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

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the district court entered judgment for the pleadings on all of Plaintiff's claims, holding that Plaintiff's state certiorari claim did not fail to state a claim on the pleadings.Plaintiff, a former City of Haverhill police officer, brought this action against the city's chief of police and the city's mayor after Plaintiff was denied his request for an identification card to allow him to carry a concealed firearm across state lines under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Defendants removed the case to federal district court, which entered judgment on the pleadings for Defendants on all four of Plaintiff's claims. The First Circuit directed the dismissal of Plaintiff's state certiorari claim without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) Massachusetts has, in its state certiorari procedure, provided a constitutionally adequate remedy precluding assertion of a federal procedural due process claim in this case; (2) Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to support his federal substantive due process claim; (3) the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 due process claim; and (4) Plaintiff's negligence claim and purported equity claim plainly failed to assert a claim under state law. View "Lambert v. Fiorentini" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to the Administrator of the United States General Services Administration (GSA) and dismissing the discrimination and retaliation claim brought by Plaintiff, a former employee of that agency, holding that summary judgment was properly granted on Plaintiff's claims.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the GSA on Plaintiff's sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.; (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the GSA on Plaintiff's age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.; and (3) Plaintiff's retaliation claims under Title VII and the ADEA also lacked merit. View "Paul v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1201(c), for which Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, holding that Defendant's challenges to his conviction were unavailing.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence that law enforcement authorities seized from Defendant's apartment; (2) Defendant's challenges to the validity of the search warrant were without merit; (3) the district court did not err in barring a certain witness from testifying due to the "irrelevant, cumulative, or confusing" nature of the testimony that he would provide; (4) the district court did not reversibly err in admitting into evidence a transcript of a recording of statements by one of Defendant's co-conspirators; (5) the district court's challenged statement in an instruction to the jury was not sufficiently prejudicial to constitute reversible error; and (6) the remainder of Defendant's challenged were either without merit or waived. View "United States v. Veloz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute oxycodone, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.The motion to suppress centered around a series of five search warrants federal law enforcement officers executed as part of an investigation into an oxycodone-distribution conspiracy involving Defendant. The officers obtained location data for Defendant's cell phones and recovered a significant amount of cash stored in a hidden compartment in Defendant's vehicle. This information led to charges that Defendant was the New York-based oxycodone supplier for his co-conspirators' Massachusetts operation. Defendant filed, without success, a motion to suppress, arguing that the first warrant for cellular location data, which served as the foundation for the subsequent warrants, was not supported by probable cause. Defendant was subsequently convicted. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the warrant for Defendant's vehicle was properly issued, and therefore, the evidence seized from the vehicle was properly admitted at trial. View "United States v. Bregu" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's motion to vacate an arbitrator's award, holding that Appellant's attack on the merits of the arbitral award was unavailing.IBC Advanced Alloys Corp. purchased a Beralcast Corporation from Gerald Hoolahan and Gary Mattheson in exchange for cash and shares in the IBC. When Hoolahan decided to sell his shares in the company one year later, he was blocked. Hoolahan later discovered that Mattheson hadn't been similarly blocked when he placed his shares on the market. Hoolahan initiated an arbitration against IBC. During a subsequent hearing it was discovered that IBC had harbored ill-will against Hoolahan, causing it to block Hoolahan's attempt to sell. The arbitrator awarded Hoolahan damages in the amount he would have received if he had sold his shares at the same rate Mattheson received. After IBC unsuccessfully requested that the arbitrator modify the award IBC asked the district court to vacate the award. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that IBC did not make a showing that the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law when deciding the award. View "Hoolahan v. IBC Advanced Alloys Corp." on Justia Law

In this breach of contract action the First Circuit affirmed as not clearly erroneous the district court's judgment in favor of Defendant after a bench trial finding no binding contract between the parties, holding that Plaintiff offered no persuasive argument that the district court committed clear error.The First Circuit in this case clarified the difference between facts sufficient to make a claim plausible for pleading purposes and facts sufficient to render a judgment against the claimant clearly erroneous. In a prior decision, the First Circuit reviewed a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and stated that the Court could "plausibly infer" that the parties had formed a contract. The Court emphasized that just because a complaint states a plausible claim for relief does not mean that the claimant has conclusively proven that claim. With the case before the First Circuit a second time, the Court held that by reading too much into its prior ruling, Plaintiff misapprended the manner in which the burden of proof rested once the district court tried the case to a decision and further provided no persuasive argument that the district court committed clear error on remand by determining that no contract existed between the parties. View "APB Realty, Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of interstate transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the confession he made during the second phase of his custodial interrogation.In support of his motion to suppress Defendant argued that the interrogation violated his Fifth Amendment rights as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). The district court denied the motion, finding that Defendant initiated the second phase of the interview, that Defendant did not thereafter reinvade his right to counsel, and that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before confessing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's confession was admissible at trial for all of the reasons determined by the district court. View "United States v. Carpentino" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims alleging that Defendants violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and the Massachusetts Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, 49, holding that both counts were time-barred.Plaintiff filed her complaint against the current holder of a mortgage on her property and the servicer of the mortgage loan, alleging that the loan was predatory because at its inception the lender knew or should have known that Plaintiff would not be able to repay it. Defendants removed the case to federal district court and then moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court dismissed the chapter 93A count as time-barred and the second count on the ground that chapter 93, 49 does not provide private right of action. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of both counts, albeit on different grounds, holding that both the chapter 93A claim and the chapter 93, 49 claims were time-barred. View "O'Brien v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress seized evidence because law enforcement officers' warrantless entry into the house where Defendant was living, on the grounds that exigent circumstances existed, was unconstitutional, and there was no evidence demonstrating a different exception to the warrant requirement applied.Defendant was convicted of sixteen counts of production of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography involving prepubescent minors. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the warrantless entry into his mother's house, where he was living, was presumptively unreasonable and that no exception to the warrant requirement existed. The First Circuit agreed and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether consent to the entry was given, holding that entry into the home on the basis of exigency was unconstitutional and could not serve as justification for the search and seizure that followed. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Pacheco" on Justia Law

In this case involving a dispute between Portland Pipe Line Corporation (PPLC) and the City of South Portland (the City) the First Circuit certified three questions to the Maine Law Court because this clash raised important questions of state law preemption doctrine and statutory interpretation that are unresolved and may prove dispositive.The parties to this dispute were PPLC, a Maine corporation engaged in the international transportation of oil, and the City, which enacted a municipal zoning ordinance prohibiting the bulk loading of crude oil onto vessels in the City's harbor. The ordinance prevented PPLC from using its infrastructure to transport oil from Montreal to South Portland via underground pipelines. PPLC appealed the district court's dismissal of its claims, arguing that the ordinance was preempted by Maine's Coastal Conveyance Act and was in conflict with federal constitutional law. The First Circuit declined to address the federal questions, concluding that the case lacked controlling precedent and presented difficult legal issues that warranted certification to the Law Court. View "Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of South Portland" on Justia Law