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

In this insurance coverage dispute, the First Circuit vacated the decision of the district court holding that United Rentals, Inc. was entitled to defense costs from Scottsdale Insurance Company as an additional insured and that the Scottsdale policy afforded additional insured coverage to United Rentals for its direct and vicarious liability but that this coverage was excess above United Rentals' own coverage under its policies with ACE American Insurance Company, holding that the district court erred in part.Gomes Services, Inc. contracted with United Rentals to rent an electric boom lift. While operated by a Gomes employee, the lift struck and injured Guy Ayotte. Ayotte sued United Rentals and Gomes. At the time of the accident, Gomes was insured by Scottsdale under a policy that extended coverage to any party that Gomes was required by written contract to add as an "additional insured." United Rentals requested that Scottsdale defend and indemnify United Rentals. After the district court made its ruling both parties appealed. The First Circuit held (1) Scottsdale had a duty to indemnify United Rentals in the Ayotte action for both its direct and vicarious liability; and (2) United Rentals' relevant policies did not qualify as "valid and collectible insurance," and therefore, the Scottsdale policy afforded coverage to United Rentals. View "Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. United Rentals, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that Petitioner's claims were unavailing.After Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief. The BIA affirmed and, pursuant to the IJ's order, granted Petitioner voluntary departure. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner did not establish that he was eligible for asylum; (2) the resolution of Petitioner's asylum claim also disposed of his withholding of removal claim; and (3) Petitioner's claim related to the denial of his request for CAT protection was waived. View "Zhakira v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of district court dismissing Plaintiff's case against the City of Boston and several of its police officers, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice.Plaintiff filed suit in superior court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, alleging, among other things, false arrest and imprisonment, excessive force, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a lengthy history of delay, the district court gave Plaintiff fourteen days to serve an amended complaint on two defendants. Plaintiff never properly served one of the defendants. The district court dismissed the defendant not properly served. The court then dismissed the other defendant, concluding that Plaintiff's failure to meet a deadline for service did not constitute excusable neglect. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice. View "Tubens v. Doe" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court granting creditor Schleicher & Stebbins Hotels, LLC (S&S) relief from an automatic stay imposed by section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, holding that the bankruptcy court properly granted relief from the automatic stay.In the bankruptcy proceedings of debtor Old Cold, LLC, Old Cold listed S&S as the only secured creditor and Mission Product Holdings, Inc. as an unsecured creditor. Eventually, S&S filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay imposed in the bankruptcy proceedings, arguing that it had valid, first-priority, perfected liens on the debtor's assets, that the debtor lacked equity in its remaining property, and that the property was not needed to effect a reorganization. The bankruptcy court granted the stay relief motion. Mission appealed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in granting relief from the automatic stay. View "Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Schleicher & Stebbins Hotels" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the condition of Appellant's supervised release that he could not contact his preteen daughter for three years without approval from his probation officer, holding that the district court imposed the condition based in part on an untranslated Spanish document in violation of the Jones Act, 48 U.S.C. 864, and the violation was prejudicial.The daughter's mother filed a petition for protective order, written in Spanish, after Appellant threw a beer can in his daughter's direction and hit her face. The government subsequently moved to revoke Appellant's supervised release on the ground that he violated the condition that he not commit another crime. The magistrate judge issued an order finding probable cause that Appellant had committed the crime of abuse, basing its determination, in part, on the untranslated Spanish-language document. The district court revoked Appellant's supervised release and added as a condition of supervision that Appellant not contact his daughter. The First Circuit reversed and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the government violated the Jones Act by submitting to the magistrate judge the protective order petition without supplying an English translation, and the error was prejudicial. View "United States v. Muniz-Lopez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Akebia Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction in this case.Akebia sued the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and other related defendants asserting that CMS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law regarding the reimbursement protocol for Auryxia, a drug owned by Akebia, when prescribed for treatment of iron deficiency anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease. Akebia moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to pause the coverage determination until CMS's interpretation could be entirely litigated. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in holding that Akebia failed to carry its burden of showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. View "Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Azar" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment denying Defendant's motion to vacate his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction and to resentence him without a career offender enhancement, holding that because Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) established that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines' residual clause before United States v. Booker, 54 U.S. 220 (2005), was decided was too vague to constitutionally enhance a defendant's sentence, Defendant's claims were timely.Defendant was convicted under section 924(c). The judge classified Defendant as a career offender under section 4B1.1 of the guidelines. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Booker, which held that the mandatory Guidelines system was unconstitutional. Thereafter, the Supreme Court announced a new rule of law in Johnson that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague. Defendant moved to vacate his conviction and sentence, arguing that the Court's reasoning in Johnson made similar residual clauses in section 942(c) and section 4B1.2(a) unconstitutionally vague as well. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit vacated the judgment, holding (1) Johnson dictates that 4B1.2(a)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) as a result, Defendant asserted the same right newly recognized in Johnson, making his petition timely. View "Shea v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for federal charges of sex trafficking, drug trafficking, and interstate transportation of a person for prostitution in violation of the Mann Act, holding that the district court did not err in applying a "vulnerable victim" enhancement.At sentencing, the district court determined that Defendant's victim was a vulnerable victim for purposes of applying a two-level enhancement. The court then sentenced Defendant to 320 months' imprisonment on the sex and drug trafficking counts and to concurrent 120-month sentences on the Mann Act counts. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that Defendant's sentence was not affected by the district court's conclusion that the enhancement for vulnerable victims was warranted under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and therefore, any alleged error in the application of that enhancement would have been harmless. View "United States v. Graham" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction Defendant's appeal from the order of the district court granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its diversity action seeking a declaratory judgment specifying its property rights in a commercial complex in San Juan, Puerto Rico, holding that the district court never issued a final decision.After granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the district court directed Plaintiff to submit a proposed declaration for the Court's consideration and instructed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment as to Defendants. After Defendant filed a notice of appeal Plaintiff submitted its proposed declaration. The district court, however, stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of this appeal. The First Circuit dismissed Defendant's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that, without a final declaratory judgment, this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction. View "WM Capital Partners 53, LLC v. Barreras, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of determinations by the immigration judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Petitioner's request for withholding of removal and voluntary departure, holding that there was no abuse of discretion or error of law.Petitioner was arrested in Connecticut on criminal charges. When served with a notice to appear in immigration court, Petitioner requested withholding of removal and voluntary departure. The IJ ruled against Petitioner, and Petitioner appealed. Before the IJ made its ruling Petitioner's wife filed an I-130 petition on his behalf. While Petitioner's appeal to the BIA was pending, Petitioner's charges in Connecticut were dropped and his I-130 petition was approved. Based on these developments, Petitioner moved to remand his case to the IJ. The BIA denied Petitioner's appeal and his motion to remand. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner's withholding of removal claim failed; (2) the IJ did not err in denying Petitioner's application for voluntary departure; (3) the IJ did not err in denying Petitioner's motion for a continuance; and (4) the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to remand. View "Lee v. Barr" on Justia Law