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

Plaintiff terminated Defendant from employment. Thereafter, Defendant began arbitration proceedings seeking severance compensation he felt was contractually due. After arbitration hearings had commenced, the hearings were postponed for two months due to a medical situation afflicting Plaintiff's counsel. During the recess, Plaintiff formally requested pre-hearing and hearing third-party subpoenas directed at Defendant's current employer. The tribunal denied the issuance of the subpoenas. After the arbitration hearings resumed, the tribunal found Defendant was entitled to compensation pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement dealing with his termination without cause. The tribunal also found Defendant was entitled to pre-award interest. Plaintiff subsequently sought vacatur of the award, which the trial court denied. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the arbitration tribunal did not engage in misconduct by denying the issuance of the pre-hearing and hearing subpoenas; and (2) the tribunal did not exceed its authority in awarding pre-award interest to Defendant. View "Doral Fin. Corp. v. Garcia-Velez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought to open a Victoria's Secret franchise and sought assistance from Richard Domingo, an employee of Rekomdiv International. At the recommendation of Domingo, Plaintiff retained the law firm of Venable, LLP to assist him in establishing a business relationship with Victoria's Secret. Plaintiff paid Venable a $400,000 retainer fee, and paid $225,000 to Rekomdiv. Plaintiff later discovered Victoria's Secret franchise was not available. Plaintiff sued Rekomdiv and Domingo for breach of contract and dolo. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and assessed damages in the amount of $625,000. In the meantime, Plaintiff sued Venable, and the parties settled. The court later found that it could not offset the damages award in the Rekomdiv suit by the Venable settlement amount. While their appeal was pending in this matter, Rekomdiv and Domingo filed a legal malpractice suit against Lamboy, their trial counsel. The district court dismissed the complaint against Lamboy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the district court's denial of offset of the damages award, as offset was not required; and (2) affirmed the court's dismissal of the legal malpractice suit, holding that the allegations in the complaint failed to establish the causation element necessary to make out a plausible legal malpractice claim. View "Portugues-Santana v. Rekomdiv Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant and his company (Defendants) borrowed money from Trust by executing promissory notes in favor of Trust. One note said it was governed by Massachusetts law, and the others said they were governed by New York law. The Trust's trustees (Plaintiffs) subsequently sued Defendants in New York state court for breach of contract. The New York trial court eventually granted Defendants' motion to dismiss based on the expiration of the New York statute of limitations. Plaintiffs subsequently sued Defendant in Massachusetts federal court to recover on the note controlled by Massachusetts law. Although Plaintiffs filed suit within the Massachusetts statute of limitations, the district judge concluded that the dismissal of the New York lawsuit barred Plaintiffs' current claim because the dismissal was on the merits and claim preclusive. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the limitations dismissal under New York law was a judgment on the merits, and thus, the current claim was barred. View "Newman v. Krintzman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was withdrawing money from an ATM when Tortfeasor struck her with his car. Tortfeasor was insured under a policy written by Insurer to a limit of $100,000 for bodily injury to one person. Plaintiff and several of her family members brought this action against Tortfeasor and his brother, the named insured on the policy, (collectively, Tortfeasor) and Insurer. The district court originally entered judgment ordering Insurer and Tortfeasor to pay one-and-a-half million dollars to Plaintiffs. Insurer paid into court $75,000, the remainder of its policy limit. The district court later amended its judgment, holding Tortfeasor and Insurer liable for six million dollars in damages. Plaintiffs then unsuccessfully sought to compel Insurer to pay postjudgment interest on the full judgment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the deniial of Plaintiff's request for postjudgment interest, holding that Insurer was responsible for postjudgment interest from the date of entry of the original judgment and the date of the deposit of the policy limit. View "Vazquez-Filippetti v. Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples de P.R." on Justia Law

Doctor, a licensed podiatrist, was driving alone in her husband's vehicle when she was injured in a collision caused by an underinsured motorist. Doctor sought payment from Peerless Indemnity Insurance Co. and Peerless Insurance Co. (collectively, Peerless), who issued business owner's and excess/umbrella policies to Doctor's podiatric practice (Lake Region). Peerless sought a declaratory judgment in federal district court that it had no duty to pay for Doctor's injuries or damages. The district court granted summary judgment for Peerless. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Maine's uninsured/underinsured motorist statute did not apply to the Peerless policies issued to Lake Region, thus precluding Doctor's recovery from Peerless. View "Peerless Indem. Ins. Co. v. Frost " on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals comprised two putative class actions brought by skycaps affiliated with two major airlines. After Defendants, the airlines, each introduced a $2 per bag fee for curbside service for departing passengers at airports that did not inure to the benefit of the skycaps, Plaintiffs sued the airlines for unjust enrichment and tortious interference, among other claims. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment and tortious interference claims as preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). Plaintiffs appealed, contending that the ADA does not preempt common-law claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed after an analysis of statutory language, congressional intent, and case law, holding that the ADA preempted Plaintiffs' common-law claims. View "Brown v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Pruco Life Insurance Company sought rescission of a life insurance policy, owned by the Paul E. L'Archevesque Special Revocable Trust on the life of Paul L'Archevesque, after it discovered that the policy application contained material misrepresentations about the health of Paul. Pruco tendered to Wilmington Trust Company, a co-trustee of the trust, a check in the amount of the policy premiums paid along with a letter stating Pruco was rescinding the policy. Wilmington cashed the check. Pruco subsequently filed a complaint seeking a rescission of the policy and a declaration that the policy was void ab initio. The district court granted summary judgment to Pruco, concluding that, under the circumstances, a mutual rescission had taken place as a matter of law. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly interpreted Rhode Island law regarding the standard for mutual rescission; (2) there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Pruco made material misrepresentations in its rescission letter that could have prevented summary judgment; and (3) the district court did not err in finding that the issue of whether Pruco acted in bad faith was irrelevant to the rescission analysis. View "Pruco Life Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co." on Justia Law

In a prior suit, Appellees obtained a state court judgment against Appellant, Boston Property Exchange Transfer Company (BPE), for Defendant's financial misconduct. At the time of that judgment, BPE was about to begin arbitration of claims against PaineWebber, which it claimed was responsible for its financial troubles. Appellees successfully sought to compel assignment of BPE's legal claims to them to help satisfy their judgment against BPE. In this federal action, BPE claimed damages from the appellee assignees and their lawyers for allegedly mishandling the PaineWebber arbitration. The district court dismissed all of BPE's claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) summary judgment for Appellees was proper on BPE's tort claims because BPE failed to prove that Appellees cause it to suffer damages; and (2) summary judgment was properly granted for Appellees on their breach of contract claim, as the assignment order in this case was not a contract. View "Boston Prop. Exch. Transfer Co. v. Iantosca" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was terminated from his employment with Employer, ostensibly for his failure to properly investigate, document, and ameliorate the misconduct of an employee under his supervision. The termination occurred just months before Plaintiff was to receive a $60,000 bonus. Plaintiff filed an action against Employer to recover the bonus on the grounds that he was terminated without good cause. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment to Employer on Plaintiff's Massachusetts Wage Act claim and allowed Defendant's breach of contract claim to go to the jury. The jury found for Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) reversed the jury verdict, holding that whether Plaintiff was terminated without good cause and thus remained eligible for the bonus was a decision within the ambit of the sole and final decision-making authority of Employer's Employment Benefits Committee under the company's "Commitment to Success Bonus Plan"; and (2) affirmed the summary judgment order in Employer's favor, as Employer was under no obligation to pay the bonus. View "Weiss v. DHL Express, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved an insurance-coverage dispute governed by Massachusetts substantive law. Plaintiffs filed a claim with their insurance company after a storm caused a pile of soil to slide down a hill and into and over a retaining wall, damaging one of the buildings on Plaintiffs' property. The insurance company denied coverage. Plaintiffs sued for breach of the insurance contract and violation of the Massachusetts consumer-protection act. The insurance company counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that the policy did not cover the claimed loss. The magistrate judge granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment, noting that the policy excluded damages from landslides. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the insurance company acted well within its rights in denying coverage, and the magistrate judge properly granted summary judgment for the insurance company on all claims. View "Stor/Gard, Inc. v. Strathmore Ins. Co." on Justia Law