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

Appellants, investors who lost money in the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme perpetrated by BLMIS, appealed from the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court order affirming the trustee's denial of appellants' claims against BLMIS under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq., based on the trustee's determination that appellants did not qualify as BLMIS "customers" under SIPA. The court agreed and affirmed the judgment, concluding that appellants could not reasonably have thought that the Feeder Funds deposited their money with or established accounts for them at BLMIS. The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the Feeder Funds were not BLMIS agents. View "In Re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed an order and judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Hofstra and dismissing her suit claiming harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2000e-17; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-88; and corresponding provisions of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Exec. Law 290-301. Plaintiff claimed that she experienced harassment and retaliation while employed by Hofstra as a team manager for the university's football program. Because defendants took the needed remedial action in this case, the harassment carried out by some players on the football team could not be imputed to the university or its personnel. The district court erred, however, in its analysis of the McDonnell Douglas factors by holding that plaintiff could not prevail on any of her three retaliation claims based on her supposed failure to demonstrate that she had engaged in protected activity and the requisite causation. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to withstand a grant of summary judgment with respect to her retaliation claims, but not as to her sexual harassment claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Summa v. Hofstra University" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's denial of his application for disability benefits. The court held that the ALJ erred in her treatment of plaintiff's claim that he suffered from fibromyalgia by failing to accord the proper weight to the opinion of plaintiff's treating physician, by misconstruing the record, and by failing to evaluate the claim in light of medically accepted diagnostic criteria. The court also held that the ALJ's determination that plaintiff could perform light work was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the ALJ further erred by not determining whether plaintiff's reaching limitation was non-eligible and would therefore require the testimony of a vocational expert. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Selian v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Lehigh appealed the district court's award of damages to plaintiffs under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. 2801-2841. At issue was whether a franchisor could be held under the PMPA for failing to provide notice to a "trial franchisee" prior to termination of its franchise. The court held that the PMPA provided a right of action, both to "full" and "trial" franchisees, when a franchisor failed properly to notify it prior to terminating the franchise. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and interest. View "Jimico Enterprises, Inc. v. Lehigh Gas Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court concluded that petitioner's New York state conviction under NYPL 220.39(1) constituted an aggravated felony, which deprived the court of jurisdiction to review the order of removal. The court also denied petitioner's additional motions as moot. View "Pascual v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and others brought claims of hostile work environment based on gender under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e; 42 U.S.C. 1983; and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq. (NYSHRL), as well as claims of retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. The court concluded that plaintiff's claim of a hostile work environment involving allegations of repeated solicitation of sexual relations in a vulgar and humiliating manner sufficed to warrant a trial; plaintiff's claim of gender discrimination because of hostile work environment also sufficed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; but the district court properly determined that plaintiff's claims of retaliation failed. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. In a summary order, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims of the other plaintiffs. View "Desardouin v. City of Rochester" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions stemming from his involvement in a Medicare fraud scheme. At issue was whether health care fraud was an enumerated felony violation cognizable under 18 U.S.C. 1028A. The district court rejected defendant's argument that the parenthetical language limited the applicable provisions of Chapter 63 to those relating only to mail, bank, and wire fraud. The court agreed with the district court and held that the parenthetical language "relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud" in section 1028(c)(5) was merely a shorthand signal to the reader concerning the general nature of offenses contained in Chapter 63. It was not intended to limit the predicate felonies enumerated in Chapter 63. Rather, it encompassed the other frauds criminalized in Chapter 63. The court also held that the instruction given to the jury on the charge of aggravated identity theft was neither misleading nor inadequate. Most of defendant's arguments on appeal have been disposed of in a separate summary order filed simultaneously with this opinion. View "United States v. Rahman" on Justia Law

This case involved an alleged bid-rigging scheme that sought to defraud various New York State and City government agencies in connection with the purchase by those agencies of a particular brand of mobile radio. Gatt, an admitted past participant in the purported scheme, sought to recover damages from alleged co-conspirators for losses arising from the termination of Gatt's at-will distribution contract for those radios. Gatt raised federal and state antitrust claims arising under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 340; and New York common law. The court concluded that Gatt lacked antitrust standing to pursue its antitrust claims and that its common law claims were properly dismissed as a matter of law. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Gatt's complaint. View "Gatt Communications, Inc. v. PMC Associates, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' commitments were effected by means of an executive-branch effort aimed at preventing the release of some "sexually violent predators." The court agreed with the district court that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support plaintiffs' procedural due process claims and therefore defeated the motion for summary judgment. The court also concluded that at the time of the Initiative, the constitutional principal that, absent some emergency or other exigent circumstance, an individual could not be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution without notice and a predeprivation hearing was firmly established. Because the law pertaining to the involuntary civil commitment of prisoners was firmly established, the district court properly determined that defendants should not enjoy qualified immunity. View "Bailey v. Pataki" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their action brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. 2331 et seq., against UBS, alleging that plaintiffs were direct or indirect victims of terrorist attacks in Israel facilitated by UBS's furnishing of United States currency to Iran, which the U.S. Department of State had listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. On appeal, plaintiffs contended principally that the FAC alleged a chain of causation between transfers of funds to Iran by UBS and plaintiffs' injuries at the hands of various terrorist groups sponsored by Iran, sufficient to establish traceability for purposes both of standing and of stating a claim under the ATA. The court concluded that the FAC was sufficient to show Article III standing but insufficient to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rothstein v. UBS AG" on Justia Law