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

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of Aetna's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the insurer improperly denied plaintiff long-term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Because Aetna's reservation of discretion was sufficient to compel use of the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, the court affirmed summary judgment to Aetna on its denial of benefits. The court also held that Aetna's action seeking return of overpaid benefits was properly brought under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) as an equitable counterclaim. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the counterclaim. View "Thurber v. Aetna Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the administrators of CAAIG contending that they breached their fiduciary duties to CAAIG under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., by failing to ensure that CAAIG had sufficient assets with which to satisfy the judgment. The district court agreed and entered judgment against the Plan Administrators. The court concluded that LIHS had standing under ERISA 502(a) as a fiduciary of the Plan; the Underfunding Claim and EOC Suffolk Delinquency Claim were timely; the Administrators conceded that the breach of a contractual obligation in the Plan documents constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties under section 404(a)(1) of ERISA; and the Administrators breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Underfunding Claim and the EOC Suffolk Delinquency Claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "L.I. Head Start Child Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Economic Opportunity Comm'n of Nassau Cnty., Inc." on Justia Law

A jury found that plaintiff failed to prove her claim that the shooting of her family's dog by a law enforcement officer during the execution of a search warrant of her home was an unconstitutional seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. On appeal, plaintiff contended that defendants' failure to train its officers regarding non-lethal means to secure dogs and to formulate a plan to restrain plaintiff's dog using non-lethal means rendered the officer's shooting of her dog unconstitutional as a matter of law. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found that no amount of planning or training would have changed the outcome in this case. Plaintiff offered no evidence that any non-lethal means of controlling her dog would have allowed the officer to quickly escape the "fatal funnel" and effectively execute the no-knock warrant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Carroll v. County of Monroe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, affirmatively signed a consent form indicating that he did not consent to disposition of the case by the Magistrate Judge. On the present record, the court could not say that plaintiff gave his implied consent. As a pro se litigant, he could not have appreciated that participating in proceedings before the Magistrate Judge could impugn the effectiveness of his written refusal to consent. The court also held that the lack of consent was a jurisdictional defect that could not be waived. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court. View "Yeldon v. Fisher et al" on Justia Law

Defendant, a police officer, appealed from the district court's denial of his motion for qualified immunity in a claim brought by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated her Fourth Amendment rights when, while searching her car with her consent during a traffic stop, he read a piece of her mail. The piece of mail was a court document pertaining to the arrest of plaintiff's husband "for possession," and a letter that plaintiff had written to a judge. The court concluded that, while the scope of plaintiff's consent was not limited to a search for any particular object or contraband, it did not extend to the text of her mail. However, since this right was not clearly established at the time of the search, defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Winfield v. Trottier" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this consolidated action sought relief on behalf of two large putative classes - one whose members bought auction rate securities and one whose members issued them - alleging that defendants triggered the market's collapse by conspiring with each other to simultaneously stop buying auction rate securities for their own proprietary accounts. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' complaints pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court affirmed, holding that plaintiffs' complaints did not successfully allege a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. Although the court did not reach the district court's implied-repeal analysis under Credit Suisse Securities (USC) LLC v. Billing, the district court was ultimately correct that the complaints failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Citigroup, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the ARB of the DOL affirming an ALJ order dismissing petitioner's retaliation claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1514A. The court held: (1) To prevail on a whistleblower claim under the Act, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she engaged in a protected activity; the employer knew that he or she engaged in the protected activity; he or she suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action. If the employee proved these four elements, the employer could rebut this prima facie case with clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the protected behavior. (2) The ARB did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, or abuse its discretion, in affirming the ALJ's dismissal of the complaint under the correct legal standard. (3) Petitioner's remaining claims lacked merit. View "Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd." on Justia Law

Defendants Michael Nouri, Eric Nouri, and Anthony Martin appealed convictions stemming from their involvement with a market manipulation scheme with Smart Online, Inc. stock. On appeal, defendants contended that the district court erred in instructing the jury on fraud by deprivation of honest services, especially in the context of securities fraud, and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain convictions for securities fraud. Martin also contended that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of honest-services wire fraud, that the district court erroneously limited his examination of a witness, and that his sentence was unreasonable. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in defendants' arguments. View "United States v. Nouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against the City pursuant to, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., claiming that the City's response to his request for accommodations was insufficient. Plaintiff's severe disability, schizophrenia, required treatment that prevented him from arriving to work at a consistent time each day. The district court granted summary judgment to the City and dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice, noting that it could not distinguish between absenteeism and tardiness. The court concluded that the district court did not conduct a sufficiently detailed analysis of the facts that tended to undermine the City's claim that a specific arrival time was an essential function of plaintiff's position before granting summary judgment for the City. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "McMillan v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The County sued defendants to recover its expenditures in responding to, and cleaning up after, the 2009 crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the County's claims were barred by New York law. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that public services provided in response to an emergency were not subject to reimbursement. View "County of Erie, New York v. Colgan Air, Inc." on Justia Law