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

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

Plaintiff filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2675(a), after surgery at a VA medical center rendered him quadriplegic. The district court found the VA liable for plaintiff's injuries and awarded him $4,468,859.91 in damages. Both parties appealed. The court vacated the district court's decision insofar as it offset the award for future medical care and supplies, holding that federal law does not require that a veteran injured as a result of the VA’s malpractice be forced to continue under VA care or lack of financial resources and be subject to a concomitant offset, and New York state law does not warrant such an offset. The court also held that the district court failed to provide adequate analysis to support both its denial of plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum and its decision to set the award for past and future pain and suffering at $2 million, and the court remanded with directions that the district court consider anew plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum, taking into account the testimony of plaintiff's treating physician, and determine damages without an offset for future receipt of medical care and supplies from the VA, consistent with this opinion. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s decision not to further offset the award for future home health services on the ground that the provision of such services going forward is not reasonably certain. View "Malmberg v. United States" on Justia Law

AFDI, a pro‐Israel advocacy organization known for its criticism of Islam, submitted an advertisement for display on the back of MTA buses. The MTA, invoking the provision in its advertising standards barring the display of any advertisement reasonably likely to incite violence, refused to display the Ad. AFDI filed suit against MTA, claiming that the application of the incitement prohibition to the Ad violated the First Amendment, and moved for a preliminary injunction. In this appeal, AFDI appealed from the district court's order dissolving the preliminary injunction on the ground that the claim underlying the injunction became moot. The MTA’s Board of Directors had voted to amend the MTA’s advertising standards, announcing an intention to convert the MTA’s property from a designated public forum to a limited public forum and, to accomplish that goal, included a prohibition on any advertisement that is “political in nature.” The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding AFDI’s claim moot and dissolving the preliminary injunction because the MTA has altered its conduct in a manner sufficient to present a fundamentally different controversy. Further, the MTA has carried its “heavy burden of persuasion” with respect to the two prongs of the voluntary cessation doctrine. Finally, the court rejected AFDI’s alternative argument that its claim is not moot because it has a “vested right” to display the Ad. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "American Freedom v. Metropolitan Transport" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute or possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and seven counts of transaction structuring for the purpose of evading currency reporting requirements. The court rejected defendant's argument that his conviction for the cocaine conspiracy must be vacated because it constituted a constructive amendment of the indictment, which charged a conspiracy involving a larger amount - five kilograms or more - of cocaine. In this case, the jury was properly charged on the lesser included offense that was the basis for his conviction on count one, and defendant’s conviction on that count is affirmed. The court concluded, however, that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant’s transactions constitute “a pattern of structured transactions” intended to evade currency reporting requirements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction as to the conspiracy to distribute cocaine, reversed the judgment of conviction as to the transaction structuring counts, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of fifteen years, to be followed by five years of supervised release, on the manslaughter and weapons convictions. The district court subsequently issued a certificate of appealability as to: (1) whether a State court decision denying an ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of the prejudice requirement in Strickland v. Washington, where petitioner received concurrent sentences, only one of which is the subject of the ineffective assistance claim; and (2) whether, when a State court has held that a claim is procedurally barred, and that the bar will not be excused by ineffective assistance of counsel, a federal habeas court should apply the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), deference in considering whether that ineffective assistance of counsel claim can serve as cause and prejudice for excusing the procedural default. The court concluded that the state court’s rejection of petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Even assuming that petitioner can establish cause to excuse procedural default of his fair-trial and double-jeopardy claims, the underlying claims also fail under the extremely deferential AEDPA standard that applies to them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. View "Tavarez v. Larkin" on Justia Law

Hapag‐Lloyd filed an Interpleader Complaint and moved ex parte for an anti‐suit injunction under 28 U.S.C. 2361. The district court granted the motion and enjoined named defendants. The court concluded that adjudication of Hapag‐Lloyd’s obligation to pay for the fuel bunkers at issue involves inextricably intertwined claims, and interpleader jurisdiction is proper under the broad and remedial nature of 28 U.S.C. 1335. The court also concluded that by initiating an interpleader concerning certain in rem claims and posting adequate security for those claims, Hapag‐Lloyd consented to the district court’s jurisdiction over its interests, which is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. However, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to enter an order that eliminates or retains the foreign scope of the injunction, with specific determinations applying the test in China Trade & Dev. Corp. v. M.V. Choong Yong. View "Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil Trading LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former law firm and five of its partners, alleging that he had been forced to resign after blowing the whistle on what he considered to be the firm’s unethical litigation conduct. The parties eventually settled the suit and then sought an order directing the clerk of the court to close the file while leaving it permanently sealed. The district court denied the parties' request. The court held that pleadings, even in settled cases, are judicial records subject to a presumption of public access. The court concluded that the district court engaged in a thoughtful analysis of the competing interests at stake and the district court's conclusions were amply supported. Finally, the court concluded that sealing of the complaint is not justified in order to protect “confidential client information.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP" on Justia Law

Count 21 of the indictment charged Defendants Martinez and Ortega with aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence or possessing a firearm in furtherance of that crime, in connection with a murder. The court held that, in the wake of Rosemond v. United States, general instructions on aiding and abetting liability, such as the instructions at issue here, are insufficient and plainly erroneous in the context of a section 924(c) charge. The court also held that this error affected Ortega’s, but not Martinez’s, substantial rights, and therefore vacated Ortega’s conviction on Count 21. View "United States v. Prado" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegally reentering the United States. The court agreed with defendant that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court erred in holding that his prior Connecticut conviction for attempted second‐degree assault was a conviction for an “aggravated felony” under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) and therefore triggered an eight‐level increase in his guideline offense level. As there is no evidence in the record of conviction that would enable the court to determine which section of the divisible Connecticut statute defendant pled guilty to, it cannot be determined, applying the categorical or modified categorical approach, that defendant’s Connecticut conviction was an aggravated felony. Accordingly, the court remanded for vacatur of the judgment and resentencing. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

This case stems from a feud over local governance matters. The threshold issue is whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s order passing on the merits of defendants’ special motions to strike under Vermont’s anti‐SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. 1041. The court concluded that interlocutory appeals of such orders do not fall within the collateral order doctrine, and accordingly dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Ernst v. Carrigan" on Justia Law