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

Plaintiffs, holders of Petrobras equity, filed a class action against various defendants after the multinational oil and gas company was involved in money-laundering and kickback schemes. The district court certified two classes: the first asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.; and the second asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933,15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. The Second Circuit clarified the scope of the contested ascertainability doctrine and held that a class is ascertainable if it is defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries. That threshold requirement was met in this case. The court held that the district court committed legal error by finding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement was satisfied without considering the need for individual Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), inquiries regarding domestic transactions. Therefore, the court vacated this portion of the Certification Order. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the Exchange Act class met their burden under Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), with a combination of direct and indirect evidence of market efficiency.  Accordingly, the court affirmed as to this issue. View "In re Petrobras Securities" on Justia Law

Defendants Martinez, Rodriguez, Fiorentino, and Tejada appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in a conspiracy, spanning at least a decade, in which more than two dozen persons were alleged to have committed more than 200 robberies of drug traffickers. The Second Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Fiorentino was a member of the conspiracy within the statute-of-limitations period; his sentence was substantively reasonable; and the court rejected his remaining challenges. Because Rodriguez did not raise his statute-of-limitations contention until long after his trial, the district court properly denied his motion for acquittal. The court held that the evidence as a whole was sufficient to support Tejada's convictions for obstruction of justice; if it was error to admit the out-of-court description of the attempted robbers, it was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt; and the court rejected challenges to the Government's summation. Martinez's motion for new counsel was properly denied, and there was no plain error in the district court's acceptance of Martinez's plea of guilty to aiding and abetting others in brandishing in furtherance of the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy. Finally, the court rejected Fiorentino and Tejada's challenges to their sentences. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's award of equitable relief in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., action. The court rejected defendants' challenges to the district court's award of equitable relief under section 502(a)(3). The court held that the district court did not err in rejecting defendants' challenge to the timeliness of participants' claims; ordering class-wide relief on participants' section 404(a) claims without requiring individualized proof of detrimental reliance; and concluding that mistake, a prerequisite to the equitable remedy of reformation, had been shown by clear and convincing evidence as to all class members. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding equitable relief. View "Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in litigating an appeal and cross-appeal under 42 U.S.C. 1988. After the court affirmed on the merits, the district court awarded a reduced award of attorneys' fees. The court affirmed the award in a summary order, stating that each side was to bear its own costs. The district court then denied plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The court held that its reference to "costs" in the context of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 did not include attorneys' fees. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Hines v. City of Albany" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's 63 month sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery, holding that the district court denied the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment under USSG 3E1.1(a) based on clearly erroneous factual findings. In light of a defendant's due process right to contest alleged factual errors in his PSR, his good-faith objection to material PSR statements that he disputes does not provide a proper foundation for denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility credit. In this case, the district court's denial of the credit because it viewed defendant as falsely attempting to minimize his participation in the robbery conspiracy was erroneous. View "United States v. Delacruz" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's motion for summary judgment dismissing on qualified immunity grounds an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff, as conservator of the estate of his brother, Israel Soto, alleged the use of excessive force by the officers in connection with Soto's flight from police. The court held that Defendant Csech's appeal from the denial of his motion for summary judgment was properly before the court, but that the other appeals were not because they were not immediately appealable. In this case, Csech was entitled to qualified immunity because no precedent at the time established that a suspect who was fleeing had a right not to be stopped by means of a taser. In this case, the undisputed facts show that Soto was fleeing when Csech tased him. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and dismissed in part. View "Soto v. Gaudett" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for innocent spouse relief based on lack of jurisdiction and from an order denying petitioner's motion to vacate the order of dismissal. The court held that petitioner's failure to file the petition within the statutorily prescribed period deprived the Tax Court of jurisdiction to review her claim. View "Matuszak v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendants' motion for qualified immunity in plaintiffs' action claiming false arrest, unnecessary use of force, and First Amendment retaliation. The court held that its mandate in Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015), did not preclude the district court's considering, and ruling on, defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity; defendants did not waive their qualified immunity defense; and the district court committed no error in granting that motion. View "Brown v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Hospital under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., alleging that the Hospital terminated her illegally for taking medical leave to which she was entitled under the terms of the Act. The DC Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the hospital, holding that the district court erred in determining that plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, establish a "serious health condition" under 14 C.F.R. 825.115(e)(2), but correctly concluded that the Hospital was not estopped from challenging whether plaintiff established the elements of her FMLA interference claim. Because the Hospital failed to show entitlement to summary judgment on plaintiff's right to leave under section 825.115(e)(2), the Hospital's entitlement to summary judgment turns on the adequacy of plaintiff's notice. Therefore, the court remanded for the district court to make this determination. View "Pollard v. The New York Methodist Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against BNTK and BUSA for their alleged roles in plaintiffs' 2008 abduction from London and their prolonged detention in Belarus by authorities of that country. The Second Circuit held that it has jurisdiction to review this appeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine; the district court acted within its discretion in ordering limited jurisdictional discovery and in sanctioning defendants for failing to comply with that order; but to the extent the challenged October 20, 2015 order not only required defendants to pay an earlier accrued monetary sanction but also struck their sovereign immunity claim in its entirety, it exceeded the district court's discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the challenged order generally, vacating only that part striking defendants' foreign sovereign immunity claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Funk v. Belneftekhim" on Justia Law