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

Plaintiffs, who own or operate gasoline service stations in Puerto Rico, offered two different prices to consumers: a higher price for those using credit or debit cards and a lower price for those paying with cash. In 2013, Puerto Rico's legislature enacted Law 152-2013, amending Law 150-2008 by removing a provision that allowed merchants to offer cash discounts. Plaintiffs ceased offering the lower price due to the threat of fines and criminal prosecution. They sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, arguing that Law 150 is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutionally vague.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and granted the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court found that neither the Cash Discount Act (CDA) nor the Durbin Amendment preempted Law 150. The court also declined to address the constitutional vagueness argument, noting that the complaint did not allege that Law 150 is unconstitutionally vague.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CDA and the Durbin Amendment do not preempt Law 150. The CDA regulates the conduct of credit card issuers, not merchants or states, and does not confer an absolute right to offer cash discounts. The Durbin Amendment regulates payment card networks, not states, and does not preempt state legislation restricting cash discounts. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not properly plead a vagueness claim in their complaint, rendering the claim unpreserved for appellate review. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Asociacion de Detallistas de Gasolina de PR Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

The case involves an enforcement action by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Gregory Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management, LLC. The SEC alleged that Lemelson made false statements of material fact, engaged in a fraudulent scheme, and violated securities laws, resulting in approximately $1.3 million in illegal profits. The SEC sought disgorgement of these profits, a permanent injunction, and civil monetary penalties. Lemelson moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court dismissed one of the challenged statements. The SEC filed an amended complaint, and the jury ultimately found Lemelson liable for three statements but rejected other claims.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts held Lemelson in contempt for violating a protective order and threatening a priest who provided information to the SEC. After the jury verdict, the district court issued a final judgment, including a five-year injunction against Lemelson and a $160,000 civil penalty. Lemelson appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. Lemelson then moved for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), arguing that the SEC's demands were excessive compared to the final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of Lemelson's motion for fees and costs. The appellate court found that the district court incorrectly compared the SEC's demand to the scope of the initial claims rather than the final judgment obtained. The appellate court vacated the denial of fees and costs and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the SEC's demands were excessive and unreasonable compared to the final judgment. The appellate court also noted that the district court should consider whether Lemelson acted in bad faith or if special circumstances make an award unjust. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lemelson" on Justia Law

In 2023, James Broad and Rebecca McCrensky began operating a car-rental agency, Becky's Broncos, LLC, on Nantucket Island without the necessary local approvals. The Town of Nantucket and the Nantucket Town Select Board ordered Becky's to cease operations. Becky's sought preliminary injunctive relief in the District of Massachusetts to continue their business.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Becky's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found insufficient evidence of discriminatory effect under the dormant Commerce Clause and concluded that Becky's had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Becky's appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Becky's did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim, as the ordinance did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses. The court also found that Becky's failed to establish a likelihood of success on its antitrust claims due to a lack of a concrete theory of liability. Additionally, Becky's procedural due process argument was rejected because it did not establish a property interest in the required medallions. Lastly, the court held that the ordinance survived rational basis review under substantive due process, as it was rationally related to legitimate government interests in managing traffic and congestion on the island. View "Becky's Broncos, LLC v. Town of Nantucket" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, representing nine closed-end mutual funds, sued Ocean Capital LLC and several individuals and firms for allegedly committing securities violations. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants misled their shareholders by failing to make complete and accurate disclosures, violating Sections 13(d), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and other applicable SEC rules. The district court granted the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss, leading the plaintiffs to appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially reviewed the case. U.S. Magistrate Judge Giselle Lépez-Soler recommended dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint on grounds of failure to state a claim and mootness. The district court adopted this recommendation, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims but retaining jurisdiction over the defendants' counterclaims. The plaintiffs then moved for a stay of the proceedings on the counterclaims, which was denied. The district court granted the defendants' requested relief on their counterclaims, ordering the plaintiffs to seat the defendants' nominees for the board of directors of three funds. The plaintiffs timely appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' Sections 13(d), 14(a), and 20(a) claims. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a Section 13(d) claim for the non-PRRTFF IV funds and did not demonstrate irreparable harm for PRRTFF IV. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claims were insufficient, as the statements in question were not materially misleading. Consequently, the court upheld the district court's judgment on the defendants' counterclaims, ordering the plaintiffs to seat the defendants' nominees. View "Tax-Free Fixed Income Fund for Puerto Rico Residents, Inc. v. Ocean Capital LLC" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought a civil enforcement action against Commonwealth Equity Services, LLC, alleging that from 2014 to 2018, Commonwealth failed to adequately disclose potential conflicts of interest related to its revenue-sharing agreement with National Financial Services, LLC (NFS). The SEC claimed this omission violated Sections 206(2) and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and SEC Rule 206(4)-7. Commonwealth's representatives, who provided investment advice to clients, were unaware of the revenue-sharing arrangement, which the SEC argued created a conflict of interest by incentivizing Commonwealth to direct clients to higher-cost mutual fund share classes that generated revenue-sharing income.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the SEC's motion for summary judgment on liability, finding that Commonwealth's disclosures were inadequate as a matter of law and that the firm acted negligently. The court also denied Commonwealth's cross-motion for summary judgment and its motion to reconsider. Subsequently, the district court entered final judgment against Commonwealth, ordering disgorgement of $65,588,906 in revenue-sharing income, $21,185,162 in prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $6,500,000. The court struck Commonwealth's expert declaration proposing an alternative disgorgement calculation and adopted the SEC's proposed amount.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and the disgorgement order, remanding for further proceedings. The appellate court held that the issue of materiality should have been decided by a jury, as reasonable minds could differ on whether the additional disclosures would have significantly altered the total mix of information available to investors. The court also found that the SEC had not adequately shown a reasonable approximation or causal connection between Commonwealth's profits and the alleged violations, and that the district court must consider whether Commonwealth is entitled to deduct its expenses from any disgorgement awarded. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Commonwealth Equity Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a business venture between W.R. Cobb Company (Cobb) and V.J. Designs LLC (VJ Designs) to sell diamond products under the Forevermark brand. Cobb, unable to secure a license directly from Forevermark, entered into an agreement with VJ Designs, an existing Forevermark licensee, to form a new company, WR Cobb/VJ LLC (the Joint Entity). The agreement stipulated that the Joint Entity would operate under the Forevermark license. However, VJ Designs could not transfer its Forevermark rights without Forevermark's written consent. The venture quickly fell apart, and Cobb sued VJ Designs and its owner, Benjamin Galili, to recover funds paid under the agreement, alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island held a two-day bench trial and ruled in favor of VJ Designs and Galili on all claims. The court found that VJ Designs did not breach the contract or misrepresent any material facts. Cobb appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not rescinding the agreement and not holding Galili personally liable for fraud and misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that VJ Designs did not breach the contract by failing to assign the Forevermark license to the Joint Entity upon execution of the agreement. The court found no provision in the agreement requiring immediate transfer of the license and noted that the parties understood Forevermark's consent was necessary. The court also rejected Cobb's claims of fraud and misrepresentation, finding no evidence of material misrepresentation by VJ Designs or Galili. Additionally, the court dismissed Cobb's mutual mistake theory as it was not pled in the complaint and was raised too late in the proceedings. View "W.R. Cobb Company v. VJ Designs, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a civil enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Henry B. Sargent for allegedly violating registration and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the SEC, finding that Sargent violated section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 by directing unregistered public offerings of penny stocks. The court ordered equitable remedies, including disgorgement and a ten-year ban on trading penny stocks, but dismissed the SEC's fraud claims and denied an additional civil penalty.Sargent appealed the partial summary judgment, arguing that his transactions were exempt from registration and that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the ten-year ban and calculating the disgorgement amount. The SEC cross-appealed, contending that the district court erred in not imposing a civil penalty and in dismissing its fraud claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, the disgorgement amount, and the dismissal of the SEC's fraud claims. However, it found that the district court erred in imposing equitable remedies and in concluding that it lacked the power to issue a civil penalty. The appellate court vacated the injunction against Sargent and remanded the case for further proceedings to assess the appropriateness of injunctive relief and civil penalties for Sargent's section 5 violation. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sargent" on Justia Law

Beijing Abace Biology Co., Ltd. (Abace) filed a lawsuit against Dr. Chunhong Zhang and MtoZ Biolabs, Inc. (MtoZ) after Dr. Zhang, a former employee, co-founded MtoZ, a company providing similar services to Abace. Abace claimed that Dr. Zhang breached her contract and fiduciary duty, and that MtoZ tortiously interfered with Abace's business. Dr. Zhang had signed several employment-related agreements, including non-compete clauses, while working for Abace. The dispute centered on whether these non-compete agreements were enforceable under Chinese law.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Zhang and MtoZ, concluding that Dr. Zhang did not fall within the categories of employees subject to non-compete agreements under Chinese law. The court found that Dr. Zhang was neither senior management nor senior technical personnel, and did not have access to trade secrets or confidential information that would justify a non-compete restriction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that under Chinese law, non-compete agreements are enforceable only against senior management, senior technical personnel, or employees with access to trade secrets. The court found no evidence that Dr. Zhang held a senior management or technical role, or that she had access to trade secrets. Consequently, the non-compete agreements were unenforceable, and the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Zhang and MtoZ was upheld. View "Beijing Abace Biology Co., Ltd. v. Zhang" on Justia Law

Two Massachusetts-based Volvo dealers filed a lawsuit against Volvo Car USA, Volvo Car Financial Services, and Fidelity Warranty Services, alleging violations of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93B. The dispute centers on Volvo-branded Prepaid Maintenance Program (PPM) contracts, which allow customers to prepay for future maintenance services at a discounted rate. Fidelity administers these contracts, which the dealers sell to their customers. The dealers claimed that the defendants were underpaying them for the parts and labor costs incurred in servicing these PPM contracts.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard cross-motions for summary judgment from both parties. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that entities like Fidelity are not regulated by the relevant provisions of Chapter 93B. The court denied the dealers' motion for summary judgment, leading the dealers to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision, but for a different reason. The appellate court held that the dealers' sale and service of the Volvo PPM are not franchise obligations under Chapter 93B. The court found that the Retailer Agreement between the dealers and Volvo USA did not obligate the dealers to sell or service the Volvo PPM. The court also noted that the dealers had the discretion to sell various financial products, including the Volvo PPM, and that servicing the PPM was not a material term of the Retailer Agreement. Therefore, Chapter 93B did not require Fidelity to reimburse the dealers at the statutory rates. View "Colony Place South, Inc. v. Volvo Car USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Local Puerto Rico merchants brought unfair competition claims against major big-box retailers, alleging that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Costco Wholesale Corp. and Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. violated executive orders limiting sales to essential goods. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants continued to sell non-essential items, capturing sales that would have otherwise gone to local retailers, and sought damages for lost sales during the 72-day period the orders were in effect.The case was initially filed as a putative class action in Puerto Rico's Court of First Instance. Costco removed the case to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court denied Costco's motion to sever the claims against it and also denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court. The district court dismissed most of the plaintiffs' claims but allowed the unfair competition claim to proceed. However, it later denied class certification and granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the executive orders did not create an enforceable duty on the part of Costco and Wal-Mart.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case on jurisdictional grounds. The court held that CAFA jurisdiction is not lost when a district court denies class certification. It also held that CAFA's "home state" exception did not apply because Costco, a non-local defendant, was a primary defendant. However, the court found that CAFA's "local controversy" exception applied because the conduct of Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, a local defendant, formed a significant basis for the claims. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Costco's motion to sever and determined that the entire case should be remanded to the Puerto Rico courts. The court reversed the district court's denial of the motion to remand, vacated the judgment on the merits for lack of jurisdiction, and instructed the district court to remand the case to the Puerto Rico courts. View "Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law