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

The City of White Plains and certain individually named law-enforcement officers appealed from an award of $290,997.94 in costs, of which some $286,065.00 represented attorneys' fees, awarded in connection with a $30,000 judgment for plaintiffs ordered pursuant to an offer judgment under Rule 68. Defendants contended that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees because (1) their Rule 68 offer of judgment to settle "all claims" should have been interpreted to encompass costs, including attorney's fees; and (2) the fee award bore no relationship to plaintiffs' degree of success in the litigation. The court held that the Supreme Court's ruling in Marek v. Chesny compelled rejection of the first argument. As to the second, the court's "highly deferential" review of attorney's fees awards coupled with defendants' failure to adequately advance the issue, compelled its rejection. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Barbour v. City of White Plains" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his convictions for conspiring to, and filing, false claims with the IRS, bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and identity theft. The court held that there was insufficient evidence for defendant's conviction for bank fraud and that his conviction for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft related to bank fraud must be vacated. The court found that defendant's other arguments were without merit but did not address his claim regarding the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. View "United States v. Gyanbaah (Nkansah)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff insured, operator of a number of check cashing stores in the New York City area, contended that a criminal scheme perpetrated at its store constituted "robbery" within the meaning of its crime insurance policy which the defendant insurer issued. Because the court agreed with the district court that the policy was ambiguous and that the insured offered a reasonable interpretation of the policy permitting coverage, the court concluded that the insurer was liable under the policy and therefore affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insured. View "Vam Check Cashing Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted on charges stemming from their involvement in a fraudulent mortgage scheme. On appeal, defendants challenged their sentences and restitution orders. The court held that U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(ii), which increased an offense by two levels if it was "committed through mass-marketing," applied only if the audience of the mass-marketing was in some sense victimized by the scheme. Because the record was unclear in this case, the court remanded for the district court to make additional findings. The court found no error, however, in the district court's calculation of loss amount for sentencing. Finally, the court agreed with the parties that the district court's restitution calculation was erroneous. View "United States v. Bills (Lacey)" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from a judgment by the district court in favor of insurance companies which had disclaimed any duty to defend or indemnify their policyholders in a separate state court action brought by a third party arising from an accident involving the operation of the policyholders' all-terrain vehicle (ATV). The Connecticut Supreme Court's answers to certified questions left no doubt that the district court correctly found that: (1) the only location relevant in determining whether the homeowner's policy provided the subject coverage was the site of the accident and (2) the accident did not occur at an "insured location," as that language was construed under Connecticut law. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Royal, declaring that the foundational homeowner's policy did not cover the ATV accident that allegedly caused injury to Connor. The court addressed remaining issues and subsequently affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Arrowood Indemnitv Co. v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction after pleading guilty to conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws of the United States. Because the court concluded that the waiver of appeal was valid and that the relevant change in law caused by Dorsey v. United States did not affect a valid waiver of appeal, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United Statesv. Snyder (Harrison)" on Justia Law

LSED sought to rescind an agreement to purchase bond insurance from FGIC and recover its $13 million premium payment. LSED based its claim on failure of cause, a tenet of Louisiana law that required all contracts be supported by cause. Because the court found that the principal cause of the agreement between the parties was the purchase of bond insurance to protect the bondholders in the event of default, not to reduce the interest rate LSED paid to borrow money, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "In Re: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her convictions for attempted murder of United States nationals, attempted murder of United States officers and employees, armed assault of United States officers and employees, assault of United States officers and employees, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant also challenged her sentence of 86 years imprisonment. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss Count One of the indictment; the district court appropriately denied defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Two through Seven of the indictment; the district court did not commit reversible error by admitting, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), documents allegedly found in her possession at the time Afghan officials took her into custody; the district court did not err in allowing defendant to testify in her own defense; the district court did not err in allowing the government to rebut her testimony with un-Mirandized statements she gave to the FBI; and the district court did not err in applying the terrorism enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.4. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Siddiqui" on Justia Law

Argentina appealed from permanent injunctions entered by the district court designed to remedy Argentina's failure to pay bondholders after a default in 2001 on its sovereign debt. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and enjoined Argentina from making payments on debt issued pursuant to its 2005 and 2010 restructurings without making comparable payments on the defaulted debt. The court held that an equal treatment provision in the bonds barred Argentina from discriminating against plaintiffs' bonds in favor of bonds issued in connection with the restructurings and that Argentina violated that provision by ranking its payment obligations on the defaulted debt below its obligations to the holders of its restructured debt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court; found no abuse of discretion in the injunctive relief; and concluded that the injunction did not violate the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611. However, given the need for clarity as to how the injunctions were to function, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Metro to recover contributions owed pursuant to the Employer Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1145. Metro challenged the damages award, arguing that the method set forth in the collective bargaining agreement resulted in an impermissibly speculative damages award. The court disagreed and held that the parties were free to agree to an alternative method of calculating damages without offending the requirement that damages be proven with "reasonable certainty." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cement and Concrete Workers District Council Welfare Fund v. Metro Foundation Contractors" on Justia Law