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

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

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Northland, alleging that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., by sending him and other class members a debt collection letter that gave a call‐back number but did not specify the name of the person at that number. The district court denied class certification, and then dismissed the complaint for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff’s allegations concerning the failure to include the name of a person to call back do not state a claim under the FDCPA. However, the court disagreed with the district court that the claim is so insubstantial that it does not even support federal‐question jurisdiction.  The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gallego v. Northland Group Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Lockheed and others for injuries suffered by her father as a result of asbestos exposure sustained by him during his work as an Air Force mechanic in locations in Europe and around the United States, but not in Connecticut. Lockheed, a major aerospace company with a worldwide presence, is both incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in Maryland. The district court dismissed the suit against Lockheed. The court agreed with the district court that the district court did not have general jurisdiction over Lockheed. By applying the due process principles of Daimler AG v. Bauman, and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, the court concluded that Lockheed’s contacts with Connecticut, while perhaps “continuous and systematic,” fall well below the high level needed to place the corporation “essentially at home” in the state. Further, upon the court's examination of Connecticut law, the court concluded that by registering to transact business and appointing an agent under the Connecticut statutes - which do not speak clearly on this point - Lockheed did not consent to the state courts’ exercise of general jurisdiction over it. The court noted that a more sweeping interpretation would raise constitutional concerns prudently avoided absent a clearer statement by the state legislature or the Connecticut Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant, a lawyer and real estate broker, appealed the district court's imposition of criminal forfeiture in the amount of $1,273,285.50, arguing that the district court erred when it declined to consider defendant’s age, health, and financial condition when it issued the forfeiture order. Defendant was convicted of charges related to his participation in a kickback scheme involving the construction of new Dick Sporting Goods stores. The court held that the court reviewing a criminal forfeiture under the Excessive Fines Clause may consider - as part of the proportionality determination required by United States v. Bajakajian - whether the forfeiture would deprive the defendant of his future ability to earn a living. However, the court held that courts should not consider a defendant’s personal circumstances as a distinct factor. In this case, the court concluded that the challenged forfeiture is constitutional because it is not “grossly disproportional” to the gravity of defendant’s offenses. View "United States v. Viloski" on Justia Law

The district court issued an injunction prohibiting FilmOn from distributing copyrighted content owned by plaintiffs. On appeal, FilmOn and its CEO, Alkiviades David, appealed the district court's judgment holding FilmOn and David in contempt of the injunction because FilmOn had used its Teleporter technology (“Teleporter System”) to distribute plaintiffs’ copyrighted television programs without plaintiffs’ permission. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it held FilmOn in civil contempt where FilmOne did not make a diligently reasonable attempt to comply with the Injunction under which it was already required to operate; held David in civil contempt because David both had the power to force FilmOn to comply and failed to take appropriate action within his power to prevent FilmOn from violating the injunction; sanctioned FilmOn $90,000 because the fine was civil in nature where the purpose of the sanction was to coerce FilmOn into future compliance; and awarded plaintiffs attorneys' fees. View "CBS Broadcasting v. FilmOn.com Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit claiming that American Airlines violated its obligation under the McCaskill‐Bond amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 42112 note, to provide for the integration of the American Airlines and U.S. Airways seniority lists “in a fair and equitable manner.” Plaintiffs also claimed principally that the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”), the labor union representing American Airlines flight attendants, violated its duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151‐165, by failing to represent the former TWA flight attendants adequately during the creation of the integrated seniority list. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss. The court concluded that McCaskill‐Bond did not require American Airlines to reorder its own seniority list upon entering into a new merger in order to redress plaintiffs’ endtailing in 2001. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim against American Airlines under McCaskill‐Bond. The court also concluded that the union’s refusal to reorder the list, in accordance with its policy and the condition imposed by American Airlines, was not irrational or arbitrary; nor was the union’s decision to use the “length of service” rule to integrate the seniority lists unlawfully discriminatory in violation of the Railway Labor Act; and the amended complaint’s allegations do not raise an inference of “bad faith” on the part of APFA. The court considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and concluded that they are without merit. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Flight Attendants in Reunion v. Am. Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under federal and state laws, alleging that Defendant Hardwick, the former mayor of the Village of Freeport, had not appointed him chief of police because plaintiff was a white Italian‐American, and that Hardwick had instead appointed a less‐qualified Hispanic. The court rejected defendants’ argument that an employer who promotes a white Hispanic candidate over a white non‐Hispanic candidate cannot have engaged in racial discrimination. Based on longstanding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, the court reiterated that “race” includes ethnicity for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1981, so that discrimination based on Hispanic ancestry or lack thereof constitutes racial discrimination under that statute. The court also held that “race” should be defined the same way for purposes of Title VII. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment insofar as it denied defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50. The court held, however, that the district court erred in permitting lay opinion testimony that speculated as to Hardwick’s reasons for not appointing plaintiff. Such error was not harmless because this case was factually close. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded as to this issue. View "Village of Freeport v. Barrella" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's determination that an IJ's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. The court concluded that, although the BIA recognized its obligation to apply the “clear error” standard of review to the IJ’s findings of fact, it erred in its application of that standard and provided an insufficient basis for rejecting the IJ’s findings. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review and remanded to the BIA for further consideration. View "Lin v. Lynch" on Justia Law