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

Flanagan appealed the district court's denial of the law firm's request for attorneys' fees drawn from a settlement fund in a consolidated securities class action. The court held that the standard set forth in In re Cendant Corp. Litig. (Cendant II) applies to fee applications from non‐lead counsel for work completed after the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel where the fee to non‐lead counsel is one part of a capped percentage of a common fund. In this case, the district court should have afforded a rebuttable presumption of correctness to Lead Plaintiffs’ proposed allocation of fees to Flanagan. Because the district court analyzed Flanagan's request under an incorrect standard, the court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Bank of America Corp." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was terminated for taking time off work to care for her sons, plaintiff filed suit against the CIA and two of her supervisors under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(4), alleging that she had been wrongfully denied leave, retaliated against for taking leave, and discriminated against on the basis of her association with a disabled individual. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims. The court concluded that a rational jury could find that Shaynan Garrioch, CIA's Director of Human Resources, exercised sufficient control over plaintiff's employment to be subject to liability under the FMLA and the court vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's FMLA claims against her; plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to present genuine disputes of material fact in regard to her interference and retaliation claims under the FMLA; but, in regard to plaintiff's ADA claim, she failed to present evidence that she was fired because her employer suspected distraction or concern for her son would cause her to perform her work inadequately. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Graziadio v. Culinary Inst. of America" on Justia Law

DeKalb filed suit against defendants, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a‐9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a‐9. The court held that Sections 9(f) and 18(a) provide “private right[s] of action that involve[ ] a claim of fraud, deceit, manipulation, or contrivance,” to which a five‐year statute of repose now applies under section 1658(b), but Section 14(a) does not provide such a private right of action; the same three‐year statutes of repose that applied to Sections 9(f) and 18(a) before the passage of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), Pub. L., No. 107‐204, 116 Stat. 745, which the court borrowed and applied to Section 14 in Ceres Partners v. GEL Associates, still apply to Section 14(a) today; the statutes of repose applicable to Section 14(a) begin to run on the date of the defendant’s last culpable act or omission; DeKalb’s lead‐plaintiff motion does not “relate back” under Rule 17(a)(3) to Bricklayers’ filing of the original class‐action complaint; the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), Pub. L. No. 104‐67, 109 Stat. 737, does not toll the statutes of repose applicable to Section 14(a); and the tolling rule in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah does not extend to the statutes of repose applicable to Section 14(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of DeKalb's s Section 14(a) claim as time‐barred by the applicable three‐year statutes of repose and its Section 20 claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "DeKalb Cty. Pension Fund v. Transocean Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former inmate at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, filed suit alleging claims related to her period of incarceration at Bedford Hills. Plaintiff alleged that three female officers grabbed her, threw her to the ground, lifted her smock, and forcibly opened her legs to allow a male officer to visually inspect her genitalia for cotton. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the district court's analysis of this claim rested on an incomplete assessment of the law, particularly the Fourth Amendment’s protection of an inmate’s right to bodily privacy. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Harris v. Fischer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging common-law fraud and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that she never agreed to the mortgage loan at issue. The court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in admitting an attorney's testimony under FRE 406 regarding the fact that he had met with plaintiff and had not asked her to sign blank sheets of paper; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the loan documents at issue under FRE 901(a) for authenticated records and the court rejected plaintiff's argument that admission of the photocopies violated the best evidence rule where the original documents had been lost; plaintiff's FRCP 50 argument fails where the evidence was more than adequate to warrant the jury in finding for defendants' on the case's central issue; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's FRCP 59 motion for a new trial where nothing in the record warranted upsetting the verdict. Accordingly, the court found no error and affirmed the judgment. View "Crawford v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former inmate on Rikers Island, filed suit against several correction officers and prison officials, as well as the City, claiming that the officers used excessive force against him and then fabricated evidence, leading to his prosecution and prolonged detention. The court concluded that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim on summary judgment where, as here, actual malice can be inferred when a plaintiff is prosecuted without probable cause. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that the district court erred in excluding the officers' reports from evidence where plaintiff offered the reports into evidence to show that defendants submitted false reports in an effort to justify their use of force and deny plaintiff a fair trial; the reports were not cumulative; and the district court's error was not harmless. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment as to the fair trial, excessive force, and failure to intercede claims, remanding for a new trial. The court need not consider plaintiff's remaining arguments, but provided guidance to the district court with regards to further trial proceedings. In regard to Captain Ruffin's cross-appeal, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the Rule 50 motion on his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. View "Rentas v. Ruffin" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to all counts related to his sexual abuse of his stepdaughter over the course of 5 years. Determining that it has appellate jurisdiction, the court held that a judgment of conviction is final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1291 whenever it imposes a sentence of incarceration, even if post‐conviction proceedings to set a restitution amount remain pending. The court also concluded that the district court’s failure to advise defendant that restitution would be imposed did not constitute plain error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tulsiram" on Justia Law

Petitioner moved for remand of his third 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, arguing that the motion is not successive. The court concluded that the section 2255 motion was properly transferred to this court as successive because it was filed after the adjudication of his first section 2255 motion became final. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's motion for remand. View "Fuller v. United States" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a dispute regarding a contract the parties entered into, which gave Lewmar the exclusive right to manufacture and sell Steinerʹs patented sailboat winch handle, a device used to control the lines and sails of a sailboat. The parties resolved the dispute when Lewmar made, and Steiner accepted, an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After judgment was entered, Steiner moved for attorneysʹ fees of $383,804 and costs of $41,470. The district court denied attorneysʹ fees but awarded costs of $2,926. The court concluded that Steiner was precluded from seeking fees pursuant to the Agreement in addition to the $175,000 settlement amount because claims under the Agreement were unambiguously included in the Offer; Steiner was not precluded from seeking attorneysʹ fees under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42‐110g(d), because the Offer did not unambiguously encompass claims for attorneysʹ fees under CUTPA; and the court remanded for the district court to clarify whether it considered the claim for attorneys' fees under CUTPA on the merits and if not, to do so. Finally, the court concluded that the district court correctly added costs under the ʺcosts then accruedʺ provision of Rule 68. View "Steiner v. Lewmar, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under federal securities laws and state blue sky laws, alleging that Sanofi made materially false or misleading statements regarding its breakthrough drug, Lemtrada, designed to treat multiple sclerosis. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court agreed with the district court's reasoning and holding. The court writes principally to examine the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, decided after the district court rendered its decision. Given the sophistication of the investors here, the FDA’s public preference for double‐blind studies, and the absence of a conflict between defendants’ statements and the FDA’s comments, the court concluded that no reasonable investor would have been misled by defendants’ optimistic statements regarding the approval and launch of Lemtrada. Issuers must be forthright with their investors, but securities law does not impose on them an obligation to disclose every piece of information in their possession. As Omnicare instructs, issuers need not disclose a piece of information merely because it cuts against their projections. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re Sanofi Sec. Litig." on Justia Law