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

Federal authorities investigated a man after discovering that his co-defendant, who had been involved in two separate shooting incidents, had purchased a firearm for him. The defendant was charged with illegal receipt of a trafficked firearm based on this transaction. He pleaded guilty to that charge and was released pending sentencing, but while on bail, he was alleged to have participated in an assault and attempted robbery at a gas station, leading to the revocation of his bail.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held a sentencing hearing, during which it imposed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment—substantially above the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 12 to 18 months. The district court based its decision in part on the defendant’s alleged uncharged conduct while on bail and on the violent conduct of the co-defendant, specifically the two shootings. The district court reasoned that these incidents provided relevant context for the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s offense, even though there was no evidence that the defendant participated in or was aware of the co-defendant’s shootings, and no finding was made regarding the reliability or proof of the uncharged conduct by the defendant.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court plainly erred by considering the co-defendant’s prior violent activities in sentencing the defendant. The Second Circuit found there was no basis to attribute the co-defendant’s shootings to the defendant under any sentencing factor, as they were not part of a joint undertaking or conspiracy and were not shown to be relevant to the defendant’s conduct. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for a full resentencing, instructing the district court not to consider the co-defendant’s unrelated violent acts and clarifying the process for addressing any alleged uncharged conduct by the defendant. View "United States v. Dralle" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual who, in January 2020, sold fentanyl-laced heroin to an undercover police detective using his phone to arrange the sales. That same month, he shot someone in the knee and, after his arrest, was found with crack cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. He was indicted on five counts, including possession of ammunition after a felony conviction and drug-related offenses. He ultimately pled guilty to the ammunition charge under a plea agreement that included an express waiver of appeal for sentences within a specified range.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sentenced him to 105 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release, imposing several special conditions. Three of those conditions—electronic device searches upon reasonable suspicion, mandatory community service when unemployed, and participation in an outpatient mental health counseling program—were challenged by the defendant. In a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated these three conditions due to insufficient explanation and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the District Court elaborated on the reasons for imposing the conditions and reimposed them with some modifications.In the current appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of these special conditions. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when imposing the challenged conditions, as they were sufficiently individualized and reasonably related to the relevant sentencing factors. The court also held that the defendant’s challenge to his term of imprisonment was barred by the appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

The case involves an altercation in the lobby of an apartment building, where Darryl Brown, an off-duty corrections officer, shot and killed Vonde Cabbagestalk, his daughter’s boyfriend. During a heated argument, Brown drew his firearm. Witness testimony established that Cabbagestalk became physically aggressive and swung at Brown, after which Brown pulled out his gun and held it at his waist. Cabbagestalk made a threatening remark and attempted to swipe at the gun, at which point Brown fired, resulting in Cabbagestalk’s death.Brown was tried in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and convicted of first-degree manslaughter. The trial judge declined to instruct the jury on the justification (self-defense) defense, finding the evidence insufficient to warrant the charge. On direct appeal, a divided Appellate Division, First Department, vacated the conviction, reasoning that the evidence could support Brown’s belief that he needed to use deadly force. However, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously reversed and reinstated the conviction, holding that Brown’s act of drawing his gun made him the initial aggressor under New York law, disqualifying him from the justification defense. The court found no evidence that Brown withdrew from the encounter or that Cabbagestalk threatened deadly force before Brown drew his weapon.Brown sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that denial of a justification instruction violated his federal due process rights. The district court denied relief, agreeing with the New York Court of Appeals. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that Brown was not entitled to a justification instruction under New York law and, consequently, there was no constitutional violation justifying habeas relief. View "Brown v. James" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a commercial landlord and tenant after government emergency orders during the COVID-19 pandemic required non-essential businesses in New York City to close. The tenant, operating a retail clothing store in Manhattan, stopped paying rent, arguing that the lease excused rent payments when government actions prevented it from operating its business. The landlord disagreed, terminated the lease for nonpayment, and sought damages for breach of contract. The tenant vacated the premises and counterclaimed, alleging the landlord wrongfully terminated the lease and wrongfully kept two payments made after termination.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the landlord, finding that the government’s orders did not constitute a “taking” under the lease because the tenant was not fully deprived of the use or occupancy of the premises. The district court also rejected the tenant’s counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, holding that the notice-and-cure provision applied and that the unjust enrichment claim was duplicative. The court awarded damages to the landlord, though the landlord cross-appealed, asserting the award was insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court misinterpreted the lease’s takings provision, which excused the tenant from paying rent when it was unable to operate its business due to government orders. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for the landlord on its breach of contract claim and concluded the tenant was entitled to summary judgment on both its own breach of contract counterclaim and its claim that the landlord improperly terminated the lease. The court further vacated the judgment on the unjust enrichment counterclaim and remanded for further proceedings. The landlord’s cross-appeal on damages was dismissed as moot. View "Delshah 60 Ninth, LLC v. Free People of PA LLC" on Justia Law

A group of branded gasoline retailers, known as the Old Jericho Plaintiffs, operated gas stations and accepted Visa and Mastercard payment cards during a specified period. Following a long-running federal antitrust class action alleging that Visa and Mastercard imposed unlawfully high interchange fees, a $5.6 billion settlement was reached in 2019 with a class defined as all entities accepting Visa- or Mastercard-branded cards in the United States from January 1, 2004, to January 24, 2019. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs did not opt out of this settlement. However, after the opt-out period ended, they filed a separate class action asserting state-law antitrust claims for damages based on the same alleged conduct, contending that their suppliers were the direct payors of the fees and thus should be the proper class members.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were members of the original settlement class and that the settlement agreement barred their new claims. The district court found the term “accepted” in the settlement ambiguous but, after reviewing extrinsic evidence—such as contracts and how transactions were conducted—concluded that the retailers themselves, not their suppliers, “accepted” payment cards within the meaning of the agreement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that its prior decision in Fikes Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. did not require class membership to be determined solely by identifying the “direct payor.” The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were intended to be class members. Additionally, it held that the claims brought by these plaintiffs were validly released in the settlement because they rested on the same factual predicate as the released claims and the plaintiffs had been adequately represented. View "In Re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Two Vermont residents who worked as delivery drivers for a baked goods company sued the company, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because they were not paid overtime despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week. The company classified them as independent contractors, not employees, and both the drivers and the company are located in different states: the drivers in Vermont, and the company is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The drivers brought the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, both on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated delivery drivers.After the case was filed, the plaintiffs asked the district court to allow notification of potential collective action members not just in Vermont, but also in Connecticut and New York. The company objected, arguing that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state drivers. The district court disagreed, concluding that it did have personal jurisdiction over the company regarding claims by non-Vermont drivers, and permitted notification to potential plaintiffs in all three states. The district court then certified the personal jurisdiction issue for interlocutory appeal and stayed its decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court. The appellate court held that, unless Congress has provided otherwise (which it has not in the FLSA), a federal district court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant for out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims is limited by the same rules that bind state courts. Because there was no showing that the claims by Connecticut and New York drivers arose out of the company's contacts with Vermont, the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over those claims. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Provencher v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution LLC" on Justia Law

A volunteer firefighter with a fire district in New York suffered a serious foot injury while aboard the district’s firefighting vessel responding to a reported boat fire on the Hudson River. He was injured when he tried to prevent a collision between his vessel and a police boat. After the accident, he received compensation under New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, which provides workers’ compensation-like benefits for volunteers injured in the line of duty. Despite receiving these benefits, he filed claims in federal court against the fire district, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness under federal maritime law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the fire district, finding that the firefighter was not entitled to bring claims under the Jones Act or under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, and that the exclusive remedy provision of New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law barred his general maritime law negligence claim. The firefighter appealed, contesting the denial of his Sieracki unseaworthiness and general maritime negligence claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the firefighter was not entitled to the warranty of seaworthiness extended to so-called "Sieracki seamen." It also concluded that New York’s exclusive remedy provision could not bar his federal negligence claim under general maritime law, given the significant federal interest in uniform maritime remedies. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the firefighter met the requirements for Sieracki seaman status and to allow his general maritime negligence claim to proceed. View "In re Complaint of Verplanck Fire District" on Justia Law

A noncitizen from Brazil who entered the United States without inspection around 2005 and has lived in the country since then was arrested in 2025 by immigration authorities while driving to work. He had a pending asylum application since 2016, had been granted work authorization, owned a home, operated a small business, and had no criminal history. Following his arrest, the government initiated removal proceedings against him and detained him, asserting that he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) while his removal proceedings were pending.The United States Department of Homeland Security placed him in removal proceedings in immigration court, where an immigration judge concluded that he was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and thus ineligible for release on bond under § 1226(a). The petitioner then filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, arguing that his detention should be governed by § 1226(a), which allows for release on bond. The district court agreed, ordered the government to provide a bond hearing or release him, and, after a bond hearing was held, he was released because the immigration judge found he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed whether the petitioner’s detention was governed by § 1225(b)(2)(A) (mandatory detention) or § 1226(a) (discretionary detention with bond eligibility). The Second Circuit held that § 1226(a) governs the detention of noncitizens like the petitioner—those present in the United States after entering without inspection and not apprehended at or near the border. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of habeas corpus, concluding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply in these circumstances, and that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. View "Cunha v. Freden" on Justia Law

A New York state prisoner, convicted of several serious offenses and serving a life sentence without parole, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied his petition on the merits and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The petitioner missed the deadline to appeal that denial and subsequently moved for an extension of time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), arguing that his attorney’s staff absences and communication issues with the petitioner constituted “excusable neglect.” The district court denied this motion, finding the reasons provided were, at most, ordinary attorney error, and again denied a certificate of appealability.The petitioner then appealed the district court’s denial of his Rule 4(a)(5) motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The government argued, and the court agreed, that before the appeal could proceed, the petitioner was required to obtain a certificate of appealability because the order denying his extension motion was a “final order” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). The petitioner challenged this requirement, but the Second Circuit concluded that its prior precedent remained binding and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Harbison v. Bell did not remove the certificate requirement for orders that conclude the habeas proceeding.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 4(a)(5) motion in this context, and it declined to issue such a certificate because no reasonable jurist would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Griffin v. LaManna" on Justia Law

Adidas America, Inc. brought a lawsuit against Thom Browne, Inc., alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, based on Thom Browne’s use of certain stripe motifs on its apparel. Adidas’s claims focused on Thom Browne’s Four-Bar Signature and Grosgrain designs, which adidas argued infringed on its well-known Three-Stripe Mark, particularly in a new line of activewear. At trial, the jury heard extensive evidence, including testimony from sixteen witnesses and more than four hundred exhibits, and ultimately found Thom Browne not liable on all counts.Subsequently, during related litigation in the United Kingdom, adidas discovered that Thom Browne had failed to disclose several relevant emails during discovery in the U.S. action. These emails contained internal discussions among Thom Browne employees acknowledging the potential for confusion between Thom Browne’s stripe designs and adidas’s mark. Adidas moved in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for relief from the final judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) and 60(b)(3) (misconduct), arguing that the emails warranted a new trial. The district court denied the motion, finding that the emails probably would not have changed the verdict and that Thom Browne’s discovery violation was, at most, negligent rather than intentional misconduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Second Circuit held that adidas failed to demonstrate that the newly discovered emails probably would have altered the outcome at trial, as required under Rule 60(b)(2). The court further held that “misconduct” under Rule 60(b)(3) does not include merely negligent discovery violations; only intentional or reckless conduct could justify such relief. Therefore, adidas was not entitled to a new trial. View "Adidas America, Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc." on Justia Law