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

ELG Utica Alloys, Inc. ("ELG") sued a group of its former customers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, asserting claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). ELG had remediated contamination at one portion of a 23-acre facility in 2007 and continued to remediate contamination at a different portion of the facility pursuant to a 2015 consent order with the New York State government. ELG sought contribution for the costs of the 2015 cleanup from the defendants, alleging they were also responsible for the contamination.The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the six-year statute of limitations for certain CERCLA claims had elapsed. The District Court granted the motion, reasoning that the remediation began in 2007, and the 2015 work was a subsequent step in the work that commenced in 2007. Therefore, the statute of limitations started to run in 2007 and elapsed in 2013, before ELG sued. The District Court also imposed spoliation sanctions on ELG for shredding over 23,000 pounds of potentially relevant documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the District Court that the statute of limitations on ELG’s claims commenced once on-site physical remediation began in 2007. The court also found no error in the District Court’s imposition of spoliation sanctions. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court and remanded to the District Court to order the agreed-upon spoliation sanction. View "ELG Utica Alloys, Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp." on Justia Law

Mark Johnson was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in 2017. The charges stemmed from a 2011 transaction where HSBC, under Johnson's leadership, converted U.S. dollars into British pounds for Cairn Energy. The government presented two theories of fraud to the jury: the now-invalid right-to-control theory and the misappropriation theory. Johnson filed a Petition for a writ of coram nobis after the Supreme Court's decision in Ciminelli v. United States invalidated the right-to-control theory.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Johnson's Petition, concluding that the jury would have convicted him under the valid misappropriation theory, rendering the inclusion of the invalid right-to-control theory harmless. Johnson appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the government's case under the misappropriation theory was weak and expressed grave doubt that the presentation of the right-to-control theory was harmless. The court noted that the misappropriation theory required proving a fiduciary relationship between Johnson and Cairn, which was not clearly established, and that Johnson misused confidential information, which was also not convincingly demonstrated.The Second Circuit held that the inclusion of the invalid right-to-control theory was not harmless and that the jury was likely influenced by it. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for entry of an order granting Johnson's Petition for a writ of coram nobis. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) suing Maria T. Vullo, the former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), alleging that Vullo violated its First Amendment rights. The NRA claimed that Vullo engaged in coercive and retaliatory actions against the NRA by pressuring financial institutions and insurers to sever ties with the NRA, thereby infringing on its free speech and equal protection rights. Vullo argued that she was entitled to qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied Vullo's motion to dismiss the NRA's First Amendment claims, finding that the NRA had sufficiently stated a claim and that Vullo was not entitled to qualified immunity at that stage. Vullo appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit initially reversed the district court's decision, holding that the NRA failed to state a First Amendment claim and that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity. The NRA then petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to address whether the NRA had stated a plausible First Amendment claim. The Supreme Court concluded that the NRA had plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation and remanded the case to the Second Circuit to reconsider the issue of qualified immunity.Upon reconsideration, the Second Circuit concluded that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that, although the general principle that a government official cannot coerce a private party to suppress disfavored speech was well established, it was not clearly established that Vullo's conduct—regulatory actions directed at the nonexpressive conduct of third parties—constituted coercion or retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and remanded the case for the district court to enter judgment dismissing the remaining claims against Vullo. View "Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo" on Justia Law

The case involves plaintiffs-appellees, trustees of the Peter and Elizabeth C. Tower Foundation, who brought claims against UBS Financial Services, Inc. and Jay S. Blair (collectively, the "UBS Defendants") under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and New York state law. The plaintiffs allege that the UBS Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in managing the Foundation's investment advisory accounts. Specifically, they claim that John N. Blair, the father of Jay Blair, improperly used his position to place the Foundation’s assets with his son's investment firm, which later became affiliated with UBS.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied the UBS Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to question the validity of the arbitration agreement, warranting a trial on that issue. The UBS Defendants had previously moved to stay or dismiss the action under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, which was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., which held that courts may not impose a prejudice requirement when evaluating whether a party has waived enforcement of an arbitration agreement. The Second Circuit concluded that the UBS Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by seeking a resolution of their dispute in the District Court first, thus acting inconsistently with the right to arbitrate. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the UBS Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on the alternative ground of waiver. View "Doyle v. UBS Financial Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Jamees Cooke was employed at a restaurant when a team from the United States Marshals Service Regional Fugitive Task Force arrived to execute three outstanding warrants for his arrest. Cooke attempted to escape but was confronted by officers. He became disorderly, assaulted a Task Force Officer (TFO) by punching him in the eye, and bit another officer. The assaulted TFO suffered a serious eye injury requiring surgery and resulting in permanent vision impairment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted Cooke after he pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting, resisting, and interfering with federal officers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b). The district court sentenced him to eighty-four months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The court applied a six-level official-victim enhancement under section 3A1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.Cooke appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in applying the six-level enhancement. He contended that section 3A1.2(b) should not apply when the offense guideline already includes an enhancement for the victim's status as a government officer. The Second Circuit agreed that section 3A1.2(b) does not apply if the offense guideline already incorporates such an enhancement but clarified that the only offense guideline incorporating this factor is section 2A2.4, which was not relevant in this case. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the application of the six-level enhancement under section 3A1.2(b). View "United States v. Cooke" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to New York's gun-related public nuisance statute, N.Y. General Business Law § 898-a–e, by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. and fourteen of its members. The statute imposes liability on gun industry members who knowingly or recklessly endanger public safety through the sale or marketing of firearms. The plaintiffs argue that the statute is unconstitutional, claiming it is preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), violates the dormant Commerce Clause, and is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, ruling in favor of New York's Attorney General, Letitia James. The district court found that the statute was not preempted by PLCAA, did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, and was not unconstitutionally vague. The plaintiffs then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden in this facial, preenforcement challenge to demonstrate that the statute is unenforceable in all its applications. The court concluded that the statute falls within PLCAA's predicate exception clause and is therefore not preempted. Additionally, the court found that the statute does not violate the principles of interstate commerce and is not void for vagueness. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. James" on Justia Law

Kenneth Thompson was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, following a guilty plea. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York sentenced him to thirty-seven months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. The court also imposed special conditions of supervised release, including submitting to searches, complying with sex offender registration requirements, and undergoing a mental health evaluation and treatment if necessary.Thompson appealed, arguing that the district court erred in imposing the special conditions without an individualized assessment and explanation. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary. Additionally, he challenged the district court's Sentencing Guidelines calculation and argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Thompson waived any challenge to the mental health treatment condition by consenting to it. The court held that the district court made an individualized assessment and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the special conditions, which were supported by the record. The court declined to consider Thompson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, noting that it was not raised in the district court and lacked sufficient factual development. The court also held that Thompson's remaining challenges to his conviction and sentence were barred by the appellate waiver in his plea agreement.The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jere Eaton sued the City of Stamford and police officer Steven Estabrook, alleging that Estabrook used excessive force during a protest on August 8, 2020. Eaton claimed that Estabrook lifted her by her bra strap, drove her backward several feet, and dropped her on the ground without warning, violating her Fourteenth Amendment rights and committing assault and battery under Connecticut state law. Estabrook and the City of Stamford moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity and state governmental immunity.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that while there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Estabrook used excessive force, Estabrook was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that his actions were unconstitutional. The court also granted summary judgment on Eaton’s state law claims, concluding that Estabrook was entitled to state governmental immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the use of excessive force. However, the appellate court concluded that Estabrook was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage because the same factual disputes also affected whether his actions were clearly established as unconstitutional at the time. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court upheld the district court’s decision regarding state governmental immunity for the state law claims. View "Eaton v. Estabrook" on Justia Law

From the 1990s through the 2010s, Patrice Runner operated a mass-mailing enterprise that used false and misleading advertising to sell purportedly supernatural objects and psychic services. Customers paid for rare gems and personalized psychic services, but received junk items and generic responses. A jury convicted Runner of mail and wire fraud, among other crimes.Runner appealed, arguing that the Government’s theory of fraud was legally defective, which he claimed affected his indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the jury instructions. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York had denied Runner’s motion to dismiss the indictment and rejected his post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial. The court also sentenced Runner to ten years’ imprisonment, despite a Guidelines recommendation of life imprisonment, based on a loss calculation of over $150,000,000.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Runner’s arguments, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kousisis v. United States, which supported the Government’s fraudulent-inducement theory. The court found that the indictment sufficiently alleged that Runner used material misstatements to induce customers to pay money. The evidence presented at trial was deemed sufficient to support the jury’s finding of fraudulent intent, as Runner’s promotions contained intentional lies about the origin and nature of the goods and services sold. The jury instructions were also found to be adequate in conveying the intent-to-harm requirement.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that any error in the loss calculation at sentencing was harmless, as the district court would have imposed the same sentence regardless. View "United States v. Runner" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Douglass Mackey, was convicted of conspiring to injure citizens in the exercise of their right to vote in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. The conviction was based on three memes he posted or reposted on Twitter shortly before the 2016 presidential election, which falsely suggested that supporters of then-candidate Hillary Clinton could vote by text message.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Donnelly, J.) oversaw the trial, where a jury found Mackey guilty. Mackey appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knowingly agreed to join the charged conspiracy. The government presented evidence of Mackey's participation in several private Twitter message groups where members discussed strategies to influence the election, including the creation and distribution of misleading memes. However, Mackey was not a member of these groups during the critical period when the conspiracy was allegedly formed and discussed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that Mackey knowingly agreed to join the conspiracy. The court noted that while Mackey posted the misleading memes, there was no direct evidence that he viewed or participated in the relevant discussions within the private message groups. The court emphasized that mere association with individuals involved in an unlawful undertaking is not enough to prove knowing involvement in a conspiracy.The Second Circuit concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support Mackey's conviction and reversed the judgment of the district court. The case was remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal for Mackey. View "United States v. Mackey" on Justia Law