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

Plaintiff sought to open a Victoria's Secret franchise and sought assistance from Richard Domingo, an employee of Rekomdiv International. At the recommendation of Domingo, Plaintiff retained the law firm of Venable, LLP to assist him in establishing a business relationship with Victoria's Secret. Plaintiff paid Venable a $400,000 retainer fee, and paid $225,000 to Rekomdiv. Plaintiff later discovered Victoria's Secret franchise was not available. Plaintiff sued Rekomdiv and Domingo for breach of contract and dolo. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and assessed damages in the amount of $625,000. In the meantime, Plaintiff sued Venable, and the parties settled. The court later found that it could not offset the damages award in the Rekomdiv suit by the Venable settlement amount. While their appeal was pending in this matter, Rekomdiv and Domingo filed a legal malpractice suit against Lamboy, their trial counsel. The district court dismissed the complaint against Lamboy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the district court's denial of offset of the damages award, as offset was not required; and (2) affirmed the court's dismissal of the legal malpractice suit, holding that the allegations in the complaint failed to establish the causation element necessary to make out a plausible legal malpractice claim. View "Portugues-Santana v. Rekomdiv Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, a native of Russia, assumed the name, identifying information, and life history of Fionghal MacEoghan for more than twenty years. After law enforcement officials discovered Defendant's appropriation of MacEoghan's identity, Defendant was charged with, inter alia, aggravated identity theft, wire fraud, and providing false information to obtain federal financial aid in a nine count indictment. During trial, Defendant testified that he believed he had been lawfully adopted by MacEoghan's biological father, and thus that he had taken on MacEoghan's identity through legitimate means. The jury rejected Defendant's defense and found him guilty of eight counts of the indictment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in excluding a proposed expert witness in Soviet adoption practices and cultural difference between the former Soviet Union and the United States; and (2) in admitting evidence pertaining to Defendant's prior larceny conviction. View "United States v. Tetioukhine" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Senegal and a citizen of Guinea, filed an application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application and ordered him removed to Guinea. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner appealed, arguing, among other things, that the IJ and BIA erred in failing to consider whether the threat of forced genital mutilation to his daughters, should they return with him, constituted a threat of direct persecution to him in the form of psychological injury. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the determination that Petitioner faced neither past persecution nor a likelihood of future persecution; and (2) Petitioner did not establish that his removal would result in his daughters' accompanying him to Guinea, and Petitioner's theory of direct persecution of him based on the possible risk to his daughters was foreclosed by the BIA, in a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statute, and by circuit precedent. View "Camara v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of carjacking resulting in death. After a penalty phase hearing, the jury recommended that Defendant be sentenced to death on both counts. The district court imposed a sentence of death. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that juror dishonesty during the voir dire process prior to the penalty phase hearing deprived him of an impartial jury. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court vacated the death sentence and ordered a new penalty phase hearing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the death sentence must be vacated and a new penalty phase hearing undertaken because the juror's dishonesty deprived Defendant of the right to an impartial jury. View "Sampson v. United States" on Justia Law

This case concerned the withdrawal liability for a pro rata share of unfunded vested benefits to a multiemployer pension fund of Scott Brass, Inc. (SBI), a bankrupt company. SBI had withdrawal pension obligations to the multiemployer pension fund (TPF), which sought to impose the obligations on two private equity funds (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs asserted they were passive investors that indirectly controlled SBI and sought a declaratory judgment against the TPF. The TPF counterclaimed and sought payment of the withdrawal liability at issue. The district court entered summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, holding (1) at least one of the private equity funds that operated SBI sufficiently operated and was advantaged by its relationship with SBI, and further factual development was necessary as to the other equity fund; (2) the district court erred in entering summary judgment for Plaintiffs under the "trades or businesses" aspect of a two-part "control group" test under 29 U.S.C. 1301(b)(1); and (3) the district court correctly entered summary judgment for Plaintiffs on TPF's claim of liability on the ground that the funds had engaged in a transaction to evade or avoid withdrawal liability. Remanded. View "Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Defendant and his company (Defendants) borrowed money from Trust by executing promissory notes in favor of Trust. One note said it was governed by Massachusetts law, and the others said they were governed by New York law. The Trust's trustees (Plaintiffs) subsequently sued Defendants in New York state court for breach of contract. The New York trial court eventually granted Defendants' motion to dismiss based on the expiration of the New York statute of limitations. Plaintiffs subsequently sued Defendant in Massachusetts federal court to recover on the note controlled by Massachusetts law. Although Plaintiffs filed suit within the Massachusetts statute of limitations, the district judge concluded that the dismissal of the New York lawsuit barred Plaintiffs' current claim because the dismissal was on the merits and claim preclusive. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the limitations dismissal under New York law was a judgment on the merits, and thus, the current claim was barred. View "Newman v. Krintzman" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, was placed in removal proceedings. Petitioner sought filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, seeking relief. An immigration judge granted Petitioner's asylum application, finding that Petitioner had a reasonable fear in being subject to, at a minimum, having a forced intrauterine device (IUD) insertion and possibly sterilization in order to prevent her giving birth to future children. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner did not face an objectively reasonable risk of having implanted an IUD by Chinese authorities through persecutory means or of suffering persecutory harm if she were to refuse to have an IUD implanted. View "Lin v. Holder" on Justia Law

The City of Springfield passed an ordinance creating a single-parcel historic district encompassing a church owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield (RCB). Under the ordinance, RCB could not make any changes affecting the exterior of the church without the permission of the Springfield Historical Commission (SHC). RCB challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated RCB's rights under the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Massachusetts Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding that some of RCB's claims were not ripe for review and that its remaining claims failed as a matter of law. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed RCB's unripe claims without prejudice and rejected the remaining ripe claim, holding (1) the claims that the district court found were unripe should have been dismissed without prejudice, not resolved on summary judgment; (2) those of RCB's claims which depended on the potential consequences of compliance with the ordinance were not ripe for adjudication; and (3) RCB's claim based on the enactment of the ordinance was ripe for review but failed on the merits. View "Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiff served as the human resources director of two Puerto Rico governmental agencies. Plaintiff resigned one position and was terminated from the other. Plaintiff sued her former supervisors under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Puerto Rico law, alleging that she was retaliated against due to her allegiance with a certain political faction disfavored by Defendants and because she refused to follow personnel-related orders that she considered illegal and politically motivated. The district court dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims and granted summary judgment on the remainder. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects, holding that the district court did not err (1) in dismissing Plaintiff's First Amendment free speech claim, as Plaintiff's "speech" exclusively revolved around her professional duties as human resource director; (2) in dismissing a claim Plaintiff made under the Puerto Rico Whistleblowers Protection Act, as Plaintiff failed to raise her meritorious arguments regarding this claim in district court; and (3) in granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's freedom of association claim, as the First Amendment was inapplicable to Plaintiff's position as human resources director. View "O'Connell v. Marrero-Recio" on Justia Law

After the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice found Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Auerhahn and others had withheld exculpatory information from two federal criminal defendants who were convicted and served substantial terms in prison, the Massachusetts district court asked the Massachusetts Bar Counsel to investigate Auerhahn's conduct and recommend whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Bar Counsel filed a petition for an order to show cause why Auerhahn should not be terminated. A three-judge panel appointed by the court denied Bar Counsel's petition in all respects, concluding that Auerhahn had not violated any rules of professional conduct. Bar Counsel appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Bar Counsel lacked standing to appeal the district court's decision because Bar Counsel was not a party to Auerhahn's disciplinary proceedings. View "In re Auerhahn" on Justia Law