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

A group of bondholders sought to recover principal payments owed on defaulted Argentine sovereign bonds. These investors had previously participated in Argentina’s Tax Credit Program, depositing their bonds with an Argentine trustee, Caja de Valores S.A., in exchange for certificates representing principal and interest. After the Republic failed to pay the principal at maturity, the bondholders initially sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That court dismissed the case primarily on the ground that, under Argentine law, only the trustee had authority to sue on the bonds, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The bondholders then obtained authorization from an Argentine court to sue and filed a new complaint in New York.The district court again dismissed their claims, mainly for two reasons. First, it found all claims were barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, holding that the state’s “savings statute” (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 205(a)) did not apply because the prior dismissal was for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also concluded that tolling provisions in New York’s COVID-era executive orders did not apply absent an equitable showing. Second, the court held that collateral estoppel barred the bondholders from relitigating issues related to standing and jurisdiction previously decided.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed that the savings statute did not apply but held that the COVID-era executive orders tolled the limitations period automatically, without any equitable showing. This made some claims timely (those on the AR16 Bonds) but not others (those on the GD65 Bonds). The Second Circuit further ruled that collateral estoppel did not preclude the bondholders from litigating whether they had authority to sue, and that—under Argentine law, with the new court authorization—they now had such authority. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bugliotti v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

A resident of Puerto Rico suffered work-related injuries in 1994, resulting in permanent total disability. His employer and its insurance carrier were ordered to provide medical care under Section 7 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as extended by the Defense Base Act. In 2019, a Puerto Rico-licensed physician recommended medical cannabis-infused edibles to treat the petitioner’s chronic pain. The petitioner sought reimbursement for these products from the employer’s insurance carrier, which denied the request.The petitioner then asked the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges to order reimbursement, arguing that medical cannabis was a reasonable and necessary treatment. The Administrative Law Judge denied the request, finding that marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) meant it could not have an accepted medical use under federal law. On appeal, the Department of Labor Benefits Review Board affirmed this decision by a 2-1 vote, agreeing that reimbursement was barred by the CSA and rejecting arguments that recent federal appropriations riders or executive actions altered the federal legal status of marijuana.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that because marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under the CSA, it cannot be considered a reasonable and necessary medical expense for purposes of reimbursement under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court found that neither appropriations riders nor recent executive or legislative actions had changed marijuana’s federal classification or its legal status under the Act. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was observed by New York City police officers driving without a seatbelt. When officers attempted to pull him over, he fled, eventually crashing into a parked car. After the crash, he fled on foot and was seen throwing a green bag over a fence into a construction lot across from a school. Inside the bag, officers later found a loaded firearm with a defaced serial number. The defendant’s photo identification and cell phone were found in the car. He was arrested about a month later during a scheduled meeting with probation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over the initial criminal proceedings, where the defendant was indicted, and a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Prior to trial, the government missed the court-ordered deadline for expert disclosures under Rule 16 but provided the DNA evidence report to the defense as soon as it was available. The district court found the government negligent but not in bad faith and offered the defendant a continuance, which he declined in favor of a one-day delay before trial. The jury convicted the defendant, and the court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 78 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the DNA evidence despite the late disclosure and whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence with a continuance, nor was the sentence unreasonable. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence in all respects. View "United States v. Aryeetey" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual who was assessed $50,000 in penalties by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for failing to report control of a foreign business during the tax years 2005 through 2009, as required by section 6038 of the Internal Revenue Code. The penalties were $10,000 for each year of the alleged reporting violation. When the individual did not pay, the IRS filed a notice of federal tax lien, which the taxpayer challenged through a Collection Due Process hearing before the IRS Independent Office of Appeals. After that challenge was unsuccessful, the taxpayer petitioned the United States Tax Court for relief.The United States Tax Court granted summary judgment in favor of the taxpayer. The Tax Court concluded that Congress had not granted the Commissioner statutory authority to collect the section 6038(b) penalty through administrative assessment, which is the process the IRS typically uses to record tax liabilities and activate collection powers such as liens and levies. The Tax Court ruled that, instead, the Commissioner would have to bring a lawsuit in federal district court to collect this penalty.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case on appeal. The Second Circuit disagreed with the Tax Court’s interpretation and held that the Commissioner does have authority to assess penalties under section 6038(b) through the administrative process. The appellate court found that the history, purpose, and structure of the statute support the conclusion that the penalty is assessable, and that requiring the Commissioner to proceed only through district court would complicate and frustrate congressional intent. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the Tax Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Safdieh v. Comm'r" on Justia Law

In January 2020, William Jimenez sold fentanyl-laced heroin to an undercover New York City police detective, arranging the transactions by phone. During the same period, Jimenez shot another individual and was arrested soon after. A search revealed drugs and ammunition in his possession and vehicle. He was indicted on several counts, including possessing ammunition after a felony conviction, firearm discharge related to drug trafficking, and multiple counts of distributing controlled substances. Jimenez ultimately pled guilty to possessing ammunition after a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver for sentences within a stipulated Guidelines range.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sentenced Jimenez to 105 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release, imposing seven special conditions, three of which he later challenged. On a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the case, requiring the District Court to provide individualized justifications for the challenged special conditions. On remand, the District Court reimposed the conditions with further explanation. Jimenez appealed again, contesting the special conditions and seeking resentencing based on a change in the law affecting his Guidelines calculation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. It held that the special conditions—electronic device searches, community service requirements during unemployment, and outpatient mental health counseling—were procedurally and substantively reasonable, supported by the record, and tailored to Jimenez’s history and circumstances. The Court also held that Jimenez’s appeal waiver barred his challenge to the term of imprisonment, even in light of an intervening change in the law. The judgment of the District Court was therefore affirmed. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

A major music performing rights organization, which licenses the public performance of musical works to concert promoters, was unable to reach agreement with a national association of concert promoters on the rates and revenue base for blanket licenses covering live performances. For the first time in their relationship, the rights organization petitioned the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to set the licensing terms, as permitted under an antitrust consent decree applicable to the organization due to its significant market share. The promoters’ association, whose members include the two largest concert promoters in the United States, has historically secured blanket licenses from multiple performing rights organizations to avoid copyright infringement.The district court accepted the organization’s proposed rates for a retroactive period and set a new, higher rate for a more recent period. It also broadened the definition of “gross revenues” for calculating royalties, including new categories such as revenues from ticket service fees, VIP packages, and box suites, which had not traditionally been included. The promoters’ association appealed these decisions, arguing that both the rates and the expanded revenue base were unreasonable. The rights organization cross-appealed the denial of prejudgment interest on retroactive payments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. It held that the district court imposed unreasonable rates, in part because it adopted an unprecedented and administratively burdensome revenue base without justification and relied too heavily on benchmark agreements that were not sufficiently comparable to prior agreements with the association. The court also found no economic changes justifying a significant rate increase. While it found no abuse of discretion in denying prejudgment interest, it vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Broadcast Music, Inc. v. North American Concert Promoters Association" on Justia Law

SBK ART LLC, a special purpose vehicle formerly owned by Sberbank and holding a substantial interest in a Croatian company called Fortenova Grupa, became subject to international sanctions after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Following Sberbank’s sale of SBK to an Emirati investor, Fortenova continued to treat SBK as a sanctioned entity, citing uncertainty about the change of control. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, acting as Fortenova’s counsel, issued a memorandum (the “Akin Opinion”) questioning the legitimacy of the sale and compliance with EU sanctions. This opinion was allegedly shared with the EU Council, which imposed sanctions on SBK. Subsequently, SBK was excluded from corporate governance decisions and lost its interest in Fortenova, prompting SBK to initiate litigation in the General Court of the European Union and the Civil Court of Malta, and to contemplate further proceedings in the Netherlands.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, after referral to a Magistrate Judge, granted SBK’s petition under 28 U.S.C. §1782 for discovery from Akin, but limited it to non-privileged materials relating to the sale, the Akin Opinion, and governance changes, within a defined timeframe. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations, overruling Akin’s objections, particularly those based on the Second Circuit’s prior decision in Kiobel by Samkalden v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion by granting discovery from Akin even though the documents sought were not discoverable from Akin’s client in the relevant foreign jurisdictions. The Second Circuit held that Section 1782 does not impose a foreign-discoverability requirement, distinguishing Kiobel and affirming the District Court’s order. Any objections regarding privilege or undue burden must be resolved under ordinary discovery rules. The District Court’s order was affirmed. View "In Re: Ex Parte Application of SBK ART LLC" on Justia Law

A mother and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center sued a company that provides tenant screening reports, alleging that its practices contributed to the denial of a housing application for the mother’s disabled son. The apartment manager used the defendant’s screening platform to review applicants’ criminal histories, and the son’s application was denied based on a flagged shoplifting charge. The mother later had the charge dismissed. She also sought a copy of her son’s screening report from the defendant, but was told she needed to provide a power of attorney. She instead submitted documentation of her conservatorship, but the defendant rejected it as facially invalid due to a missing court seal.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held a bench trial. It found that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) did not apply to the defendant because it was not the decision-maker on housing applications; only the housing provider made those determinations. The district court also found the defendant’s requirement for a valid conservatorship certificate reasonable and not discriminatory toward handicapped individuals. However, the district court found the defendant liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for a period when it insisted on a power of attorney, making it impossible for the mother to obtain her son’s consumer file.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the Connecticut Fair Housing Center lacked standing because its diversion of resources to address the defendant’s actions did not constitute a concrete injury. The court also held that, although the FHA does not exclude certain defendants, the defendant here was not the proximate cause of the housing denial, and the mother failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate-impact discrimination. Furthermore, because she never provided a facially valid conservatorship certificate, she could not show that the defendant’s documentation requirements prevented her from obtaining the report. The court vacated, affirmed, and reversed in part, dismissing the Center’s claims, affirming no FHA liability, and reversing FCRA liability. View "CFHC v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols." on Justia Law

In this case, a school bus company’s employees voted in 2020 to change their union representation, shifting from a Teamsters local to an Amalgamated Transit Workers local. As a result, the company was required under federal law to withdraw from the multiemployer pension plan affiliated with the old union and begin contributing to a new plan aligned with the new union. This withdrawal triggered several obligations under ERISA, including the company’s duty to pay “withdrawal liability” to the old plan and the old plan’s obligation to transfer certain assets and liabilities to the new plan relating to the employees who switched unions.After the old pension fund assessed withdrawal liability of approximately $1.8 million, the company argued that, under 29 U.S.C. § 1415(c), this liability should be reduced by the difference between the liabilities and assets transferred to the new plan. The old plan disagreed, interpreting the statute differently and contending that no reduction should occur. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the company, holding that the statute required a $1.8 million reduction in withdrawal liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s interpretation of the statute de novo. The Second Circuit found that the phrase “unfunded vested benefits” in Section 1415(c) is ambiguous, but, after examining the statute’s structure and purpose, concluded that the District Court’s interpretation was correct. The court held that “unfunded vested benefits allocable to the employer” under Section 1415(c) refers to the entire amount of liabilities transferred to the new plan, not reduced by transferred assets. As a result, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, approving the $1.8 million withdrawal liability reduction and dismissing the company’s cross-appeal as moot. View "Mar-Can Transp. Co. v. Loc. 854 Pension Fund" on Justia Law

A patrol-level police officer in Colombia was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States. The officer did not dispute that he participated in communications about a proposed cocaine export scheme, but argued that he lacked criminal intent because he believed he was assisting the Colombian National Police in arranging a seizure of the cocaine, rather than joining a drug-trafficking conspiracy. His defense at trial centered on his understanding that he was participating in an anti-narcotics operation and not an illegal export scheme.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over the jury trial. The prosecution presented evidence of the officer’s participation in meetings and communications with a DEA informant posing as a drug trafficker. The defense sought to introduce evidence that the officer’s colleague, who recruited him into the scheme, had previously assisted the Colombian National Police's anti-narcotics unit in successful drug seizures. The district court excluded this evidence, accepting the government’s argument that it constituted impermissible propensity evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The officer was convicted and sentenced to 165 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in excluding the challenged evidence. The appellate court found the evidence relevant to corroborate the officer’s account of conversations with his colleague, directly impacting his state of mind, and determined that it was not barred by Rule 404(b). The court further held that the exclusion was not harmless, as the officer’s defense turned on criminal intent and the evidence could have affected the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "U.S. v. Cardenas" on Justia Law