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

Plaintiff, a school, was sued by two of the school's donors who sought a return of a monetary gift to the school, claiming that the gift had been induced by misrepresentations. The case settled, and Plaintiff sought defense costs and indemnity under a directors and officers liability insurance policy issued by Defendant. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant based on a provision in the policy excluding from coverage any losses involving any matter disclosed in connection with "Note 8" of the school's financial statement. Note 8 set forth a description of the gift. Plaintiff appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the language of the policy clearly excluded coverage "in any way involving" the disputed gift, Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of coverage. View "Clark Sch. for Creative Learning, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Albania, entered the U.S. in 2001 but ultimately overstayed their visas. Conceding their removability, Petitioners filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, contending that if they went back to Albania, they would become a target as a result of their political beliefs and activities. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' requests. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA and the IJ's denial of the asylum claim, holding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including evidence of a fundamental change in Albania such that Petitioners did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. As Petitioners failed to show they were eligible for asylum, they were similarly ineligible for withholding of removal and protection under CAT. View "Vasili v. Holder" 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

Robert Smith, a schizophrenic trash collector, was induced into acting as a straw buyer for two overvalued residential properties in Massachusetts. Smith sued various entities and individuals involved in the transactions. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict largely favorable to Smith on his claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court doubled and trebled certain damages pursuant to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. Two defendants, a real estate brokerage firm (Century 21) and a mortgage broker (NEMCO), appealed. Smith cross-appealed the dismissal of several of his claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) vacated the damage award against Century 21 and remanded for a new trial on damages; (2) reversed the judgment against NEMCO on Smith's common-law claims; (3) vacated the judgment against NEMCO on Smith's Chapter 93A claim and remanded for a determination on the merits; (4) vacated the judgment in favor of another defendant and remanded; and (5) reversed the dismissal of Smith's Chapter 93A claim against yet another defendant and remanded for a determination of the claim on the merits. View "Smith v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the Chairman of the Trustees of the Rhode Island Bricklayers Benefits Funds (the Funds), sued Union Stone Inc., alleging that Union Stone had failed to pay the full amount of fringe benefit contributions due for work performed in Massachusetts and Connecticut by members of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. After a trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Funds, awarding the unpaid contributions, interest, and attorneys' fees. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) refusing to enforce a purported settlement agreement between the parties; (2) admitting certain evidence on the ground that it was tainted by violations of the discovery rules; (3) declined to impose sanctions; and (4) awarding interest and attorneys' fees. View "Enos v. Union Stone, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff faced foreclosure on her home mortgage after having fallen behind on her payments. The notice of foreclosure that Plaintiff received did not come from her lending institution but from a bank that had purchased her mortgage through a series of assignments facilitated by the Mortgage Electronic Recording System (MERS). Plaintiff brought this complaint against the receiving institution that sought foreclosure, (1) contending that MERS could not validly assign her mortgage, and therefore asserting that the receiving institution had no legal interest upon which to foreclose; and (2) bringing state law claims for fraud and unfair business practices. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's claims did not present legally cognizable claims for relief. View "Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Defendant was insured under three homeowners' policies issued to his parents (the Zamskys) by Plaintiff. Each policy covered a separate parcel of residential real estate owned by the Zamskys and required Plaintiff to defend and indemnify the insureds against claims stemming from bodily injury caused by a covered occurrence. One exclusion to the policy, the UL exclusion, pretermitted coverage for injuries arising out of a premises owned by an insured but not itself an "insured location." This case involved an fire that occurred on a piece of real estate owned by the Zamskys that was not insured by Plaintiff. An individual injured in the fire sued Defendant for bodily injuries. Plaintiff subsequently brought this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the UL exclusions pretermitted its obligation to defend Defendant in the negligence suit or to indemnify him against any damage award. The district court held that the UL exclusion did not apply and that Plaintiff owed Defendant a duty to defend. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the occurrence at issue here did not arise out of a condition of the premises, the district court did not err in determining that the UL exclusion did not apply. View "Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zamsky" 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

On August 6, Appellant was arrested in Maine and charged by the State for firearm-related crimes. On August 26, the United States ("government") charged Appellant with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On August 29, the State dismissed the related State charges. Appellant remained incarcerated by the State for the next month despite the fact the State had dismissed all charges against him. Finally, on October 3, Appellant was arrested by U.S. Marshals and brought before a federal judge. On October 26, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Appellant, and Appellant waived his right to contest the government's motion to detain him pending trial. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the federal indictment on speedy-trial grounds. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant did not enter federal custody until October 3, his October 26 indictment occurred within thirty days of his arrest on federal charges and, therefore, did not violate the Speedy Trial Act; and (2) the district court did not err by failing to impose sanctions against the government for its purported failure to notify Appellant that it had lodged a federal detainer against him. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Brazilian citizen, entered the United States illegally. Petitioner then began working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to identify sellers of fraudulent immigration documents. Due to her work as an informant, Petitioner faced harassment and threats from people in the United States and in Brazil. Eventually, Petitioner stopped assisting the ICE because of the harassment, after which the government reinstated a prior removal order against her. Petitioner sought withholding of removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, claiming that she feared returning to Brazil due to threats she had received for her work with the ICE. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, holding that the persecution Petitioner faced was "on account of a personal vendetta and not on account of her membership in a particular social group." The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that it could not overturn the determination that the risk Petitioner faced was personal and not due to her membership in a social group. View "Costa v. Holder" on Justia Law