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

Defendant appealed from the district court's judgment convicting him of conspiring to commit and committing three Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, robberies and of brandishing a firearm during two of the robberies. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's determination that it was required to impose consecutive mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment of seven and twenty-five years on the gun counts. The court agreed with its sister circuits, which have consistently upheld sentences imposing consecutive mandatory minimum terms for multiple 18 U..S.C. 924(c) convictions in the same proceeding. Accordingly, the court held affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Robles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of its complaint for failure to state a claim. At issue was whether plaintiff had stated plausible claims under sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. The court held that allegations in the complaint stated a plausible claim that the offering documents for the security misstated the applicable underwriting standards in violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15. The court also held that the alleged misstatements were not immaterial as a matter of law. Finally, the court vacated the district court's holding that plaintiff, even as the representative of a proposed class, lacked standing to pursue claims based on securities in which it had not invested. Rather than addressing this issue, the court instructed the district court to reconsider it in light of the court's intervening opinion in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. The Royal Bank of Scotland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, on behalf of a purported class of similarly situated employees, appealed from the district court's dismissal of their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), NYLL 663(1). Plaintiffs alleged that CHS failed to compensate them adequately for time worked during meal breaks, before and after scheduled shifts, and during required training sessions. The court affirmed the dismissal of the FLSA and RICO claims for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of the NYLL overtime claims, which have the same deficiencies as the FLSA overtime claims. However, because the district court did not explain why plaintiffs' NYLL gap-time claims were dismissed with prejudice, the court vacated that aspect of the judgment and remanded for further consideration. View "Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island Inc." on Justia Law

The Commissioner appealed from the tax court's order that prevented the Commissioner from collecting City Wide's outstanding employment taxes for seven taxable quarters. The tax court held that the Commissioner was time barred from collecting these taxes under section 6501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and that the tolling provisions under section 6501(c)(1) and (2) of the I.R.C. did not apply. The court held that an accountant who filed fraudulent tax returns on behalf of a company in order to embezzle money otherwise owed to the Commissioner intentionally evaded taxes, thereby triggering the tolling provision under section 6501(c)(1). Accordingly, the court held that the Commissioner could assess City Wide's taxes for those seven quarters at any time. View "City Wide Transit, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Appellants appealed the denial of their motion for a writ of execution against Garrison Services. The motion was based on default judgments appellants had earlier obtained against Lyons. The court denied the motion as a sanction for appellants' counsel's repeated failures to comply with the court's orders. The court held that although the district court had an adequate basis to sanction counsel and accorded the required procedural safeguards, further findings were needed to support a sanction that fell entirely on the clients rather than principally on the lawyer. View "Mitchell v. Lyons Professional Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of current and former UBS and UBSFS employees, alleging that defendants violated various fiduciary duties imposed on them by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in analyzing their claim for breach of the duty of prudence, as it applied a presumption of prudence to the fiduciaries of both investment plans at issue. The court held that the district court wrongly applied the presumption as to one of the two plans, the Savings and Investment Plan (SIP), as the SIP Plan Document neither required nor strongly encouraged investment in UBS stock or the UBS Stock Fund. The court held, however, that the District Court correctly applied the presumption of prudence as to the second plan, the Plus Plan, which required plan fiduciaries to invest in the UBS Stock Fund. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal order of the district court in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs' remaining arguments were addressed in a companion Summary Order. View "Taveras v. UBS AG et al." on Justia Law

The Board petitioned for enforcement of its decision and order finding that Special Touch violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3), by failing to immediately reinstate striking workers, home health care aides, engaged in protected conduct. The court held that the aides' actions were unprotected because their uncorrected affirmative misrepresentations regarding their plans to strike in response to the pre-strike poll placed 48 of Special Touch's patients in foreseeable imminent danger; the 48 aides engaged in indefensible conduct that was not protected by the NLRA; and Special Touch's failure to immediately reinstate these employees did not violate Section 8(a)(1) or (3). Accordingly, the court denied the petition for enforcement. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Special Touch Home Care Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a white male employed as captain of the City of Buffalo Police Department, sued the Department and its police chief claiming that their failure to promote him was impermissibly motivated by race. Plaintiff claimed racial discrimination after the results of a civil service examination were replaced by the results of an updated version. The court declined to address the 42 U.S.C. 1983, defamation, and equal protection claims because they were insufficiently argued; the court agreed with the district court that Ricci v. DeStefano did not indicate that defendants' actions were prohibited; plaintiff provided no other evidence of unlawful discrimination and his Title VII claim failed; and plaintiff's remaining claims were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Maraschiello v. City of Buffalo Police Dept." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, manufacturers and distributors of smokeless tobacco products, filed suit challenging the validity of a New York City ordinance governing the sale of flavored tobacco products. Plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance, New York City Administrative Code 17-715, was preempted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, 21 U.S.C. 387 et seq., and sought an injunction against enforcement. The district court awarded summary judgment to the City and plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that the ordinance was a regulation of sale and not a veiled attempt to regulate the manufacture of tobacco products. The ordinance represented an exercise of local police power that Congress specifically allowed in enacting the Act and was therefore not preempted. View "U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Mfg. Co., et al. v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of charges stemming from an identity theft scheme. At issue on appeal was defendant's conviction under 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(A), which criminalized the use of social security numbers assigned on the basis of false information. Defendant's social security number was assigned in 1972, on the basis of information the government conceded, for purposes of this case, was entirely accurate. Therefore, the court found that the government failed to prove an element of the offense, namely, that the social security number was assigned on the basis of false information. Therefore, the court affirmed defendant's convictions on all charges except as to Count Five, which the court reversed and vacated, remanding for resentencing. Defendant's remaining arguments on appeal were rejected by the court in a separate summary order. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law