the SPCA and others, seeking damages as a result of a search of her property and her arrest based on allegations of equine abuse. The district court applied claim splitting principles to dismiss plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action because she filed a suit for tort damages based on the same facts in state court. Applying the Supreme Court's Colorado River abstention standard, the court concluded, however, that the district court's decision to dismiss the federal claim because of a similar pending state court litigation was erroneous. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim because Brillhart/Wilton abstention could not apply when plaintiff sought damages in addition to declaratory relief. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kanciper v. Suffolk County SPCA" on Justia Law

Dorchester appealed from the district court's dismissal of its complaint against BRJ for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dorchester initially filed suit against BRJ for breach of contract and fraud based on BRJ's purported failure to honor an irrevocable letter of credit. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that Dorchester made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over BRJ and, therefore, carried its burden in the absence of an evidentiary hearing or trial on the merits. View "Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their securities fraud and conspiracy convictions stemming from their involvement in a double-blind, high-volume insider trading network that led the participants to acquire over $10 million in profits. The court held that wiretap evidence was lawfully obtained and therefore properly admitted; the jury had sufficient evidence to convict Defendant Kimelman of securities fraud; the conscious avoidance jury instructions were proper; evidence of Kimelman's rejection of a plea bargain was properly excluded; and defendants' sentences were reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Goffer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, an association of authors and several individual authors, filed suit against Google alleging that it committed copyright infringement through the Library Project of its "Google Books" search tool by scanning and indexing more than 20 million books and making available for public display "snippets" of most books upon a user's search. On appeal, Google challenged the district court's grant of class certification. The court believed that the resolution of Google's fair use defense in the first instance would necessarily inform and perhaps moot the court's analysis of many class certification issues and that holding the issue of certification in abeyance until Google's fair use defense has been resolved would not prejudice the interests of either party. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to consider the fair use issues. View "The Authors Guild Inc., et al. v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as the administrator of his sister's estate, sued defendant in Connecticut state court, alleging that it negligently failed to timely diagnose the colon cancer that caused her death. Defendant removed the case to federal court. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his medical malpractice claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court may have mistakenly interpreted its precedent in A.Q.C. ex rel. Castillo v. United States, which held that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny equitable tolling to a plaintiff whose law firm did "literally nothing" to determine the federal status of plaintiff's health care provider; the district court did not fully consider whether, despite the differences between this case and A.Q.C., plaintiff's lawyers had reason to know that they should have investigated defendant's federal status; and, therefore, the court remanded for reconsideration because it could not be certain on the present record whether the district court's decision should be affirmed under the correct legal standard. View "Phillips v. Generations Family Health Center" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Midland, a debt collector, for damages after Midland called him between 22 and 28 times over the course of 2011 when none of the calls were intended for plaintiff. On appeal, plaintiff contended that neither of two putative offers of judgment extended by Midland could have rendered his action moot because neither offer complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The court held that an offer need not comply with Rule 68 in order to render a case moot under Article III. Consequently, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's refusal to settle the case in return for Midland's offer, notwithstanding plaintiff's acknowledgement that he could win no more, was sufficient ground to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Doyle v. Midland Credit Management, Inc." on Justia Law

Intervenors appealed the district court's denial of their motion to intervene in a suit where the lead plaintiff and other putative class members alleged that defendants had made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions in the offering and sale of certain financial instruments which they purchased. The court held that: (1) American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah's tolling rule did not apply to the three-year statute of repose in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77m; and (2) absent circumstances that would render the newly asserted claims independently timely, neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 nor the Rule 15(c) "relation back" doctrine permitted members of a putative class, who were not named parties, to intervene in the class action as named parties in order to revive claims that were dismissed from the class complaint for want of jurisdiction. The proposed intervenors could not circumvent Section 13's statute of repose by invoking American Pipe or Rule 15(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment insofar as the district court partially denied the motions to intervene. View "In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Sec. Litig." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to bribing an ICE employee to grant Lawful Permanent Resident status to an alien and for furnishing a forged passport. On appeal, defendant claimed that he did not understand the plea proceedings. There was no indication that after the district court learned that defendant took medications, it endeavored to ascertain whether they could impact his ability to proceed. This critical omission precluded a finding that defendant's plea in the bribery case was knowing and voluntary, and dictated that the plea be vacated. In regards to the forged passport plea, the district court committed plain error by improperly conflating the proceedings, assuming defendant was taking the same medications at the time of the next plea, and that he remembered the proceedings from the plea that happened sixteen months earlier. Accordingly, the court need not address defendant's remaining claim because it concluded that neither of his pleas was knowing and voluntary. The court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Tien" on Justia Law

Defendants, former executives of the retail drugstore chain Duane Reede, appealed their convictions for securities fraud. Defendants had executed a number of schemes to inflate the company's earnings in quarterly and annual financial statements filed with the SEC. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of non-expert witnesses. The court also concluded that Defendant Tennant's claims that his conviction should be overturned for insufficient evidence to prove his knowledge of the fraud and that it was error for the district court to give a conscious avoidance jury instruction were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cuti" on Justia Law