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

This appeal arose out of a successful forfeiture action brought by the United States government pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1595a, which denied appellant's subsequent motion for attorney's fees. The forfeiture action sought to recover the Pissaro work of art entitled "Le Marche" that was reported stolen from the Musee Faure in Aix-les-Bains, France in 1981. At issue was whether the district court erred by refusing to apply the protections afforded by 18 U.S.C. 983 to the government's section 1595a claim and by denying her motion for attorney's fees after two of the government's three forfeiture claims were dismissed at summary judgment. The court held that a forfeiture action brought pursuant to section 1595a was not governed by section 982 and therefore, appellant was not entitled to raise the innocent-owner defense provided by section 983(d) or to take advantage of the heightened proof requirement of section 983(c). Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment of forfeiture and since appellant was not a prevailing party within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2465(b)(1), she was not entitled to attorney's fees under the statute.

Petitioner filed an arbitration claim against respondent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") raising federal claims of securities fraud under section 10(b)(5) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("SEC"), 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., and SEC Rule 10b-5, as well as state-law claims. When respondent lost the FINRA arbitration, respondent appealed the arbitration order asserting various improprieties and asked the district court, and now this court, to undo the award. The court upheld confirmation of the award in full after giving careful attention to respondent's arguments and found them to be without merit. The court did hold, however, that the district court's judgment should credit respondent for approximately $75 million that petitioner received in exchange for selling some of the failed auction rate securities at issue and should have reduced respondent's liability for interest accordingly. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment on that point and remanded for modification in light of the partial satisfaction of the award. The court rejected, however, respondent's attempt to alter the award's scheme for distributing interest earned on the securities portfolio.

Defendants appealed from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and entering a permanent injunction barring the Board of Education of the City of New York ("Board") from enforcing a rule that prohibited outside groups from using school facilities after hours for "religious worship services." At issue was whether the rule constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The court held that because the rule did not exclude expressions of religious points of view or of religious devotion, but excluded for valid non discriminatory reasons only a type of activity, the conduct worship services, the rule did not constitute viewpoint discrimination. The court also held that because defendants reasonably sought by this rule to avoid violating the Establishment Clause, the exclusion of religious worship services was a reasonable content-based restriction, which did not violate the Free Speech Clause. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was reversed and the injunction barring enforcement of the rule against plaintiffs was vacated.

Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant alleging claims of wrongful termination ("Count I"), trade disparagement ("Count II"), breach of contract for failure to negotiate in good faith ("Count III"), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ("Count IV"), and fraud ("Count V") arising out of a Creative Services Agreement ("Agreement") entered into between the parties. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the five counts asserted by plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Count III against defendant for failure to negotiate in good faith an alleged agreement to develop and launch a Todd Oldham branded line of merchandise to be sold exclusively at defendant's stores where plaintiff alleged three plausible bases for the claim. The court also held that the district court erred in dismissing Count I for declaratory judgment that defendant wrongfully terminated the parties' Agreement, by failing to give notice of plaintiff's alleged breaches and 30 days' opportunity to cure, under which plaintiff's principal, Todd Oldham, was to provide design services to defendant. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the trade disparagement, common law fraud, and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Petitioner, a native of Jamaica, sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the decision of an immigration judge denying his motion to terminate the removal proceedings brought against him, after his criminal convictions, on the grounds that he had not derived U.S. citizenship through the naturalization of his father. At issue was whether petitioner had been "legitimated" under Jamaican law within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1101(c)(1) even though his parents never married, with the result that he had obtained derivative citizenship as a consequence of the naturalization of his father. The court remained unsure as to the precise definition the BIA had adopted for determining whether a "child" had been "legitimated" under the law of a particular jurisdiction for purposes of section 1101(c)(1). The court was also unclear as to the legal and/or logical basis for the BIA's interpretation. Accordingly, the court remanded to the BIA to address these two issues and the petition for review was granted.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment entered by the district court granting an oral motion of defendants, plaintiff's former employer, for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 with respect to plaintiff's claims arising under section 4312(a) of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. 4301 et seq, where plaintiff was eventually terminated by defendants after returning to work upon completion of his call to active duty by the Army. At issue was whether the district court erred in granting the motion where plaintiff claimed that defendants discriminated against him on account of his military service. The court affirmed the judgment and held that there was no reasonable basis to find a violation of section 4312(a) where plaintiff was rehired with the same title, salary, and other conditions of employment after his immediate return from military service.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") which dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision ordering his removal and denied his motion for remand or continuance. At issue was whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner's request for a continuance. The court held that to the extent the BIA denied petitioner's request for a continuance on the basis that it lacked the authority to grant the continuance, the denial constituted legal error where IJs have broad discretionary authority to grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown and where IJs and the BIA had jurisdiction over motions for continuances in removal proceedings where they already had jurisdiction in light of Matter of Hashmi. The court also held that the BIA failed to provide a rational explanation for its ruling when it failed to evaluate the merits of granting or denying petitioner a continuance based on the specific facts on the record and therefore, on remand, the BIA should either follow the Hashmi factors or explain why application of those factors was inappropriate.

In June 2009, defendant filed an arbitration demand against plaintiff alleging claims for wrongful termination and breach of contract based on plaintiff's failure to pay a performance bonus. Defendant subsequently filed a new demand for arbitration in October 2010, which included his original claims plus claims of fraud and breach of contract, after the arbitrator denied his motion to amend the original arbitration demand when he discovered evidence suggesting that plaintiff had padded estimated revenues for defendant's companies by $17 million. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the district court erred by not granting its motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order; that defendant's withdrawal from the first arbitration waived his right to a second arbitration; and that the first arbitration's October Order, denying defendant leave to amend, was an enforceable arbitration award. The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 16(b)(4), precluded the court's review of the district court's order refusing to enjoin the arbitration. The court also held that a final decision with respect to an arbitration required an official dismissal of all claims and thus, where the district court stayed proceedings in lieu of dismissal, the decision was not final. The court further concluded that an arbitration award was a final adjudication of a claim on the merits and a procedural ruling that denied leave to amend was not an award since the decision had no effect on the merits of the proposed claims. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Defendants appealed from May 17, 2010 judgments of conviction entered by the district court for possession with intent to distribute a mixture of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("MDMA"), methamphetamine, and N-Benzylpiperazine ("BZP"), all Schedule I controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C) and 21 U.S.C. 846. At issue was whether the district court engaged in clearly erroneous fact-finding that led to a procedurally unreasonable sentence when it determined that the controlled substance referenced in the United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. 2D1.1, that was mostly related to the mixture found in defendants' possession, was MDMA or "ecstasy." The court held that there was insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the appropriate substitute for the mixture contained in the pills found in defendants' possession was MDMA and therefore, remanded the case to the district court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the composition of the pills for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 2D1.1.

This dispute arose from the district court's decision to award an attorney $515,179.28 in attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act's fee shifting provision, 29 U.S.C. 216(b), for work performed in successfully litigating a case against the City of New York ("city"). The attorney did not keep contemporaneous records and the city appealed the award, arguing that it violated the New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v Carey rule, which explicitly required that such records be kept. The court held that, because a district court's "personal observation" of an attorney's work was not by itself a sufficient basis for permitting a deviation and awarding fees in the absence of contemporaneous records, the most recent order of the district court reinstating its original award of attorney's fees was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.