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

Carrington appealed the district court's judgment requiring them to pay plaintiff, the indirect purchaser and assignee of a limited prejudgment interest in defendants' fund, damages plus prejudgment interest for breach of the limited partnership agreement. Defendants principally contend that the district court erred in its interpretation of the agreement and should have granted summary judgment in their favor on the issue of liability. Defendants argue that, in any event, permitting plaintiff to withdraw from the fund would have precipitated a sale of fund assets at distressed prices, making it impossible for plaintiff to receive more than a minuscule distribution, if any. The court rejected defendants' challenges to the district court's ruling on the issue of liability. However, the court concluded that there were factual issues to be tried as to the calculation of damages. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Umbach v. Carrington Investment Partners (US)" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, and marijuana, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant's plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The court explained that, in the plea hearing, the impression was given that there was a range of sentencing options: the judge spoke of "the potential sentences"; the prosecutor gave an account of multiple maximum and minimum sentences, discussed supervised release, and warned of the forfeiture of rights (including the right to hold public office); and the court and prosecutor discussed Sentencing Guidelines ranges and judicial discretion to weigh the facts and circumstances. Furthermore, the sentencing transcript suggested that defendant's counsel may not have understood the inexorable nature of the sentence either, and defendant's assertion that he would have gone to trial if he knew that a life sentence was foreordained was rendered plausible by the arresting fact that he derived absolutely no benefit or advantage from the plea. Accordingly, the court vacated the plea, directed that the case be reassigned, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against ZocDoc, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. Plaintiff's suit stemmed from two unsolicited telecopies (faxes), it allegedly received from ZocDoc. ZocDoc made a settlement offer to plaintiff as to its individual claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, but plaintiff rejected the offer. The district court subsequently granted ZocDoc's motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the ground that its offer afforded plaintiff complete relief, thus mooting the action. The court concluded, however, that the action was not and is not moot. The court held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment was, regardless of its terms, a legal nullity. In this case, the district court entered a judgment that should not have been entered in the first place, and ZocDoc then more than one year later deposited an amount in satisfaction of that errant judgment in an account payable to plaintiff. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded. View "Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc" on Justia Law

Defendants Monsalvatge, Byam, and Dunkley appealed their convictions stemming from their armed robberies of two Pay‐O‐Matic check‐cashing stores. A summary order filed simultaneously with this opinion addressed the balance of defendants' claims on appeal. At issue here was Monsalvatge's claims, which Dunkley joined, regarding whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence at trial four clips from the 2010 film, The Town. The Government argued that defendants altered their modus operandi to carry out the second robbery in a manner resembling robberies depicted in the movie. The court concluded that the district court's ruling to admit the clips was not arbitrary and irrational; the clips were relevant to the issues and defendants in the case and, importantly, they were short and narrowly tailored; and the district court provided not one but two curative instructions to minimize any potential for prejudice from the few differences between the clips and the 2012 robbery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgments of conviction as to Monsalvatge and Byam; affirmed Counts One, Four, and Five as to Dunkley; and reversed Counts Two and Three as to Dunkley. The court remanded for resentencing as to Dunkley. View "United States v. Monsalvatge" on Justia Law

Defendants Dey and Finazzo were involved in a conspiracy to use South Bay as a supplier of Aeropostale apparel in exchange for secret payments. Finazzo was a former merchandising executive for Aeropostale, and Dey controlled South Bay, a clothing vendor. Dey plead guilty to conspiracy, and a jury convicted Finazzo of one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and to violate the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 371, fourteen counts of mail fraud, and one count of wire fraud. The court affirmed the district court's jury instructions regarding the "right to control" property under the mail and wire fraud statutes; concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the challenged portions of the jury verdict; but, vacated and remanded the district court's restitution order as to Finazzo and Dey. In a simultaneously issued summary order, the court affirmed the remaining issues on appeal. View "United States v. Finazzo" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In this case, petitioner, who was illegally present in the United States after multiple deportations, crossed into Canada by bridge, was detained four hours by the Canada Border Services Agency, and was then returned back over the bridge. At issue was whether petitioner's return counts as his "last arrival" into the United States, and therefore gave him an additional one year from that date to file an asylum application. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 208.4(a)(2)(ii), an asylum claim must be filed within one year of the alien's "last arrival" in the United States. The court concluded that the court's prior precedent foreclosed such a result. However, after the court decided Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, the BIA issued a decision explicitly rejecting the court's holding, and giving the term "its natural and literal meaning, i.e., the alien's most recent arrival in the United States from a trip abroad." Matter of F-P-R-. Because deference to this subsequent BIA opinion raised a doubt that the BIA was better suited to resolve, the court granted the petition in part and remanded it in part for the BIA to determine, in the first instance, how F-P-R- may apply to this case. View "Linares-Urrutia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

CBF, appellants and award-creditors, challenged the district court's two judgments dismissing CBF's initial action to enforce and subsequent action to confirm a foreign arbitral award against appellees as alter-egos of the then defunct award-debtor. The court granted appellees' petition for rehearing for the limited purpose of vacating the original decision and simultaneously issuing this amended decision to correct the court's instructions to the district court with regards to the applicable law for an enforcement action at Section I.c., infra. In No. 15‐1133, the court held that the district court both (1) erred in determining that the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 201 et seq., require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court and (2) erred in holding that appellants' fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion as issue preclusion was an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly alleged that appellees engaged in fraud. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In 15‐1146, the court held that the appeal of the judgment dismissing the action to confirm was moot and accordingly dismissed that appeal. View "CBF Industria De Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging New York City's "Sourcing Law," which requires that pet shops sell only animals acquired from breeders holding a Class A license issued under the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq. Plaintiffs also challenged the "Spay/Neuter Law," which requires that pet shops sterilize each animal before releasing it to a consumer. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that the AWA does not preempt the Sourcing Law and rejected plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary as meritless; under the balancing test of Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., the court concluded that the Sourcing Law does not discriminate against interstate commerce; because the Sourcing Law imposed no incidental burdens on interstate commerce, it cannot impose any that are clearly excessive in relation to its local benefits, and therefore survived scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause; and the Spay/Neuter Law was not preempted under New York law governing veterinary medicine, animal cruelty, or business. The court explained that the laws at issue addressed problems of significant importance to the City and its residents; it appeared that the City has enforced them for more than a year, with no apparent ill effects; and the challenged laws were not preempted by either state or federal law, and do not offend the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "New York Pet Welfare Association v. New York City" on Justia Law

Defendants Natal and Morales appealed their sentences and convictions for crimes including arson resulting in death, accessory after the fact to arson, and destruction and concealment of evidence. The court held that testimony on how cell phone towers operate constitutes expert testimony and may not be introduced through a lay witness; the admission in the instant case of lay opinion testimony on the operation of cell phone towers was harmless; the court held that Morales's conviction for destruction and concealment of evidence must be vacated in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Yates v. United States, handed down shortly after Morales filed the instant appeal; the court remanded Morales's case to the district court to vacate Morales's conviction for destruction and concealment of evidence, and, pursuant to United States v. Powers, to conduct de novo resentencing of Morales; and, as part of the district court's calculation of Morales's Guidelines range at the resentencing, Morales's three counts of conviction for accessory after the fact should be grouped pursuant to USSG 3D1.2. The court rejected defendants' other claims. Accordingly, the court upheld all counts of conviction except Morales's conviction for destruction and concealment of evidence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Natal" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 20 state pretrial detainees, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the City and the supervisory officers of a pre-arraignment holding facility were deliberately indifferent to allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the holding facility. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider; and denied a subsequent motion to reconsider the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The court affirmed the district court's judgment as to claims plaintiffs concede were properly dismissed. However, the court concluded that the district court misapplied this court's precedents in assessing whether plaintiffs had established an objectively serious deprivation. In Willey v. Kirkpatrick, the court recently reiterated that the proper lens through which to analyze allegedly unconstitutional unsanitary conditions of confinement is with reference to their severity and duration, not the detainee's resulting injury. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson dictates that deliberate indifference be measured objectively in due process cases. In this case, the district court did not analyze the implications of Kingsley in its opinion. Therefore, the court vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Darnell v. City of New York" on Justia Law