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

Plaintiff, the former captain of a village fire department, filed this action against the department, its fire chief, and the board of fire commissioners (collectively, Defendants) after the board chose to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff alleged political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983, retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants presented legitimate, business-related grounds for their employment decisions, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proffered explanations were pretextual. View "Pierce v. Cotuit Fire Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s nine-year-old daughter, N.K., was injured when N.K.'s sandals, popularly known as CROCS, were caught in an escalator, causing N.K. to sustain injuries. Plaintiff invoked diversity jurisdiction and brought suit against Crocs, Inc. (Defendant) in the United States District Court for, inter alia, failure to warn and breach of an implied warranty of merchantability. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to adduce significantly probative evidence that CROCS present a heightened risk of escalator entrapment sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find in her favor. View "Geshke v. Crocs, Inc." on Justia Law

Giuseppe Cracchiolo fell and drowned after slipping from a hazardous place on a fishery pier while attempting to return to the commercial fishing boat on which he was working. Giuseppe’s wife Carla sued the owner and the leaseholder of the facility (collectively, Defendants) where the ship was docked for wrongful death based on a negligence theory. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding that Defendants owed no duty of care to remedy the hazard under the circumstances. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed without deciding the duty of care issue, holding that the issue could not be decided on the undisputed facts in the record, and therefore, Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, as a matter of law, on the record. Remanded. View "Cracchiolo v. E. Fisheries, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, property owners, filed an action against Defendant, a bank, alleging eleven counts of state law violations for Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiffs’ application for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program and to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ home. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, holding that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act, rescission, negligence, and promissory estoppel. View "MacKenzie v. Flagstar Bank, FSB" on Justia Law

To shield himself from the adverse effects of losses while speculating in high-risk securities, Joseph Caramdare exploited a perceived loophole in certain annuities issued by Appellant. Charles Buckman accepted a cash payment to identify himself as the annuitant on an application for one of these annuities, and Appellee, a Caramadre nominee and a stranger to Buckman, was designated as the prospective owner and beneficiary of the annuity. Appellant approved the application and issued an annuity (the Policy). Appellant later learned of Caramdre's scheme and sued Appellee in federal court, asserting certain tort claims and seeking rescission of the Policy and a declaration that the Policy was either void ab initio or had been properly rescinded. The court dismissed the claims. On appeal, the First Circuit Court certified to the Rhode Island Supreme Court the following questions of state law: (1) whether an annuity with a death benefit is infirm for want of an insurable interest if the owner and beneficiary of the annuity is a stranger to the annuitant; and (2) whether a clause in an annuity that purports to make the annuity incontestable from the date of its issuance precludes the maintenance of an action based on the lack of an insurable interest. View "W. Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. ADM Assocs., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a sales representative who had CVS as a client at Allied Printing Services and at his subsequent employment at Strine Printing Company (SPC). While working for Allied, Plaintiff had surreptitiously helped to pay the car lease of a CVS employee. When CVS later learned of Plaintiff's role in the apparent kickback, CVS decided it would not do business with Plaintiff and asked SPC to remove him from the CVS account. SPC subsequently dismissed Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued SPC and its owner (collectively, Defendants) for contract, quasi-contract, and tort claims. The federal district court granted summary judgment to Defendants. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish that relief was warranted on his unjust enrichment, intentional interference, misrepresentation, and contract claims. View "Bisbano v. Strine Printing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant sued the United States for the negligence of its employees at the commissary at Fort Buchanan in Puerto Rico after she slipped and fell while strolling through one of the aisles. Appellant premised her action on the Federal Tort Claims Act. The government moved to dismiss Appellant's complaint, arguing that Appellant failed to allege that federal employees had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that purportedly existed at the commissary. The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the district court applied the plausibility standard for pleadings too mechanically in this case; and (2) Appellant's complaint contained sufficient factual content to support a plausible claim or negligence against the United States. Remanded. View "Garcia-Catalan v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Kmart Corporation and Sears Holdings Corporation (collectively, Kmart), bringing a federal claim of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and a pendent state law claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff, an African-American woman, alleged that a white Kmart sales clerk insulted her with racial slurs and comments while she was placing items on hold in a layaway transaction. The district court dismissed the federal claim for failure to state a claim under section 1981 and dismissed without prejudice the state law claim. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her section 1981 claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to make out a section 1981 claim where her only allegation of harm she suffered was from the sales clerk's utterances, and nothing more. View "Hammond v. Kmart Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, minors who were born with permanent brachial plexus injuries, sued through their mothers and next friends, alleging separately that their injuries were caused by the application of excessive traction during delivery. At both trials, the defense introduced into evidence a case report that purported to document an instance of brachial plexus injury occurring in a delivery. Plaintiffs lost their medical malpractice cases and subsequently sued the authors of the report, the journal in which it was published, and the publisher, contending that the report was false and that Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct in publishing the report. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, because the causation allegation was wholly speculative, Plaintiffs' claim did not reach the plateau of plausibility that is the "new normal in federal civil procedure." View "A.G. v. Elsevier, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant was a former teacher in the town of Dracut, Massachusetts public schools. During the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, Appellant failed to appear at school. Appellant subsequently applied for Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave but did not notify the Dracut superintendent in writing of his request for FMLA leave, nor did he return a completed medical certification in accordance with Dracut's FMLA leave policy. On September 28, 2009, Appellant was terminated for abandoning his position. Appellant filed this suit in 2011 against individual decision-makers in the Dracut schools, alleging (1) violations of his rights under the FMLA; and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress and intentional interference with advantageous business relations in violation of Massachusetts state law. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that Appellant had not worked enough to be eligible for FMLA leave and otherwise finding Appellant's claims meritless. The First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not eligible for FMLA leave; (2) Appellant did not establish that Dracut's handling of his FMLA leave application caused him any harm; (3) Dracut did not unlawfully retaliate against Appellant; and (4) Appellant's state law claims against Defendants were without merit. View "McArdle v. Town of Dracut, Mass." on Justia Law