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

Defendants appealed their convictions for sex trafficking, forced labor, and alien harboring and transportation charges. The court held that the district court's exclusion of evidence of the victims’ other sexual behavior did not violate defendants’ right to present a complete defense and to confront witnesses. The court also concluded that, while the sex trafficking jury charge was error, that error, given the evidence in this case, was harmless. However, the court concluded that the sentences imposed were procedurally unreasonable. The Government concedes that certain of the sentences imposed exceeded the statutory maximum and thus constitute procedural error warranting remand as to those sentences. The court further concluded that there were additional procedural errors in the sentencing proceeding, including an incorrectly imposed mandatory minimum, and a full resentencing is warranted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions, and vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, investment funds, filed suit seeking, by ex parte application, to discover certain documents from the defendant American and international accounting firms relating to audits conducted by their Middle Eastern affiliates. 28 U.S.C. 1782 provides assistance to litigants in proceedings before foreign and international tribunals. The statute authorizes a district court, “upon the application of any interested person,” to order a party “found” in the judicial district in which the court sits to produce discovery “for use” in a foreign proceeding. The court concluded that (1) assuming arguendo that the funds were “interested person[s]” in ongoing foreign proceedings, the funds did not establish that the evidence they sought was “for use” in those proceedings; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that additional proceedings that the funds asserted they intended to initiate were not “within reasonable contemplation” at the time the application was made. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the application. View "Certain Funds v. KPMG LLP" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against United, claiming that United had violated its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), (a)(3), and the terms of ERSIA-governed health insurance plans administered by United, and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (the Parity Act), 29 U.S.C. 1185a(a)(3)(A). Plaintiffs also brought three additional counts under New York State law. The district court granted United's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that NYSPA has standing at this stage of the litigation and that Plaintiff Denbo’s claims, but not Plaintiff Dr. Menolascino’s claims, should be permitted to proceed. Therefore, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "N.Y. State Psychiatric Ass’n v. UnitedHealth Grp." on Justia Law

Defendants, Narcisa Veliz Novack and her brother Cristobal Veliz, appealed from convictions of numerous offenses related to defendants' participation in an association-in-fact Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.c. 1962, enterprise with the primary purpose of assaulting Novack's husband and her mother-in-law. The court rejected Veliz's argument that his conduct did not violate 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3) because solicitation to murder does not constitute the use or attempted use of “intimidation, threat[s], or corrupt[] persua[sion].” The court held that solicitation of a third party to murder a witness constitutes attempted corrupt persuasion under the statute. The court further concluded that the evidence that Veliz had committed multiple related crimes across multiple states was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that communication with a federal investigator was reasonably likely. The court rejected Veliz's argument that his witness-tampering convictions must be vacated because he has not shown reasonable probability that the challenged instruction affected the jury’s verdict. Finally, the court rejected Veliz's contention that the inclusion of the term "physical force" in the jury charge constructively amended the indictment because the government’s theory of guilt was consistent from indictment to summation and the jury clearly based its verdict on the conduct charged in the indictment. The court addressed and rejected the remaining challenges in a summary order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Veliz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against New York City and NYPD officers, alleging claims for false arrest and use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The officers arrested plaintiff after a scuffle that occurred while plaintiff was searching for a bathroom. Earlier that evening, plaintiff had gone to Zuccotti Park to observe the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The court concluded that plaintiff's claim against the officers for unlawful arrest is defeated by their defense of qualified immunity, her First Amendment claim was properly dismissed as lacking any merit, and her claim against them for use of excessive force must be remanded for trial. The court did not need to consider plaintiff's claims against the City because her brief on appeal does not challenge the dismissal of those claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Brown v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., against defendants, alleging that he worked without pay as a volunteer for FanFest, a five‐day “interactive baseball theme park” organized in conjunction with Major League Baseball’s 2013 All‐Star Week. The district court dismissed plaintiff's putative FLSA collective action claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his would‐be New York Labor Law, 190 et seq., & 650 et seq., claims. The court concluded that the term “establishment” for purposes of the amusement or recreational establishment exemption to the FLSA means a distinct, physical place of business, agreed with the district court that the exemption applies to FanFest, and did not reach the question of whether plaintiff was an employee. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Chen v. Major League Baseball Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of healthcare fraud and aggravated identity theft, appealed the district court's orders granting the government writs of garnishment directing that certain monies owned by defendant, but in the control of third parties, be transferred to the United States to satisfy his restitution obligations. Defendant argued that the attorney representing him at the writ of garnishment hearing labored under a conflict of interest in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that the district court committed plain error in failing to inquire as to the alleged conflict. The court found that there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a writ of garnishment hearing brought to satisfy restitution or forfeiture judgments, and the district court thus did not have a duty to inquire. The court further concluded that, while the imposition of restitution falls within a defendant’s criminal proceedings, a writ of garnishment is a civil remedy falling outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment’s protections. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cohan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., against FCI, his mortgage loan servicer and a debt collector, alleging that FCI violated the FDCPA by sending him two written communications that failed to comply with FDCPA requirements that debt collectors timely provide certain notices to debtors. The district court granted FCI's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ruling principally that the letter, which the district court viewed as primarily a transfer‐of‐servicing informational notice sent pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2605, was not also a communication sent “in connection with the collection of any debt” under the FDCPA. The district court also ruled that plaintiff failed to allege that FCI violated the FDCPA by mailing the payment statement and the district court denied plaintiff leave to filed a second amended complaint. The court applied an objective standard to resolve the question and concluded that plaintiff adequately alleged that the Letter was an “initial communication . . . in connection with the collection of [a] debt,” so as to obligate FCI to provide plaintiff a section 1692g notice. Therefore, the district court erred in granting the motion, and the court vacated and remanded. View "Hart v. FCI Lender Serv." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former inmates of the Eastern Correctional Facility, filed suit alleging that a corrections officer sexually abused them and thus subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed the case. The court agreed with the district court that the complaint failed to state a claim under Boddie v. Schnieder. Boddie set forth the standard for stating an Eighth Amendment claim arising from sexual abuse in prison. The court clarified that a corrections officer’s intentional contact with an inmate’s genitalia or other intimate area, which serves no penological purpose and is undertaken with the intent to gratify the officer’s sexual desire or to humiliate the inmate, violates the Eighth Amendment. Further, the court recognized that sexual abuse of prisoners deeply offends today's standards of decency and the proper application of the rule in Boddie must reflect such standards. In this case, plaintiffs stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim by alleging that the officer fondled their genitals for personal gratification and without penological justification. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Crawford v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the government's restraint of his property, including his cars and two bank accounts, during his prosecution on wire fraud charges. The court found merit in defendant's claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the government seized his assets without seeking a warrant, and that there has been no judicial finding as to whether probable cause supports the forfeitability of the seized assets. The court held that exigent circumstances do not support the government’s indefinite seizure in the absence of a warrant and, therefore, the court vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate the order and remanded for the district court to determine whether probable cause supports the forfeitability of defendant's assets. View "United States v. Cosme" on Justia Law