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

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

Zesty Paws LLC and Health and Happiness (H&H) US International Inc. are competitors of Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. in the pet supplements market. In July 2023, Zesty Paws began advertising itself as the "#1 brand of pet supplements" in the United States. Nutramax objected, asserting that its combined pet supplement sales exceeded those of Zesty Paws, making Zesty Paws’s advertising claims false. Zesty Paws responded by filing a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its advertising was not false or misleading, arguing that its claims were reasonably interpreted as comparing its aggregate sales to those of Nutramax’s individual product brands, such as Cosequin and Dasuquin, rather than to Nutramax as a whole.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Nutramax’s motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Zesty Paws from making the "#1 brand" claims. The district court found that Nutramax was likely to succeed on its false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, concluding that Nutramax is a brand and that its total sales exceeded those of Zesty Paws, rendering Zesty Paws’s advertising likely literally false. The court also found the claims material, likely to cause injury, and presumed irreparable harm under the Lanham Act.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its decision to issue the injunction for abuse of discretion. The Second Circuit held that the district court erred by not properly applying the literal falsity standard, which requires that the challenged advertising be unambiguously false to a reasonable consumer. Because the district court did not adequately consider whether Zesty Paws’s interpretation was reasonable, the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Lab'ys, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns allegations by investors against a company that markets and sells organic and natural products, as well as several of its current and former executives. The investors claim that, during a specified period, the company engaged in “channel stuffing”—offering distributors significant incentives to purchase more product than they could sell, in order to meet financial projections. The investors allege that these practices were not adequately disclosed to the public or properly accounted for, and that the company made misleading statements about its financial health, internal controls, and compliance with accounting standards. The company later restated its financial results, admitted to deficiencies in its internal controls, and settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which did not bring charges but found violations of recordkeeping and internal control requirements.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York initially dismissed the investors’ complaint, finding that they had not sufficiently alleged that the defendants acted with scienter, or wrongful intent. After a prior appeal resulted in a remand for further consideration, the district court again dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter and actionable misstatements or omissions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the defendants made actionable misstatements and omissions regarding the company’s financial results, internal controls, and the use of channel stuffing. The court also found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter, loss causation, and control-person liability under the relevant securities laws. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The main holding is that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and that the case should proceed. View "Gimpel v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc." on Justia Law

An educator employed by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) was appointed Executive Director of the “AP for All” program, where she supervised a diverse team and was credited with expanding access to Advanced Placement courses. Early in her tenure, she experienced racial tensions with subordinates, including accusations of “microaggressions” and being labeled as exhibiting “white fragility.” These tensions escalated after a new Chancellor implemented an “equity agenda” that included mandatory implicit bias trainings. The plaintiff, who is Caucasian, alleged that these trainings and subsequent workplace interactions fostered a racially hostile environment, with repeated negative generalizations about white employees and a lack of intervention by supervisors when she complained.The plaintiff initially filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York, later amending her complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom that caused her demotion, the alleged hostile work environment, or her constructive discharge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the demotion and constructive discharge claims, holding that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that these actions were motivated by racial discrimination or that the employer intentionally created intolerable working conditions. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, finding that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the DOE’s actions and inaction amounted to a municipal policy or custom that created a racially hostile environment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "Chislett v. New York City Department of Education" on Justia Law

A licensed veterinarian developed and manufactured undetectable performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) for use in professional horse racing, selling them to trainers who administered them to horses to gain a competitive edge. His salesperson assisted in these activities, operating a company that distributed the drugs without prescriptions or FDA approval. The drugs were misbranded or adulterated, and the operation involved deceptive practices such as misleading labeling and falsified customs forms. The PEDs were credited by trainers for their horses’ successes, and evidence showed the drugs could be harmful if misused.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over two separate trials, resulting in convictions for both the veterinarian and his salesperson for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute misbranded or adulterated drugs with intent to defraud or mislead, in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The district court denied motions to dismiss the indictment, admitted evidence from a prior state investigation, and imposed sentences including imprisonment, restitution, and forfeiture. The court calculated loss for sentencing based on the veterinarian’s gains and ordered restitution to racetracks based on winnings by a coconspirator’s doped horses.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the statute’s “intent to defraud or mislead” element is not limited to particular categories of victims; it is sufficient if the intent relates to the underlying violation. The court found no error in the admission of evidence from the 2011 investigation or in the use of gain as a proxy for loss in sentencing. However, it vacated the restitution order to racetracks, finding no evidence they suffered pecuniary loss, and vacated the forfeiture order, holding that the relevant statute is not a civil forfeiture statute subject to criminal forfeiture procedures. The convictions and sentence were otherwise affirmed. View "United States v. Fishman" on Justia Law

Two individuals who hold valid New York State concealed carry licenses challenged several aspects of New York’s firearm regulations after the state enacted the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The plaintiffs objected to three main provisions: the prohibition on carrying firearms in designated “sensitive locations” (specifically Times Square, the New York City subway, and the Metro-North rail system), the statewide ban on open carry of firearms, and the requirement that state concealed carry license holders obtain a separate, city-specific permit to carry a firearm in New York City. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of these provisions, arguing they violated the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the government had demonstrated a historical tradition of regulating firearms in crowded public places, supporting the sensitive locations restrictions. It also concluded that the open carry ban was consistent with historical regulations that allowed states to prohibit one form of public carry (open or concealed) as long as the other remained available. Regarding the city-specific permit, the court determined that localities have historically imposed their own firearm regulations. The court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the open carry ban, but otherwise rejected their constitutional claims on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims. The court concluded that each challenged provision—sensitive location restrictions, the open carry ban, and the city-specific permit requirement—fell within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and did not violate the Second Amendment. The denial of the preliminary injunction was therefore affirmed. View "Frey v. City of New York" on Justia Law

A group of shareholders in seven small-to-mid cap companies brought coordinated class actions against two major financial institutions, alleging that these institutions enabled Archegos Capital Management to amass large, nonpublic, and highly leveraged positions in the companies’ stocks through total return swaps and margin lending. When the value of these stocks declined and Archegos was unable to meet margin calls, the financial institutions quickly sold off their related positions before the public became aware of Archegos’ impending collapse. The shareholders claimed that this conduct constituted insider trading, arguing that the institutions used confidential information to avoid losses at the expense of ordinary investors.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York first dismissed the shareholders’ complaints, finding insufficient factual allegations to support claims under both the classical and misappropriation theories of insider trading. The court allowed the shareholders to amend their complaint, but after a second amended complaint was filed, the court again dismissed the claims with prejudice. The district court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Archegos was a corporate insider or that the financial institutions owed a fiduciary duty to Archegos. It also found the allegations of tipping preferred clients to be unsupported by sufficient facts. The court dismissed the related claims under Sections 20A and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for lack of an underlying securities violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the shareholders failed to plausibly allege that the financial institutions engaged in insider trading under either the classical or misappropriation theories. The court found no fiduciary or similar duty owed by Archegos to the issuers or by the financial institutions to Archegos, and determined that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support a tipping theory. The court also affirmed dismissal of the Section 20A and 20(a) claims. View "In Re: Archegos 20A Litigation" on Justia Law

A group of local residents and an environmental organization alleged that a nonprofit entity operating a large compound in Deerpark, New York, was discharging stormwater and wastewater containing fecal coliform bacteria into nearby surface waters in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The plaintiffs claimed that these discharges, which they supported with water testing data, exceeded legal limits and were the result of ongoing construction and improper maintenance of the defendant’s wastewater treatment plant. The affected waters are used by the plaintiffs for recreational purposes and are part of a larger watershed.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs’ initial complaint, finding that their pre-suit notice of intent to sue was deficient and thus failed to satisfy the CWA’s notice requirement. The court treated this requirement as jurisdictional and dismissed the case without prejudice. After the plaintiffs sent a new, more detailed notice and refiled their claims, the district court again dismissed the case, this time with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the revised notice still lacked sufficient information to enable the defendant to identify the alleged violations and the specific location of the discharges.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed whether the CWA’s pre-suit notice requirement is jurisdictional and whether the plaintiffs’ notice was adequate. The Second Circuit held that the notice requirement under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b) is not jurisdictional but is instead a mandatory condition precedent to suit. The court further found that the plaintiffs’ notice provided sufficient information to inform the defendant of the alleged violations, including the pollutant, the standards allegedly violated, and the location of the discharges. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mid-New York Environ. v. Dragon Springs" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs, including an individual, an investment fund, and a limited partnership, engaged in trading derivatives tied to the Sterling London Interbank Offered Rate (Sterling LIBOR). They alleged that a group of major banks conspired to manipulate Sterling LIBOR for their own trading advantage. The plaintiffs claimed that the banks coordinated false submissions to the rate-setting process, sometimes inflating and sometimes deflating the benchmark, which in turn affected the value of Sterling LIBOR-based derivatives. The plaintiffs asserted that this manipulation was orchestrated through internal and external communications among banks and with the help of inter-dealer brokers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The district court found that two plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because they were not “efficient enforcers” and had not transacted directly with the defendants, resulting in only indirect and remote damages. The court also determined that the third plaintiff, a limited partnership, lacked the capacity to sue and had not properly assigned its claims to a substitute entity. Additionally, the court found that one plaintiff failed to adequately plead specific intent for the CEA claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, but on a narrower ground. The Second Circuit held that none of the plaintiffs plausibly alleged actual injury under either the Sherman Act or the CEA. The court explained that because the alleged manipulation was multidirectional—sometimes raising and sometimes lowering Sterling LIBOR—the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered net harm as a result of the defendants’ conduct. Without specific allegations of transactions where they were harmed by the manipulation, the plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed, and the cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Sonterra Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. UBS AG" on Justia Law