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

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for deliberate indifference and seeking to hold defendant Michael Allen, a police officer, responsible for excessive use of force. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the City on plaintiff's municipal liability claims where the evidence proffered by plaintiff was insufficient to permit an inference of deliberate indifference. The court held that the cross-appeal by Allen was without merit given that as to an affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden was on the defendant to prove the necessary factual predicates by a preponderance of the evidence; that in order to avoid having the district court instruct the jury that he had that burden, Allen chose not to have submitted to the jury the fact questions as to which he now wants favorable answers presumed; and that the pertinent factual findings made by the district court were not inconsistent with the jury's answers to the questions that were posed. View "Outlaw v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action alleging discrimination and retaliation against plaintiff, a former duty chaplain at New York Methodist Hospital. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the ministerial exception. In this case, the hospital, because of its history and continuing purpose, through its Department of Pastoral Care, is a "religious group," and since plaintiff's role within the Department of Pastoral Care was to provide religious care to the hospital's patients and religious care only, the ministerial exception doctrine should be applied. The court held that, once applied, the ministerial exception doctrine warranted dismissal of the suit. View "Penn v. New York Methodist Hospital" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of Credit One's motion to compel arbitration on the basis of a clause in the cardholder agreement between Credit One and debtor. The court held that debtor's claim was not arbitrable because the dispute concerned a core bankruptcy proceeding and arbitrating the matter would present an inherent conflict with the goals of the Bankruptcy Code. In this case, the successful discharge of debt was not merely important to the Bankruptcy Code, it was its principal goal. The court explained that an attempt to coerce debtors to pay a discharged debt was thus an attempt to undo the effect of the discharge order and the bankruptcy proceeding itself. View "In re Orrin S. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's order suppressing statements that defendant made to law enforcement authorities in the course of a non-custodial interview on March 4, 2015. The court reviewed the totality of the circumstances as reflected in a videotape recording of the interview at issue and held that defendant's statements were not coerced. In this case, the police did not falsely promise defendant immunity from prosecution in return for his cooperation and, in the absence of such a promise, nothing demonstrated that defendant's will was overborne during his non-custodial interview as to render the statements he made at that time constitutionally involuntary. View "United States v. Haak" on Justia Law

Employees of Wells Fargo filed putative class arbitrations before the American Arbitration Association, seeking unpaid overtime from Wells Fargo. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Wells Fargo's petitions seeking to compel bilateral, rather than class, arbitration. The court assumed without deciding that the question whether an arbitration clause authorized class arbitration was a so-called "question of arbitrability" presumptively for a court, rather than an arbitrator, to decide. Therefore, applying Missouri's arbitration and contract law, the court held that the parties overcame this presumption by clearly and unmistakably expressing their intent to let an arbitrator decide whether they agreed to authorize class arbitration. View "Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington" on Justia Law

Employees of Wells Fargo filed putative class arbitrations before the American Arbitration Association, seeking unpaid overtime from Wells Fargo. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Wells Fargo's petitions seeking to compel bilateral, rather than class, arbitration. The court assumed without deciding that the question whether an arbitration clause authorized class arbitration was a so-called "question of arbitrability" presumptively for a court, rather than an arbitrator, to decide. Therefore, applying Missouri's arbitration and contract law, the court held that the parties overcame this presumption by clearly and unmistakably expressing their intent to let an arbitrator decide whether they agreed to authorize class arbitration. View "Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine. The court held that although the evidence demonstrated that defendant was a relatively minor participant, neither the jury instructions nor the evidence resulted in a constructive amendment of the indictment; any variance from the indictment that occurred did not affect defendant's substantial rights and therefore was not prejudicial; and defendant's remaining arguments were without merit. View "United States v. Dove" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit held that the district court properly denied an insurance company's motion to rescind a life insurance policy on the basis of misrepresentations made by the deceased when applying for the policy. The district court properly relied on Pinette v. Assurance Co. of America, 52 F.3d 407 (2d Cir. 1995), and FDIC v. Great American Insurance Co., 607 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2010), the court's most recent decisions on when, under Connecticut law, an insurer may rescind a policy because of an insured's misrepresentation. The court held that the district court correctly identified Pinette and Great American Insurance Co. as setting the controlling standards in this case and did not err in applying the facts of this case to the controlling standards. View "Principal National Life Insurance Co. v. Coassin" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims of nuisance, trespass, and negligence arising from water contamination as barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that the statute of limitations began to run when the water district learned of the potential need to remediate, or at least when a reasonable water provider would have taken action to protect the water. In this case, the court agreed with the district court that the record established as a matter of law that the water district had suffered injury and was aware of that injury before November 2010. Therefore, the water district's claims for damages arising from contamination of Plant 4 was barred by the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the water district's claims regarding radium were also time-barred where there was a seven year gap between the discovery of the injury and the discovery of the source of the injury. View "Bethpage Water District v. Northrop Grumman Corp." on Justia Law

Connecticut General Statute 52‐59b, which provides for long‐arm jurisdiction over certain out‐of‐state defendants except in defamation actions, does not violate plaintiff's First or Fourteenth Amendment rights. This case arose out of a news article published by Bloomberg News, reporting a lawsuit filed by plaintiff against his former employer, Palladyne International Asset Management, and others. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's defamation action as to the out-of-state defendants. In regard to allegedly defamatory statements made by the remaining defendants, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's defamation claim based on the "as much as $500 million" statement, and reversed the district court's dismissal of the defamation claim based on the "repeatedly tried to extort" statement, pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law 74. View "Friedman v. Bloomberg L.P." on Justia Law