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

In 2015, Universitas Education, LLC initiated a lawsuit against Jack E. Robinson, III, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Robinson defended himself until his death in November 2017. After Robinson's death, the focus of the case shifted to finding a proper party to substitute as a representative of his estate. Universitas identified Lillian Granderson, Robinson's mother, as a suitable substitute and filed motions to substitute her into the case and to enter default judgment against her. The district court granted both motions.On appeal, Granderson argued that the district court erred in granting Universitas' motion to substitute and motion for default judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to substitute Granderson into the case, but vacated the default judgment. The court found that Granderson had defended the case and no entry of default had been entered against her, which was a requirement for a default judgment. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Universitas Education, LLC v. Granderson" on Justia Law

The case involves Caitlin Corrigan, a graduate student at Boston University (BU), who sued the university under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for implementing a mandatory COVID-19 testing program. Corrigan claimed that due to a chronic medical condition, she could not comply with the program and that requiring her compliance would violate the ADA. BU rejected her proposed exemption, leading to her suspension for the fall semester. However, before the district court could reach the merits of Corrigan's claims, BU ended its mandatory testing program, leading the court to dismiss Corrigan's suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that it had become moot.BU moved to dismiss Corrigan's suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion, applying mootness principles. The court determined that since BU had ended its mandatory testing program, an order requiring BU to provide Corrigan with a reasonable accommodation to the program would have no effect. The court also found that Corrigan's claim was not inherently transitory and that BU was unlikely to subject Corrigan to mandatory testing again. The court held that the monetary relief that Corrigan sought was legally insufficient to support a claim of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the district court appropriately applied mootness principles to dismiss Corrigan's suit and that Corrigan had not shown that her case comes within an applicable exception to those mootness principles. The court rejected Corrigan's arguments that the district court misread the mootness exceptions, misconstrued the facts, and ignored the import of the ADA's scheme for providing prospective relief. View "Corrigan v. Boston University" on Justia Law

Frederic P. Zotos, an attorney residing in Cohasset, Massachusetts, filed a qui tam complaint against the Town of Hingham and several of its officials. Zotos alleged that the town and its officials posted speed limit signs and advisory speed plaques that did not comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. He further claimed that the town applied for and received reimbursements for these signs and plaques from both the federal government and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Zotos asserted that the town fraudulently induced the federal government to pay it roughly $3,300,000 and the Commonwealth to pay it approximately $7,300,000.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Zotos's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court concluded that the qui tam action was not barred by either claim or issue preclusion. However, it found that Zotos's claims fell short of the False Claims Act (FCA) and Massachusetts False Claims Act's (MFCA) requirements. Specifically, it ruled that Zotos failed to sufficiently plead that the alleged misrepresentations were material to the federal government's and the Commonwealth's respective decisions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Zotos's complaint did not adequately allege that the defendants' purported misrepresentations were material. It noted that the essence of the bargain under the Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP) and the Chapter 90 program was that the defendants incurred permissible costs on projects that were duly reimbursed. The court concluded that Zotos's allegations amounted to ancillary violations that, without more, were insufficient to establish materiality. View "United States ex rel. Zotos v. Town of Hingham" on Justia Law

In a case involving an Egyptian petitioner, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the denial of the petitioner's claim for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The petitioner, a Coptic Christian and Egyptian citizen, claimed he experienced persecution based on his religion. He was beaten and subjected to demands for conversion to Islam after he refused to alter a sensitive medical test result relating to a Muslim religious leader's family.The Court found that the BIA failed to correctly apply the "one central reason" test for motive in asylum claims. The Court ruled that the petitioner's religion was at least one central reason for his persecution. The Court also held that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review to the IJ’s conclusion on the petitioner’s CAT claim.The Court, however, upheld the BIA's conclusion that the petitioner's experiences of verbal harassment and rock-throwing did not rise to the level of persecution. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. View "Khalil v. Garland" on Justia Law

A Puerto Rican company, Caribe Chem, filed a lawsuit against a Florida company, Southern Agricultural Insecticides, and two Puerto Rican entities. The case was initially non-removable to federal court due to lack of complete diversity among parties. After the Puerto Rican defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit based on the statute of limitations, Southern attempted to remove the case to federal court, citing now-complete diversity of parties. Caribe objected, and the district court ruled in Caribe's favor, ordering the case to be remanded to Commonwealth court. Southern appealed the remand order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's remand order. The court adopted the voluntary/involuntary rule, which states that a lawsuit initially lacking complete diversity can acquire it when all non-diverse parties are dismissed from the action. However, if the non-diverse defendants are dismissed without the plaintiff's acquiescence, the lawsuit is generally not removable. The court ruled that the dismissal of the non-diverse defendants was involuntary since it was over Caribe's objections. The court also stated that the plaintiff's decision not to appeal the dismissal does not make the dismissal voluntary. The court reaffirmed that the voluntary/involuntary rule precludes removal where non-diverse defendants are dismissed without plaintiff's voluntary action. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Southern's motion to set aside the judgment under Rule 60. View "Caribe Chem Distributors, Corp. v. Southern Agricultural Insecticides, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves an appeal from plaintiffs Sara Halsey and Susan Kiralis-Vernon against Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. The plaintiffs were participants in a state program, Additional Support for People in Retraining and Employment - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (ASPIRE-TANF), for which Fedcap was a contract agency. The plaintiffs allege that Fedcap failed to correctly administer the program and fulfill its obligations, including informing them of available services and support, processing their requests for benefits, and engaging in an interactive process to evaluate their requests for reasonable accommodations. Kiralis-Vernon also alleges that a Fedcap employee verbally assaulted her due, in part, to her race.The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the case, reasoning that the plaintiffs were required to first pursue an administrative remedy before the Department of Health and Human Services as required by Maine law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims related to Fedcap’s administration of the ASPIRE-TANF program, agreeing that under Maine law, the plaintiffs had to first seek administrative review before bringing these claims to court.However, the appellate court vacated the dismissal of Kiralis-Vernon's claim of racial discrimination, ruling that this claim did not fall within the same jurisdiction and expertise of the Department, and thus, was not subject to the same requirement for administrative review. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "Halsey v. Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of individuals filed a lawsuit against Genzyme Corporation, a drug manufacturer, for injuries allegedly caused by the company's mishandling of a prescription drug shortage between 2009 and 2012. The lawsuit was filed several years after the events in question occurred and would typically have been considered too late under the applicable statutory limitations periods. However, the plaintiffs argued that previous class actions, a savings statute, and a tolling agreement between the parties allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The district court partially agreed and rejected Genzyme's argument that the delay in filing required dismissal of the lawsuit. However, it dismissed the claims of all but four plaintiffs for lack of standing, and dismissed the remaining claims on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that all plaintiffs have standing and the court has jurisdiction to proceed with the case, at least with respect to the plaintiffs' individual claims. However, it concluded that four plaintiffs waited too long before filing this lawsuit, and their claims are time-barred. For the remaining plaintiffs, the court vacated the judgment dismissing their claims and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Wilkins v. Genzyme Corporation" on Justia Law

The case concerns parents of a child who suffered severe and permanent injuries at birth due to alleged negligence of the medical staff at Hospital Damas. The parents sued Fundación Damas, Inc., alleging that it operated the hospital at the time of the malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment to Fundación on the basis of issue preclusion, concluding that the parents were "virtually represented" in earlier proceedings by the parents of another child who also suffered injuries at the hospital.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the theory of virtual representation, which the district court relied on, was inapplicable to this case. According to the Supreme Court's precedent, issue preclusion generally does not apply to those who were not party to the prior litigation. The court noted that the Supreme Court had rejected the broad theory of virtual representation, which was the basis for the district court's decision. The court explained that the exceptions to the rule against nonparty preclusion are narrow and specific, and none applied in this case. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Santiago-Martinez v. Fundacion Damas, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involved an appellant, Jonathan Martins, who filed a lawsuit against Vermont Mutual Insurance Company. Martins' vehicle was involved in an accident with a vehicle insured by Vermont Mutual. He claimed that the insurance company failed to compensate him for the inherent diminished value (IDV) of his vehicle after the accident. The case was first heard in a district court that ruled in favor of Vermont Mutual, stating the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy did not provide coverage for IDV damages. Martins appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and maintained that the district court correctly ruled in favor of Vermont Mutual. The court held that under Massachusetts law, a third-party claimant such as Martins could not maintain a direct cause of action against an insurer without first obtaining a final judgment against the insured party involved in the accident. The court also rejected Martins' argument that Vermont Mutual was estopped from denying liability for IDV damages because it had paid for other damages related to the accident. The court concluded that the insurer's obligation to make a reasonable settlement offer did not equate to admitting liability. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of Vermont Mutual. View "Martins v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, an insurance company, Berkley National Insurance Company, sued two of its insureds, Granite Telecommunications, LLC and Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC, seeking restitution for both the payment it had made to settle a personal-injury lawsuit against the insureds and the costs it had incurred to defend them against that suit. The insurer, Berkley, also sought a declaratory judgement that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds with respect to the personal-injury claims that they were facing. The District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Berkley, ordering the insureds to pay restitution for both the insurer's defense costs and its settlement payment. The insureds appealed the judgment.The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's order, concluding that the rulings conflicted with Massachusetts law governing when a liability insurer who has chosen to defend its insureds may seek reimbursement from them. The Court stated that under Massachusetts law, a liability insurer can only seek reimbursement for an amount paid to settle a lawsuit if the insured has agreed that the insurer may commit its own funds to a reasonable settlement with a right to seek reimbursement, or if the insurer secures specific authority to reach a particular settlement which the insured agrees to pay. The Court found that the insurer, Berkley, did not meet any of these conditions, and as a result, it could not seek reimbursement from the insureds. Consequently, the Court vacated the grant of summary judgment to the insurer and dismissed the remainder of the appeal as moot. View "Berkley National Ins. Co. v. Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC" on Justia Law