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

The First Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint filed in connection with mother's estate, holding that the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss as it pertained to count two.Plaintiff brought this suit against Defendants, her two sisters, who were appointed as co-executors of the estate upon the death of the mother. Count one set forth a number of state law tort claims relating to Defendants' actions with respect to actions that Plaintiff contended should have been part of the estate. Count two set forth Massachusetts law claims relating to the discharge of a mortgage that the motion held on Plaintiff's Massachusetts condominium. Defendants and the mother were all New Jersey residents. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction conclusive of this case. The First Circuit reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in ruling that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's count two claims; and (2) the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's count one claims. View "Mojtabai v. Mojtabai" on Justia Law

In this complaint alleging violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., the First Circuit vacated the order of the district court granting a motion to stay the proceedings under the so-called doctrine of primary jurisdiction, holding that the district court improperly stayed the case.Conservation Law Foundation, a not-for-profit organization, brought this suit against ExxonMobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (collectively, ExxonMobil), alleging unlawful violations at ExxonMobil's petroleum storage and distribution terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. After the district court denied ExxonMobil's motion to dismiss, ExxonMobil moved to stay the case under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a decision on ExxonMobil's pending permit renewal application for the Everett terminal. The First Circuit vacated the stay order, holding that the district court erred in granting a stay under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction until EPA issues a new permit for ExxonMobil's Everett terminal. View "Conservation Law Foundation v. ExxonMobil Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing this action against the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) under the citizen enforcement provision of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1365(a), holding that Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss.In his complaint, Plaintiff claimed that PRASA was violated the CWA by discharging raw sewage that flowed into a creek near her home in San Juan. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that a citizen suit was barred because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was prosecuting a case it previously filed against PRASA addressing the same violations. The First Circuit vacated the order, holding (1) the district court failed to follow the correct standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss; and (2) Plaintiff's complaint stated a plausible claim that the EPA was not diligently persecuting certain violations. View "Cebollero-Bertran v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), holding that the district court did not err in denying the petition.In his habeas petition, Petitioner alleged that the trial court violated his constitutional rights to a complete defense and to have effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the exclusion of certain medical evidence, even if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) trial counsel was not constitutionally deficient for not consulting or calling a child abuse expert who could testify to the effects of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy on fathers like Petitioner. View "Strickland v. Goguen" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the drug conspiracy and distribution convictions of five members of a drug trafficking organization, holding that none of the issues raised by the five defendants translated into reversible error warranting vacatur of their convictions or sentences.Fifty-five individuals were indicted on charges of conspiracy to distribute heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, marijuana, and prescription pills. By the time a jury trial began most of the defendants had pleaded guilty. Five of the defendants who were ultimately convicted appealed their convictions, and some of them appealed their sentences. The defendants were Joel Rivera-Alejandro, Carlos Rivera-Alejandro, Juan Rivera-George, Suanette Ramos- Gonzalez, and Idalia Maldonado-Pena. The First Circuit affirmed the judgments in their entirety, holding that there was no reversible error in this case. View "United States v. Maldonado-Pena" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed this appeal arising in connection with a lawsuit alleging that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is now part of the United States Constitution, holding that none of the plaintiffs met their burden at the pleading stage with respect to federal constitutional requirements.Plaintiffs were Equal Means Equal, a national nonprofit organization, The Yellow Roses, a student organization based in Massachusetts, and Katherine Weitbrecht, a resident of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs brought this action against David Ferriero, in his official capacity as Archivist of the United States, alleging that, after Virginia ratified the ERA in 2020, the Archivist violated 1 U.S.C. 106b when he refused to publish it and certify its adoption. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to establish standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring this action in federal court. View "Equal Means Equal v. Ferriero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, fentanyl, and methamphetamines, holding that Defendant's challenges on appeal were unavailing.During a probation compliance check in Defendant's apartment state probation officers discovered a black case containing illegal narcotics. The police then obtained and executed a warrant to search Defendant's apartment and his two cellphones for evidence of drug dealing. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that there was no probable cause to search his cellphones and that the warrant did not adequately specify which files on the phones would be searched. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered from the cellphones; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "United States v. Lindsey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that no refund was due to Plaintiff after Defendant, Plaintiff's study abroad provider, cancelled the abroad portion of her program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for breach of contract for failure to state a claim.Plaintiff was studying abroad in the Netherlands when the pandemic hit. In response to the pandemic, Defendant cancelled the abroad portion of Plaintiff's program and made arrangements for Plaintiff to complete her coursework online. Plaintiff brought this action for breach of contract because Defendant refused to provide a refund in lieu of experiences, excursions, activities, and services she would have otherwise enjoyed had the pandemic not occurred. The district court entered judgment for Defendant, concluding that no refund was due when the cancellation of a program occurred after it started. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the contract between the parties unambiguously did not require Defendant to provide Plaintiff with a refund when her program was cancelled following the start date. View "Zhao v. CIEE, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied one of Petitioner's petitions for review of two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) but granted the other petition, holding that the government failed to prove that the BIA, in overturning an immigration judge's (IJ) ruling granting Petitioner adjustment of status, considered hardship as it was required to do.The two decisions at issue were: (1) the BIA's 2011 ruling affirming the denial of Petitioner's application for asylum, withholding or removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); and (2) the BIA's 2017 ruling reversing the grant of Petitioner's application for adjustment of status. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's 2011 petition and granted his 2017 petition, holding (1) there was no merit to any of Petitioner's challenges to the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims; and (2) the BIA erred in denying Petitioner's application for adjustment of status because it ignored altogether a particularly salient aspect of the hardship showing that Petitioner was trying to make. View "Perez-Trujillo v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and eight counts of aiding or assisting in the filing of a false tax return, holding that Defendant's challenges on appeal were meritless.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) there was no error in the district court's imposition by reference of the conditions of supervised release stated in the United States Probation Office's Presentence Report; and (3) the district court did not err by failing to impose a specific schedule for payment of restitution at the time of sentencing. View "United States v. Nardozzi" on Justia Law