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

Plaintiffs, victims of terrorist acts linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran, contend that they are entitled to enforce unsatisfied money judgments against defendants under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602 et seq., and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), 28 U.S.C. 1610 note. The court concluded that defendants in this case do not equate to the “foreign state” of Iran for purposes of the FSIA or the TRIA; defendants cannot be deemed “agencies or instrumentalities” of Iran under the FSIA, but defendants’ status as “agencies or instrumentalities” of Iran under the TRIA and their properties’ status as “blocked assets” under that statute is not foreclosed as a matter of law; but, nonetheless, the court identified questions of fact that prevent either of these TRIA questions from being decided on summary judgment. Accordingly, the court vacated the award of summary judgment for plaintiffs and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kirschenbaum v. 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties" on Justia Law

Claimants-Appellants appealed an award of summary judgment which forfeited to the United States various claimants’ interests in multiple properties, including a 36‐story office building located at 650 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, real properties in Maryland, Texas, California, Virginia, and New York, and the contents of several bank accounts. Also at issue is the September 9, 2013 order denying a motion to suppress evidence seized from the Alavi Foundation’s and the 650 Fifth Avenue Company’s office. The court vacated the judgment as to Claimants Alavi Foundation and the 650 Fifth Ave. Co., of which Alavi is a 60% owner because there are material issues of fact as to whether the Alavi Foundation knew that Assa Corporation, its partner in the 650 Fifth Ave. Co. Partnership, continued after 1995, to be owned or controlled by Bank Melli Iran, which is itself owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, a designated threat to this nation’s national security; the district court erred in sua sponte considering and rejecting claimants’ possible statute of limitations defense without affording notice and a reasonable time to respond; in rejecting claimants’ motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a challenged warrant, the district court erred in ruling that claimants’ civil discovery obligations obviate the need for any Fourth Amendment analysis; and the district court erred in its alternative ruling that every item of unlawfully seized evidence would have been inevitably discovered. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress 145 pounds of marijuana discovered in his vehicle by border patrol agents. Defendant argued that the agents seized him and searched his vehicle in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, agreeing with the district court that the agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry v. Ohio stop of defendant. In this case, the Terry stop did not actually begin until an agent ordered defendant and his brother back in the vehicle and the stop was reasonable in duration. View "United States v. Compton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against The Money Store, alleging overcharge of late fees on mortgages. After plaintiff prevailed in the jury trial, the district court granted defendants' post-verdict motion to decertify a class that was previously certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff only. The court held that a district court has power, consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Rule 23, to decertify a class after a jury verdict and before the entry of final judgment; in considering such decertification (or modification), the district court must defer to any factual findings the jury necessarily made unless those findings were “seriously erroneous,” a “miscarriage of justice,” or “egregious.” Applying these principles, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse discretion in determining that Rule 23’s requirements were not met and in decertifying the class. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. An accompanying summary order affirms the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial as to a second claim. View "Mazzei v. Money Store" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of rape and sodomy in the first degree, appealed the denial of his amended 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief. The petition is based on the grounds that the prosecution suppressed a psychiatric record of an evaluation of the complainant, in violation of petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, and that petitioner's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to prepare cross-examination or call expert witnesses to counter expert testimony introduced by the prosecution. The court concluded, without need to assess the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, that the petition should have been granted with respect to the Brady claim pursuant to Kyles v. Whitley. In this case, the contents of the suppressed psychiatric record provided information with which to impeach the complaining witness and to support defendant's version of the events. The state court concedes that it misread the psychiatric record and the court concluded that the error was not harmless. View "Fuentes v. Griffin" on Justia Law

SRM, a registered private investment fund, filed suit against Bear Stearns, its officers, and its auditor, Deloitte, after the collapse of the Bear Stearns companies. The district court dismissed SRM's claims. The court held that the class action tolling rule set forth in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah does not apply to 28 U.S.C. 1658(b)(2), the five‐year statute of repose that limits the time in which plaintiffs may bring claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and SEC 15 Rule 10b‐5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b‐5. The court also concluded that SRM failed adequately to allege that it relied on any misrepresentations in making investment decisions, an element of its common law fraud claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims. View "SRM Global Master Fund v. Bear Stearns" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., request to the CIA, requesting information regarding his father, who served in several high-level diplomatic roles on behalf of the Republic of Cuba. The CIA answered plaintiff's request with a Glomar response, and plaintiff filed an administrative appeal. While the administrative appeal was pending, plaintiff filed the underlying action. The district court granted summary judgment to the CIA. During the pendency of the appeal, the FBI released several declassified documents pertaining to plaintiff's father. The CIA reviewed the FBI Disclosures, but declined to alter its position that a Glomar response is supportable in these circumstances. The court concluded that the FBI Disclosures are relevant to the merits of this case and remanded to the district court with instructions to enter an order stating whether its prior conclusion that the CIA adequately justified its Glomar response must be revised in light of the FBI Disclosures and any post‐remand submissions. View "Florez v. CIA" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base and was sentenced to 130 months in prison. The district court found that petitioner qualified as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1 because he had two previous convictions for a crime of violence. Petitioner moved for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and argued that his sentence enhancement under USSG 4B1.1 was rendered unconstitutional by Johnson v. United States. The court noted that there is substantial disagreement among other circuits on the question on which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Beckles v. United States. The court concluded that petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his claim satisfies section 2255(h) and warrants fuller exploration by the district court. The court granted the motion and instructed the district court to hold petitioner's section 2255 motion in abeyance pending the outcome of Beckles. View "Blow v. United States" on Justia Law

Microsoft appealed from the district court's order denying its motion to quash a warrant issued under section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., and holding Microsoft in contempt of court for refusing to execute the warrant on the government’s behalf. The warrant directed Microsoft to seize and produce the contents of an e‐mail account - an account believed to be used in furtherance of narcotics trafficking - that it maintains for a customer who uses the company’s electronic communications services. Microsoft produced its customer’s non‐content information to the government, as directed. That data was stored in the United States. But Microsoft ascertained that, to comply fully with the warrant, it would need to access customer content that it stores and maintains in Ireland and to import that data into the United States for delivery to federal authorities. The court concluded that Congress did not intend the SCA’s warrant provisions to apply extraterritorially. The focus of those provisions is protection of a user’s privacy interests. Accordingly, the SCA does not authorize a United States court to issue and enforce an SCA warrant against a United States‐based service provider for the contents of a customer’s electronic communications stored on servers located outside the United States. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court lacked authority to enforce the warrant against Microsoft. The court reversed the denial of the motion to quash because Microsoft has complied with the warrant’s domestic directives and resisted only its extraterritorial aspect; vacated the finding of civil contempt; and remanded with instructions to the district court to quash the warrant insofar as it directs Microsoft to collect, import, and produce to the government customer content stored outside the United States. View "Microsoft v. United States" on Justia Law

After Old GM filed for bankruptcy, New GM emerged. This case involves one of the consequences of the GM bankruptcy. Beginning in February 2014, New GM began recalling cars due to a defect in their ignition switches. Many of the cars in question were built years before the GM bankruptcy. Where individuals might have had claims against Old GM, a ʺfree and clearʺ provision in the bankruptcy courtʹs sale order barred those same claims from being brought against New GM as the successor corporation. Various individuals nonetheless initiated class action lawsuits against New GM, asserting ʺsuccessor liabilityʺ claims and seeking damages for losses and injuries arising from the ignition switch defect and other defects. The bankruptcy court enforced the Sale Order to enjoin many of these claims against New GM. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Sale Order; the ʺfree and clearʺ provision covers pre‐closing accident claims and economic loss claims based on the ignition switch and other defects, but does not cover independent claims or Used Car Purchasersʹ claims; the court found no clear error in the bankruptcy court's finding that Old GM knew or should have known with reasonable diligence about the defect, and individuals with claims arising out of the ignition switch defect were entitled to notice by direct mail or some equivalent, as required by procedural due process; because enforcing the Sale Order would violate procedural due process in these circumstances, the bankruptcy court erred in granting New GMʹs motion to enforce and these plaintiffs cannot be bound by the terms of the Sales Order; and the bankruptcy courtʹs decision on equitable mootness was advisory. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "In re Motors Liquidation Co." on Justia Law