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

Motus and CarData both provide tools for managing businesses' reimbursement of employee expenses. Motus is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Boston.. CarData is a Toronto-based Canadian corporation. Motus sued CarData for trademark infringement and related wrongs for its use of a particular phrase in the meta title of its website, Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051-1129. Motus argued CarData had "purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the U.S. and Massachusetts" by maintaining numerous offices in the U.S. and marketing itself to and interacting with U.S. and Massachusetts customers through its website.The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Motus's suit without prejudice, for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denial of its request for jurisdictional discovery. The purposeful availment requirement was not met because there was not “something more” connecting CarData to the forum state beyond its website which is available to anyone with internet access, in any state. Motus did not act diligently to present facts to the court to show why jurisdiction would be found if discovery were permitted. Motus left the court to guess whether CarData has any Massachusetts customers, receives any revenue from Massachusetts, or has any other business connection with Massachusetts. Jurisdiction cannot be premised on guesswork; the record does not support a finding that the operation of CarData's website and/or its commercial contacts elsewhere in the country constitute purposeful availment with respect to Massachusetts. View "Motus, LLC v. CarData Consultants, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming Petitioner's order of removal and denying his requests for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, holding that a conviction under R.I. Gen. Laws (RIGL) 31-9-1 is not categorically a theft offense.In 2016, Petitioner, a citizen of Cape Verde who came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1989, was convicted in a Rhode Island superior court of driving a motor vehicle without consent of the owner or lessee, in violation of RIGL 31-9-1. Thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner. Petitioner argued that he was eligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure because a conviction under RIGL 31-9-1 did not constitute an aggravated felony theft offense. An immigration judge (IJ) determined that Petitioner's Rhode Island conviction was categorically a theft offense, thus denying relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's opinion, holding that Petitioner's conviction under RIGL 31-9-1 did not constitute a categorical aggravated felony theft offense. View "Da Graca v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for interfering with commerce by threats or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 2 (Hobbs Act robbery); and using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during and in retaliation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), holding that there was no error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant's claim that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of section 924(c)(1)(A) was meritless; (2) the trial court did not err by admitting video surveillance footage; and (3) the trial court did not err in excluding impeachment evidence challenging the credibility of the government's cooperating witness. View "United States v. Torres-Correa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Day & Zimmerman's (D&Z) motion to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against D&Z, a company incorporated in Delaware that maintained its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, seeking overtime wages pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201-219. Plaintiff alleged that D&Z failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees and former employees their FLSA-required overtime wages. D&Z moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California (BMS), 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) and claiming that the claims subject to the motion to dismiss could not be brought in a Massachusetts federal court. The district court denied the motion, thus declining to extend BMS's personal jurisdiction requirements to FLSA cases brought in federal court. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying D&X's motion to dismiss the nonresident opt-in claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court convicting Defendants, two brothers, of gun and drug crimes and sentencing them to 111 months' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in Defendant's convictions but that remand was required for resentencing.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the jury had sufficient evidence to find that the sale of guns sufficiently promoted, advanced, and made more likely to occur the sale of marijuana; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendants' Rule 29 motion allowing WhatsApp messages sent for a month after March 23, 2017 to be admitted when the indictment charged conduct only up through March 23, 2017; and (3) the district court erred in applying a four-point enhancement at sentencing pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). View "United States v. Ramirez-Frechel" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act (FSA), holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Defendant, an inmate, moved for compassionate release pursuant to the compassionate-release statute, arguing that, given his pre-existing medical conditions, his heightened risk of complications stemming from COVID-19 constituted an "extraordinary and compelling" reason warranting a sentence reduction. The district court denied the motion on the papers. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "United States v. Texeira-Nieves" on Justia Law

The First Circuit summarily affirmed the order of the district court imposing an aggregate sentence of 210 months, to be followed by a six-year term of supervised release, in connection with Defendant's guilty plea to two drug-related counts, holding that there was no error.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to one count each of possession with with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. After the district court imposed its sentence, Defendant appealed, arguing that the government should have recommended a sentence reduction and that he pleaded guilty in reliance on that promise. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no plain error in the district court's determination that the government had not reneged on any promise made to Defendant. View "United States v. Bynoe" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted in part Petitioner's petition appealing the board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of Petitioner's application for withholding of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 241(b)(3) and relief under article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that remand was required.In denying Petitioner's application, the immigration judge found that Defendant's testimony was entitled to limited weight and that Petitioner's failure to provide corroborating evidence was fatal to his claim for relief. The BIA summarily affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the denials of withholding of relief under the CAT and remanded the case for further consideration, holding that in light of certain irregularities in the record, this Court could not uphold the IJ's determination that the record was supported by sufficient indicia of reliability to be used in assessing Petitioner's credibility. View "Bonilla v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit posed a question of Massachusetts state law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in this negligence and failure to warn case, holding that this case met the both the SJC's and this Court's certification standards.Appellants sued Sorin Group USA, Inc. in Massachusetts state court alleging negligence and failure to warn claims predicated on Sorin's not reporting adverse events to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concerning Mitroflow malfunctions in young patients. Sorin removed the lawsuit to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The trial court judge granted summary judgment to Sorin, concluding that Appellants' claims were preempted. At issue on appeal was whether Massachusetts law imposes a duty on medical device manufacturers to report adverse events to the FDA that no more than parallel the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations. The First Circuit certified to the SJC the question of whether a manufacturer's failure to report adverse events to a regular such as the FDA gives rise to liability under Massachusetts law. View "Plourde v. Sorin Group USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellants' action for declaratory relief against the Governor of Rhode Island and various Rhode Island officials and agencies (collectively, Rhode Island), holding that the district court did not err.On behalf of a putative class of Rhode Island students attending K-12 schools, Appellants brought this action under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Republican Guarantee Clause of U.S. Const. art. IV, 4, claiming that Rhode Island failed to provide them with an adequate education to function productively in civic activities. The district court dismissed the action. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly concluded that an adequate civics education is not a fundamental constitutional right and that Rhode Island's approach to civics education satisfies rational basis review. View "A.C. v. McKee" on Justia Law