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

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that she was sexually abused by the defendant during a period in 1965 when she was a minor. The plaintiff was represented by two attorneys. The case was initially filed in state court but was later removed to federal court. During discovery, the plaintiff’s attorneys repeatedly failed to meet deadlines for responding to the defendant’s requests for production of documents and interrogatories. Despite multiple extensions and explicit warnings from the court, the attorneys continued to miss deadlines and failed to produce documents that were known to exist, some of which were obtained by the defendant through third-party subpoenas. The plaintiff eventually discharged her attorneys and voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the defendant’s motion for sanctions against the plaintiff’s attorneys under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The district court found that the attorneys had violated a specific discovery order by missing a court-imposed deadline and had demonstrated a willful disregard for their discovery obligations over several months, despite repeated warnings. The court imposed monetary sanctions of $5,000 against one attorney and $3,000 against the other, finding that a full award of expenses would be unjust under the circumstances.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing these sanctions. The Second Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, finding that the attorneys had violated a clear court order and that the sanctions were appropriately tailored. The court affirmed the imposition of sanctions, concluding that the attorneys’ conduct warranted monetary penalties under Rule 37. View "Isaacs v. Zimmerman" on Justia Law

Several individuals with developmental disabilities, along with Disability Rights New York (DRNY), an advocacy organization, alleged that New York State agencies responsible for services to people with developmental disabilities caused them to remain in restrictive institutional settings for extended periods, despite being eligible for community-based residential placements. The individual plaintiffs claimed they waited from nine months to six years for such placements, resulting in physical and psychological harm. DRNY, as the state’s designated Protection and Advocacy System, joined the suit, asserting authority to represent the interests of individuals with disabilities under federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York first addressed the defendants’ motion to dismiss DRNY’s claims for lack of standing, agreeing that DRNY had not suffered an injury in fact and rejecting its argument that federal statutes conferred “congressionally authorized representational standing.” The district court also dismissed the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, based on pre-motion letters from the defendants indicating that all individual plaintiffs had since been moved out of institutional facilities. Additionally, the court denied a motion by other individuals seeking to intervene as plaintiffs, finding the motion untimely.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of DRNY’s claims, holding that DRNY lacked standing because it had not suffered a concrete injury and that Congress could not override Article III’s standing requirements by statute. The Second Circuit also affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s timeliness determination. However, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, holding that the district court erred by dismissing those claims based solely on pre-motion letters without full briefing or a hearing. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the individual plaintiffs’ claims. View "A.H. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health" on Justia Law

Two limited liability companies, majority-owned by California residents, applied for provisional licenses to operate marijuana dispensaries in New York under the state’s Adult Use application program. New York law gives “Extra Priority” to applicants who meet three criteria: (a) membership in a community disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition, (b) income below 80% of the county median, and (c) a conviction for a marijuana-related offense under New York law (or a close relative with such a conviction). The plaintiffs met the first two criteria but had marijuana convictions under California, not New York, law, making them ineligible for Extra Priority. They alleged that this licensing scheme discriminates against out-of-state applicants in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief, holding that the dormant Commerce Clause does not apply to markets that Congress has criminalized, such as marijuana. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the state’s prioritization scheme was protectionist and that they had standing to challenge both the December Pool (in which they applied) and the November Pool (which was processed first and favored prior CAURD applicants, mostly New Yorkers).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the December Pool’s Extra Priority regime and the November Pool’s precedence, but not the CAURD program. The court found the dormant Commerce Clause applies to New York’s marijuana licensing, as Congress has not clearly authorized state protectionism in this area. The court held that New York’s prioritization of applicants with New York marijuana convictions is a protectionist measure that violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The district court’s denial of preliminary relief was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Variscite NY Four, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in 2012 of assaulting the mother of his child, which constituted a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under New York law. Several years later, he was arrested in New York City for possessing a firearm, specifically a .380 caliber pistol, after having been previously convicted of that domestic violence misdemeanor. He pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a firearm after a domestic violence conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). At sentencing, the district court considered his criminal history, including a 2013 state drug conviction, and imposed a forty-eight-month prison term and three years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that the 2013 state drug conviction did not qualify as a “controlled substance offense” under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a lower base offense level for sentencing. Both the defendant and the government appealed: the defendant challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) under the Second Amendment and the reasonableness of his sentence, while the government contested the district court’s interpretation of the drug conviction under the Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that § 922(g)(9) is constitutional, both facially and as applied to the defendant, because it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of disarming individuals deemed dangerous, such as those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The court also found that the defendant’s sentencing challenges were moot, as he had completed his prison term and there was no indication the district court would reduce his supervised release. Additionally, the court agreed with the government’s concession that its cross-appeal was foreclosed by recent precedent. The court dismissed the appeal in part as moot and otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Luis Rodriguez was convicted by a jury in 2006 for his involvement in a murder-for-hire plot that resulted in the deaths of two individuals, including a fourteen-year-old, as part of a drug trafficking conspiracy. He was also found guilty of related drug and firearm offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment. After his conviction, Rodriguez pursued several post-trial challenges, including a direct appeal and a habeas petition, both of which were unsuccessful. While incarcerated, Rodriguez filed a motion for compassionate release, citing his conduct in prison, alleged harsh conditions and radon exposure, health risks from COVID-19, and purported sentencing errors.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied Rodriguez’s motion for compassionate release. The court found that Rodriguez had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, noting his significant disciplinary record while in custody and the lack of evidence supporting his claims about prison conditions and health risks. The court also determined that the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly the seriousness of his offenses and the need to protect the public, weighed strongly against reducing his sentence. The court declined to consider collateral attacks on his conviction, as such arguments were not appropriate in a compassionate release motion and had already been rejected in prior proceedings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of compassionate release. Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the Second Circuit held that the district court acted well within its broad discretion in denying relief based on the § 3553(a) factors. The appellate court found that Rodriguez’s appeal lacked any arguable basis in law or fact and dismissed the appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court also denied his motions for appointment of counsel and for a certificate of appealability. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff brought a defamation claim against Donald J. Trump, based on statements he made in June 2019 during his first term as President. The suit was initially filed in New York state court. In September 2020, the Department of Justice, acting under the Westfall Act, certified that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment and removed the case to federal court, seeking to substitute the United States as the defendant. The District Court for the Southern District of New York denied substitution, finding Trump was not acting within the scope of his employment. Trump appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and certified a question to the D.C. Court of Appeals regarding the scope of employment under D.C. law. The D.C. Court of Appeals clarified the law but did not resolve whether Trump’s conduct was within the scope of employment. The Second Circuit remanded for the District Court to apply the clarified law.On remand, the Department of Justice declined to certify that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment, and neither Trump nor the government sought substitution before trial. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding substantial damages. Trump appealed. After the appeal was fully briefed, and after Trump began his second term as President, Trump and the government jointly moved in the Second Circuit to substitute the United States as a party under the Westfall Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the motion to substitute. The court held that the motion was statutorily barred by the Westfall Act because it was not made before trial, that both Trump and the government had waived any right to seek substitution by failing to timely petition the District Court, and that equitable considerations also warranted denial of the belated motion. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law

A medical device distributor sued a former employee, alleging that he breached a non-compete agreement, his duty of loyalty, and misappropriated trade secrets after joining a competitor. The employee responded with counterclaims and third-party claims. During the litigation, the employee filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which stayed the district court proceedings. In the bankruptcy case, the distributor filed a proof of claim for damages, which the employee did not contest. The bankruptcy court allowed the claim, and the distributor received a partial distribution from the bankruptcy estate. The employee also waived his right to discharge, leaving him potentially liable for the remaining balance.After the bankruptcy case closed, the United States District Court for the District of Vermont lifted the stay. The distributor sought summary judgment for the balance of its allowed claim, arguing that the bankruptcy court’s allowance of its claim should have preclusive effect. Initially, the district court denied this request, finding that using claim preclusion offensively would be unfair. Upon reconsideration, however, the district court reversed itself and granted summary judgment to the distributor for the remaining balance, holding that claim preclusion applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Second Circuit held that, even if claim preclusion could sometimes be used offensively, it could not be applied in this case because it would be unfair to the employee, who had less incentive to contest the claim in bankruptcy. The court vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of the distributor and remanded the case for further proceedings. The main holding is that claim preclusion cannot be used offensively to secure a judgment for the balance of an allowed bankruptcy claim under these circumstances. View "Thermal Surgical, LLC v. Brown" on Justia Law

Two noncitizens, one from Egypt and one from Guatemala, each entered the United States in the 1990s and were granted asylum after claiming persecution in their home countries. Both later committed criminal offenses—one was convicted of stalking and child endangerment, the other of multiple driving while intoxicated offenses. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security initiated proceedings to terminate their asylum status, arguing that their convictions constituted “particularly serious crimes.” Immigration Judges in both cases terminated their asylum status and ordered their removal, but the petitioners sought to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b).In the first case, the Immigration Judge initially granted the adjustment application, reasoning that the statute did not explicitly require current asylum status. The Department of Homeland Security appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, relying on its decision in Matter of T-C-A-, which held that only those with current asylum status are eligible for adjustment. In the second case, the Immigration Judge denied the adjustment application on the same grounds, and the BIA affirmed. Both petitioners then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the statutory language and the relevant context, including neighboring provisions and legislative history. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) requires a noncitizen to have current asylum status to be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. The court concluded that a past grant of asylum is insufficient if that status has since been terminated. Accordingly, the court denied both petitions for review. View "Wassily v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Two fiduciaries, who managed retirement and welfare funds for a New York City law enforcement union, were found to have improperly withdrawn over $500,000 from the union’s annuity fund. The withdrawals, which occurred over several years, were facilitated by one defendant preparing false authorization forms and the other signing and submitting them to the fund’s custodian. The funds were then transferred to the union’s operating account and used for unauthorized purposes, including personal enrichment and unrelated union expenses. The defendants misrepresented the nature of these withdrawals to both the fund’s custodian and union members, and they continued the scheme even after being warned by auditors that their actions were improper.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over a joint jury trial, where both defendants were convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. One defendant was also convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and multiple counts of tax evasion. The district court denied motions to sever the trials, found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions, and imposed restitution and forfeiture orders. The court also addressed government discovery errors by granting a continuance and requiring early disclosure of materials, but declined to impose harsher sanctions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed claims of improper joinder, insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and errors in restitution calculation. The court held that joinder was proper because the indictment sufficiently linked the fraud and tax offenses, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the attorney’s illness did not constitute per se ineffective assistance. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of discovery issues or restitution calculation, and no reversible prosecutorial misconduct. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Wynder" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company challenged the federal government’s implementation of a new program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which authorizes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure prescription drugs under Medicare. The company’s drug was selected for the program, and it signed an agreement to participate “under protest” while filing suit. The company alleged that the program violated its constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and that CMS failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when issuing the standard agreement for participation.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the government on all claims. The district court found that participation in the program was voluntary, so there was no unlawful deprivation of rights. It also held that the program did not impose unconstitutional conditions on participation in Medicare and Medicaid, and that the Inflation Reduction Act expressly allowed CMS to implement the program for its first three years without notice-and-comment rulemaking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that, under its precedent in Garelick v. Sullivan, participation in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is voluntary, and thus the program does not effect a taking, deprive the company of property without due process, or compel speech in violation of the First Amendment. The court further held that the program does not impose unconstitutional conditions because it is designed to control Medicare spending and does not regulate the company’s private market conduct. Finally, the court concluded that the Inflation Reduction Act expressly exempted CMS from the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement for the program’s initial years. View "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs." on Justia Law