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

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of one count of attempted child enticement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that it could not convict him unless the evidence showed that he attempted to transform or overcome the will of his intended victim. Rather, the court held that section 2422(b) imposes no requirement that an individual endeavor to "transform or overcome" the will of his intended victim. Although the court did not undertake to require any specific formulation for jury instructions in section 2422(b) cases, the court repeated its prior observation that the statutory verbs are ones of common usage; in most cases, it will suffice to instruct jurors to apply the plain and ordinary meanings of those words, as the district court instructed the jury to do in this case. View "United States v. Waqar" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's judgment granting in part and denying in part his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018. The district court granted defendant's motion with respect to his conviction on Count One, a violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, but denied the motion with respect to his conviction on Count Two, a violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C) for distributing and possessing with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of crack cocaine.The Second Circuit concluded that, although defendant has been released from custody, his appeal is not moot. The court explained that if Count Two were a "covered offense" under the First Step Act, defendant would be eligible for a reduction in his term of supervised release on that count. Furthermore, there is more than a remote and speculative possibility that the district court on remand would grant such relief, and that possibility is enough to create a live controversy.On the merits, the court concluded that a conviction for distributing and possessing with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C) is not a "covered offense" within the meaning of the First Step Act. Therefore, defendant is ineligible for a reduction in his sentence on Count Two under the First Step Act. The court rejected defendant's alternative argument, concluding that a court may not alter a sentence imposed on any count of conviction without express statutory authority to do so. Finally, the district court provided no explanation for why it left defendant's term of supervised release on Count One intact despite its decision to reduce his prison sentence on that count to time served. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's term of supervised release on Count One and remanded. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lands' End in a putative class action brought by Gorss Motels under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), seeking compensation for faxes it received advertising the products of Lands' End.As a preliminary matter, although the parties do not raise the issue on appeal, the court concluded that Gorss has standing to proceed under the TCPA. The court concluded that Gorss gave prior express permission to receive the faxes at issue through its franchise agreements with Wyndham, and rejected plaintiff's contention that any permission to send fax advertisements was given to Wyndham and not to Lands' End. Therefore, the court concluded that Gorss agreed to the process that occurred here, in which Wyndham sent Gorss fax advertisements on behalf of a Wyndham approved supplier, Lands' End, advertising products that could be used in franchised motels. View "Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Lands' End, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a lieutenant with the Binghamton Police Department, filed suit against the City, the City's mayor, and two Department officials, alleging that he was racially harassed by members of the Department and retaliated against for voicing concerns about discrimination.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim because the complaint does not support an inference that he was punished for engaging in protected speech. Although the complaint does not "enumerate" a claim for discrimination alongside the cause of action for retaliation, the court found that plaintiff does identify a discrimination claim. In this case, the introduction of the complaint specifies that plaintiff brings a "claim for discriminatory conduct based on Hispanic origin . . . pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981." Furthermore, the complaint includes numerous factual allegations sufficient to notify defendants that plaintiffs seeks redress for discriminatory conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part for further proceedings. View "Quinones v. City of Binghamton" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that state legislatures may create legally protected interests whose violation supports Article III standing, subject to certain federal limitations. The court also decided that the New York law violations alleged here constitute a concrete and particularized harm to plaintiffs in the form of both reputational injury and limitations in borrowing capacity over the nearly ten-month period during which their mortgage discharge was unlawfully not recorded and in which the Bank allowed the public record to reflect, falsely, that plaintiffs had an outstanding debt of over $50,000.The court further concluded that the Bank's failure to record plaintiffs' mortgage discharge created a material risk of concrete and particularized harm to plaintiffs by providing a basis for an unfavorable credit rating and reduced borrowing capacity. The court explained that these risks and interests, in addition to that of clouded title, which an ordinary mortgagor would have suffered (but plaintiffs did not), are similar to those protected by traditional actions at law. Therefore, plaintiffs have Article III standing and they may pursue their claims for the statutory penalties imposed by the New York Legislature, as well as other relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed and remanded. View "Maddox v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. The court held that defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his offense of conviction, drug-related murder in violation of 21 U.S.C. 848(e)(1)(A), is not a "covered offense" under the First Step Act. In this case, defendant was involved in the torture and killing of the victim, a rival drug dealer who robbed defendant about two weeks before his death. View "United States v. Gilliam" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that officials at the Monroe County Jail denied him adequate medical care and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment during his pretrial confinement. Plaintiff was ultimately admitted to the hospital where he was found to be in critical condition and was placed in a coma for over a month where he underwent serious surgeries. After his grievance was denied by the prison, plaintiff argued that administrative procedures were unavailable to him because he was hospitalized and in critical medical condition for over a month and therefore could not have filed a grievance within that five-day timeframe.The Second Circuit reversed, concluding that administrative remedies are "unavailable" when (1) an inmate's failure to file for the administrative remedy within the time allowed results from a medical condition, and (2) the administrative system does not accommodate the condition by allowing a reasonable opportunity to file for administrative relief. In this case, administrative remedies were unavailable to plaintiff because he was hospitalized and in a critical medical condition during—and well past—the five-day timeframe to file a grievance according to the jail's grievance procedures. Furthermore, the prison made clear that it would not process any grievance filed past that five-day timeframe. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider plaintiff's claim on the merits. View "Rucker v. Giffen" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit brought by plaintiff after he sustained injuries as a result of being struck by a USPS truck. The court agreed with plaintiff that the district court erred in finding plaintiff's presentment inadequate.The court concluded that notice required for FTCA presentment must provide a reviewing agency with sufficiently specific information as to the basis of the claim, the nature of claimant's injuries, and the amount of damages sought such that the agency can reasonably understand what it must investigate to determine liability, to value the claim, and to assess the advisability of settlement. The court also concluded that an FTCA claimant can provide the specific information required for presentment by narrative, by evidence, or by other means. Furthermore, an FTCA claimant who provides a sufficiently specific narrative need not also submit substantiating evidence to satisfy presentment. The court explained that, while a failure to present such evidence can support an agency's administrative denial of a claim, it does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction over an FTCA action subsequently filed by the claimant. In this case, plaintiff presented information sufficient to provide such notice. Accordingly, the court remanded with directions to reinstate plaintiff's complaint. View "Collins v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Board, asserting that the Board had violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by allegedly discriminating against her in denying appropriate disability accommodations for the bar examination. The district court denied the Board's motion to dismiss and subsequent motion for reconsideration.The Second Circuit reversed, concluding that the Board may not be sued under the Rehabilitation Act. The court held that the district court erred in determining that the Unified Court System was the appropriate department, agency, or instrumentality under the Rehabilitation Act. Rather, the relevant recipient of federal funding is the "Courts of Original Jurisdiction." The court explained that, because the Board is not an operation of the "Courts of Original Jurisdiction," and because the Board does not otherwise receive any federal funding, it is immune from suit under Section 504. The court remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the Board's motion to dismiss as to plaintiff's remaining claim under the ADA. View "T.W. v. Board of Law Examiners" on Justia Law

Set Capital filed a class action against Credit Suisse, Individual Defendants, and Janus, principally alleging that, on February 5, 2018, defendants executed a complex fraud to collapse the market for VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes (XIV Notes), earning hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at their investors' expense. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead a strong inference of scienter.The Second Circuit concluded that the complaint plausibly alleges a strong inference of scienter to support Set Capital's claim for market manipulation, and that it has identified actionable misstatements or omissions in the Offering Documents. However, the court agreed with the district court that the complaint does not support a strong inference that Credit Suisse and Janus acted with scienter when they failed to correct the Flatline Value during afterhours trading on February 5. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment dismissing the claims pertaining to the manipulative scheme, the alleged misstatements or omissions in the offering documents, and the corresponding liability of control persons. The court remanded those claims for further proceedings. The court affirmed the judgment dismissing the claims for failure to correct the Flatline Value, while vacating the district court's denial of leave to amend those claims. View "Set Capital LLC v. Credit Suisse Group AG" on Justia Law