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

Defendant, a former police officer, appealed the district court's judgment, awarding compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiff on his claim of excessive force and battery. The court concluded that the district court did not exceed its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance because the court's decision was neither arbitrary nor prejudicial to defendant's defense. The court agreed, however, with defendant that the punitive damages award was excessive and concluded that a reduced award would more accurately reflect the severity of defendant's misconduct. View "Payne v. Jones" on Justia Law

GFK, a shipowner, appealed from the district court's dismissal of its action for declaratory judgment that it was not contractually bound to arbitrate a fuel agreement with AM, a marine fuel supply company. The court held that the district court properly exercised admiralty jurisdiction over the case even though plaintiff disclaimed the existence of any maritime contracts. However, concluding that the district court prematurely resolved disputed factual issues over whether the actual fuel purchaser had authority to bind GFK to the alleged contracts with AM, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine and Trading Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, through his wife and attorney-in-fact, filed an application for Medicaid benefits with the Connecticut Department of Social Services to cover the cost of his nursing home care. At issue was whether a non-assignable annuity contract that provided the spouse of an institutionalized person with monthly payments counted as an excess resource that must be spent down before the institutionalized person could receive Medicaid benefits under the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA), 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5. The court held that the payment stream for non-assignable annuity was not a resource for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. View "Lopes v. Dept. of Social Services" on Justia Law

Two now-separated parents dispute whether courts in the United States or the United Kingdom should decide who has custody of their five-year-old child. At issue was the interpretation of Article 12 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494. The court held that courts could not equitably toll the one-year period before a parent could raise the now settled defense available under Article 12 of the Convention, and that when making a now settled determination, courts need not give controlling weight to a child's immigration status. The court also considered and rejected petitioner's objections to the district court's findings of fact. View "Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's award to plaintiff, suing on behalf of an issuer of securities, the short-swing profits realized by defendants from trading in the issuer's stock in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78p(b). Defendants challenged plaintiff's constitutional standing to maintain the action, arguing that the proscribed trading caused no actual injury to the issuer to establish a genuine case or controversy. The court concluded that short-swing trading in an issuer's stock by a 10% beneficial owner in violation of Section 16(b) of the Act caused injury to the issuer sufficient for constitutional standing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Donoghue v. Bulldog Investors General Partnership" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug charges. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred by applying the ten-year mandatory minimum in 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B) without first concluding that a ten-year sentence was "not greater than necessary" to achieve the sentencing objectives listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2). The court rejected defendant's argument and held that a statutory mandatory minimum provision constrained a district court's discretion under section 3553(a) when it "specifically provides" for a minimum sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The State appealed from the district court's grant of petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After petitioner's initial sentence was vacated on the ground that it was illegal, the state court resentenced him to a term he contended was higher than his initial sentence and that, as a result, this higher sentence was presumptively vindictive under North Carolina v. Pearce. Because the court concluded that the Appellate Division's determination that the Pearce presumption did not apply to petitioner's resentence was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law, the court reversed. View "Somerville v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, sought review of the BIA's order reversing the decision of the IJ, which granted her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ found that petitioner testified credibly and belonged to a particular social group at risk of being kidnapped and forced into prostitution. Because the court found that young, unmarried Albanian women did not constitute a social group for asylum purposes, the court denied the petition for review. View "Gjura v. Holder" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a longstanding land-use dispute between the Church and the Town over the Church's plan to build a worship facility and school on land that it owned within the Town. The Town appealed from the district court's holding that they violated the Church's rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., as well as the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and New York constitutional and statutory law. The court concluded that the Town's arguments on appeal were without merit and concluded that the district court correctly applied the law, discerning no clear error in its factual findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a retail consumer of electricity in New York City, sued KeySpan, a producer of electricity in New York, alleging that it colluded with one of its rivals to increase installed capacity prices. Plaintiff also alleged that Morgan Stanley, a financial firm, facilitated KeySpan's anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the district court's dismissal of his federal and state antitrust claims against KeySpan and Morgan Stanley. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his federal claims because he was an indirect purchaser and that his claims were otherwise barred by the filed rate doctrine. View "Simon v. Keyspan Corporation" on Justia Law