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

The First Circuit reversed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of General Star Indemnity Company, the excess insurer of Performance Trans., Inc. and Utica Mutual Insurance Company (collectively PTI) in this Massachusetts breach of contract and unfair and deceptive insurance practices action under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 11, holding that the district court erred in finding the relevant excess policy provisions unambiguously excluded coverage.In 2019, a PTI tanker-truck spilled approximately 4,300 gallons of gasoline, diesel fuel, and dyed diesel fuel onto the roadway and into a nearby reservoir. After cleanup costs exceeded PTI's primary insurance limit, PTI made a claim with General Star under the excess liability policy. General Star disclaimed any coverage obligation. When this suit was brought, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of General Star on the breach of contract claim and dismissed the chapter 93A, section 11 claim with prejudice. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) the excess policy was ambiguous; and (2) because ambiguity in the policy must be construed in favor of the insured, coverage was available to PTI. View "Performance Trans., Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.After the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him Petitioner conceded removability but cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. The immigration judge denied the petition, determining, as relevant to this appeal, that Petitioner suffered no persecution and that any alleged persecution was not caused by his membership in a particular social group. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner's claim failed because he did not prove a nexus between the alleged persecution and a statutorily protected ground. View "Marquez-Paz v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied the petition for review filed by the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable (MDTC) challenging the FCC's determination that the cable system operated by Charter Communications, Inc. in Massachusetts was subject to "effective competition" in its franchise areas under the statutory Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) test, Telecommunications Act of 1996, 301(b)(3)(C), 47 U.S.C. 543(1)(1)(D), holding that the FCC did not act arbitrarily and capriciously.In 2018, Charter, a cable operator, sought a determination that it faced effective competition in its franchise areas in Massachusetts and Kauai, Hawaii because the availability of DIRECTV NOW in those franchise areas constituted effective competition under the LEC test. The FCC granted Charter's petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the FCC's findings were not arbitrary and that the FCC properly interpreted its regulations and acted reasonably. View "Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Cable v. Federal Communications Commission" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff's claims of disability discrimination and retaliation, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213 (ADA), and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4, holding that the material facts did not raise a reasonable inference of employment discrimination under state or federal law.After Defendant was terminated from his employment he filed an employment and retaliation complaint under the ADA and Chapter 151B. The district court determined that the undisputed material facts did not raise a reasonable inference that Defendant discriminated or retaliated against Plaintiff because of his disability. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on his claims. View "Brader v. Biogen Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Krystal Anderson, a nurse at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC), where Plaintiff was an inmate, holding that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for Anderson.In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Anderson's failure to assess and treat his alleged medical needs, as well as her refusal to administer his medication, caused him physical pain, fear, and anxiety. The district court granted summary judgment for Anderson on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish a triable issue that he had a serious medical need to which Anderson was indifferent. View "Abernathy v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant Dr. Richard Nadal Carrion on Plaintiff's claims for negligently failing to obtain Plaintiff's informed consent before performing an abdominoplasty surgery and negligently abandoning her thereafter, holding that Plaintiff's challenges failed.Plaintiff filed her complaint in the District of Puerto Rico following her abdominoplasty, alleging that Nadal failed to disclose and discuss the risks of the surgery and that Nadal conditioned a necessary corrective procedure on her signing a consent form that she considered unacceptable. The magistrate judge granted Nadal's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to provide expert testimony to support her claims. The judge then denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Nadal and denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. View "Laureano-Quinones v. Nadal-Carrion" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of a drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the drug evidence as having resulted from an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Drug evidence was obtained from under the hood of a truck in which Defendant was a passenger. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the government lacked probable cause to remove him from the truck and handcuff him during the search of the vehicle and to search the truck, and (2) the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to support their activities. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the officers were operating from a tip from a reliable informant that the individuals in the truck had drugs and were about to complete a drug sale, and no more information was needed to justify the seizure of Defendant and the inspection of the vehicle; and (2) because the officers had probable cause to seize Defendant and search the truck, they also had reasonable suspicion. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal of the order of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint seeking an order compelling the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to rescind and reissue an order of removal it affirmed in 2013 and later refused to reopen, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.In 2013, the BIA affirmed an order authorizing the removal of Appellant to his country of origin. Appellant filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, which the BIA denied. Appellant then commenced this action in the United States District Court against officials of the Department of Justice claiming a right of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and any statutes providing for habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that Appellant's APA claim and habeas claim both arose from his removal proceedings and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. View "Gicharu v. Carr" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals concerning the "categorical and sweeping nature" of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Section 99 violates the First Amendment in criminalizing the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces, holding that the district court properly accounted for the values of both privacy and accountability within our constitutional system.Section 99 makes it a crime to record another person's words secretly and without consent, but Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based on whether that person has an expectation of privacy in what is recorded. In 2016, two sets of plaintiffs - the Martin Plaintiffs and Project Veritas Action Fund - filed suit alleging that Section 99 violates the First Amendment. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Martin Plaintiffs; and (2) affirmed the district court's order dismissing Project Veritas's First Amendment overbreadth challenge for failing to state a claim but vacated on ripeness grounds the dismissal with prejudice of Project Veritas's remaining First Amendment challenges to the statute and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, Martin v. Rollins" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting JPMorgan Chase Bank's (Chase) motion to dismiss Mark and Beth Thompson's action for breach of contract and for violating the statutory power of sale Massachusetts affords mortgagees, holding that the foreclosure sale was not void.The Thompsons alleged that Chase failed to comply with the notice requirements in their mortgage before foreclosing on their property. The mortgage terms for which Massachusetts courts demand strict compliance include the provisions in paragraph 22 of the mortgage requiring and prescribing the pre-foreclosure default notice. The Thompsons argued that because paragraph 19 of the mortgage included conditions and time limitations on the Thompsons' post-acceleration reinstatement right, Chase failed to strictly comply with paragraph 22's notice requirement by failing to inform the Thompsons of those conditions and limitations. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit held that the paragraph 22 notice the Thompsons received was potentially deceptive and, therefore, the foreclosure sale was void. The Court then withdrew its decision and certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). Because the SJC held that the paragraph 22 notice could not have been misleading for omitting paragraph 19's deadline, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Thompson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law