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

FBI agents executed a search warrant at an apartment; the search was one of six that day involving an alleged domestic terrorism plot by "Los Macheteros," an organization dedicated Puerto Rican independence that has been involved in numerous prior violent acts. When reporters entered the apartment complex during the search, there was a confrontation, and agents used pepper spray and struck or pushed plaintiffs, who brought Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. After the First Circuit vacated summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the district court again granted summary judgment for defendants. The First Circuit affirmed. The district court's discovery limitations were consistent with resolving qualified immunity questions at the earliest possible stage and it acted within its discretion to consider depositions and video clips. The court concluded that it was not clearly established that a "non-arrest" could be considered a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, so that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Even if viewed as a seizure, the court found the force employed by defendants was reasonable in at the time of the events. View "Valentin v. Mueller" on Justia Law

During the early 1990s, debtor Redondo entered into three construction contracts with the Authority: the Patillas project, construction of a bridge and access road; the Dorado project, replacement of a different bridge; the Mayguez project, highway improvements. The Authority retained the right to modify the plans; Redondo had the right to seek extra compensation. Redondo also could claim extra compensation for certain contingencies requiring substantial additional work. Each project encountered unanticipated problems, including unforeseen site conditions and flawed design plans. Redondo completed all three projects and submitted claims for additional amounts owed under the contracts, including claims for two subcontractors on the Mayaguez project. With the claims unresolved, Redondo filed for bankruptcy protection, 11 U.S.C. 1101-1174, and served the Authority with adversary complaints. The bankruptcy court awarded the debtor a total of $12,028,311.92 plus prejudgment interest at 6.5 percent, later reduced by $69,792.26. The district court affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed in part, rejecting claims concerning timely notice on one project and Redondo's standing to assert subcontractor claims. The court vacated and remanded calculation of extended overhead damages and the award of prejudgment interest. View "PR Highway and Transp. Auth. v. Redondo Constr. Corp." on Justia Law

In 2009, Vixamar and Saintfleur pled guilty to passport fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1542 and were sentenced to home confinement and probation. Vixamar agreed not to work at any healthcare job that gave her access to patient valuables unless she first told her employer or the patients about her criminal past: 2007 convictions for stealing, forging, and cashing checks from elderly patients. Before long Saintfleur was arrested for depositing a $4,000 check stolen from an elderly, mentally-incompetent hospice patient. Vixamar likely stole the check while working for a healthcare-staffing company, where she did not reveal her criminal past and gave false information. Each was charged with five probation violations. The judge held a hearing, revoked probation, and resentenced each to 36 months in prison (18 U.S.C. 3564(e)) at the top of the guidelines. The judge referenced the U.S.S.G. 3553(a) factors and explained that each had gotten a break earlier and that they are “a menace, a tremendous danger to other people." The First Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Vixamar" on Justia Law

In 2001 BPPR sought a declaratory judgment under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 after several music publishing companies contacted BPPR claiming that they owned and were owed royalties on music compositions that BPPR had produced and distributed in a series of Christmas concerts. BPPR deposited royalties due on the compositions with the district court and asked the court to declare to whom the royalties were due and distribute them accordingly. LAMCO and others countersued for copyright infringement. The district court denied motions for summary judgment. Several co-defendants settled their claims among themselves and with BPPR. The jury found BPPR liable for infringement of two compositions owned by LAMCO and ACEMLA, and awarded $42,941.00 in compensatory damages. The court found ACEMLA liable for violating a GVLI copyright and ordered $43,405.35 in damages. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. The district court properly found that the settlement agreement did not preclude future litigation of 12 undisputed LAMCO songs. View "Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Asociacion de Compositores" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Brazil, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1994 with his wife. They had two children, both U.S. citizens, then separated. In 2006 petitioner kicked open the door to his wife’s house, broke some glass, and threw furniture. He was arrested and admitted to facts supporting a finding of malicious destruction of property (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 127), believing that doing so would not cause immigration problems. He was sentenced to and completed 11 months of probation and an anger management program. The Department of Homeland Security took him into custody and instituted removal. He applied for cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The Immigration Judge denied the application. The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded for consideration of additional evidence regarding his wife's mental health and ability to care for their children and whether petitioner could qualify as "a person of good moral character" for purposes of cancellation of removal. The IJ concluded that malicious destruction of property under Massachusetts law is a crime involving moral turpitude and that he was statutorily barred from eligibility for cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied review. View "Da Silva Neto v. Holder, ." on Justia Law

Jones started working for Walgreen in 1986. In 2004, she slipped on ice in front of a Walgreens' office. In March 2005, while on medical leave, Jones informed her supervisor that she hoped to return to work with reasonable accommodations. She also filed claims with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and the U.S. EEOC, accusing Walgreen of discrimination against women. She ultimately filed a Title VII class action with over 21,000 plaintiffs. She later accepted relocation and resumed employment, stating that she could not climb ladders, lift more than 20 pounds, or work shifts longer than eight hours. Jones later notified her supervisor that she was having difficulty walking and shelving and thought she was working longer hours than medically advisable. Her doctor tendered his opinion that Jones had permanent restrictions. Jones was terminated on the ground that she could no longer perform as store manager. In her suit under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101, state law, and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3 (retaliation), the district court granted Walgreen summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed. No reasonable jury could find that Jones was able to perform the essential functions of her job even with reasonable accommodations or that Walgreen acted in retaliation. View "Jones v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

Defendant entered an Internet chat room that was being watched by an undercover law enforcement officer and offered the officer access to his pornography collection through a peer-to-peer file sharing program. Using his undercover account, the officer learned that defendant was sharing 112 gigabytes of content and downloaded nine files from the digital library. Four of these files contained depictions of different young boys engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The FBI tracked the IP address, obtained a warrant, and searched defendant’s residence. Defendant waived Miranda rights and admitted that he had possession of child pornography and handed over the external hard drive, which verified earlier interactions with the undercover officer and the existence of thousands of images depicting child pornography. Defendant pled guilty to interstate transportation of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(1), and possession of child pornography, 2252(a)(4)(B) with a waiver of appeal and was sentenced to five concurrent terms of 84 months. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that he should have been sentenced either for transportation of child pornography or for possession of child pornography, but not both. There is no colorable showing of a double jeopardy violation. View "United States v. Stefanidaki" on Justia Law

In 1998, the city purchased a house, built before 1978, to provide storage. The seller provided a lead paint inspection report, based on a 1996 inspection, indicating the presence of lead-based paint. When the city sold the house in 2003, it provided a blank, pre-printed, standard lead-based paint disclosure form, which the buyer and his agent signed. The agent informed the buyer that the city would complete the form later. The city never completed the form nor did it turn over the 1996 report. The buyer moved into the home with his family. In 2008, tests taken at his son's two-year physical revealed an elevated blood lead level. The state of New Hampshire performed an inspection, which revealed lead-based paint hazards. In 2010, more than six years after the purchase, the buyer sued under 42 U.S.C. 4852d, which requires disclosure of lead-based paint hazards in sales of homes built before 1978. He alleged that he had received an estimate of approximately $126,000 to perform abatement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city based on a three-year limitations period. The First Circuit affirmed. The claim accrued when the city failed to disclose. View "Randall v. Laconia, NH" on Justia Law

Training, simulating an arrest, took place at a police facility in San Juan without certified trainers. A requirement that weapons be emptied was not enforced and the highest-ranked officer gave the order that bulletproof jackets not be worn during the exercise. Loaded guns were present and the officer playing the suspect was shot and died. His family filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The trial court dismissed. The First Circuit reversed in part, first affirming dismissal of Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims. With respect to Fourteenth Amendment claims, plaintiffs adequately claimed that actions and inactions of the police and the use of a loaded firearm under the circumstances shock the conscience, and that defendants with supervisory responsibility were callously and recklessly deficient in the lack of any care for the safety of the officer. The mayor is not amenable to suit merely because he is mayor, nor may the municipality be sued, as pled, on a respondeat superior theory. Although the complaint alleges that there were insufficient regulations in place to govern the training exercise, it also describes several safety procedures that were intended to prevent exactly this type of accident. View "Marrero-Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan" on Justia Law

A doctor filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, against Brigham and Women's Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital and doctors, claiming violation of the Act by including false statements in a grant application, concerning neurodegenerative illness associated with aging, submitted to the National Institute on Aging in the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and that defendants, knowing of the falsity, failed to take corrective action. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. The First Circuit vacated. The district court abused its discretion by excluding or failing to consider certain expert testimony and erred by failing to consider statements of the parties and experts as required by the summary judgment standard. The dispute was not about which scientific protocol produces results that fall within an acceptable range of "accuracy" or whether re-measurements, the basis for preliminary scientific conclusions, were "accurate" insofar as they fall within a range of results accepted by qualified experts, but whether there was intentional falsification. View "Jones v. Brigham & Women's Hospital" on Justia Law