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

Brothers Thomas and Michael Tessier allegedly swindled brothers Frederick and Thaddeus Jakobiec and the estate of their mother out of millions of dollars. This lawsuit covered the Tessiers' theft of almost $100,000 in life insurance proceeds due to a trust benefitting Thaddeus. Thaddeus and various persons affiliated with the trust and estate (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against Merrill Lynch, the company that issued the life insurance policy, claiming that Merrill Lynch made out the insurance proceeds check to the wrong trust entity in breach of the insurance contract, thus allowing the Tessiers to steal the money. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for Merrill Lynch, concluding that even if Merrill Lynch did breach the contract, its breach was not the cause of Plaintiffs' losses because the Tessiers would have stolen the money even if the check had been made out correctly. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the extensive groundwork laid by the Tessiers for their criminal scheme, they could have and would have stolen the insurance money regardless of how Merrill Lynch made out the check; and (2) therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for Merrill Lynch. View "Jakobiec v. Merrill Lynch Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Matrix Construction Co. was a South Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in South Carolina. Matrix was the general contractor on a project to renovate schools in South Carolina. Matrix hired Contract Supply as a subcontractor. Contract Supply had a relationship with BlueTarp Financial, a company providing commercial credit to the construction industry that had its principal place of business in Maine. After Matrix accepted Contract Supply's bid, Matrix signed BlueTarp's account agreement, which stated that disputes would be governed by the laws of Maine. Matrix later learned that Contract Supply was not paying its suppliers and stopped paying Contract Supply. BlueTarp filed this action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in the federal district court for the District of Maine invoking diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Matrix. BlueTarp appealed, arguing that the forum selection clause in the account agreement authorized jurisdiction in the Maine district court and, in any event, Matrix had sufficient connections with Maine to satisfy the personal jurisdiction requirements. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, having found the relatedness, purposeful availment, and reasonableness factors satisfied, the district court had personal jurisdiction over Matrix. View "Bluetarp Fin., Inc. v. Matrix Constr. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Massachusetts residents, bought a three-dwelling in Massachusetts, financing the entire purchase price with two mortgage loans from Plaza Home Mortgage (Plaza). After the collapse of the housing market, Plaintiffs sued Plaza, alleging state common law and statutory violations in making the loans. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs' claim based on Plaza's alleged violation of the Massachusetts covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (2) Plaintiffs' claim based on a violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection was correctly dismissed as time-barred. View "Latson v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

A Massachusetts corporation and its principals sued their quondam accountant and his firm (collectively, Defendants), alleging that Defendants negligently advised them to file amended corporate and personal tax returns that had the effect of substantially increasing the principals' liability and destabilizing the company. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants but rejected their request for attorneys' fees. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) concluding that a three-year statute of limitations applied to bar the maintenance of Plaintiffs' tort and contract claims; (2) dismissing Plaintiffs' unfair trade practices claim; and (3) denying Defendants' request for attorneys' fees. View "RTR Techs., Inc. v. Helming" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received funds appropriated by Congress under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In 2006, HHS contracted with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to provide services to trafficking victims. At USCCB's insistence, the contract incorporated a restriction pursuant to which neither USCCB nor any of its subcontractors would use funding to counsel or provide contraceptive services and prescriptions or abortions to trafficking victims. The ACLU of Massachusetts (ACLUM) brought suit, alleging that HHS violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In 2012, the district court issued a declaratory judgment that HHS had violated the Establishment Clause. The federal defendants appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated on grounds of mootness, where the 2006 contract expired in 2011. Remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "ACLU of Mass. v. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops" on Justia Law

Defendant was an attorney who litigated a case against the nations believed to be behind a 1972 terrorist attack on Puerto Ricans at an Israeli airport. Defendant and the American Center for Civil Justice (the Center) originally had an agreement on how to handle the litigation. However, Defendant misrepresented to clients that the Center had paid him for his work and convinced clients to revoke the Center's attorney's power of attorney. Thereafter, the Center filed suit against Defendant. In the meantime, Plaintiffs, the heirs of two individuals killed in the terrorist attack who signed retainer agreements with Defendant, filed this action against Defendant, alleging that the retainer agreements were void because Defendant secured their consent by deceit. After a jury trial, judgment was entered against Defendant. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) the non-testifying heirs proved deceit without testifying about their reliance on Defendant's misrepresentations; and (3) the district court did not err in its instructions to the jury. View "Estate of Berganzo-Colon v. Ambush" on Justia Law

Upon an investigation by the Maine Bureau of Insurance (Bureau) and the Maine Attorney General's Office (AG's Office) into the questionable business practices of Bankers Life and Casualty Company (Company), Appellant, the Company's employee, accepted responsibility for his own unlawful conduct. In exchange, several state officials (Appellees) representing the Bureau and the AG's Office agreed to take no further action against Appellant. Appellees, however, subsequently agreed to Appellant's termination in a separate agreement with the Company. Appellant filed a complaint against Appellees, asserting violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985(2). The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding (1) Appellees were entitled to absolute immunity on the section 1983 claim, and (2) Appellant failed to plead a plausible section 1985(2) claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Appellees met their burden in establishing they were entitled to absolute immunity for entering into the consent agreements with Appellant and the Company, and the district court did not err by refusing to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel on Appellees' immunity defense; and (2) because the complaint failed to allege any racial or class-based invidiously discriminatory animus underlying Appellees' actions, the district court properly dismissed Appellant's section 1985(2) claim. View "Knowlton v. Shaw" on Justia Law

This appeal involved litigation between Coverall North America, Inc. and its franchisees. Proceeding under federal diversity jurisdiction, the franchisees asserted a variety of state-law claims against Coverall. Which of the various plaintiffs were subject to the arbitration provisions of the Franchise Agreement was at issue in this appeal. Appellees were a subgroup of Plaintiffs who became Coverall franchisees by signing consent to transfer agreements, which by reference incorporated under franchise agreements that contained arbitration clauses. The district court determined that Appellees did not have to arbitrate their claims against Coverall because they did not have adequate notice of the arbitration clauses contained in the franchise agreements. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court erred because (1) Massachusetts law, which governed this dispute, did not impose any such special notice requirement upon these commercial contractual provisions; and (2) in any event, any special notice requirement would be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Awuah v. Coverall N.A., Inc. " on Justia Law

Several years ago, Plaintiffs entered into a fifteen-year lease with Defendant's predecessor in interest (Miller). The lease included a purchase option. After Defendant refused to allow Plaintiffs to exercise the purchase option on the ground that they were in default on their obligations under the lease, Plaintiffs instituted this action, demanding specific performance or damages. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered specific performance of the purchase option, determining that Miller had waived a provision which prohibited Plaintiffs from subleasing without prior written permission and that all alleged defaults were inconsequential and immaterial. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that summary judgment for Plaintiffs was proper, where (1) the district court correctly found that Miller waived the requirement that Plaintiffs obtain written permission before subleasing any portion of the premises; and (2) the district court properly found that Defendant had failed to present evidence of how alleged violations the lease provision requiring them to comply with state and municipal laws harmed her or Miller. View "Bachorz v. Miller-Forslund" on Justia Law

House of Flavors purchased equipment from Tetra and executed an agreement with Tetra to fund its installation. Under the agreement, Tetra paid for the installation, House of Flavors then transferred ownership of the installed system to Tetra, and Tetra leased the system back to House of Flavors. After House of Flavors began monthly lease payments, it sought to exercise the buy back option a year early. Notwithstanding the twelve percent estimate it quoted earlier, Tetra quoted a purchase price around forty percent of the equipment and installation costs. House of Flavors filed suit in federal district court, where it prevailed on its claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed but remanded the case to reconsider the balance due between the parties. On remand, the judge recalculated the balance due and determined that, rather than owing House of Flavors, Tetra was in fact due $156,399. The First Circuit dismissed House of Flavors' appeal, holding (1) the attack on the recalculated figure was foreclosed by a jurisdictional objection, as the appeal was untimely; and (2) the appeal was jurisdictionally timely as to the district court's refusal to award attorneys' fees under a Utah statute, but the denial of attorneys' fees was affirmed. View "House of Flavors, Inc. v. TFG-Michigan, L.P." on Justia Law