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

Plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment in favor of Ocwen and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging various causes of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692. At issue is whether a debtor who has received a claim on a debt that has been discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding can sue the claimant in a district court under the FDCPA. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Code does not broadly repeal the FDCPA for purposes of FDCPA claims based on conduct that would constitute alleged violations of the discharge injunction; none of plaintiff's individual FDCPA claims conflicts with the discharge injunction under the Bankruptcy Code; and, in regard to the claim of piecemeal litigation, the court concluded that the remote possibility of a need for clarification provides no basis for routing all FDCPA claims exclusively into the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate plaintiff's FDCPA claims against Ocwen. View "Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff arrived in the United States on an H1-B visa and pursued employment-based status adjustment to permanent residency. Plaintiff's original petitioning employer filed an alien labor certification for her with the Department of Labor, followed by an I‐140 “Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker” with USCIS. Plaintiff filed for adjustment of status to obtain a green card and then changed employers pursuant to the portability provisions of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC-21), 8 U.S.C. 1154(j) and 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A)(iv). The original petitioning employer subsequently pleaded guilty to mail fraud, USCIS initiated revocation of all petitions filed by the employer, but neither plaintiff nor her new employer were informed of these events. Denial of her green card application purportedly gave her notice of the I‐140 revocation. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that it has subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's claims. On the merits, the court held that USCIS acted inconsistently with the statutory portability provisions of AC‐21 by providing notice of an intent to revoke neither i) to an alien beneficiary who has availed herself of the portability provisions to move to a successor employer nor ii) to the successor employer, who is not the original I‐140 petitioner, but who, as contemplated by AC‐21, has in effect adopted the original I‐140 petition. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mantena v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Statek appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order, on remand, denying reconsideration. In denying Statekʹs latest motions for reconsideration, the bankruptcy courtʹs decisions relied on a prior alternative holding - that Statekʹs argument was a ʺnew argumentʺ not proper for a motion for reconsideration - which this Court did not explicitly address in Coudert I.  In Coudert I, the court instructed the bankruptcy court ʺto apply Connecticutʹs choice of law rules in deciding Statekʹs motion to reconsider.ʺ The bankruptcy court did not follow that instruction, as the Connecticut choice‐of‐law rules did not bear on the bankruptcy courtʹs ultimate decision. Instead, the bankruptcy court ordered further briefing on whether it could adhere to its prior alternative holding that Statekʹs argument was a new argument not available on reconsideration. Because the bankruptcy court's decisions do not comply with the court's mandate in Coudert I, the court reversed and remanded with further instructions. View "Statek Corp. v. Development Specialists, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit for constitutional violations against her mother, two New York law guardians, a New York ACS employee, and a Pennsylvania caseworker after ACS removed plaintiff's children from her custody and placed them with her mother. The district court dismissed the suit sua sponte. The court affirmed because the claims against the ACS employee and the caseworker are barred by the statute of limitations and because plaintiff's mother and the law guardians are not state actors for the purposes of 42 U.S.C.1983. View "Milan v. Wertheimer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint against the Village and the Village Fire Marshal on plaintiff's retaliation and abuse-of-process claim. The court (1) affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, as the criminal summonses on which it is premised were supported by probable cause, the issuance of the non‐criminal Fire Prevention Violation Order on which it is premised was otherwise justified, and plaintiff has not made any argument that the issuance of the Fire Prevention Violation Order was significantly more serious than other action the Marshal had discretion to take; (2) affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's abuse‐of‐process claim on qualified‐immunity grounds because, at the time of the alleged conduct, although there was a clearly established right to be free from abuse of process under New York law, there was no clearly established right to be free from abuse of process where probable cause existed; and (3) affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial because it is clear that, when read in context, the district court’s jury instructions were not erroneous. View "Mangino v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue" on Justia Law

MMC and the government agreed that MMC is entitled to an overpayment refund and further agree on the amount of that overpayment, but disagree on the interest rate to be applied. MMC argues that, despite being organized as a corporation under New York law, it should receive the benefit of the higher interest rate applicable to non‐corporations, because it is a nonprofit corporation and the word “corporation” in I.R.C. 6621(a)(1) should be construed to refer only to for‐profit corporations. The court held that I.R.C. 6621(a)(1)'s lower interest rate applies equally to for-profit corporations and nonprofit corporations such as MMC.  Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Maimonides Medical Center v. United States" on Justia Law

The SEC brought a civil enforcement proceeding against defendants and a jury subsequently found defendants liable for multiple claims of securities fraud. At issue is the district court's asset freeze order. The court held that the entry of the asset freeze order did not violate the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay; the order fell within the “governmental unit” exception to the automatic stay provision, did not constitute impermissible “enforcement of a money judgment,” and did not run afoul of SEC v. Brennan; and it was properly supported by a showing of ill‐gotten gains. Because the court is unable to determine whether sufficient evidence supports imposition of the order against the remaining seven Relief Defendants, the cause is remanded to the district court with instructions. View "SEC v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for drug- and firearm-related crimes, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing a "holdout" juror for cause during the course of jury deliberations, in violation of United States v. Thomas. The court rejected defendant's claim for two reasons: first, the challenged removal is not subject to Thomas’s “any possibility” rule, because the concern underlying Thomas, juror nullification, was not here at issue; and second, defendant waived any challenge to dismissal of the juror in question by specifically telling the district court that he did not object either to its colloquy with the juror or to the juror’s removal, and by in fact recommending the very disposition he now challenges. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spruill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of aiding and abetting the removal of a child from the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights, in violation of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, 18 U.S.C. 1204, 2. The court held that venue for the prosecution of defendant properly lay in the District of Vermont, his place of arrest, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3238. The court held that conduct comprising the crime of removal of a child from the United States in violation of the Act occurred in its essence outside the United States such that section 3238 provides a basis for laying venue in the district of arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns the proper application of Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code in the Lehman bankruptcies. LBI, the debtor, was lead underwriter of unsecured notes issued by Lehman Holdings, its affiliates. After the bankruptcy of both the Lehman entity that issued the notes, Lehman Holdings, and the Lehman entity that was lead underwriter on the issuances, LBI, the Junior Underwriters were held to account for the noteholders' losses, and incurred loss for defense and settlements. The Junior Underwriters filed suit asserting claims for contribution or reimbursement against the liquidation estate of Debtor LBI. The bankruptcy court construed the statute to require subordination of the Junior Underwriters’ contribution claims. The court, however, adopted the district court's construction of section 510(b), holding that in the affiliate securities context, “the claim or interest represented by such security” means a claim or interest of the same type as the affiliate security. Claims arising from securities of a debtor’s affiliate should be subordinated in the debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding to all claims or interests senior or equal to claims in the bankruptcy proceeding that are of the same type as the underlying securities. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "ANZ Securities v. Giddens" on Justia Law