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

After NASDAQ encountered a variety of technical difficulties in executing Facebook, Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO), retail investors filed suit against NASDAQ. After those claims were eventually settled, NASDAQ filed suit against insurance companies for coverage under both errors and omissions (E&O) and directors' and officers' (D&O) insurance policies. The district court granted ACE and Illinois National summary judgment. The Second Circuit held that federal securities law makes clear that retail investors in company stock are "customers" of NASDAQ within the meaning of the insurance policies at issue; the claims in the underlying complaint arose out of the provision of "professional services" as plaintiffs could not prevail without demonstrating that their losses flowed from NASDAQ's failure to properly process their trades; and thus the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the issue of indemnification. View "Beazley Insurance Co. v. Ace American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's judgment declaring that Citizens was obligated to defend and, if necessary, indemnify Risen Foods under a businessowners policy and an umbrella policy in an underlying suit for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The court held that Risen Foods' vehicle was not covered by either policy. NGM Insurance Co. v. Blakely Pumping, Inc., 593 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2010), was controlling in this case where the operative language of the endorsement in NGM was identical to the operative language in the endorsement added to the Citizens businessowners policy in the pending case. Here, the Risen Foods vehicle was not a "covered auto" under the policies. View "Citizens Insurance Co. v. Risen Foods, LLC" on Justia Law

Goldman Sachs appealed the district court's order certifying a class of plaintiffs who purchased shares of common stock in Goldman Sachs. Plaintiffs alleged that Goldman Sachs made material misstatements about its efforts to avoid conflicts of interest, and those misstatements caused the value of their shares to decline. In light of the Second Circuit's recent pronouncement that defendants bear the burden of persuasion to rebut the presumption in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), by a preponderance of the evidence, and for additional reasons, the court vacated plaintiffs' motion for class certification and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that it was unclear whether the district court applied the correct standard in this case. View "Arkansas Teachers Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's third amended complaint against the Department and others. Plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to discrimination and retaliation after he filed complaints against the Department with OSHA. The court held that the district court erred in holding that administrative exhaustion must be pleaded in the complaint. Rather, administrative exhaustion under Title VII was an affirmative defense. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Hardaway v. Hartford Public Works Department" on Justia Law

Third-party garnishees challenged the district court's judgment directing them to turn over $1,056,444.15 to a judgment creditor to satisfy a judgment against a judgment debtor. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that CSX was permitted to seek relief from garnishees by motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a), rather than by instituting a special proceeding pursuant to New York law; the plain meaning of C.P.L.R. 5222(b) did not support garnishees' argument that they did not violate the Restraining Notices because they transferred the restrained funds under the statute; and, the district court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing to resolve factual issues concerning the relative priorities of judgment creditors ‐‐ a necessary predicate to determining the proper amount of damages, if any, sustained by CSX. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "CSX Transp., Inc. v. Island Rail Terminal, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to misappropriate and sell property of AOL and was ordered to pay AOL restitution. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of his remaining restitution obligation by amounts recovered by AOL in civil litigation against other persons. The district court concluded that defendant failed to show that those amounts recovered by AOL were compensation for the same loss caused by defendant or that AOL has been fully compensated for the loss caused by him. The Second Circuit considered defendant's contentions and found that they were without merit. The court affirmed the judgment and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that justice required that defendant have the burden of proving that recoveries by AOL in civil litigation were for the same loss that he caused and that AOL has been compensated in full for the loss defendant caused. View "United States v. Smathers" on Justia Law

WD filed suit against OGS, alleging that defendants violated its rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York State Constitution by denying WD's applications to participate as a food truck vendor in the Lunch Program based on its ethnic-slur branding. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, holding that defendants' action violated WD's equal protection rights and its rights under the New York State Constitution. In this case, it was undisputed that defendants denied WD's applications solely because of its ethnic-slur branding. In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Supreme Court clarified that this action amounted to viewpoint discrimination and, if not government speech or otherwise protected, was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court rejected defendants' argument that their actions were unobjectionable because they were either part of OGS's government speech or permissible regulation of a government contractor's speech. View "Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito" on Justia Law

The district court entered judgment against defendants, awarding plaintiff nominal damages for each of the six months during which the district court ruled that defendants had unreasonably delayed in requesting a state trial court to resentence him and impose a term of PRS after such a term had been administratively imposed. Plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling that the state officials were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim for additional damages. The Second Circuit vacated the award of $300 in nominal damages for the three months after June 3, 2008; affirmed the award of $300 in nominal damages for the three months after September 1, 2008; and remanded for entry of a revised judgment and reconsideration of the amount of attorney's fees. The court affirmed as to plaintiff's appeal. View "Hassell v. Fischer" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action alleging that defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. The court held that a flu shot reminder text message sent by a hospital did not violate the TCPA because the text fell within the scope of plaintiff's prior express consent. In this case, plaintiff provided defendant with his cell phone number when he first visited the hospital; signed a consent form acknowledging receipt of various privacy notices; in signing the form, agreed that the hospital could share his information for "treatment" purposes; and the privacy notices stated that defendant could use plaintiff's information to recommend possible treatment alternatives or health-related benefits and services. View "Latner v. Mt. Sinai Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint challenging the USCIS's denial of jurisdiction over plaintiff's application for an adjustment of his immigration status. The court agreed with the district court that the present action constituted an indirect challenge to an outstanding removal order issued against plaintiff and thus 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5) precluded subject matter jurisdiction. View "Singh v. USCIS" on Justia Law