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

The First Circuit certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court pursuant to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1:03, holding that the outcome of this appeal depended upon a question of Massachusetts law, upon which the Massachusetts courts have not spoken.Plaintiffs, owners of 7-Eleven franchise operated in Massachusetts, alleged that 7-Eleven misclassified them was independent contractors rather than employees, in violation of Massachusetts law. At issue was a conflict between the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law (ICL), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148B, and the Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule making it allegedly impossible for 7-Eleven to satisfy federal law. The district court held that, due to this conflict, the ICL did not apply and therefore, its franchisees were properly classified as independent contractors. The First Circuit certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding the issue and retained jurisdiction pending resolution of the certified question. View "Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district judge ordering a joint retrial of Roger Boncy and Joseph Baptiste in the interest of justice because neither defendant got a fair first trial, holding that Defendants showed deficient performance of counsel and that Defendants were prejudiced.After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Travel Act, and Baptiste was convicted of violating the Travel Act and conspiring to violate the Money Laundering Act. Baptist moved for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Boncy also requested a separate trial on the grounds that Baptiste's lawyer's ineffectiveness influenced the jury's view of both defendants and thus impaired Boncy's due process right to a fair proceeding. The district judge found that the cumulative effect of counsel's deficiencies prejudiced both Baptiste and Boncy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the government's arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "United States v. Baptiste" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (BAP) affirming the summary judgment entered by the bankruptcy court against the bankruptcy trustee (the Trustee) for an estate of two individuals, holding that an unrecorded mortgage in Puerto Rico is not a transfer of the debtor's property that is voidable by a bona fide purchaser that triggers the bankruptcy trustee's authority to avoid and preserve the lien.Jose Antonio Lopez Cancel and Carmen Nereida Medina Gonzalez acquired a property in Puerto Rico that they used as their primary residence. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico held the mortgage, but the mortgage was never recorded. The bankruptcy court treated the mortgage as a general unsecured claim covered by an earlier discharge order. The Trustee then filed this action to avoid the mortgage and preserve it on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, arguing that the unrecorded mortgage was a transfer of the debtor's property that was voidable by a bona fide purchaser. The bankruptcy court concluded that the Trustee could not avoid and preserve an unrecorded mortgage because, under Puerto Rican law, an unrecorded mortgage is not a property interest. The BAP affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error. View "Segarra Miranda v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's final judgment against Plaintiffs on their claims that Uber Technologies competed unlawfully in the on-demand, ride-hail ground transportation in and around Boston, Massachusetts, holding that Uber did not compete unfairly in violation of statutory and common law prohibitions governing the commercial marketplace.Plaintiffs - owners of companies that dispatched, leased, and maintained taxicab vehicles and owned taxi medallions - brought this complaint alleging that, in violation of Boston regulations, Uber caused asset devaluation by competing unfairly under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, violating the common law for unfair competition, and aiding and abetting a conspiracy to engage in unfair competition. The district court issued judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Uber's conduct in the transportation market during a period of regulatory uncertainty did not violate the statutory or common law governing the commercial marketplace. View "Anoush Cab, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the Internet and Television Association's (NCTA) request for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief from certain provisions of a Maine state law, holding that the district court did not err.At issue was the Maine state law, "An Act to Ensure Nondiscriminatory Treatment of Public, Educational and Government Access Channels by Cable System Operators." The provisions at issue concerned both the way that cable system operators must treat channels qualifying as local public, educational, and government access channels and the obligations of those operators to make cable service available in rural areas. In this action, NCTA argued that federal law facially preempted the provisions of the Maine Act at issue. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that federal law did not facially preempt the provisions of the Maine Act. View "Internet and Television Ass'n v. Frey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit confirmed the convictions of Carlos Velazquez-Fontanez and Jose D. Resto-Figueroa for various criminal offenses related to La Rompe ONU, a drug trafficking organization that operated in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and vacated the convictions of Ruben Cotto-Andino, holding that, as to Cotto-Andino, the court committed reversible error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence against all three defendants was sufficient to support their RICO conspiracy convictions, their 21 U.S.C. 846 convictions, and their 18 U.S.C. 36(b)(2) convictions; (2) the district court's limitation of Cotto-Andino's rebuttal of the government's uncharged murder evidence exceeded the bounds of the court's discretion, was not harmless, and required that Cotto-Andino's convictions be vacated; (3) the remainder of Cotto-Andino's challenges to the admission of evidence were unavailing; (4) an error in the transcript did not warrant reversal of the district court's denial of a mistrial in favor of Resto-Figueroa; and (5) there was no error in the jury instructions. View "United States v. Velazquez-Fontanez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting three defendants of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) conspiracy with a special finding that defendant Noe Salvador Perez-Vasquez participated in the murder of one man and special findings that they each participated in the murder of another man, holding that the majority of Defendants' challenges lacked merit.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) there was no error in the district court's challenged evidentiary rulings; (3) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Hector Enamorado's motion for a mistrial based on Perez-Vasquez's closing argument; (4) the government's statements during its closing argument were not improper or prejudicial; (5) there was no error in the jury instructions; (6) Defendants' sentences were not procedurally unreasonable; and (7) Luis Solis-Vasquez's challenge to the district court's restitution order will be discussed in a later opinion. View "United States v. Perez-Vasquez" on Justia Law

In this action brought by EdgePoint Capital Holdings, LLC (EPCH) arising out of the sale of Apothecare Pharmacy, LLC, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in Apothecare's favor, holding that EPCH could not recover because Apothecare's securities law defense was valid.This breach of contract suit was based on a provision of the contract stating that if the agreement was terminated by either party, Apothecare was obligated to pay EPCH a fee. In granting summary judgment in favor of Apothecare, the district court (1) rejected Apothecare's federal securities law defense that the contract was void under section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1984; but (2) concluded that, as a matter of Massachusetts contract interpretation law, EPCH was not entitled to the fee it sought. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Apothecare's federal securities law defense was valid; and (2) because the contract was unenforceable, EPCH could not recover. View "EdgePoint Capital Holdings, LLC v. Apothecare Pharmacy, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to a variety of drug and firearm offenses and sentencing him to 160 months' imprisonment, holding that Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his plea.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to certain charged offenses in exchange for a 120-month sentence. Prior to sentencing, Defendant breached the plea agreement by assaulting a fellow inmate. Thereafter, the government withdrew from the agreement. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to 160 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, there was a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of Defendant's plea, and the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Defendant to withdraw his plea. View "United States v. Gardner" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm conspiracy counts, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant was a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy and applying a three-level enhancement.In sentencing Defendant, the district court found that he qualified for a three-level enhancement for being a manager or supervisor of the drug and firearm conspiracies, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b). On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court's conclusion that he was a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy because he directed people to buy firearms and told them where to drive was erroneous. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, in light of the evidence, the district court correctly applied the section 3B1.1(b) enhancement. View "United States v. McKinney" on Justia Law