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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his applications for a waiver of deportation under former Immigration and Nationality Act 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c), and cancellation of removal under current INA 240A(a), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). Petitioner argued that Peralta-Taveras v. Attorney General, which precludes petitioner from relief, did not survive the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Vartelas v. Holder. The court held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Vartelas does not cast doubt on its decision in Peralta-Taveras, and the rule of Peralta-Taveras precludes relief in this case. Petitioner, liked the petitioner in Peralta-Taveras, was on notice at the time of his controlled-substance convictions that his prior aggravated-felony convictions would preclude him from seeking section 240A relief if convicted of another removable offense. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Nunez Pena v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged an administrative summons issued by the IRS after it issued an approximately $25 million penalty against petitioner and his company. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied petitioner's request for jurisdictional discovery. The court agreed with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity to allow suits to quash summonses that are “issued in aid of the collection of . . . an assessment,” and that the challenged summons was issued in aid of collection. Moreover, the IRS had authority to issue the summons, as there was not an outstanding criminal referral at the time the summons was issued. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery because petitioner did not meet his burden of showing that the requested discovery is likely to produce the facts needed to establish jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Haber v. United States" on Justia Law

Fireman’s Fund, Great American, and MSI issued insurance policies that provided various coverages for a dry dock in Port Arthur, Texas owned by Signal. After the dry dock sank in 2009, Signal and Fireman’s Fund sought contributions from Great American and MSI for the loss of the dry dock and resulting environmental cleanup costs. The district court ruled that the Great American and MSI policies were void in light of Signal’s failure to disclose when it applied for those policies that the dry dock had significantly deteriorated and that repairs recommended by a number of consultants and engineers over several years had not been made. MSI and Signal settled and now Fireman's Fund contends that it may still pursue appeal of the issues relating to the policy issued to Signal by MSI based on the court's decision in Maryland Cas. Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co. The court held that the Great American policy was a marine insurance contract subject to the doctrine of uberrimae fidei and that Signal’s nondisclosure violated its duty under that doctrine, permitting Great American to void the policy. The court also held that MSI’s policy was governed by Mississippi law; that, under that law, Signal materially misrepresented the dry dock’s condition; and that MSI was entitled to void the policy on that basis.  Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's finding that the policies were void. View "Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The FDIC filed suit under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq., as receiver for Colonial. The complaint was timely under the terms of the FDIC Extender Statute, 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(14)(A), because it was filed less than three years after the FDIC was appointed receiver. However, because the complaint was filed more than three years after the securities at issue were offered to the public, it would be untimely under the terms of the Securities Act’s statute of repose, 15 U.S.C. 77m.  In Federal Housing Finance Agency v. UBS Americas Inc., the court held that a materially identical extender statute for actions brought by the FHFA did displace the Securities Act’s statute of repose. The court concluded that UBS remains good law and that, under UBS, the FDIC's complaint was timely. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "FDIC v. First Horizon Asset Securities, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, or alternatively for a new trial under Rule 59, or relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) on plaintiff's New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) claim. Plaintiff, diagnosed with cancer, cross-appealed the dismissal of her New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) claim. Plaintiff and her husband cross-appealed the dismissal of their Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), 29 U.S.C. 116(a), claims. The court held that, because plaintiff did not request a reasonable accommodation prior to her termination, the district court erred in denying defendants’ Rule 50 motion. Therefore, the court reversed that decision and vacated the jury award on the NYSHRL claim. However, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's NYCHRL claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denial of the COBRA claims on the merits. View "Vangas v. Montefiore Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

After plaintiff's daughter was murdered, plaintiff filed suit alleging claims related to her daughter's death. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, the district court issued judgment for defendants, and plaintiff did not seek to amend the notice of appeal. The court held that, in the absence of prejudice to an appellee, the court read a pro se appellant’s appeal from an order closing the case as constituting an appeal from all prior orders. In an accompanying summary order, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Elliot v. City of Hartford" on Justia Law

ISC filed suit against SU and Sondra Schneider, alleging that SU's use of ISC's certification mark violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., and constituted infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114, false designation of origin and false advertising under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), and that SU’s use of the mark constituted unfair competition under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42–110a et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court held that nominative fair use is not an affirmative defense to a claim of infringement under the Lanham Act. In cases involving nominative use, in addition to considering the Polaroid factors, courts are to consider (1) whether the use of the plaintiff’s mark is necessary to describe both the plaintiff’s product or service and the defendant’s product or service, that is, whether the product or service is not readily identifiable without use of the mark; (2) whether the defendant uses only so much of the plaintiff’s mark as is necessary to identify the product or service; and whether the defendant did anything that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the plaintiff holder, that is, whether the defendant’s conduct or language reflects the true or accurate relationship between plaintiff’s and defendant’s products or services. When considering these factors, courts must be mindful of the different types of confusion relevant to infringement claims. Because the district court failed to consider the Polaroid factors and because its consideration of the relevant nominative fair use factors was based on incorrect assumptions, the court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the infringement claims. The court vacated the grant of summary judgment as to the false designation of origin and false advertising claims, and the CUTPA claims. The court affirmed as to the dilution claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Int'l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium, Inc. v. Security Univ., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former New York State Governor, launched the Sexually Violent Predator Initiative, which provided for the involuntary civil commitment at state psychiatric facilities of some ʺsexually violent predatorsʺ (SVPs) nearing the date of their release from incarceration or supervision. Plaintiffs, six individuals who were civilly committed to a psychiatric hospital, filed suit asserting claims under the Fourth Amendment, the substantive and procedural components of the Fourteenth Amendmentʹs Due Process Clause, the Fourteenth Amendmentʹs Equal Protection Clause, and several provisions of New York state law. The district court concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, which the court affirmed on interlocutory appeal. Many of the claims were thereafter dismissed by the district court on judgments as a matter of law, while the remainder were tried to a jury. The jury found one defendant liable for procedural due‐process violations, and awarded each plaintiff one dollar in nominal damages against that defendant. On appeal, plaintiffs Warren and Brooks challenged the district courtʹs (1) jury instruction on personal involvement; (2) denial of judgment as a matter of law on procedural due‐process liability; (3) denial of judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffsʹ entitlement to actual, compensatory damages; (4) entry of judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffsʹ false‐imprisonment claims on the grounds that these claims were duplicative; and (5) limitations on depositions, and several other evidentiary decisions. The court concluded that plaintiffs' arguments lack merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Warren v. Pataki" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his suit brought under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)-(b), and state analog. Plaintiff alleged that Pfizer, his former employer, improperly marketed Lipitor as appropriate for patients whose risk factors and cholesterol levels fall outside the National Cholesterol Education Program Guidelines; the Guidelines are incorporated into and made mandatory by the drug’s label; and Pfizer thus induced doctors to prescribe the drug, pharmacists to fill the prescriptions, and federal and state health care programs to pay for “off‐label” prescriptions. Judge Cogan dismissed the claims because he determined that the FDA’s approval of Lipitor was not dependent upon compliance with the Guidelines. The court expressly endorsed and adopted Judge Cogan’s carefully considered and thorough analysis, and affirmed on that basis. View "United States ex rel. Polansky v. Pfizer" on Justia Law

After Ashley Reed sold counterfeit Fendi goods to Burlington and others, Fendi filed suit against Ashley Reed. USF&G, Ashley Reed's insurer, filed suit against Fendi and Ashley Reed, seeking a declaration that it owed no duty under the Policies to indemnify Ashley Reed with respect to the first underlying action. Fendi asserted a counterclaim seeking indemnification for the judgment entered against Ashley Reed in the First Action.  Burlington was given permission to intervene to seek indemnification under the Policies for the judgment entered against Ashley Reed in the second underlying action. The court agreed with the district court's holding that the basis of Ashley Reedʹs liability ʺwas the sale - not the advertising - of counterfeit Fendi products,ʺ and therefore there was no basis for indemnification under the Policies. Because the losses were not the result of an advertising injury, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Fendi Adele S.R.L." on Justia Law