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

The case involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding where the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement agreement among the trustee of the bankruptcy estate, the debtor, and other parties. The settlement released claims that appellants Richard and Marisa Stadtmauer had originally asserted in a New York state court action. The Stadtmauers alleged that the debtor, Mark Nordlicht, and others engaged in a scheme to conceal Nordlicht’s assets to avoid paying his debts. When Nordlicht filed for bankruptcy, the state court proceedings were stayed, and the trustee took possession of the Stadtmauers’ claims. The settlement included a $2.5 million payment to the estate by Nordlicht’s mother, Barbara Nordlicht, and provisions for indemnification and reimbursement of legal fees.The Stadtmauers objected to the settlement and appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They argued that the state court had granted them valid liens on two of Nordlicht’s properties, giving them secured property rights. They contended that the trustee lacked the authority to settle their claims, that the settlement violated due process and bankruptcy principles, and that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in approving the settlement. The district court rejected these arguments and affirmed the approval of the settlement agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court. The court held that the trustee had the authority to settle the Stadtmauers’ claims because they were general claims that were property of the bankruptcy estate. The court also found that the settlement did not violate the principles of creditor priority as articulated in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. because the validity of the Stadtmauers’ liens was in bona fide dispute. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "In re Nordlicht" on Justia Law

In 2013, the petitioner was convicted in Monroe County, New York, of engaging in a course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of the child victim, who described years of sexual abuse by the petitioner. A medical expert for the prosecution testified that the child's normal physical examination was consistent with past sexual abuse, as any injuries would have healed over time. The defense did not call a medical expert but cross-examined the prosecution's expert to elicit that normal findings could also indicate no abuse.The petitioner challenged his conviction in state court, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to consult or call a medical expert. The Appellate Division rejected this claim, stating that the petitioner had not shown that such testimony was available, would have assisted the jury, or that he was prejudiced by its absence. The New York Court of Appeals denied further review. The petitioner then filed a motion under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10, which was also denied without a hearing. The state court found that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the absence of a defense expert, as the prosecution's expert's key conclusions were not seriously challenged.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied the petitioner's habeas corpus petition, ruling that the state courts had not unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in rejecting the ineffective-assistance claim. The petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the state courts did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington in concluding that the petitioner was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to consult or call a medical expert. The court noted that the defense counsel effectively neutralized the prosecution's expert through cross-examination, and the petitioner failed to show that expert testimony would have likely changed the trial's outcome. View "Englert v. Lowerre" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Joseph Pessin, representing himself and others similarly situated, sued JPMorgan Chase & Company (JPMC), the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan, and its fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Pessin alleged that the Defendants failed to provide adequate disclosures to pension plan participants after converting the retirement plan from a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan. Specifically, Pessin claimed that the Defendants did not properly inform participants about the "wear-away" effect, which could freeze their benefits until the cash balance exceeded the previously accrued benefits.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Pessin’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that the Defendants had provided sufficient disclosures explaining the retirement plan's workings and did not mislead participants about the conversion's impact on their accrued benefits. The court concluded that the summary plan descriptions (SPDs) and benefit statements were adequate and that the Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties under ERISA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that the Defendants sufficiently disclosed the wear-away effect and that the SPDs clearly explained how benefits would be calculated. However, the appellate court disagreed with the district court's finding that the Defendants complied with ERISA § 105(a) regarding annual pension benefit statements. The court held that the benefit statements did not properly indicate the total benefits accrued, as they only included the cash balance amount and not the higher minimum benefit from the prior plan. Consequently, the court found that Pessin adequately alleged a breach of fiduciary duty by the JPMC Board for failing to monitor the JPMC Benefits Executive's performance regarding the benefit statements.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Pessin v. JPMorgan Chase" on Justia Law

Gilead Community Services, Inc. and Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Inc. sued the Town of Cromwell and several of its officials for discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Gilead had purchased a house in Cromwell to be used as a group home for individuals with mental health disabilities. Following significant opposition from town residents and officials, including discriminatory statements and actions by the town's mayor and manager, Gilead was forced to close the group home. The town's actions included petitioning the Department of Public Health to deny a license for the home, issuing a cease-and-desist letter, and denying a tax exemption application.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut found the Town of Cromwell liable for violating the FHA and ADA, awarding $181,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The town appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying a motivating-factor causation test to FHA claims, in subjecting the municipality to vicarious liability and punitive damages under the FHA, and that the punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Cromwell's arguments regarding the causation standard, vicarious liability, and the availability of punitive damages under the FHA. The court held that motivating-factor causation applies to FHA claims, municipalities can be held vicariously liable under the FHA, and the FHA allows for punitive damages against municipalities. However, the court found the $5 million punitive damages award to be unconstitutionally excessive, given the high ratio of punitive to compensatory damages and the disparity with civil penalties for similar conduct.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in part, vacated the punitive damages award, and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to grant a new trial on punitive damages unless Gilead agrees to a remittitur reducing the punitive damages to $2 million. View "Gilead Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Basel Soukaneh, alleged that during a routine traffic stop, Officer Nicholas Andrzejewski of the Waterbury, Connecticut police department unlawfully handcuffed and detained him in a police vehicle for over half an hour and conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle. Soukaneh had presented a valid firearms permit and disclosed the presence of a firearm in his vehicle. Andrzejewski argued that the presence of the firearm gave him probable cause to detain Soukaneh and search his vehicle.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut partially granted and partially denied Andrzejewski’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the initial stop was justified based on reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. However, it denied summary judgment regarding the handcuffing and prolonged detention of Soukaneh, as well as the searches of the vehicle and trunk, concluding that Andrzejewski did not have the requisite probable cause and was not entitled to qualified immunity for these actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Andrzejewski violated Soukaneh’s Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him in a manner and for a length of time that constituted a de facto arrest without probable cause. The court also found that the warrantless searches of Soukaneh’s vehicle and trunk were not justified under the automobile exception or as a Terry frisk, as there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a crime. Consequently, Andrzejewski was not entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Patricia Olivieri, alleged that her employer, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and her manager, Neil Isler, subjected her to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Olivieri claimed that Isler sexually assaulted and harassed her, and that after she reported his behavior, she faced retaliation and continued harassment from Stifel and other defendants. Olivieri's allegations included inappropriate comments, physical contact, and retaliatory actions such as changes in her job responsibilities and work environment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York initially granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in Olivieri's employment contract. However, after the enactment of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), Olivieri moved for reconsideration. The district court vacated its earlier decision, concluding that Olivieri's claims accrued after the EFAA's effective date, making her arbitration agreement voidable under the new law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the lower court, applying the continuing violation doctrine to determine that Olivieri's hostile work environment claims accrued after the EFAA's effective date of March 3, 2022. The court held that the EFAA applied to Olivieri's claims, rendering her arbitration agreement invalid and unenforceable. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Andrew Delaney, a lawyer acting pro se, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the Eastern District of New York, listing $1,110 in assets and $44,434 in liabilities. He later sought to dismiss his petition, arguing that he was not a debtor as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 109(a) and that venue was improper. The bankruptcy court denied his motion, stating that dismissal would not be in the interest of all parties, particularly his creditors, and that the trustee had made progress in achieving a modest settlement.Delaney appealed the bankruptcy court's denial to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The district court dismissed his appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding that the denial of a motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is not a final order that can be appealed as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The district court also treated Delaney's notice of appeal as a motion for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) and denied it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that it too lacked jurisdiction over Delaney’s appeal. The court held that the bankruptcy court's order denying Delaney's motion to dismiss was nonfinal because it did not finally dispose of any discrete disputes within the larger bankruptcy case. Consequently, the district court's dismissal of the appeal left significant further proceedings in the bankruptcy court. As a result, the Second Circuit dismissed Delaney’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Delaney v. Messer" on Justia Law

The case involves a contract dispute between Kenneth E. Salamone and RUFSTR Racing, LLC (Plaintiffs) and Douglas Marine Corporation (Defendant). Plaintiffs contracted with Douglas Marine to purchase a custom-made race boat and trailer for $542,117, making payments totaling $501,500. Douglas Marine failed to deliver the boat on time, leading Plaintiffs to cancel the contract. Douglas Marine sold the boat and engines for $375,000 but only remitted $50,000 to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, seeking damages.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York held a jury trial, which found in favor of Plaintiffs, awarding them $131,171 in damages. Plaintiffs moved to alter the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), arguing the jury's calculation was fundamentally erroneous and should be increased to $451,500. The district court agreed, ruling that the jury's verdict constituted a fundamental error and increased the damages to $451,500. Douglas Marine appealed, arguing the district court erred in increasing the damages and in not instructing the jury on a mitigation-of-damages defense. They also challenged the court's personal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It found merit in Douglas Marine's argument that the district court improperly increased the damages award, ruling that the jury's verdict did not constitute fundamental error. The appellate court reversed the amended judgment to the extent it increased the damages and remanded the case for entry of a second amended judgment consistent with the jury's original award of $131,171. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Douglas Marine's post-judgment motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Salamone v. Douglas Marine Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Marco Destin, Inc., 1000 Highway 98 East Corp., E&T, Inc., and Panama Surf & Sport, Inc. (collectively, “Marco Destin”) filed a lawsuit against agents of L&L Wings, Inc. (“L&L”), alleging that a 2011 stipulated judgment in a trademark action was obtained through fraud. Marco Destin claimed that L&L had fraudulently procured a trademark registration from the USPTO, which was used to secure the judgment. They sought to vacate the 2011 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) and requested sanctions and damages.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The court found that Marco Destin had a reasonable opportunity to uncover the alleged fraud during the initial litigation. Specifically, the court noted that the License Agreement between the parties indicated that other entities might have paramount rights to the "Wings" trademark, suggesting that Marco Destin could have discovered the fraud with due diligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal for abuse of discretion. The appellate court confirmed that the district court acted within its discretion in declining to vacate the 2011 stipulated judgment. The court emphasized that Marco Destin had a reasonable opportunity to uncover the alleged fraud during the initial litigation and that equitable relief under Rule 60(d)(3) requires a showing of due diligence. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion that Marco Destin could have discovered the fraud through proper diligence.The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding the dismissal of Marco Destin’s claims. View "Marco Destin, Inc. v. Levy" on Justia Law

In 2021, Ellva Slaughter was charged with illegally possessing a firearm while knowing he had previously been convicted of a felony, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Slaughter moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the jury selection plan of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) systematically underrepresented Black and Hispanic or Latino people, violating his Sixth Amendment right and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (JSSA). The district court assumed the underrepresentation was significant but denied the motion, finding Slaughter failed to prove systematic exclusion in the jury selection process.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Slaughter's motion to dismiss the indictment. The court assumed without deciding that there was significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic or Latino people but concluded that Slaughter did not establish that this underrepresentation was due to systematic exclusion. The court found that Slaughter's expert did not provide evidence that the identified practices caused the disparities and noted that many of the challenged practices were authorized by the Second Circuit. The court also found that any disparities were due to external factors outside the SDNY's control.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the framework from Duren v. Missouri, assuming without deciding that the underrepresentation was significant. However, it concluded that Slaughter did not meet his burden of proving systematic exclusion. The court found that Slaughter's expert did not provide sufficient evidence that the SDNY's practices caused the underrepresentation. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Slaughter failed to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement under the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA. View "United States v. Slaughter" on Justia Law