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

Amex appealed from the district court's decision finding that it unreasonably restrained trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by entering into agreements containing nondiscriminatory provisions (NDPs). The district court held that Amex was liable for violating section 1 and enjoined Amex from enforcing its NDPs. The court concluded that the district court erred here in focusing entirely on the interests of merchants while discounting the interests of cardholders. Plaintiffs bore the burden in this case to prove net harm to Amex consumers as a whole - that is, both cardholders and merchants - by showing that Amex’s nondiscriminatory provisions have reduced the quality or quantity of credit‐card purchases. The court concluded that, given the district court’s explicit finding that neither party provided reliable evidence of Amex’s costs or profit margins accounting for consumers on both sides of the platform, and given evidence showing that the quality and output of credit cards across the entire industry continues to increase, plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to prove a section 1 violation. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. American Express Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff subscribes to data feeds through which the Exchanges provide information about securities traded on the Exchanges to an exclusive securities information processor pursuant to a plan approved by the SEC. The Processor consolidates the data and makes it available to subscribers. Plaintiff filed three materially identical suits alleging that the Exchanges had breached their contracts with him by providing preferentially fast access to the so‐called “Preferred Customers,” who purchase data and receive it from an Exchange directly via its proprietary feed. The court concluded that the district court erred in holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's breach of contract claims, but affirmed the dismissal of the complaints for failure to state a claim. In this case, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the Exchanges violated any contractual obligation by simultaneously sending data to both the Processor and the Preferred Customers that is received earlier by the Preferred Customers; to the extent that plaintiff alleges that such a contractual obligation arises from the incorporation of SEC regulations into the contracts, his claims are preempted because his interpretation conflicts with the SEC’s interpretation and stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of congressional purposes; to the extent that plaintiff alleges that the Exchanges undertook self‐imposed contractual obligations, distinct from their regulatory obligations, to ensure that market data is not received by any customer before it is received by the Processor, that claim fails because it has no basis in the text of the contracts; and to the extent that plaintiff argues that the SEC has interpreted the Exchanges’ obligations under the Exchange Act or SEC regulations incorrectly, any such argument must first be administratively exhausted before the SEC before it can be considered by this Court. View "Lanier v. Bats Exchange, Inc." on Justia Law

The FTC and the State filed suit seeking to hold LeadClick liable for its role in the use of deceptive websites to market weight loss products in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1), and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), C.G.S.A. 42‐110b(a). The FTC also filed a claim against CoreLogic, LeadClick's parent company, as a relief defendant. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the FTC and the State. The court affirmed the district courtʹs grant of summary judgment for the FTC and the State with respect to the claims against LeadClick where LeadClick is an information content provider with respect to the content at issue and where LeadClick is liable for its own content and not merely because it was the ʺpublisher or speakerʺ of deceptive content provided by its affiliates; reversed as to the claim against CoreLogic where CoreLogic's advances to LeadClick constituted "valuable consideration" entitling it to repayment from LeadClick; and remanded with instructions to the district court to enter judgment in favor of CoreLogic. View "FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit for damages against a government employee and the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-80, and New York law. The claims arose out of a traffic accident involving the employee that seriously injured plaintiff. The district court dismissed all claims against the government for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1), and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state‐law claims against the employee, after finding that the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court concluded that although such a finding would warrant dismissal in an action under the Act, dismissal was premature in this case in light of an unresolved factual dispute over whether the employee used the vehicle with implied permission. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fountain v. Karim" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of extortion and use of a destructive device to commit extortion. Defendant's conviction arose out of his plot to extort money from Home Depot by placing a device purporting to be an inert “model” of a pipe bomb in a Home Depot store in Huntington Station, New York, and threatening to plant bombs in other Home Depot locations. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the device used by defendant was an “explosive bomb,” as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4), and that the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the combination‐of‐parts theory of guilt; the prosecutor’s comments during summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial; and therefore the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sheehan" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to conspiracy to traffic in narcotics and was sentenced to 188 months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged the revocation of his supervised release and imposition of an additional prison term of 27 months based on a finding that he had engaged in new criminal conduct while on federal supervision, specifically, assault, as proscribed by New York Penal Law 120.00(1), and narcotics distribution, in violation of New York Penal Law 220.39. The court concluded that Title 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)’s use of the disjunctive in identifying the actions a district court may take with respect to defendants serving terms of supervised release does not limit a court’s authority so as to preclude it from revoking supervised release after conduct is proved that, when reported, had prompted modification of supervision conditions. Therefore, the district court had authorization to revoke defendant's supervised release in this case. The court also concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in admitting the victim's hearsay statements in determining that defendant, while on federal supervision, had committed a new state crime of assault. In this case, the district court properly balanced defendant's confrontation interest against the assault victim's reasons for refusing to testify. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, four counts of client tax evasion, one count of IRS obstruction, and one count of mail fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; the indictment was not constructively amended; the indictment was not duplicitous; defendant's due process right to a fair trial was not violated; the district court did not commit prejudicial error in giving a supplemental instruction about the Annual Accounting Rule; defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; and the court rejected defendant's claims of error as to the forfeiture order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Daugerdas" on Justia Law

This case concerns employee benefits plans sponsored by AIG or its affiliates under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. At issue is whether the Plans are "affiliates" of AIG for the purposes of a class action settlement agreement. The district court held that appellants are "affiliates" of AIG and thus ineligible for their own portion of a class settlement agreement with AIG. The court held that appellants have standing to appeal the district court's denial of the motion to direct and dismissed appellants' appeal as to the denial of their motion to intervene as moot. On the merits, the court held that because ERISA imposes important statutory limits on an employer’s control over the management and policies of an employee benefit plan, those plans do not fall within the ordinary meaning of "affiliate." Therefore, the court concluded that appellants are entitled to their own portion of the settlement and appellees will have a somewhat smaller portion. The court vacated the denial of the Plans' motion to direct. View "In re AIG Securities Litig." on Justia Law

A multi-district antitrust class action was brought by plaintiffs against defendants, entities incorporated under the laws of China, alleging that defendants conspired to fix the price and supply of vitamin C sold to U.S. companies on the international market in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, 16. Defendants challenge the district court's denial of their initial motion to dismiss, denial of a subsequent motion for summary judgment, and, after a jury trial, an entry of judgment awarding plaintiffs $147 million in damages and enjoining defendants from engaging in future anti-competitive behavior. The court held that the district court erred in denying defendants' motion to dismiss. In this case, because the Chinese Government filed a formal statement in the district court asserting that Chinese law required defendants to set prices and reduce quantities of vitamin C sold abroad, and because defendants could not simultaneously comply with Chinese law and U.S. antitrust laws, the principles of international comity required the district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment, reversed the district court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss, and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, offenders who had been subject to post-release supervision (PRS) in violation of Earley v. Murray, filed suit against defendants for the actions they took in violation of Earley I and moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion and defendants appealed. The court agreed with the district court that defendants did not make an objectively reasonable effort to relieve plaintiffs of the burdens of those unlawfully imposed terms after they knew it had been ruled that the imposition violated federal law. The issue regarding the motion to deem the appeal frivolous is moot because defendants obtained a stay of further proceedings in the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Betances v. Fischer" on Justia Law