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

Representatives of certain unsecured creditors of the Chapter 11 debtor Tribune Company appealed the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss their state law, constructive fraudulent conveyance claims brought against Tribune's former shareholders. The district court held that appellants lacked statutory standing under the Bankruptcy Code.The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of appellants' state law, constructive fraudulent conveyance claims on preemption grounds rather than standing grounds. The court held that appellants were not barred by the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision from bringing claims while avoidance proceedings against the same transfers brought by a party exercising the powers of a bankruptcy trustee on an intentional fraud theory are ongoing, because appellants have been freed from its restrictions by orders of the bankruptcy court and by debtors' confirmed reorganization plan. However, the court held that appellants' claims were preempted by section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, because this section shields certain transactions from a bankruptcy trustee's avoidance powers, including, inter alia, transfers by or to a financial institution in connection with a securities contract, except through an intentional fraudulent conveyance claim. View "In re: Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation" on Justia Law

There is no error in applying the career offender enhancement under USSG 4B1.1, to a defendant convicted of racketeering conspiracy based on underlying predicate acts of racketeering that qualify as crimes of violence under USSG 4B1.2.The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and held that, even assuming defendant preserved his argument that the 2016 Guidelines should have been used, the district court did not err in concluding that defendant's conviction for federal racketeering conspiracy based on the predicate acts of racketeering is a crime of violence under section 4B1.1 of the 2016 Guidelines. Furthermore, the court held that defendant's prior New York state robbery convictions are clearly crimes of violence under the 2015 Guidelines. The court disposed of the consolidated appeals of defendant's co-defendants in a separate summary order. View "United States v. Canteen" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a notice of appeal more than three years after he was sentenced for two counts of assault on a law enforcement officer. The Second Circuit held that United States v. Fuller, 332 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 2003), was inapplicable in this case, because it was unclear whether defendant could have filed a timely petition for habeas relief in the district court at the time he filed his untimely notice of appeal with this court. Therefore, the court dismissed defendant's appeal as untimely, and remanded to the district court with instructions to convert his notice of appeal into a petition for habeas relief, assessing whether such petition would be timely under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(4). View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The BIA must consider the principles of equitable tolling when an untimely appeal is filed and the petitioner raises the issue.The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision refusing to accept petitioner's untimely appeal of an IJ's order of removal from Ghana. The court held that the BIA erred in refusing to consider whether the argument that the appeal deadline, which is nonjurisdictional, is subject to an equitable tolling exception. The court found that the appeal deadline is a claim‐processing rule amenable to equitable tolling and thus remanded to the BIA to develop standards for equitable tolling, determining whether petitioner qualified for such relief. View "Attipoe v. Barr" on Justia Law

The collection of the communications of United States persons incidental to the lawful surveillance of non-United States persons located abroad does not violate the Fourth Amendment and, to the extent that the government's inadvertent targeting of a United States person led to collection of defendant's communications, he was not harmed by that collection.The Second Circuit held that there was insufficient information in either the classified or the public record in this case to permit the court to determine whether any such querying was reasonable and therefore permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hasbajrami" on Justia Law

The government petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to preclude defense counsel from arguing nullification and to exclude any evidence of sentencing consequences. In this case, respondent was charged with production of child pornography. The district court granted respondent's request to argue jury nullification, but reserved decision on the admissibility of evidence regarding the sentencing consequences of a conviction.The Second Circuit held that the conditions for mandamus relief were satisfied with respect to the district court's nullification ruling, but not with respect to the admissibility of evidence of sentencing consequences. In this case, the court could not rule out the possibility that the admissibility of sentencing consequences will depend at lest in part on events that will unfold at trial. Therefore, in these circumstances and in light of the second Cheney condition, the court held that the district court's decision to defer ruling on the admissibility of sentencing consequences until after the commencement of trial was not clearly and indisputably outside the range of permissible decisions. Accordingly, the court denied the government's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to preclude the introduction at trial of any evidence related to sentencing consequences, without prejudice to renewal following the district court's ultimate ruling on the motion to preclude. View "United States v. Manzano" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss after the Court of Appeals answered the certified question. In light of the Court of Appeals' holding that section 230(11)(b) of the New York Public Health Law does not create a private right of action for bad faith and malicious reporting to the Office of Professional Medical Conduct to the New York Court of Appeals, the court held that plaintiff's section 230(11)(b) claim was properly dismissed. View "Haar v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Conn. Genn. Stat. 4‐183(c) supplies an "explicit time limitation" of forty‐five days for appeals of final agency decisions under section 1415(i)(2)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint under the IDEA as time-barred. In this case, plaintiffs waited ninety days to commence their action and thus the district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. View "P.M.B. v. Ridgefield Board of Education" on Justia Law

Atlantic sought a declaratory judgment that the insurance policy it had issued to Coastal was void ab initio or, in the alternative, that there was no coverage for the loss of the barge or damage to an adjacent pier. District Court Judge Wexler passed away prior to issuing his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The case was transferred to Judge Azrack, who, after no party requested the recall of any witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63, issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in her role as successor judge and entered judgment finding Atlantic liable to Coastal under the terms of the policy.Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), factual findings of successor judges who have certified their familiarity with the record are subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. The Second Circuit also held that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63, a successor judge is under no independent obligation to recall witnesses unless requested by one of the parties. In this case, the court found no reversible error in Judge Azrack's findings of fact and conclusions of law, including findings that Coastal did not breach its duty of uberrimae fidei, and thus the policy was not void; Atlantic failed to prove that the vessel was unseaworthy; the loss of the vessel was due to a "peril of the sea" and was covered by the policy; Coastal was entitled to damages for contractual payments withheld by its contractor for repairs to a pier; and Coastal proved its damages using only a summary spreadsheet of invoices, as evidence. View "Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. v. Coastal Environmental Group Inc." on Justia Law

Notwithstanding a district court's release order pursuant to the Bail Reform Act (BRA), the government has the authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to detain a criminal defendant who is an alien in the course of an administrative removal proceeding.The Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of an indictment against defendant with prejudice. The court held that the district court's bail release order under the BRA did not preclude the government from detaining defendant under the INA as an inadmissible alien subject to removal. The court found defendant's arguments to the contrary unavailing. View "United States v. Lett" on Justia Law