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

Plaintiff argued that the insurance contract between the parties was governed by a document provided on January 9, 2014, instead of February 19, 2014; that she is entitled to a judgment based on the insurance company’s miscalculation of her copay; and that even if the February 19 document controls, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 18022(c)(1) (“ACA”), mandates that the insurance company must apply the individual out-of-pocket limit rather than the family out-of-pocket limit; and that the generic-brand cost differential Plaintiff paid for her name-brand medication should count toward her out-of-pocket limit. Plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim under ERISA, and the district court granted Defendant judgment on the breach of contract claims under ERISA.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgments. The court held that the February document governed the relationship between the parties because Plaintiff was on notice as to its terms. Further, Plaintiff is not entitled to a money judgment for her copay because Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff the copay differential.   The court also found that the ACA does not provide that the annual limitation on cost-sharing applies to all individuals regardless of whether the individual is covered under an individual “self-only” plan or is covered by a plan that is other than self-only for plans effective before 2016. Finally, the court held that the ACA nor the February document required Defendant to apply the brand-generic cost differential costs to Plaintiff’s out-of-pocket limit. View "Jacqueline Fisher v. Aetna Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The court addressed Defendants' appeal of the District Court’s Rule 33 Order. On appeal, the court addressed the district court’s ruling that the information withheld by the prosecution was neither “suppressed” within the meaning of Brady, nor prejudicial, and therefore denied Defendants’ motions. Defendants argue that the withheld information would have supplied impeachment evidence against the government’s witness.The Second Circuit rejected Defendant's claim, finding that there was significant additional evidence against both Defendants, such that simply impeaching the government's witness would not have sufficed to upset the trial verdict. Further, the court found that impeachment based on the withheld information would have been cumulative, and thus non-prejudicial. The court reasoned that “strictly speaking, there is never a real ‘Brady violation’ unless the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.”The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Defendants’ Rule 33 motions for a new trial. View "U.S. v. Hunter et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant Cable News Network, Inc. (“CNN”) for defamation and civil conspiracy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff argues that the Virginia Supreme Court would determine that New York is the “place of the wrong.” Alternatively, that he was primarily injured in either the District of Columbia or Virginia or at least that the choice-of-law determination cannot be made without discovery. Second, he argues that even if California law does apply, section 48a does not apply under Virginia’s choice-of-law rules; and that even if section 48a does apply, he should have been granted leave to further amend his complaint so he could plead special damages. Plaintiff also requests that the court certifies to the Virginia Supreme Court the question of how lex loci delicti applies to multistate defamation cases like Plaintiff’s.The court concluded that the Virginia Supreme Court would apply California law, including its retraction statute, to Plaintiff’s multistate defamation claim. The court reasoned that the Virginia Supreme Court would apply the substantive law of the state where the plaintiff incurred the greatest reputational injury, with a presumption that absent countervailing circumstances, a plaintiff suffers the most harm in his state of domicile. Further, the court did not err in failing to sua sponte grant Plainitff’s leave to amend. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint with prejudice. View "Nunes v. Cable News Network, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Aenergy, S.A., and Combined Cycle Power Plant Soyo, S.A. (together, “AE”), sued various Angolan Government entities (together, “Angola”), plus General Electric Co. and related entities (together, “GE”). AE alleges that Angola wrongfully cancelled AE’s Angolan power plant contracts and seized its related property in violation of state and international law and that GE interfered with its contracts and prospective business relations.The court found that the standard principles of forum non conveniens applies to AE’s lawsuit brought pursuant to exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1605. The court reasoned that forum non conveniens does not require a case-by-case consideration of comity, and therefore is consistent with the FSIA’s purpose in establishing a “comprehensive set of legal standards.”The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing AE’s complaint on forum non conveniens grounds. AE argues that the district court erred in applying the three-step forum non conveniens analysis. The court held that the district court reasonably found that AE’s forum choice was entitled to minimal deference; that Angola is an adequate alternative forum; and that the public and private Gilbert factors favor Angola. Thus the court affirmed the district court’s orders. View "Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendants for various offenses for their role in a crime syndicate. The court sentenced each defendant to 198 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the defendants raised various arguments including challenges to the admissibility of certain trial testimony, the correctness of the jury charge, the sufficiency of the Government’s proof, and the lawfulness of their sentences.The court found that the district court did not clearly err in permitting a witness to identify one of the defendants at trial nor did it abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing. Further, the court declined to address the defendant’s double jeopardy claim. Moreover, the court affirmed the defendants’ RICO convictions and RICO conspiracy convictions. The court further affirmed defendants’ arson and conspiracy to commit arson convictions. Additionally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the defendants' sentences. In sum, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Gershman" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the United States Department of State (“DOS”), and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) appealed from three orders of the district court for the Southern District of New York requiring they produce certain documents in response to FOIA requests filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University (“Knight”). The court reasoned that FOIA is premised on “a policy strongly favoring public disclosure of information in the possession of federal agencies.” Halpern v. F.B.I., 181 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 1999). However, in some circumstances, Congress determined that other interests outweigh the need for transparency. These circumstances are embodied by a limited set of four statutory exemptions from FOIA’s disclosure requirements.Here, the court found that DOS established that the document includes specific guidance to DOS employees on detecting ties to terrorism. Thus, DOS and USCIS properly withheld the first two sets of documents under FOIA Exemption 7(E). However, the court remanded on the ICE issue because the record was unclear regarding whether ICE complied fully with the district court’s order. View "Knight v. USCIS et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a claim for Social Security benefits. In support of her disability claims, she presented the opinions of two of her treating physicians. After a hearing, an ALJ assigned partial weight to the treating physicians’ opinions, ultimately concluding that the plaintiff was not disabled. Congress has authorized federal courts to engage in a limited review of final SSA disability benefit decisions.Plaintiff argued that the ALF’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The court reasoned that in this instance, the ALJ had complete records such as medical opinions, treatment notes, and relevant test results. The court found that the plaintiff failed to identify any missing medical records, and therefore the ALJ did not err in failing to supplement the administrative record. Similarly, the ALJ found notable inconsistencies between the plaintiff's treating doctors' conclusions and the longitudinal records of the plaintiff’s physical health.Thus, the court concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s ultimate RFC determination. Finally, although the ALJ committed procedural error by failing to explicitly apply each of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1527(c), the error was harmless because substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determinations. View "Schillo v. Saul" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Haitian government officials and multinational corporations conspired to fix the prices of remittances and telephone calls from the United States to Haiti. Plaintiffs allege a price-fixing claim under the Sherman Act and related state law claims, alleging that defendants agreed to produce official instruments (a Presidential Order and two Circulars of the Bank of the Republic of Haiti) to disguise their agreement as a tax for domestic education programs.The Second Circuit held that the act of state doctrine does not bar adjudication of a claim merely because that claim turns on the "propriety" of the official acts of a foreign sovereign. Instead, the doctrine forecloses a claim only if it would require a court to declare that an official act of a foreign sovereign is invalid, i.e., to deny the act legal effect. In this case, even assuming the Presidential Order and Circulars have their full purported legal effect under Haitian law, the court concluded that plaintiffs' antitrust claim under U.S. federal law remains cognizable. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the antitrust claim under the act of state doctrine and vacated the dismissal of the fifteen state law claims for reanalysis under the proper standard. The court also vacated the dismissal on the alternative grounds of forum non conveniens because the district court did not give due deference to U.S.-resident plaintiffs' choice of forum. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Celestin v. Caribbean Air Mail, Inc." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding Defendant Ayfer has not yet satisfied her restitution obligation to W.A-M. The court also concluded that district courts may employ the hybrid approach to craft restitution orders that both apportion liability among multiple defendants according to the loss caused by each defendant and hold defendants jointly and severally liable for some portion of the amounts owed to their victim or victims. The court explained that such hybrid restitution obligations are ordinarily not satisfied until either a defendant has paid as much as she has been ordered to pay or the victim has been made whole. The court finally concluded that Defendant Hakan lacks standing to challenge the district court's orders as to Ayfer's rights and obligations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order in appeal No. 20-2144-cr and dismissed the consolidated appeals in Nos. 20-1540-cr and 20-1542-cr for lack of standing. View "United States v. Yalincak" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the USCIS's denial of his application for lawful permanent residence (LPR) as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court affirmed the denial under the weapons bar of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V).The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, concluding that it is unable to discern USCIS's full reasoning for denying plaintiff's application or to conclude that the agency considered all factors relevant to its decision. In this case, a finding that plaintiff had used a weapon on behalf of the Taliban is not enough, the court explained that the INA also requires that the agency find that plaintiff's offending act either was unlawful where it took place (Afghanistan) or would be unlawful in the United States before it can determine that he is inadmissible under the weapons bar. Therefore, the decision was arbitrary and capricious under the APA and the court remanded to the district court to remand to the USCIS to consider and more clearly explain whether, in light of plaintiff's duress defense, his conduct was unlawful under the laws of the United States and thus qualifies as a terrorist activity under section 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii). View "Kakar v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law