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

SMS Financial Recovery Services, LLC ("SMS") sued Samaritan Senior Village, Inc. and Samaritan Medical Center, Inc. (collectively, "Samaritan") for breach of contract after Samaritan canceled two contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic. The contracts, signed in December 2019, required Harmony Healthcare International Inc. ("Harmony"), SMS's predecessor, to provide healthcare consulting services to Samaritan for three years. Samaritan canceled the contracts in May 2020, citing financial constraints and the inability to allow Harmony's representatives on-site due to state COVID-19 restrictions.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Samaritan, finding that Samaritan's performance was excused under the doctrine of impracticability. The court reasoned that New York State Department of Health guidelines made it illegal for Harmony representatives to enter Samaritan's facilities, thus excusing Samaritan from its contractual obligations.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found that a genuine dispute of material fact remained regarding whether Harmony could have performed its contractual obligations remotely, despite the state visitation restrictions. The court noted that the doctrine of frustration of purpose might apply, but it was unclear whether the temporary nature of the restrictions substantially frustrated the overall purpose of the three-year contracts. The court also found that the issue of whether Samaritan's performance was excused only temporarily should be determined by a factfinder.The First Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on SMS's claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violations of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 93A, finding no evidence of bad faith or consumer protection violations by Samaritan. View "SMS Financial Recovery Services, LLC v. Samaritan Senior Village, Inc." on Justia Law

Martin Flanagan, a former employee of Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., filed a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act (FCA) against his former employer. He alleged that Fresenius engaged in a fraudulent kickback scheme to induce referrals to its dialysis clinics, violating the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). Flanagan claimed that Fresenius offered below-cost contracts to hospitals, overcompensated medical directors, and provided other benefits to secure patient referrals, which were then billed to Medicare and Medicaid.The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland initially handled the case, which was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court dismissed Flanagan's complaint for failing to meet the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that the amended complaint did not adequately allege specific false claims or provide representative examples. Additionally, the court ruled that some of Flanagan's claims were barred by the FCA's public-disclosure and first-to-file rules. The district court also denied Flanagan's motion to amend his complaint, citing undue delay and potential prejudice to Fresenius.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Flanagan failed to plead the alleged fraud with the required particularity. The appellate court also upheld the denial of the motion to amend, noting that Flanagan had ample time to address the deficiencies in his complaint but failed to do so. The First Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Flanagan v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Jacinto Xiquin Xirum and Bartola Romero Santos, who petitioned for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. The petitioners argued that their removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their two U.S. citizen children.The U.S. Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against the petitioners on July 10, 2018. They applied for cancellation of removal, which allows a noncitizen to remain in the country lawfully if they meet certain criteria, including proving that their removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. On October 10, 2019, the immigration judge (IJ) denied their applications, finding that the petitioners did not meet the burden of proving that their children would suffer such hardship if the petitioners were removed. The IJ noted that the petitioners were healthy, employed, and owned a home in Mexico, and that there was no evidence the children could not continue their education in Mexico or Guatemala.The petitioners appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision on March 27, 2024. The BIA highlighted the IJ's findings, including the petitioners' health, employment status, and home ownership in Mexico, as well as the children's fluency in Spanish and lack of learning disabilities. The BIA concluded that the petitioners had not demonstrated the required level of hardship.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition in part, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review challenges to the agency's factual findings. The court denied the petition in part, concluding that the agency's determination that the petitioners had not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship was not an abuse of discretion. The court also found that the agency had considered the evidence in the aggregate and had not ignored relevant facts. The petition for review was dismissed in part and denied in part. View "Xirum v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Xavier O. Maldonado-Negroni, was appealing a sentence imposed for violations of his supervised release conditions. Maldonado had a history of supervised release violations following his 2013 conviction for drug trafficking. His most recent violations included testing positive for drugs and committing domestic violence, for which he received a six-year sentence under Commonwealth law.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico determined that Maldonado's violations fell within the most serious category of supervised-release violations, classified as Grade A, and sentenced him to the statutory maximum of thirty-six months' imprisonment, to run consecutively to his Commonwealth sentence. Maldonado appealed, arguing that the district court's error in classifying his violations as Grade A rather than Grade B influenced the sentencing determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with Maldonado. The court found that the district court's brief statement that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the violations' category was inadequate to satisfy the government's burden to show harmless error. The appellate court noted that the district court's explanation did not make clear that the erroneous Guidelines range did not influence the sentence. Consequently, the First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, emphasizing the need for a clear and unmistakable record that the Guidelines error did not affect the sentencing decision. View "United States v. Maldonado-Negroni" on Justia Law

After Hurricane Maria damaged its business, Coco Rico, LLC sued its insurer, Universal Insurance Company, for failing to pay its insurance claim and won. The jury awarded Coco Rico higher damages for its business interruption loss claim than it had requested, plus extra, consequential damages. This appeal centers on the district court's rulings on several post-verdict motions: Universal sought to eliminate or reduce the jury's damages awards, while Coco Rico sought attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest from Universal. After the district court denied the motions, both parties appealed.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied Universal's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the consequential damages claim and its motion for a new trial or reduction of the contractual damages award. The court reduced the jury's BI & EE award from $873,000 to $750,000, in line with the insurance policy maximum, but rejected Universal's argument that the award should be further reduced to $686,098. The court also denied Coco Rico's motion to amend the judgment to add attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Universal that there was no evidentiary basis for the jury to award consequential damages or higher business interruption loss damages than Coco Rico had established at trial. The court reversed the district court's ruling denying Universal's motions regarding the damages awards and affirmed its ruling denying Coco Rico's motion for attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest. The court held that the jury's award of $873,000 for business interruption loss exceeded the evidence presented, which supported only $686,098, and that there was no evidence to support the $250,000 consequential damages award. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Coco Rico, LLC v. Universal Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between several plaintiffs, who are foreign nationals participating in an au pair program, and Cultural Care, Inc., a Massachusetts company that places au pairs with host families in the U.S. The plaintiffs allege that Cultural Care violated their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state wage and hour laws by failing to pay them legal wages. They also claim violations of state deceptive trade practices laws.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Cultural Care's motion to dismiss the complaint, including its defense of derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Company. Cultural Care appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that Cultural Care had not established entitlement to protection under Yearsley. After the case returned to the District Court, Cultural Care filed a motion to compel arbitration based on agreements in contracts signed by the au pairs with International Care Ltd. (ICL), a Swiss company. The District Court denied this motion, ruling that Cultural Care had waived its right to compel arbitration and that it could not enforce the arbitration agreement as a nonsignatory.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The court held that Cultural Care, as a nonsignatory to the ICL Contract, could not enforce the arbitration agreement under either third-party beneficiary theory or equitable estoppel. The court emphasized that the arbitration agreement did not demonstrate with "special clarity" that the signatories intended to confer arbitration rights on Cultural Care. Additionally, the plaintiffs' statutory claims did not depend on the ICL Contract, making equitable estoppel inapplicable. View "Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a representative action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) filed by Mamadou Bah against Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, LLC, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. Bah alleged that the defendants failed to pay overtime wages to assistant branch managers before November 27, 2016. Bah sought conditional certification of a class of similarly situated employees and requested the issuance of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The defendants moved to stay the issuance of notice pending a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The district court later dismissed Bah's claims against Enterprise Holdings, Inc. for failure to state a claim, leading to further amendments to the complaint.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially dismissed Bah's claims against Enterprise Holdings, Inc. without prejudice, leading to the filing of an amended complaint. The district court eventually denied a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, but by then, the statute of limitations had expired for potential opt-in plaintiffs. The district court conditionally certified a class and authorized notice, but the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed as untimely. Bah requested equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to the delay in issuing notice, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling. The court found that the delay in issuing notice was attributable to Bah's own pleading errors and that the opt-in plaintiffs did not demonstrate the requisite diligence. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny equitable tolling and dismiss the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs as untimely. View "Kwoka v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, LLC" on Justia Law

Lorna Orabona, a high-earning mortgage development officer, was terminated by Santander Bank, N.A. for allegedly violating the company's Code of Conduct by forwarding company emails to her private email address. As a result, she was deemed ineligible for severance benefits under Santander's Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Severance Policy. Orabona claimed that her termination was a pretext to avoid paying her severance benefits, especially since Santander was planning a large-scale layoff in her department shortly after her termination.The case was initially filed in Rhode Island Superior Court but was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Santander moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Orabona's claims were preempted by ERISA. The district court allowed limited discovery to determine the applicability of the ERISA plan. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Santander, holding that all of Orabona's state law claims were preempted by ERISA because they related to the Severance Policy and required reference to it for determining liability and damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Orabona's claims were preempted by ERISA under section 514(a) because they related to the Severance Policy. The court also found that her claims seeking relief for the denial of severance benefits conflicted with the remedial scheme established by ERISA section 502(a). The court emphasized that determining liability and damages for Orabona's claims would require interpreting the terms of the ERISA-regulated Severance Policy, thus necessitating preemption. View "Orabona v. Santander Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Efrain Oliveras-Villafañe, Mirta Rosario-Montalvo, and their conjugal partnership (collectively, "Appellants") filed a lawsuit against Baxter Healthcare SA and related entities ("Appellees"), alleging unlawful discrimination. Oliveras worked for Baxter from 1990 until 2019, holding various positions, including Engineering Director. In 2018, he was transferred to a lower position, which he claimed was part of a discriminatory effort to remove senior Puerto Rican personnel. In 2019, his position was eliminated, and he chose termination over accepting two part-time roles. He filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC in May 2019.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. The court found that the Appellants failed to comply with Local Rule 56(c) and disregarded non-compliant facts. It dismissed the Title VII claims, ruling that the EEOC charge did not encompass the February 2018 transfer and was untimely. The court also found that the Appellants did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination regarding the March 2019 termination. The remaining claims were dismissed based on the Appellants' concessions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court noted that the Appellants failed to challenge the district court's finding that the EEOC charge did not encompass the February 2018 transfer, leaving an independent ground for affirmance. The court emphasized that arguments must be clearly articulated and supported, and the Appellants' failure to address the exhaustion issue was fatal to their appeal. Thus, the district court's decision was upheld. View "Oliveras-Villafane v. Baxter Healthcare SA" on Justia Law

Luis Javier Matta Quiñones was convicted of possession of firearms and ammunition as a prohibited person and possession of a machinegun. Matta claimed he was wrongfully accused by police officers who found contraband nearby. He attempted to discredit the officers' testimony that he threw a feed sack containing guns and ammunition onto a roof while fleeing. Matta argued on appeal that the district court hindered his defense in several ways, including allowing the government's case agent to be present during jury deliberations.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico oversaw Matta's trial. The jury found Matta guilty on both charges. Matta moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and improper jury contact by the case agent. The district court denied both motions, reasoning that Matta had waived objections to the case agent's presence and that the contact was brief and non-prejudicial. Matta was sentenced to 96 months' imprisonment, with an additional 18 months for revocation of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found sufficient evidence to support Matta's convictions but agreed that the district court erred by allowing the case agent to be present during jury deliberations without proper investigation into potential juror misconduct. The appellate court vacated Matta's convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court also vacated the revocation of supervised release sentence and remanded for resentencing. Additionally, the court addressed evidentiary issues likely to recur, ruling that Matta should have been allowed to cross-examine Officer Vidal about prior statements and that the Receipt Form could be admissible under the business records exception. View "United States v. Matta-Quinones" on Justia Law