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

Defendant-Appellant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appealed the judgment of the district court ordering the U.S. Secret Service, a component of DHS, to release certain records that Plaintiff-Appellee requested under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. Section 552.   The Second Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court on two grounds. First, the records are not “agency records” subject to the FOIA. Second, even if the records were eligible for disclosure under the FOIA, Exemption 7(C), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(7)(C), would shield the records from disclosure. The court explained that the Secret Service obtained records from the campaign and transition subject to an understanding of confidentiality in order to provide security services to the presidential candidate and President-elect. Under these circumstances, the agency did not exercise control sufficient to convert the records into agency records subject to disclosure under the FOIA. View "Behar v. Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

Appellant American Plan Administrators (“APA”) appealed an order transferring to the Southern District of Florida its motion to quash a third-party subpoena. Appellee South Broward Hospital District (“South Broward”), which obtained the subpoena, moved to dismiss the appeal as taken from a non-final order. APA opposed, arguing that the collateral order doctrine applies to permit our review of the order.   At issue was whether an order transferring a motion to quash a third-party subpoena to the court that issued the subpoena, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f), is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine or is instead a non-final order that may be effectively reviewed after final judgment.   The Second Circuit granted Appellee’s motion and dismissed the appeal. The court held that a Rule 45(f) transfer order is non-final and not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it may be effectively reviewed by the transferee circuit after final judgment. View "Am. Plan Adm'rs v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist." on Justia Law

Appellee held a 99% interest in 72 Grandview LLC, which in turn owned a residential property that Appellee occupied as her primary residence. Appellant Bayview Loan Servicing LLC  (“Bayview”) initiated a foreclosure action in which both 72 Grandview LLC and Appellee were named as defendants. After Bayview obtained a judgment that authorized it to proceed with a foreclosure sale, Appellee a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and notified Bayview that, in her view, proceeding with the foreclosure sale would violate the automatic stay that took effect when she filed her bankruptcy petition. Nonetheless, Bayview proceeded with the foreclosure sale without relief from the automatic stay from the bankruptcy court.   Appellee then sought sanctions against Bayview, arguing that Bayview willfully violated the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court denied Appellee’s motion, but the district court reversed that decision and remanded for the calculation of fees and other damages that would be charged as sanctions.   Bayview appealed and the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The court held that two of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provisions, 11 U.S.C. Sections 362(a)(1) and (a)(2), are violated by an entity that proceeds with the foreclosure sale of a property when the debtor is a named party in the foreclosure proceedings, even if the debtor holds only a possessory interest in the property. Bayview willfully violated the automatic stay when it proceeded with the foreclosure sale while knowing that Appellee had filed a bankruptcy petition. View "In re: Eileen Fogarty" on Justia Law

After a three-and-a-half-year delay, a jury convicted Appellant of conspiring to launder the proceeds generated by a network of Brooklyn medical clinics. Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence. He argued that the district court erred when it denied his motions to dismiss based on violations of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3161 et seq. Specifically, Appellant claimed that the district court improperly excluded time based on the complexity of the case without determining, on the record, why the case was complex or that such exclusions outweighed the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. He contended that the excessive pre-trial delay, to which he objected, arose not from the supposed complexity of the prosecution but rather because the Government delayed production of certain documents possessed by state and federal agencies that had participated in the joint investigation and prosecution of Appellant.   The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment of conviction, vacated Appellant’s conviction and sentence, and remanded to the district court. The court held that the district court’s exclusion of time during at least two long periods of delay was insufficient under the Speedy Trial Act.   The court explained that the Speedy Trial Act was designed to enforce the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial. Here, the district court failed in this responsibility. It neither held the Government accountable for its discovery obligations nor appropriately considered the causes and implications of the extraordinary delays introduced by the Government’s dilatory conduct of discovery. View "United States v. Pikus" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of a December 14, 2018, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the "BIA") affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (the "IJ") denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").   The Second Circuit granted Petitioners' petition for review and held that to qualify as a "refugee" under the INA, a dual national asylum applicant need only show persecution in any singular country of nationality. The court explained that to be eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, an individual must be a "refugee." 8 U.S.C. Section 1158(b)(1)(A). But this is only one step in the asylum process. Even if an individual is a refugee, there are other bars to asylum, see 8 U.S.C. Sections 1158(a)(2) (exceptions to authority to apply for asylum), 1158(b)(2) (exceptions to eligibility for asylum), and even assuming all bars are overcome, the decision of whether to grant a particular asylum application is still a matter of discretion for the Attorney General. Further, the court held that to be considered a "refugee" under Section 1101(a)(42)(A), a dual national need only show persecution in any singular country of nationality. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's December 14, 2018, decision, and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings in accordance with the proper legal standard. View "Zepeda-Lopez, et al. v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs owned a home in Ontario County, New York. Following foreclosure, the couple filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and filed a complaint seeking to avoid the loss of their home on the grounds that it was a fraudulent conveyance. The Bankruptcy Court set aside the transfer, and the County appealed, raising two questions. The first is whether the Plaintiffs had standing to bring the avoidance proceeding. The second is whether the transfer effected by Ontario County in foreclosing on the lien was entitled to the presumption of having yielded “reasonably equivalent value” under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment finding that the district court correctly held that the transfer of Plaintiffs’ home to the County was not entitled to the presumption of having provided “reasonably equivalent value” under Section 548.   The court explained that the County incorrectly interprets Section 522(c)(2)(B) as barring Plaintiffs from claiming the federal homestead exemption when it merely provides that exempt property remains liable for a tax lien. They are not attempting to avoid paying the tax lien; they are attempting to avoid a transfer of the property. Accordingly, Section 522(c)(2)(B) does not deprive the Plaintiffs of standing under Section 522(h).   The court further wrote that the County’s position would produce results that are fundamentally at odds with the goals of bankruptcy law. Here, it would give the County a windfall at the expense of the estate, the other creditors, and the debtor which is precisely what the Code’s fraudulent conveyance provisions are intended to prevent. View "Gunsalus v. County of Ontario" on Justia Law

Police received reports of a gunshot fired from the roof of a building. Officers responded to the scene within two minutes, at which point they observed Defendants exiting a building. While officers were not sure which building the shots were fired from, the building Defendants were exiting was in the immediate area. Officers noticed one of the Defendants bladed his body away from them, and both Defendants had their hands in their pockets. When asked to remove their hands from their pockets, Defendants complied. However, at this point, officers noticed a bulge in one of the Defendant's pockets. A passerby informed officers that he had seen Defendants coming down from the building's rooftop. Officers frisked one of the Defendants, recovering a firearm.Defendants entered guilty pleas each to a single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g)(1) and 2, preserving their right to appeal the court's adverse decision on their motion to suppress.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendants' motion to suppress, finding that the police had reasonable suspicion to initiate a pedestrian stop as well as to conduct a pat-frisk of the Defendant who had a bulge in his pocket. View "United States v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of six counts of criminal contempt for repeatedly defying court orders, for which he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. He challenges the conviction, arguing that the district court’s appointment of special prosecutors under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2) violated the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution because (1) the special prosecutors are inferior officers who were not supervised by a principal officer, and (2) Rule 42 does not satisfy the Appointments Clause requirement that “Congress . . . by Law” vest the appointment of inferior officers in the courts.   The Second Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions. The court first concluded that special prosecutors are officers under the Appointments Clause. Next, the court held that Defendant’s Appointments Clause arguments lack merit. First, the special prosecutors are subject to supervision by the Attorney General, who has broad statutory authority to “conduct” and to “supervise” all litigation involving the United States. This authority includes supervising—and if necessary, removing—the special prosecutors. Second, Plaintiff failed to raise his challenge to Rule 42 below, thus the court concluded conclude that the district court did not commit plain error by appointing the special prosecutors in light of directly applicable Supreme Court precedent Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by initiating prosecution against Defendant for repeatedly defying court orders for years. View "United States v. Donziger" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Bainbridge Fund Ltd. is the beneficial owner of bonds issued by the Republic of Argentina. Argentina defaulted on these bonds back in 2001, but Bainbridge didn’t sue to recover them until 2016. The district court dismissed Bainbridge’s claims as untimely under New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contract actions and the Second Circuit’s nonprecedential decisions. Bainbridge appealed, asking the Second Circuit to reconsider those decisions. Specifically, Bainbridge argues that (1) the twenty-year statute of limitations for recovery on certain bonds under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 34 Section 211(a) applies to its claims against Argentina; and (2) even if the six-year limitations period for contract actions applies, it was tolled under N.Y. Gen. Oblig Law Section 17-101 because Argentina “acknowledged” this debt when it publicly listed the bonds in its quarterly financial statements (the “Quarterly Reports”).   The Second Circuit rejected Plaintiff’s arguments. First, the twenty-year statute of limitations does not apply to claims on Argentine bonds because a foreign sovereign is not a “person” under N.Y. C.P.L.R. Section 211(a). Second, tolling under N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law Section 17-101 is inapplicable because the Quarterly Reports did not “acknowledge” the debt at issue in a way that reflected an intention to pay or seek to influence the bondholders’ behavior. To the contrary, Argentina repeatedly stated that the bonds “may remain in default indefinitely.” Bainbridge’s claims are thus time-barred. View "Bainbridge Fund Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute, 100 kilograms or more of marijuana following a jury trial.   On appeal, Defendant argued that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress marijuana that was obtained during a warrantless search of a private single-engine airplane; (2) the government improperly bolstered the testimony of its cooperating witnesses at trial; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.   The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, the judgment of conviction, and the sentence. The court held that the vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to the search of the private aircraft used to transport Defendant’s marijuana and that there was probable cause to search the plane. Further, the court wrote there is no merit to Defendant’s remaining challenges.   The court explained unlike a traffic stop, law enforcement agents may conduct a ramp check absent an antecedent violation or even reasonable suspicion of one. Here, the ramp check by itself was therefore a proper exercise of regulatory authority. Further, the mobility of an airplane in flight is so obvious that it needs no elaboration. And even when a plane is on the ground, it is no less capable of being moved than, say, a non-residential unhitched tractor-trailer. The fact that the search here occurred while the plane was sitting on the tarmac and the pilot was not in the pilot’s seat does not alter the calculus. View "United States v. Capelli" on Justia Law