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

Plaintiff commenced this action, on behalf of herself and the 181 other individuals in New York State who had received student loan collection letters from defendant. At issue was whether a debt collector's inaccurate representation to a debtor that her student loans were "ineligible" for bankruptcy discharge was a "false, misleading, or deceptive" debt collection practice, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. The court held that it was because the least sophisticated consumer would interpret defendant's letter as representing, incorrectly, that bankruptcy discharge of her loans was wholly unavailable to her. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Easterling v. Collecto, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when an oil tanker sank off the cost of Spain, releasing large quantities of oil into the ocean. Spain subsequently appealed the district court's holding that defendants were entitled to summary judgment because, in the circumstances presented, Defendant ABS and its subsidiaries did not owe Spain a duty in tort in connection with ABS's inspection of the tanker. Without reaching that issue, the court concluded that even if such a duty were owed, Spain did not introduce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants recklessly breached the duty. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reino De Espana v. Bureau of Shipping" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery and the district court sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a). At issue on appeal was whether a district court could rely on a Presentence Report's (PSR) description of a defendant's pre-arrest conduct that culminated in a prior conviction to determine whether that prior conviction constituted one for a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(1), where the defendant made no objection to the PSR's description. The court held that it could not. Therefore, the court vacated the sentence imposed by the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Reyes" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus with respect to his 2004 Connecticut murder conviction. Petitioner argued that the state trial court's decision to exclude him from the courtroom violated his federal constitutional right to be present at trial and that police interrogation violated his Miranda rights. The court held that any error in excluding petitioner was harmless because he did not miss any critical stage of the trial as a result of that exclusion. Further, because the subsequent decision to continue petitioner's exclusion was attributable to his own violent conduct, the Connecticut Supreme Court reasonably applied United States Supreme Court precedent in upholding the trial court's decision. Petitioner's two claims of improper police procedure in his interrogation were also meritless. One claim misapprehended Supreme Court precedent; the other was never raised in state court and was thus unavailable for review in federal court. View "Jones v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from an amended judgment of conviction for possession and attempted production of child pornography. The court held that defendant waived his procedural challenge to the district court's factfinding at sentencing and, in any event, there was no plain error in these findings. The court also held that there was no merit to defendant's various challenges to the district court's Guidelines calculations in this case as they pertained to his conviction for attempted production of child pornography. The court further held that there was no merit to defendant's argument that any sentence above the minimum term of 15 years mandated by his conviction for attempted production of child pornography, was substantively unreasonable. The challenged 30-year prison sentence fell within the range of substantively reasonable choices available to the district court and the court affirmed. View "United States v. Broxmeyer" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, sought review of an order of removal by ICE. Petitioner entered the United States through the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), using a fraudulent Italian passport. The court held that petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to contest her removal on any basis other than asylum, and having participated in her asylum-only proceeding, petitioner could not contest removal on the ground that she filed an adjustment of status application after she overstayed the time she was authorized to be in this country. The court concluded that a VWP participant could not contest his or her removal on the basis of an adjustment of status application filed after the 90-day period during which a VWP participant could stay in the country. View "Gjerjaj v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, producers and owners of copyrighted television programming, sued defendants for streaming plaintiffs' copyrighted television programming over the Internet live and without their consent. The court, applying Chevron analysis, held that: (1) the statutory text was ambiguous as to whether defendant, a service that retransmitted television programming over the Internet, was entitled to a compulsory license under section 111 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 111; (2) the statute's legislative history, development, and purpose indicated that Congress did not intend for section 111 licenses to extend to Internet retransmissions; (3) the Copyright Office's interpretation of section 111 - that Internet retransmissions services did not constitute cable systems under section 111 - aligned with Congress' intent and was reasonable; and (4) accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the case. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding irreparable harm; in balancing the hardships; and considering the public interest. View "WPIX, Inc. v. IVI, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a conviction of knowingly receiving and possessing child pornography. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in employing the modified categorical approach to analyze the facts underlying his prior state conviction for endangering the welfare of a child, and that under the proper standard - the categorical approach - his prior state conviction did not qualify as a 18 U.S.C. 2252A(b)(1) predicate offense. The court agreed and therefore vacated his sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Beardsley" on Justia Law

National Union appealed from the district court's award of consequential damages to plaintiffs, following a jury trial, for National Union's breach of its duty to defendant plaintiffs in a securities arbitration. At issue was whether consequential damages, which were traditionally available for breach of contract claims, were also available for a claim of breach of a duty to defend an insured under Connecticut law, and if so, whether they could include damages for harm to reputation and loss of income. Absent a precedential decision from the Connecticut courts, the court certified the two issues. View "Ryan v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins." on Justia Law

This appeal and purported class-appeal primarily concerned two issues arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 28 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The first issue was whether trustees of a multi-employer pension fund acted as fiduciaries when they amended the pension plan. The second issue was whether the claims asserted in this case were time-barred. The court concluded that the dismissal of Counts I-V was proper because the trustees were not acting as fiduciaries in amending the Plan, and in reaching that conclusion, the court deemed the contrary rulings of the court in Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan and Siskind v. Sperry Retirement Program, to have been abrogated by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. The court also concluded that fact issues remained as to whether Counts VII-IX were properly dismissed as time-barred. View "Janese v. Fay" on Justia Law