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

A physician specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation was employed by a medical practice under a three-year contract that anticipated partnership if not terminated. After patient and staff complaints about her conduct, the practice proposed a new one-year contract without a partnership track, which she refused to sign. She was then terminated with 90 days’ notice. The physician alleged that her termination was due to age and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation for stating her intent to file an EEOC complaint, and also brought a breach of contract claim.After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The District Judge reviewed the report and recommendation (R&R) only for clear error, concluding that the physician’s objections were improper because they repeated arguments made before the Magistrate Judge, and adopted the R&R in full. The physician appealed, arguing that her objections were timely and specific, and that the District Judge should have conducted de novo review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the District Court erred in applying only clear error review, as the physician’s objections were proper and required de novo review. However, the appellate court found this error harmless because it reviews summary judgment decisions de novo. On its own review, the Second Circuit concluded that the physician failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact on her preserved claims of sex discrimination, aiding and abetting discrimination, and retaliation. The court also found that her age discrimination and breach of contract claims were not preserved for appellate review. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants. View "Nambiar v. The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP" on Justia Law

Nearly a million barrels of crude oil owned by a U.S. company were seized from a vessel in Venezuelan waters by Venezuelan authorities under threat of force. The oil was insured under a marine cargo reinsurance policy that covered losses arising from war-related risks, including “insurrection.” The insured company claimed that the political turmoil in Venezuela, including the contested presidency and violent suppression of opposition, constituted an insurrection as defined by the policy. The reinsurers denied coverage, arguing that the events did not meet the policy’s definition of insurrection, leading to litigation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court found the term “insurrection” in the policy to be ambiguous and, applying New York law and the doctrine of contra proferentem, construed the ambiguity in favor of the insured. The court held that the Maduro regime’s actions constituted an insurrection within the meaning of the policy. The case proceeded to trial on causation and damages, where the jury found in favor of the insured on most issues, awarding over $54 million in damages plus interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered challenges to the district court’s summary judgment ruling, judicial notice orders, and jury instructions on causation. The Second Circuit held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in any of the challenged rulings. It affirmed that the policy’s “arising from” language required only but-for causation, not proximate causation. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects, upholding the award to the insured. View "CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. Ascot Underwriting Ltd." on Justia Law

The case concerns a former CEO of a brand-management company who was prosecuted for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to inflate company revenues through secret “overpayments-for-givebacks” deals with a business partner. The government alleged that the CEO arranged for the partner to pay inflated prices for joint ventures, with a secret understanding that the excess would be returned later, thereby allowing the company to report higher revenues to investors. The CEO was also accused of making false filings with the SEC and improperly influencing audits. The central factual dispute was whether the CEO actually made these undisclosed agreements.In 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a jury trial. The jury acquitted the CEO of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, make false SEC filings, and interfere with audits, but could not reach a verdict on the substantive charges, resulting in a mistrial on those counts. The government retried the CEO in 2022 on the substantive counts, and the second jury convicted him on all charges. The CEO moved to bar the retrial, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded it because the first jury’s acquittal necessarily decided factual issues essential to the government’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the first jury’s acquittal on the conspiracy charge necessarily decided that the CEO did not make the alleged secret agreements, which was a factual issue essential to the substantive charges. Because the government’s case at the second trial depended on proving those same secret agreements, the Double Jeopardy Clause’s issue-preclusion doctrine barred the retrial. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, vacated the CEO’s convictions, and ordered dismissal of the indictment. View "United States v. Cole" on Justia Law

A citizen of Ecuador who had been living unlawfully in the United States since 1997 was placed in removal proceedings after multiple convictions, including for driving under the influence. He conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his deportation would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his three U.S.-citizen children. At the time of his application, all three children were minors. During a hearing before an immigration judge, he and his eldest daughter testified about the potential hardship his removal would cause. The judge ultimately denied his application, finding he lacked good moral character and had not shown the required level of hardship to his children.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the immigration judge’s decision, specifically agreeing that the petitioner had not demonstrated the necessary hardship to his children. The petitioner did not seek judicial review of this decision. Later, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, submitting new evidence—a psychological evaluation of his eldest daughter, who was then almost 20 years old—arguing that this showed she would suffer the requisite hardship. Nearly two years later, the BIA denied the motion, concluding that the new evidence would not change the outcome because the daughter had turned 21 while the motion was pending and thus no longer qualified as a “child” under the relevant statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen. The court held that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D), a qualifying “child” must be under 21 at the time the application for cancellation of removal is adjudicated, not at the time of filing or when evidence is presented. The court also found that the petitioner was not barred from raising this issue on appeal, as the BIA had raised it sua sponte. The petition for review was denied. View "Yupangui-Yunga v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A law firm sought defense and indemnification from its professional liability insurer after being sued in New York state court by a judgment creditor of its client. The creditor alleged that the firm facilitated the sale of the client’s diamond ring and received a portion of the proceeds to satisfy past fees and as a retainer for future services, despite a restraining notice prohibiting the client from transferring assets due to an unpaid judgment. The state court complaint accused the firm of fraudulent conveyance, tortious interference with judgment collection, and contempt of court.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed the law firm’s claims for defense and indemnification and denied its motion for partial summary judgment regarding the insurer’s duty to defend. The district court found that the policy’s misappropriation exclusion applied, concluding that the firm’s handling of the sale proceeds was unauthorized in light of the restraining notice, regardless of the client’s consent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo. Applying New York law, the Second Circuit held that the allegations in the underlying complaint involved the provision of professional services by the law firm and did not constitute “misappropriation” as commonly understood, since there was no allegation that the firm acted without its client’s authorization. The court found the term “misappropriation” ambiguous and construed it in favor of the insured. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal, reversed the denial of partial summary judgment on the duty to defend, and remanded with instructions to enter partial summary judgment for the law firm on the insurer’s duty to defend. The court did not address other policy exclusions or the insurer’s ultimate duty to indemnify. View "Marcus & Cinelli, LLP v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Several individuals and a firearms association challenged provisions of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) that require ammunition sellers to conduct background checks on purchasers, pay a $2.50 fee per check, and register with the Superintendent of the New York State Police. The plaintiffs alleged that these requirements deterred them from purchasing or selling ammunition, and that one plaintiff was unable to complete a purchase due to a system failure. They also claimed that dealers were passing the background check fee onto purchasers, and that the registration requirement deterred private sales.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York found that the association lacked standing but that the individual plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the provisions. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims because the state had shown that the provisions were consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required by the framework set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the individual plaintiffs had standing. However, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction on different grounds. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to show that the background check, fee, and registration provisions meaningfully constrained their ability to “keep” or “bear” arms under the first step of the Bruen framework. Because the plaintiffs did not meet this threshold, the court did not address the historical analysis. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "N.Y. State Firearms Ass'n v. James" on Justia Law

A group of individuals planned and executed a robbery of a stash house in Queens, New York, in September 2017. Matthew Elias, one of the defendants, drove a getaway car but was arrested shortly after the robbery, before he received any share of the stolen property, which included marijuana, a gun, and approximately $20,000 in cash. Testimony at trial established that another participant, Hytmiah, kept all the proceeds from the robbery, distributing only a small portion to one other individual and refusing to share with the rest, including Elias.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Judge Garaufis) presided over the trial, where a jury convicted Elias of Hobbs Act robbery. As part of his sentence, the district court ordered Elias to forfeit $10,000, calculated as a pro rata share of the robbery’s proceeds, under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Elias appealed, arguing that the forfeiture order was improper because he never actually acquired any of the proceeds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), as informed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Honeycutt v. United States, criminal forfeiture is limited to property that the defendant personally acquired as a result of the offense. The Second Circuit concluded that Elias was ordered to forfeit property he never obtained, which violated this rule. Accordingly, the court vacated the forfeiture order against Elias. The remainder of the judgments against Elias and his co-defendant were affirmed in part and vacated in part, with instructions for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion. View "United States v. Elias" on Justia Law

A group of investors who purchased American Depository Shares in a Spanish engineering and construction company alleged that the company manipulated its financial records to conceal a liquidity crisis, which ultimately led to its bankruptcy. The investors claimed that the company’s registration statement for its U.S. offering contained false statements about its accounting practices, specifically regarding the use of the percentage-of-completion method for recognizing revenue. They also alleged that company executives and underwriters were involved in or responsible for these misrepresentations. The complaint relied on information from confidential witnesses and findings from Spanish criminal proceedings and regulatory investigations, which described widespread accounting fraud and the deliberate inflation of project revenues.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the investors’ claims under both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The district court found the Securities Act claims untimely under the one-year statute of limitations and concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim under either statute. The court also denied leave to amend the Exchange Act claims against the company’s former CEO, finding that such amendment would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Securities Act claims were timely because the relevant “storm warning” triggering the statute of limitations occurred later than the district court had found. The appellate court also held that the complaint adequately stated claims under both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act against the company, crediting the detailed allegations from confidential witnesses and Spanish proceedings. However, the court affirmed the denial of leave to amend the Exchange Act claims against the former CEO, finding insufficient allegations of scienter. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. View "Sherman v. Abengoa, S.A." on Justia Law

A transgender inmate serving a lengthy sentence in the Connecticut prison system was diagnosed with gender dysphoria after several years of incarceration. The inmate requested various treatments, including stronger hormone therapy and a vaginoplasty, but was initially denied hormone therapy due to a prison policy that only allowed continuation, not initiation, of such treatment. After a policy change, the inmate received hormone therapy, mental health counseling, antidepressants, and some lifestyle accommodations. Despite these measures, the inmate continued to request additional treatments, including surgery, and expressed dissatisfaction with the care provided, alleging it was inadequate and not delivered by specialists in gender dysphoria.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut reviewed the inmate’s claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. The district court found that the corrections officials had deprived the inmate of adequate care by providing mental health treatment from unqualified providers, delaying and inadequately administering hormone therapy, and denying surgical intervention. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that the right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was clearly established.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that there is no clearly established constitutional right for inmates to receive specific treatments for gender dysphoria or to be treated by gender-dysphoria specialists. The court found that reasonable officials could disagree about the adequacy and legality of the care provided, which included talk therapy, antidepressants, and hormone therapy. The Second Circuit concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment in their favor. View "Clark v. Valletta" on Justia Law

The City of New York brought suit in New York state court against several major oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging violations of New York’s consumer protection laws through deceptive advertising about the environmental impact of fossil fuels. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting multiple grounds for federal jurisdiction. The City moved to remand the case to state court, but the district court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of a similar case, Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corp., in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.After the Second Circuit affirmed the remand in the Connecticut case, the district court in New York lifted the stay and allowed the parties to re-brief the remand motion in light of the new precedent. The City renewed its motion to remand and requested attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The oil companies continued to oppose remand, pressing several arguments that had already been rejected by numerous federal courts, including the Second Circuit in the Connecticut case. The district court granted the motion to remand and awarded the City attorneys’ fees and costs, but only for work related to five of the six grounds for removal, and only for work performed after the Connecticut decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed only the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and costs for the objectively unreasonable grounds for removal pressed after the legal landscape had shifted. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, concluding that the award was justified under the “unusual circumstances” exception recognized in Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. View "The City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp." on Justia Law