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

Plaintiff, a former sergeant with the Hartford Police Department, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that defendants wrongfully failed to promote him and defendants instigated several internal affairs investigations into his conduct on the basis of his race or national origin. With respect to plaintiff's discrimination claims, the court held that he failed to introduce factual evidence that defendants' nondiscriminatory reasons for the investigation and failure to promote him were pretextual or that plaintiff's race or national origin was a motivating favor. With respect to Chief Croughwell, although the court agreed with plaintiff that his statement to the press implicated a matter of public concern, the court affirmed the judgment on the district court's alternative ground that Chief Croughwell was protected from liability by qualified immunity. View "Garcia v. Hartford Police Dept." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from bankruptcy court proceedings between MCI and CNI where MCI sought to recover from CNI allegedly unpaid telecommunications services. CNI counterclaimed. At issue on appeal was whether the district court properly granted relief under Rule 4(a)(6) to CNI when it claimed that it never received the Civil Rule 77(d) notice and therefore failed to file a timely notice of appeal. The court agreed with the district court that CNI met the express preconditions of Rule 4(a)(6). The court held that relief under the rule was discretionary and its grant in this case was inappropriate. The failure to receive Civil Rule 77(d) notice was entirely and indefensibly the fault of CNI's counsel. Granting such relief in these circumstances was at odds with the purposes and structure of the procedural scheme. Accordingly, the court reversed the order granting the motion to reopen and dismissed CNI's appeal as untimely. View "In re: WorldCom, Inc. v. MCI Worldcom Communications" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's judgment denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granting the motion for summary judgment by Lloyds. At issue was whether federal common law or state law provided the meaning of "arbitration" within the Federal Arbitration Act, 8 U.S.C. 201-208. The court held that the meaning of "arbitration" under the Act was governed by federal common law. The court concluded that the district court properly decided that it had subject matter jurisdiction over this suit by applying cases resting in federal common law and that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Lloyds. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bakoss v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, victims and families of victims of terrorist attacks committed in Israel between 1995-2004, brought claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. 2333, and the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350, seeking monetary damages from Arab Bank. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank provided financial services and support to terrorists during this period, facilitating the attacks. On appeal, Arab Bank challenged the district court's orders imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) for its failure to comply with several of that court's discovery-related orders, and petitioned the court under 28 U.S.C. 1651 for a writ of mandamus directing vacatur of the district court's sanctions order. The court concluded that the sanctions order was not a reviewable collateral order, and therefore dismissed Arab Bank's appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court also concluded that this was not an appropriate case for issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus, since the court agreed with plaintiffs that Arab Bank had not established that it had a clear and indisputable right to such drastic relief or that review after final judgment would not provide adequate relief. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the petition for mandamus. View "Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from convictions for racketeering conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), murder in aid of racketeering, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court considered all of defendant's claims on appeal, and as to those issues for which the record was sufficiently developed, the court found his claims to be without merit. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, without prejudice to defendant's filing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 to pursue his claim that his attorney did not advise him of his rights to testify. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Albania, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of the CIS to deny plaintiff's application for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to section 212(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(i). Because the plain language of the INA provided that judicial review of such decisions was available only for "constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals," the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. The court need not consider the government's remaining arguments that plaintiff's removal from the United States rendered this appeal moot and that plaintiff failed to identify any legal errors in the CIS's decision. View "Shabaj v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of bank robbery, using fire to commit a felony, and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. Defendant appealed. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant used fire to commit the bank robbery and the court was satisfied that his conviction did not offend Due Process. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government to cross-examine defendant about his plan to obstruct his New Jersey state criminal trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Desposito" on Justia Law

Kentucky commenced this action in Kentucky state court against Purdue, alleging that Purdue violated Kentucky law by misleading health care providers, consumers, and government officials regarding the risks of addiction associated with the prescription drug OxyContin, which Purdue manufactures, markets, and sells. Following transfer from the Eastern District of Kentucky to the Southern District of New York, the district court granted Kentucky's motion to remand, concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the suit did not meet the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005's (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, requirements. Purdue appealed the remand order under 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1). The court held that the district court correctly determined that Kentucky's action was not a class action as defined in CAFA, and therefore the case was properly remanded. Accordingly, the petition for leave to appeal was denied. View "Purdue Pharma, L. P. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's holding that defendant was liable to plaintiff, contending that it was entitled to the benefit of a contractual limitation on liability contained in a contract between its sub-bailor and a shipper. At issue was whether, under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 14706, or the federal common law of bailment, a third-party contractor was entitled to receive the benefit of a liability limitation in a contract between a shipper and a carrier where the contract did not extend the limitation to third parties. Because the court determined that - under either body of law - liability limitations extended to third-party contractors only if the contract clearly stated that they did, and because the court identified no error in the district court's finding on negligence, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Royal Sun Alliance Ins. PLC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a viable section 16(b) disgorgement claim pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78p(b). At issue was whether the "short-swing profit rule" applied when a corporate insider sold shares of one type of stock issued by the insider's company and purchased shares of a different type of stock in that same company. The court held, absent any guidelines from the SEC, that section 16(b) did not apply to transactions of this sort involving separately traded, nonconvertible stocks with different voting rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gibbons v. Malone" on Justia Law