Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in August, 2011
by
Plaintiff, who signed documents presented by her husband without reading them, sought damages and to rescind two mortgages ostensibly encumbering titles to her residence in Massachusetts and a retreat in Maine. Her husband allegedly misrepresented the nature of the documents, which were powers of attorney. She claims she did not receive documents required by the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635 and the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140D 10.1. The trial court dismissed, reasoning that notices to the husband were sufficient under the powers of attorney. The First Circuit vacated. The district court improperly made findings of fact on a motion to dismiss, in concluding that the powers of attorney suffered from identical scriveners' errors and should be read as if their expiration dates were May 31, 2009 (not 2008).

by
In 2000 defendant entered a plea of guilty to two drug-related conspiracies and the court imposed concurrent 10-year sentences, followed by five years of supervised release. Approximately 14 months after his release, the U.S. Probation Office notified the court of four violations; a later filing revealed six additional violations. Defendant admitted to violations that ranged in severity from failing to obtain lawful employment to associating with individuals engaged in narcotic trafficking. Although the term recommended under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual was three to nine months of incarceration, the court sentenced defendant to 60 months in each case, which was the statutory maximum sentence available because the underlying offenses were Class A felonies (18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the court considered the relevant factors.

by
The heirs of a composer, who died in 2003, sued a music publisher and a performance rights society, with which the composer had contracted in 1995 with respect to four songs. The defendants failed to supply royalty reports as required by the contracts. The district court award the maximum statutory damages for the copyright infringements pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1). The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting many of the defendants' arguments as not properly raised and, therefore, waived.

by
Plaintiff, left paralyzed from the chest down after an accident at work, sued the company that built a specialized trailer for his employer. A jury rejected negligence and implied warranty of merchantability claims. The First Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion when it instructed the jury that a defendant who manufactures a product according to buyer specifications could not be liable under either a negligence or implied warranty theory unless the design defect was so obvious it would not have been reasonable for the defendant to manufacture according to the design.

by
A regional television personality was discharged from his employment with Comcast Network after he publicly protested the selection of political commentator Bill O'Reilly for a prestigious broadcasting award. He filed a claim of speech-motivated retaliation under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, 11H, 11I. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Comcast. The First Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff's employment agreement permitted Comcast to terminate him for any reason, or no reason at all; termination, or threatened termination, of an employee under such a contract is not coercive in the relevant sense under the MCRA.

by
A neurosurgeon sued her employer, a hospital, and her former supervisor, Day, alleging gender discrimination by disparate treatment and hostile environment; retaliation; violation of the Massachusetts Health Care Whistleblower Act; intentional interference with advantageous relations; equal pay violations; and slander. As the department's professionalism officer and representative to the Quality Assurance and Risk Management Committee, plaintiff investigated three of Day's cases, which ultimately were reported to the state Board of Registration of Medicine. After a couple of years of hostile interactions between plaintiff and Day, the hospital credentials committee conditioned plaintiff's reappointment on obtaining an evaluation within four months by an outside agency and agreeing to comply with its recommendations. The district court entered an injunction against the hospital. The jury awarded plaintiff $600,000 against the hospital on the retaliation claim; $1,000,000 against the hospital for hostile work environment; $20,000 against Day for economic harm on the interference claim; and nominal damages for the whistleblower claim against the hospital, the slander claim against Day, and non-economic harm from the interference claim against Day. The First Circuit affirmed.

by
Plaintiff worked for a temporary staffing agency and, on assignment to a pharmaceutical company, was cited and reprimanded for noncompliance with company rules several times. When she applied for a permanent position with the company she was seven months pregnant. She did not get the job and was not reassigned to the company. The district court rejected her claim of Title VII pregnancy discrimination on summary judgment and the First Circuit affirmed. The record demonstrated that plaintiff was not qualified for the position and that the company had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions.

by
Plaintiff was arrested for using his cell phone camera to film police officers arresting a man on the Boston Common. Charges included violation of the Massachusetts wiretap statute and two other state-law offenses, were subsequently dismissed. Plaintiff's suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, the district court denied the officers qualified immunity. The First Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public place and his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause.

by
The company sought a preliminary injunction against a former employee to prohibit violation of his employment agreement by competition with the company, solicitation of its customers and remaining employees, and use of information gained while employed. The court granted a preliminary injunction as to the confidential information, but not as to competition or solicitation. The First Circuit affirmed, applying the law of Massachusetts. The contract limited the employee for only one year, which has passed. When the period of restraint has expired, even when the delay was substantially caused by the time consumed in legal appeals, specific relief is inappropriate and the injured party is left to his damages remedy.

by
In April 1999, a Massachusetts jury convicted petitioner of rape, kidnapping, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and carjacking. After unsuccessful attempts at post-trial relief in state court, he filed an unsuccessful petition for habeas corpus. The district court also denied a motion by which petitioner sought to subject evidence to DNA testing. The First Circuit affirmed. The court properly denied the discovery motion, given petitioner's speculative theories and baseless allegations. The court also rejected an argument that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2254, pursuant to which the district court evaluated the petition, unconstitutionally restricts review to existing Supreme Court precedent.