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

In this contract dispute under Massachusetts law between Dahua Technology USA Inc. and Feng Zhang, Dahua's former employee, the First Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dahua, holding that there were material facts in dispute.Dahua filed a complaint against Zhang seeking a declaratory judgment that a 2017 agreement between the parties was unenforceable and asked the court to reform it due to mutual mistake. Dahua further sought damages for breaching the parties' contact's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Zhang filed a counterclaim alleging that Dahua breached a second 2017 contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dahua and denied Zhang's motion for summary judgment. The First Circuit vacated the summary judgment, holding that there were at least there triable issues of fact on the record precluding summary judgment. View "Dahua Technology USA, Inc. v. Zhang" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court approving a consent decree to which Appellants, three companies, were not parties but that had been entered into by certain federal agencies, Emhart Industries, and the State of Rhode Island, holding that the district court's approval of the decree was proper.The decree settled claims involving parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Rhode Island law regarding the responsibility for and allocation of the costs of the cleanup of a contaminated Superfund site located in North Providence, Rhode Island. The decree further purported to bar Appellants' own CERCLA claims against Emhart and the federal agencies relevant to the allocation of the costs of the site's cleanup. The district court approved the decree. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in approving the decree. View "Emhart Industries, Inc. v. CNA Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

In this appeal arising from a lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Puerto Rico Civil Rights Act the First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Plaintiffs' post-judgment motion for attorney's fees and motion to reopen, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that they encountered barriers to their equal access and full enjoyment of Defendants' facilities, services, goods, and amenities. Plaintiffs later moved for final judgment on their ADA claims, claiming that they obtained the requested relief under federal law because Defendants had agreed to make challenges or adjustments to the design of the locale. The district court dismissed the claims without prejudice, stating that Plaintiffs may file a motion to reopen if Defendants failed to comply with the agreed-upon deadlines. Plaintiffs then moved for attorney's fees, arguing that they were the prevailing parties under the ADA's fee-shifting provision, 42 U.S.C. 12205. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the requisite judicial imprimatur on the outcome to make them prevailing parties; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen the case based on Appellants' allegations. View "Suarez-Torres v. Panaderia y Reposteria Espana, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to approach the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger and direct its occupants to exit.Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of cash and drugs that were recovered from him and the other occupant of the car after officers instigated an investigatory motor vehicle stop. The district court denied the motion, holding that reasonable suspicion existed to support the traffic stop. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the police officers had reasonable suspicion that the vehicle's occupants were involved in illegal drug activity, and therefore, the officers' decision to approach the car and search Defendant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Tom" on Justia Law

In this action brought under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq., the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's claim against American Airlines, Inc. and later granting Allied Pilots Association's (APA) motion for summary judgment, holding that that APA did not breach its duty of fair representation and that Plaintiff could not maintain a claim against American Airlines.In 1999, Bryan's then-union submitted a grievance on his behalf alleging that his then-employer violated the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and that APA, the successor to the previous union, breached its duty of fair representation under the RLA by withdrawing from pursuing his grievance to arbitration based on an allegedly inadequate investigation into the grievance's merits. Bryan also suit American Airlines, the successor to his previous employer, for his previous employer's alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The district court disposed of the claims through dismissal and summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) APA did not breach its duty of fair representation under the RLA; and (2) based on Bryan's own concession, he could not maintain a claim against American Airlines. View "Bryan v. American Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's supervised release after he was acquitted of a criminal assault charge arising from the same incident leading to his revocation, holding that the evidence supported a finding of revocation and that the sentence imposed was reasonable.The probation office petitioned for the arrest of Defendant for violating his supervised release by committing the offense of assaulting a U.S. Probation Office employee. A criminal complaint was also issued for the alleged assault. A jury acquitted Defendant of the criminal assault charge. The district judge proceeded to revoke Defendant's supervised release on the basis of the same conduct and sentenced him to twenty-four months' imprisonment followed by eight months of supervised release. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) acquitted conduct can be used to revoke supervised release due to the differing burdens of proof; (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant committed an assault; and (3) Defendant's sentence was substantively and procedurally reasonable. View "United States v. Frederickson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence imposed after he pled guilty to six counts stemming from a robbery of a federal confidential informant during a guns-for-cash deal, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Defendant's challenge based on Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), to his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g), was without merit; (2) Defendant's challenge to the plea colloquy failed; (3) Defendant's challenge based upon United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), to the acceptance of his plea to aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 924(c), failed on plain error review; (4) the prosecutor did not breach plea agreement; and (5) Defendant's sentence of 198 months' imprisonment was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Farmer" on Justia Law

In this appeal concerning the scope and reach of 28 U.S.C. 1963 - a statute permitting the registration of certain judgment in a federal district court - the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment concluding that the New York state court judgment proffered by Plaintiff did not come within the statutory sweep and that no other cognizable basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction had been shown, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiff sought recognition of a Korean judgment in New York. A New York court recognized the Korean judgment and entered a judgment in Plaintiff's favor for more than $13 million. When the New York judgment went unpaid, Plaintiff filed the judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Defendants moved to quash, arguing that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because 28 U.S.C. 1963 only authorized district courts to register judgments of other federal courts and not state court judgments. The district court agreed and dismissed the matter for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) section 1963 does not authorize federal courts to register state-court judgments; and (2) there were no independent grounds for federal jurisdiction here. View "Woo v. Spackman" on Justia Law

In this appeal and cross-appeal stemming from litigation that followed the termination of an almost forty-year business relationship between a company that manufactured and supplied soup base products (Manufacturer) and a company that distributed them (Distributor), the First Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part Distributor's appeal and affirmed in Manufacturer's cross appeal, holding that the district court erred in part.Following a trial, the jury awarded Distributor $255,000 in damages for its state law breach of contract and tortious interference with business relationships claims against Manufacturer. The district court granted summary judgment to Manufacturer on Distributor's claim against it under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and to Manufacturer on its counterclaim for breach of contract, for which the court awarded Manufacturer $97,843 in damages. The First Circuit held that the district court (1) erred in granting summary judgment on the Chapter 93A claim; (2) erred in striking as duplicative the jury's damages award on Distributor's breach of contract claim; (3) erred in denying Distributor prejudgment interest on the damages award it received on the tortious interference with business relations claim; and (4) erred in denying Distributor's offset request. View "Primarque Products Co. v. Williams West & Witt's Products Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Employer and dismissing Employee's claims for retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2612, and disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213, and the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws 28-5-7, holding that the district court did not err.Employee took leave from Employer under the FMLA to undergo preventive surgery and then took a second leave for a related surgery that same year. The following year, Employer eliminated Employee's position. As an alternative to termination, Employer offered Employee a newly created, lower level position with a lower salary. Employee declined the position, and Employer terminated her employment. Plaintiff then brought this action. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that summary judgment was properly granted. View "O'Rourke v. Tiffany & Co." on Justia Law