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

The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence. Defendant argued that he was seized when a police officer in a squad car, who had been alerted to a man lurking with a gun, shined a spotlight on defendant and asked questions to which he responded. The court held that its precedent in United States v. Baldwin, 496 F.3d 215, 219 (2d Cir. 2007), was controlling. In this case, defendant never submitted to police authority and therefore he was never seized. View "United States v. Huertas" on Justia Law

To vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the award was fraudulently procured, the petitioner must demonstrate the fraud was material to the award. There must be a nexus between the alleged fraud and the decision made by the arbitrators. The petitioner, however, need not demonstrate that the arbitrators would have reached a different result. In this case, Odeon brought a petition to vacate an arbitral award involving claims arising out of the termination of one of its employees. Odeon alleged that the arbitrators engaged in misconduct and acted in manifest disregard of the law, and then sought to amend its petition to assert fraud as an additional ground for vacatur. The Second Circuit held that Odeon failed to establish that the employee's alleged perjury had any impact on the arbitration award. The court also held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in denying the employee's request for attorneys' fees where New York law provided statutory authority for the fee request. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Odeon Capital Group LLC v. Ackerman" on Justia Law

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) applies to a district court's consideration of a motion to vacate a judgment enforcing an arbitral award that has since been annulled in the primary jurisdiction. In this case, petitioners submitted to arbitration in Malaysia a commercial dispute arising from the terminations by Laos of contracts granting TLL rights to mine lignite. An arbitral panel found Laos in breach and awarded petitioners approximately $57 million. Petitioners subsequently began enforcement actions under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Petitioners received judgment in their favor in the United States and United Kingdom. In 2012, the arbitral award was set aside. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order vacating the United States judgment, holding that the district court did not exceed the permissible bounds of its discretion under the facts of this case. The court also held that the district court did not exceed the permissible bounds of its discretion in refusing to order Laos to post security during the pendency of its Rule 60(b) motion and any subsequent appeals, nor did it err by refusing to enforce the English judgment. View "Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in favor of defendants, agreeing with plaintiff that the district court wrongly instructed the jury that "but for" causation applied to Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims. The court held that FMLA retaliation claims of the sort plaintiff brought here were grounded in 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) and a "motivating factor" causation standard applied to those claims. The court also held that the district court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in admitting and permitting the adverse inferences to be drawn in this case. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Woods v. START Treatment & Recovery Centers" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's determination that plaintiff asserted claims only under federal law, its dismissal of claims against the individual defendants, and its dismissal of plaintiff's hostile work environment claim. At issue in this appeal was whether a pro se litigant forfeits her claims under New York state and local discrimination law where she has alleged facts supporting such claims, but fails to check a blank on a form complaint indicating that she wishes to bring them. The court held that such a bright-line rule runs counter to the court's policy of liberally construing pro se submissions, and that plaintiff's complaint in this case should have been read by the district court to assert claims under New York state and local discrimination law as well as under federal law. The court addressed the balance of plaintiff's claims on appeal in a summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion, and remanded for further proceedings. View "McLeod v. The Jewish Guild for the Blind" on Justia Law

The Fifth Amendment's prohibition on the use of compelled testimony in American criminal proceedings applies even when a foreign sovereign has compelled the testimony.  When the government makes use of a witness who had substantial exposure to a defendant's compelled testimony, it is required under Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), to prove, at a minimum, that the witness's review of the compelled testimony did not shape, alter, or affect the evidence used by the government.  A bare, generalized denial of taint from a witness who has materially altered his or her testimony after being substantially exposed to a defendant’s compelled testimony is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the prosecution’s burden of proof. In this case involving the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), defendants were convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. The Second Circuit held that defendants' compelled testimony was "used" against them, and this impermissible use before the petit and grand juries was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  Accordingly, the court reversed the judgments of conviction and dismissed the indictment. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

Olin, a large chemical manufacturing company, filed suit against its insurers, including OneBeacon, seeking indemnification for environmental contamination at its manufacturing sites. On appeal, OneBeacon challenged two judgments entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in favor of Olin, awarding it over $80 million in indemnification costs. The Second Circuit held that, because it was not disputed that the damages at each site far exceed OneBeacon's attachment point of $300,000 when apportioned to a single policy year, OneBeacon's policies have been triggered. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment with respect to the McIntosh site; affirmed the district court's ruling as to the special verdict form; vacated and remanded for entry of a new damages judgment on the basis of the methodology dictated by In re Viking Pump, Inc., 52 N.E.3d 1144 (N.Y. 2016); remanded for further proceedings on the prior insurance provision issue; and remanded as to the issue of prejudgment interest. In regard to Olin's cross-appeal, the court affirmed and held that summary judgment in its favor on Olin's Chapter 93A claim was proper because Olin's Chapter 93A claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. View "Olin Corp. v. OneBeacon American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit after the county refused to return her longarms that had been seized in connection with a New York Family Court temporary order of protection issued against her, even though the order was no longer in effect. The Second Circuit held that, because the litigation had not terminated on the merits, the district court's order was not final, and thus not appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291. However, under 28 U.S.C. 1292, the the court had jurisdiction to review the district court's grant of injunctive relief. The court held, consistent with the district court's decision in the instant case, and the decision in Razzano v. Cty. of Nassau, 765 F. Supp. 2d 176, 180 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), that persons in plaintiff's situation were entitled to a prompt post-deprivation hearing under the four conditions set forth by the district court in this case and in Razzano. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order insofar as it granted plaintiff an injunction and directed the County to hold a post-deprivation hearing. The court dismissed in all other respects. View "Panzella v. Sposato" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of publishing companies on issues of antitrust injury and causation. Abbey House, dba BooksOnBoard, filed this civil antitrust action for business injuries it alleges arose from an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade between Apple, Inc. and five major publishing companies. The district court determined that BooksOnBoard faced strong competition from large retailers, that it contemporaneously viewed the adoption of agency pricing as a boon, and that its subsequent demise was not attributable to the unlawful conspiracy. The court agreed and held that there was no material fact in dispute underlying the conclusion that, as a matter of law, BooksOnBoard suffered no antitrust injury caused by the unlawful antitrust conspiracy. View "Abbey House Media, Inc. v. Simon & Schuster, Inc." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Simon & Schuster on the issues of antitrust injury and causation. Lavoho, successor in interest to Diesel, filed this antitrust action for business injuries it alleges arose from an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade between Apple, Inc. and five major publishing companies. The district court determined that Diesel's business was not grounded in price competition, that it contemporaneously viewed the adoption of agency pricing as a boon, and that its decline was not a legally cognizable antitrust injury flowing from the unlawful nature of the conspiracy. The court agreed and held that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact underlying the conclusion that, as a matter of law, Diesel suffered no antitrust injury caused by the unlawful antitrust conspiracy. View "Diesel eBooks, LLC v. Simon & Schuster, Inc." on Justia Law