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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of a student, Brett Goldberg, against Pace University. Goldberg, a graduate student in performing arts, sued Pace for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and violation of New York General Business Law § 349, following the university's decision to move classes online and postpone the performance of his play and a class due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court granted Pace's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Goldberg failed to sufficiently allege a breach given the university's published Emergency Closings provision and failed to identify a sufficiently specific promise under New York law of in-person instruction. The court also found that Goldberg's unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and § 349 claims were either duplicative or failed for similar reasons. On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed with the lower court, holding that the university's postponement and move to an online format were permitted by the Emergency Closings provision, thus affirming the district court's judgment. View "Goldberg v. Pace University" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard an appeal from Robert J. Chaires, who was challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his 120-month sentence handed down by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Chaires, who pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully distributing cocaine base, contended that the district court erred in determining his two prior state-court narcotics convictions as predicate offenses for the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.The Court of Appeals agreed with Chaires and held that the district court indeed erred in its determination. The district court had based its decision on an intervening decision in United States v. Minter, which showed that Chaires's prior convictions were brought under a state provision that is categorically broader than the federal predicate definition in section 4B1.2(b). This meant that the convictions could not serve as section 4B1.1 predicate offenses, making the district court's enhancement of Chaires's Guidelines range erroneous.Following this decision, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Chaires" on Justia Law

Anthony Christopher Mendonca was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for one count of possession of child pornography. He appealed, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated due to the public being excluded from substantial portions of his jury selection due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also argued that his inculpatory statements were coerced by law enforcement’s suggestion that he had “failed” a polygraph exam. Both challenges were not properly preserved in the lower court and therefore the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit applied a plain-error review, ultimately affirming the judgment of the district court. The court emphasized the unique challenges posed by the pandemic and the effort made by the lower court to conduct a fair trial under these constraints. The court also found no clear or obvious error in the lower court's decision to admit Mendonca's incriminatory statements. View "United States of America v. Mendonca" on Justia Law

In the case between Vans, Inc., VF Outdoor, LLC (collectively "Vans") and MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. ("MSCHF"), the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against MSCHF. MSCHF had created a sneaker, the Wavy Baby, which appeared to mimic Vans' Old Skool shoe. Vans sued MSCHF for trademark and trade dress infringement. MSCHF argued that its use of Vans' marks was protected by the First Amendment. However, the Court of Appeals applied the recent Supreme Court decision in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, which held that special First Amendment protections do not apply when trademarks are used as source identifiers. The Court of Appeals concluded that Vans was likely to prevail in arguing that MSCHF's Wavy Baby shoes used Vans' marks and trade dress as source identifiers, and that there was a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the Wavy Baby shoes. The court also affirmed the district court's decisions requiring MSCHF to escrow its revenues from Wavy Baby sales and not requiring a bond determination because MSCHF never requested security. View "Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention against Torture (CAT) to the petitioner, Baljinder Singh Bhagtana. Bhagtana, an Indian national, claimed political persecution by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) due to his support for the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar or “Mann” Party and his Sikh religious affiliation. He claimed that he suffered three attacks by BJP members in Kapurthala, Punjab, which resulted in serious injuries and forced him to relocate within India on two occasions.Both the BIA and the IJ determined that Bhagtana could avoid future persecution by relocating within India, as he had done previously without incident. Bhagtana argued that he was safe in these new locations because he was "living in hiding," but this argument was rejected, as activities such as driving a taxicab and attending Mann party meetings contradicted his claim of being in hiding.The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts, noting that Bhagtana lived in two different cities in India without harm despite continuing his political activities. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of State’s 2016 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in India did not suggest that members of the Mann Party or Sikhs advocating for a sovereign Sikh state were victims of persecution. The Court of Appeals held that the record did not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA and IJ's findings that Bhagtana could safely and reasonably relocate within India to avoid persecution. The Court of Appeals therefore denied Bhagtana's petition for review and affirmed the decisions of the BIA and the IJ. View "Singh Bhagtana v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Nuveen Floating Rate Income Fund, Nuveen Floating Rate Income Opportunity Fund, Nuveen Short Duration Credit Opportunities Fund, Nuveen Global High Income Fund, Nuveen Senior Income Fund, and their trustees (collectively, “Nuveen”) appealed from a final judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees Saba Capital CEF Opportunities, Ltd. and Saba Capital Management, L.P. (collectively, “Saba”). The district court granted summary judgment for Saba, declaring it unlawful and rescinding an amendment to Nuveen’s investment company bylaws that restricts shareholders from voting shares acquired above specified levels of ownership. On appeal, Nuveen challenged Saba’s Article III standing and the district court’s judgment with respect to the legality of Nuveen’s amendment. Nuveen argues that Saba lacks standing because Saba has not alleged, or supported with evidence, an actual or imminent injury that is concrete.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Section 12(d)(1) says nothing about the proper interpretation of the ICA’s meaning of “voting stock” and “voting security.” That Congress has imposed, in another section of the ICA, voting conditions and exceptions on presumptively unlawful acquisitions does not permit Nuveen to impose its own more extreme vote-stripping measures directly at odds with Section 18(i)’s language. Further, the court explained that Nuveen points to Section 1(b)(4), which reflects Congress’s concern over investment companies that are “inequitably distributed” and “unduly concentrated through pyramiding or inequitable methods of control.” But Congress directly addressed those concerns in other provisions of the ICA, which restricts investment company acquisitions. View "Saba Cap. CEF Opportunities 1, Ltd., Saba Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Nuveen" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of one count of financial institution bribery in violation of Section 215(a)(2) and one count of conspiracy to commit financial institution bribery. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of 366 days’ imprisonment, followed by two years’ supervised release, and imposed a $1.25 million fine. On appeal, Defendant raiseed four challenges. First, Defendant challenged (a) what constitutes “corrupt” conduct under Section 215(a); (b) what constitutes a “thing of value” under Section 215(a); and (c) how to determine the monetary value of a “thing of value” under Section 215(a), all elements of the crime. Second, Defendant argued that there is insufficient evidence in the record to uphold his convictions. Third, Defendant argued that the district court’s jury instructions were erroneous. Fourth, Defendant claimed that the district court failed to exclude prejudicial testimony that the prosecution allegedly procured through the improper use of a grand jury subpoena.   The Second Circuit affirmed and concluded that Defendant’s challenges are without merit. First the court explained that “corrupt” conduct describes actions motivated by an improper purpose, even if such actions (a) did not entail a breach of duty, and (b) were motivated in part by a neutral or proper purpose, as well as by an improper purpose. Second, that a “thing of value” may cover subjectively valuable intangibles, such as political assistance, including endorsements, guidance, and referrals. Third, that the “thing of value” may be measured by its value to the parties, by the value of what it is exchanged for, or by its market value. View "United States v. Calk" on Justia Law

The False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729–32, provides that when a private person brings an action under the FCA on behalf of the federal government, the “complaint shall be filed in camera, shall remain under seal for at least 60 days, and shall not be served on the defendant until the court so orders.” Alleging violations of the FCA, Relator Clifford Weiner brought a complaint in district court, which the district court dismissed for untimely service of process. Relator argued that because the district court never expressly ordered him to serve Defendants in accordance with Section 3730, the clock for service of process never began to run, and dismissal for untimely service was improper.   The Second Circuit agreed with Relator and vacated. The court explained that Defendants have not identified an error of law or an erroneous factual finding embedded in the district court’s decision denying Rule 41(b) dismissal. Nor have they shown that the district court’s conclusion fell outside of the range of permissible decisions. Specifically, as the district court noted, Relator was not given express notice that his delays could result in dismissal, and the court had not devoted substantial resources to the action. View "United States ex rel. Weiner et al. v. Siemens AG et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants Marc Kirschner, as the Litigation Trustee for the Nine West Litigation Trust representing unsecured creditors, and Wilmington Savings Fund, FSB, as successor Indenture Trustee for various notes issued by Nine West (together, the "Trustees"), brought seventeen actions in different states against Jones Group's former directors and officers for unjust enrichment and against its former public shareholders for fraudulent conveyance. Both the public shareholders and the directors and officers moved to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that payments made to them in connection with the merger are shielded by the Bankruptcy Code's Section 546(e) safe harbor. The district court granted both motions to dismiss, holding that the payments were shielded by the safe harbor. Plaintiffs appealed.   The Second Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court explained that Congress enacted Section 546(e) safe harbor to promote finality and certainty for investors by limiting the circumstances under which securities transactions could be unwound by, for example, a successful fraudulent conveyance action. The court wrote that to further expand the scope of Section 546(e) and Section 101(22)(A) and immunize transactions in which a bank took only purely ministerial action, made no payments, and had no discretion would not further Congress's purpose. Accordingly,  the court vacated the district court's judgment to the extent it dismissed the Payroll Transfer claims. View "In re: Nine West LBO Sec. Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was formerly incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the officers for violating his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Plaintiff named as defendants additional corrections officers. He alleged that the officers violated his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion by preventing him from observing the Jewish holiday of Shavuot on two consecutive evenings. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers because (1) some named officers were not personally involved in the alleged violation on the first night of Shavuot, and (2) Plaintiff’s observance of the second night of the holiday was only shortened, not denied entirely, which did not rise to the level of a “substantial burden” on his religious beliefs.   The Second Circuit vacated in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court. The court wrote that the district court erred in holding that Plaintiff could not prevail on his claim because he did not make the threshold showing of a “substantial burden” on his religious beliefs. Such a showing is not required. Rather, because Plaintiff has shown a burden on his sincere religious beliefs, he has established a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. The court vacated the judgment insofar as the district court granted summary judgment because of a purported “substantial burden” requirement, and affirmed the judgment insofar as the district court granted summary judgment to those officers for whom there was no evidence of personal involvement. View "Kravitz v. Purcell" on Justia Law