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

Appellant, a former plumbing inspector for the Town of Sangerville, sued a Town Selectman, asserting claims of common law slander and violations of his constitutional right to due process. The claims stemmed from the Selectman’s statement at a public meeting that Appellant had made “less than quality decisions” while serving as plumbing inspector. The Selectman filed an offer of judgment, which Appellant accepted. After judgment was entered, Appellant initiated this reach and apply action against Argonaut Insurance Company seeking to recover for the slander count and due process claims. The district court granted summary judgment for Argonaut, concluding that the exclusions in the insurance policies for “employment-related” practices barred Appellant’s recovery. The district court agreed and denied Appellant’s motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because Appellant’s judgment against the Selectman arose from an employment-related dispute, the insurance policies unambiguously excluded coverage for claims arising from employment-related practices. View "Ruksznis v. Argonaut Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Dragon Systems, Inc. (Dragon), a voice recognition software company that faced a deteriorating financial situation, hired Goldman Sachs (Goldman) to provide financial advice and assistance in connection with a possible merger. In 2000, Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. (Lernout & Hauspie) acquired Dragon. When it was discovered that Lernout & Hauspie had fraudulently overstated its earnings, the merged company filed for bankruptcy, and the Dragon name and technology were sold from the estate. Plaintiffs, two groups of Dragon shareholders, filed suit against Goldman, alleging negligent and intentional misrepresentation, negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. A jury found in favor of Goldman on Plaintiffs’ common law claims, and district court found that Goldman had not violated chapter 93A. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly articulated the legal standard applicable to Plaintiffs’ chapter 93A claims and correctly applied that standard to its factual findings; and (2) Plaintiffs’ arguments that they were entitled to a new trial on their common law claims because of evidentiary errors and erroneous jury instructions were without merit. View "Baker v. Goldman, Sachs & Co." on Justia Law

The decedent died from electrocution while working on a telephone pole that was the purported partial responsibility of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). Appellants, the decedent’s sisters, filed a wrongful death suit against PREPA and others in federal district court. PREPA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that an additional, non-diverse member of the decedent’s estate, who was not made a party to the action, was indispensable, and his joinder destroyed the parties’ complete diversity. The district court agreed and dismissed the entire action, including the decedent’s estate survivorship action as well as individual actions by estate members and Appellants, who were not the decedent’s heirs. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in dismissing Appellants’ personal actions, as the non-diverse absent party was not required to adjudicate the action because the members of the estate requested voluntary dismissal of their claims, which eliminated the survivorship action, leaving only Appellants’ claims, which were jurisdictionally sound. View "Aguayo-Cuevas v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was an exotic dancer employed by an adult entertainment club (“Club”) operated in Providence, Rhode Island by Defendant, a Rhode Island corporation. Plaintiff sued the Club, alleging that she was injured when a fellow dancer assaulted her. The Club removed the action to the United States District Court of the District of Massachusetts and then moved to dismiss the action for improper venue and want of in personam jurisdiction. The district court’s Judge Saylor subsequently transferred the case to the District of Rhode Island, determining that the Club had insufficient contacts with Massachusetts to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The Club again moved to dismiss, alleging that the suit had been commenced outside the applicable limitations period. Plaintiff did not respond to this motion. The district court summarily granted the motion and dismissed the action. On appeal, Plaintiff challenged Judge Saylor’s determination that the Massachusetts district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Club. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s argument was not reviewable on appeal. View "Cioffi v. Gilbert Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

After Plaintiff retired from his employment with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) he filed an administrative claim for employment discrimination, alleging that he was constructively discharged on the basis of his age or national origin. Plaintiff’s claim was denied. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed this action claiming liability under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and Puerto Rico law. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding the action time-barred. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) to the extent Plaintiff’s complaint asserted an FTCA claim, it must be dismissed on the grounds that Plaintiff did not present an FTCA claim in his administrative complaint; and (2) Plaintiff’s remaining claims were time-barred. View "Acevedo-Perez v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellant, a seaman, was diagnosed with aplastic anemia, a blood condition that preventing him from continuing to work. Appellant brought a personal injury action against his employer, alleging negligence under the Jones Act and maritime claims of unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer. On appeal, Appellant challenged only the dismissal of his cause of action for maintenance and cure, arguing that he was entitled to that remedy until he “reaches maximum medical recovery.” The First Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling, holding that Appellant adduced sufficient evidence to support a finding that his aplastic anemia arose or became aggravated during his service on the ship and, hence, triggered the duty of maintenance and cure. Remanded.View "Ramirez v. Carolina Dream, Inc." on Justia Law

Orlando Alejandro-Ortiz (Alejandro) was injured by an electric shock during an encounter with a power line owned by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). Alejandro and his wife, Sonia Rodriguez-Jimenez (Rodriguez), sued PREPA. The only claims at issue in this appeal were Rodriguez’s. PREPA moved for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, arguing that Rodriguez’s claims were time barred by the relevant one-year statute of limitations. The district court denied the motion but submitted to the jury the question of whether Rodriguez had been reasonably diligent in pursuing her claims. The jury answered the question in the affirmative and found PREPA liable. PREPA then renewed its Rule 50 motion. The district court denied the motion, concluding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Rodriguez acted diligently in pursuing her claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the award on Rodriguez’s claims, holding (1) the statute of limitations on Rodriguez’s claims had run; and (2) there remained no question for the jury to answer regarding Rodriguez’s claims, and therefore, the jury should never have been led down the path towards deliberation on Rodriguez’s claim. View "Alejandro-Ortiz v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth." on Justia Law

After an oil drilling rig owned by BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company (collectively, BP) sank of the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and caused a massive oil spill, Packagen, a manufacturer of packaging products, sought to sell containment boom to BP. Packagen began producing boom after the oil spill, but BP never paid for any of the boom manufactured by Packagen. Packagen filed a five-count complaint against BP in federal district court, invoking diversity jurisdiction and alleging various state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of BP. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Packagen’s negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims, breach of contract claim, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claim, and promissory estoppel claim. View "Packgen v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc." on Justia Law

Katie Graf was injured on the premises of Fat Cat Bar & Grill. Graf was awarded $500,000 in damages and $111,124 in prejudgment interest against Torcia & Sons, Inc, the owner of Fat Cat. Torcia was insured by Hospitality Mutual Insurance Company under a liquor liability insurance policy. Hospitality disclaimed liability for the prejudgment interest portion of the award. Consequently, Graf was granted a writ of attachment on Torcia’s liquor license to secure the excess payment. Graf and Torcia sought payment from Hospitality for the cost of a bond to release the attachment. When Hospitality refused, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Graf discharged the attachment of the liquor license and Torcia assigned its rights against Hospitality to Graf. Graf sued Hospitality. A federal judge granted Hospitality’s motion to dismiss, concluding (1) the $500,000 damages award represented the full extent of recoverable proceeds under the policy, and (2) to require Hospitality to pay for the cost of the bond would have expanded Hospitality’s liability in contravention of the terms of the policy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy unambiguously obligated Hospitality to pay the cost of bonds only for bond amounts that, together with any other liabilities, fell within the liability cap of $500,000. View "Graf v. Hospitality Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, invoking federal diversity jurisdiction, alleging that Defendant, Raytheon Company, negligently exposed Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to beryllium. Plaintiffs’ principal theory of liability was that the beryllium exposure caused subcellular change. Plaintiffs alternatively argued that a cause of action for medical monitoring under Massachusetts law does not require a showing of subcellular or other physiological change. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because no named Plaintiff or any class member had as yet contracted beryllium sensitization, the first manifestation of subcellular change resulting from beryllium exposure, Plaintiffs’ first claim failed; and (2) Plaintiffs did not preserve a claim under their alternative theory. View "Genereux v. Raytheon Co." on Justia Law