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

The First Circuit affirmed all but two of the district court's rulings in this dispute over the amount of attorneys' fees due to Plaintiff, the prevailing party in the underlying employment discrimination dispute, and vacated the attorneys' fees award, holding that the district court erred in part.Plaintiff, the former head of the appellate practice of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Puerto Rico, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The parties negotiated a settlement, under which Plaintiff received a lump-sum payment of $450,000 plus reasonable attorneys' fees. The district court awarded Plaintiff a total of $170,332 in attorneys' fees. The First Circuit affirmed all but two of the district court's rulings, which the court reversed, and vacated the fee award, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that time expended in settlement negotiations and time expended in performing work that implicated other cases, distinct but related, must be categorically excluded from the fee award; and (2) Plaintiff's five remaining challenges were without merit. View "Perez-Sosa v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the holdings of the district court affirming the conclusions of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approving the Maine Department of Transportation's (MDOT) plan to construct a modern bridge upstream of a current, historic bridge and to tear down the historic bridge when construction is finished, holding that the agency's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the FHWA's decision to approve Maine's decision, seeking to review and set aside that approval. The district court considered and rejected several of Plaintiffs' arguments. The First Circuit affirmed all of the district court's holdings except one, holding (1) Plaintiffs' challenges to the cost estimates were without merit; and (2) the matter must be remanded to the FHWA for the limited purpose of allowing the agency to justify use of a service-life analysis. View "Historic Bridge Foundation v. Buttigieg" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that a Maine statute requiring cable operators to grant subscribers pro rata credits or rebates for the days remaining in the billing period after the termination of cable service is not preempted by the Cable Communications Act of 1984 (Cable Act).The Cable Act preempts stat laws that regulate rates for the provision of cable service if the Federal Communications Commission determines that cable operators in that state are subject to effective competition. See 42 U.S.C. 543(a)(2), 556(c). In 2020, Maine, a state that has effective competition, adopted into law the statute at issue in this case, the Pro Rata Act. Plaintiffs filed suit requesting a declaratory judgment that the law was preempted by the Cable Act. The district court concluded that the Pro Rata Act was preempted by the Cable Act as a matter of law. The First Circuit reversed, holding that Maine's Pro Rata Act is not preempted by federal law because it is not a law governing rates for the provision of cable service and is, rather, a consumer protection law that is not preempted. View "Spectrum Northeast, LLC v. Frey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court upholding Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA's denial of accidental death insurance benefits to Plaintiff following her husband's death because he had committed suicide, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiff enrolled in an accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy, an employer-sponsored welfare plan affording participants like Plaintiff rights and protections under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiff's husband was insured for a death benefit, with Plaintiff named as the beneficiary. After Plaintiff's husband fell nine stories from a hotel balcony and died, Plaintiff submitted a claim under the policy for accidental death benefits. Defendant denied benefits, concluding that Plaintiff's husband committed suicide, precluding benefits. Plaintiff filed suit under section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA seeking the benefits provided for under the policy. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's denial of accidental death benefits was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. View "Alexandre v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentences that he received at hearings conducted via videoconference during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that all but one of Defendant's challenges were waived or otherwise without merit and that Defendant's remaining challenge was not ripe for review.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant's arguments challenging the district court's procedure in conducting his revocation hearing were waived; (2) Defendant's revocation was both procedurally and substantively reasonable; (3) the trial court did not plainly err in conducting its Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N) inquiry; and (4) Defendant failed to establish error sufficiently grave to warrant setting aside his otherwise valid appeal waiver. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Monserrate" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction against Skinner Services, Inc., and four individuals (collectively, Skinner) to prevent Skinner's acceleration of efforts to insulate their individual and corporate assets to avoid a meaningful recovery for Plaintiffs in the underlying action, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Plaintiffs, former low-wage employees of Skinner Demolition, sued Skinner on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated workers for unpaid wages. The court entered a protective order to prohibit Skinner from retaliating against any workers who participated in or assisted in the litigation. Skinner was subsequently held in contempt for violating the protective order. In the meantime, Skinner created four separate entities, which Plaintiffs alleged were used to dissipate or hide assets. The district court granted Plaintiffs' ensuing motion for injunctive relief, finding that Skinner likely had violated state and federal wage laws and was trying to transfer assets from its laborers' reach. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) had the authority to enter the preliminary injunction; and (2) did not abuse its discretion. View "Pineda v. Skinner Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(o), holding that there was sufficient evidence on which to convict Defendant and that the district court did not err in admitting certain evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and in admitting photographs of various firearms and accessories found on Defendant's cell phone. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to introduce into evidence four photographs of firearms and firearm accessories. View "United States v. Torres-Perez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of BB&S Acquisition Corp. in this case brought by the personal representative of the estate of George Forbes, who was killed in an accident allegedly caused by Wiley Hooks, holding that the district court did not err.Before the accident, Hooks, the employee of Gregory Trucking, had delivered lumber to BB&S, which contracted with Gregory Trucking to transport a separate load of its treated lumber. After Hooks completed Gregory Trucking's contractual obligation to BB&S, Gregory Trucking hit a pick-up truck driven by George Forbes. Plaintiff brought this suit alleging that BB&S had negligently selected Gregory Trucking as an independent contractor to transport its lumber and that BB&S was the "statutory employer" of Hooks under 49 C.F.R. 390.5. The district court granted summary judgment for BB&S. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) concluding that BB&S could not be liable under Massachusetts common law for the actions of an independent contractor that occurred after the completion of the job; and (2) concluding that BB&S was not the "statutory employer" of Hooks. View "Forbes v. BB&S Acquisition Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the declaratory judgment and permanent injunction issued by the district court in this class action challenging the bond procedures used to detain noncitizen during the pendency of removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), the discretionary immigration detention provision, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief in favor of the class.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in declaring that noncitizens "detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) are entitled to receive a bond hearing at which the government must prove the alien is either dangerous by clear and convincing evidence or a risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence"; (2) the classwide injunction in this case unlawfully enjoined or restrained the operation of section 1226(a); and (3) the remaining portion of the district court's declaration was advisory. View "Pereira Brito v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for several contraband-possession offenses, including being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court properly instructed the jury on joint possession; (2) the government presented sufficient evidence on the element of possession for all counts; (3) any possible error in the admission at trial of lay opinion testimony from law enforcement witnesses was harmless; and (4) Defendant made no showing that errors in his indictment, evidence, and jury instructions under the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), affected the outcome of his proceedings. View "United States v. Norris" on Justia Law