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

Plaintiff’s employment with Employer was terminated due to what Plaintiff alleged was disability discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff filed a discrimination complaint against Employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but did not file a civil action against Employer within ninety days after he received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. Plaintiff filed a new administrative charge against Employer two months after the first right-to-sue letter issued adding a second charge for retaliation. Less than a month after the transmittal of the second right-to-sue letter, Plaintiff sued Employer and other defendants in federal district court for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed both federal claims on the grounds that they were time barred, as (1) the discrimination claim was not brought within ninety days of Plaintiff’s receipt of the first right-to-sue letter, and (2) the retaliation claim had been filed too late with the EEOC. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing both charges due to Plaintiff’s failure to meet applicable time limits. View "Rivera-Diaz v. Humana Health Plans of P.R." on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and was sentenced to a sixty-month incarcerative term, the maximum sentence allowable under the statute of conviction. Appellant challenged his sentence on appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentencing court did not err (1) in its drug-quantity calculation; (2) by enhancing Defendant’s offense level for obstruction of justice; (3) by refusing to reduce the offense level for acceptance of responsibility; (4) in deciding to eschew either a downward variance or departure; and (5) by choosing to impose a sixty-month sentence. View "United States v. Maguire" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a long-time employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Plaintiff was separated from her employment as a result of her inability to return to the workplace resulting from severe depression. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the IRS alleging that she had been constructively discharged on account of her disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had not lodged her administrative complaint within forty-five days of the incident, as statutorily required, thereby rejecting Plaintiff’s contention that equitable tolling applied to her claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff did not establish that equitable tolling should be applied to save her untimely administrative action. View "Bartlett v. Dep't of Treasury" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen and resident of Puerto Rico, borrowed $700,000 from Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Greece. Plaintiff’s loan was not evidenced by "even a single scrap of paper." The parties subsequently disputed who the borrower was, whether Caribbean Carrier Holding (Panama), Inc., as Defendant claimed, or Defendant, as Plaintiff claimed. When the parties could not agree on the identity of the borrower, Plaintiff brought a collection action against Defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The district judge ruled that Plaintiff had not sustained his burden of proof and entered judgment for Defendant. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district judge (1) substantially complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1), and (2) applied the correct substantive law standard in adjudicating Plaintiff’s claim. View "Valsamis v. Gonzalez-Romero" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possessing counterfeit obligations of the United States and sentenced to fifty-one months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of the truck Appellant was driving when he was initially stopped by law enforcement officers and from the seizure of money in Appellant’s wallet; (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for acquittal; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant. View "United States v. Almeida, III" on Justia Law

Petitioners, Nova Flora Marsadu and Roly Rondonuwu, were a married couple who were native citizens of Indonesia. Marsadu, and later Rondonuwu, filed applications for asylum based on their fears of being persecuted in Indonesia due to their Christian faith. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners’ claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Petitioners later filed an untimely motion with the BIA to reopen removal proceedings, arguing that they were prima facie eligible for asylum due to recent changes in Indonesia’s conditions that put them at risk of persecution. The BIA denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings, concluding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that they would face religious persecution if they returned to Indonesia. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate error sufficient to warrant reopening of their removal proceedings. View "Marsadu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff obtained a loan secured with a promissory note and mortgage on his Massachusetts home. The mortgage document listed Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as mortgagee and nominee for the lender’s successors and assigns. MERS subsequently assigned Butler’s mortgage to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (Deutsche Bank). Deutsche Bank foreclosed on Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff filed suit against Deutsche Bank for wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, and unfair and deceptive business practices under Massachusetts law, alleging that Deutsche Bank lacked legal possession over both his mortgage and accompanying note, making it an improper party to foreclose. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the foreclosure sales were in accordance with the relevant statutory law. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, holding (1) Deutsche Bank need not have possessed Plaintiff’s note, and (2) Plaintiff failed to state any other colorable claim on which relief might be granted. View "Butler v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams." on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the decade-long litigation regarding the regulation of Puerto Rico’s milk industry. The district court approved a comprehensive Settlement Agreement reached by the original parties: the government defendants, including the Office of the Milk Industry Regulatory Administration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Spanish acronym “ORIL”), and the plaintiff milk processors, Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. and Suiza Dairy, Inc. After the district court approved of the Agreement, ORIL filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, challenging the portion of the district court order opining that Puerto Rico had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by entering into the Agreement. The district court denied ORIL’s motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) held that the language at issue was merely a statement of dicta and not a judgment, and consistent with this construction, the district court was strongly encouraged to strike the statement; and (2) otherwise dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. View "Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Comas-Pagan" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the decade-long litigation regarding the regulation of Puerto Rico’s milk industry. Intervenor Puerto Rico Dairy Farmers Association (“PRDFA”) appealed the district court’s approval of a comprehensive Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) reached by the original parties, including government defendants and plaintiff milk processors, arguing that the district court did not grant it a fair opportunity to be heard on its objections to the Agreement and erred in its approval of the Agreement. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) PRDFA’s procedural rights as an objecting intervenor were not violated where it had an adequate hearing to air its grievances and where the district court held that PRDFA remained free to challenge the constitutionality of the Agreement as implemented in its still-pending companion case; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving of the Agreement. View "P.R. Dairy Farmers Ass'n v. Comas-Pagan" on Justia Law

After Westernbank of Puerto Rico was ordered closed in the late 2000s and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was appointed receiver, the FDIC discovered that certain bank directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duty by jeopardizing the bank’s financial soundness, causing over $176 million in damages to the bank. The directors and officers asked their insurer, Chartis Insurance Company, to confirm coverage under a directors’ and officers’ liability-insurance policy issued by Chartis to Westerbank’s owner, W Holding Company, Inc. Chartis denied coverage. The directors and officers and the FDIC sued Chartis. In this “procedurally complicated” case, a district judge eventually issued an order requiring Chartis to advance defense costs to the directors and officers. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to hear the parties; and (2) the district judge did not err in making its cost-advancement ruling. View "W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co. - P.R." on Justia Law