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

The First Circuit affirmed district court's grant of judgment in favor of Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife) on Plaintiff's suit challenging the denial of long-term disability (LTD) benefits for Plaintiff under his employee welfare benefit plan (Plan), holding that MetLife's decision to deny LTD benefits to Plaintiff based on physical disability was reasonable and substantially supported by the evidence.MetLife, the Plan's administrator, denied Plaintiff's claim for benefits, concluding that the medical information provided by Plaintiff did not support the conclusion that Plaintiff was precluded from performing his job due to his medical conditions. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Plaintiff brought suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. The district court granted judgment on the administrative record to MetLife. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) MetLife adequately considered the conditions documented by Plaintiff's physician and physiatrist; (2) MetLife consistently interpreted the Plan; (3) MetLife provided Plaintiff with sufficient information regarding the requisite showing to qualify for LTD benefits; and (4) MetLife did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner by considering the functional limitations of Plaintiff's condition. View "Santana-Diaz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the district court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment against them for failing to satisfy the "obtaining of property" element of Hobbs Act extortion, holding that the "obtaining of property" element was satisfied in this case.Defendants were two officials of the City of Boston, Massachusetts, who allegedly threatened to withhold permits from a production company that need the permits to hold a music festival unless the company agreed to hire works from a specific union to work at the event. Defendants were indicted for Hobbs act extortion and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to show, as it interpreted "obtaining of property" in the Hobbs Act extortion provision to require, that Defendants received a personal benefit from the transfer of wages and benefits to the union workers that Defendants allegedly directed the production company to make. The First Circuit vacated the order of dismissal, holding that the "obtaining of property" element may be satisfied by evidence showing that Defendants induced the victim's consent to transfer property to third parties that Defendants identified, even where Defendants did not incur any personal benefit from the transfer. View "United States v. Brissette" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of ten counts of mail fraud and one count of embezzlement from an organization receiving federal-program benefits, holding that the district court did not err by improperly restricting cross examination of the government's principal witness.During trial, the government presented evidence that Defendant, who was a police lieutenant, submitted fraudulent detail and overtime timesheets, which double counted his work time. The government's principal witness was the executive officer of the police department. The trial court prevented Defendant from asking this witness whether any other police officers faced disciplinary action On appeal, Defendant challenged the court's decision to prevent Defendant from asking whether any other police officers faced disciplinary action for violating the Department's policy on overlapping shifts. Defendant also claimed that the government's closing argument represented prosecutorial misconduct warranting a new trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that no prejudicial error occurred in the proceedings below. View "United States v. Corliss" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court dismissing the complaint brought by the plan administrator of R&G Financial Corporation (Administrator) alleging that negligence and breach of fiduciary duties owed to R&G Financial (the Holding Company) caused the failure of R-G Premier Bank of Puerto Rico (the Bank) and the Holding Company's resultant loss of its investment in the Bank, holding that the complaint must be dismissed because the claims the Administrator asserted for the Holding Company were the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) under 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(2)(A).R&G Financial entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy after the Bank, its primary subsidiary, failed. Previously, Puerto Rican regulators had closed the Bank and named the FDIC as the Bank's receiver. After the Bank failed, the Administrator filed this suit against six of the Holding Company's former directors and officers and their insurer. The FDIC intervened. The district court dismissed the complaint. The First Circuit affirmed on different grounds, holding that, under section 1821(d)(2)(A), the FDIC succeeded to the Administrator's claims. View "Zucker v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for violating conditions of supervised release related to an earlier conviction for possessing a machine gun, holding that Defendant's variant sentence for violating his conditions of supervised release was not unlawful.In 2012, Defendant pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a machine gun. In 2016, more than halfway through his supervised release term, Defendant pled guilty to being a felon-in-possession of a firearm and ammunition and illegal possession of a machine gun. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months' imprisonment for the new criminal conduct and a consecutive twenty-four-month sentence for violating conditions of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) an appellate waiver provision in Defendant's plea agreement barred this Court from reviewing the sentence imposed on the new charges; and (2) as to Defendant's revocation sentence, the sentence was not an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Cruz-Olavarria" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed Defendant's conviction for knowingly possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B), holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant, as opposed to other people, downloaded the pornography.Law enforcement officers discovered that someone using an IP address registered to Defendant at a New Hampshire residence downloaded child pornography from a peer-to-peer file-sharing network and that two people in addition to Defendant received mail at that residence. While executing a search warrant, officers found Defendant's laptop computer, which was not password-protected and contained child pornography. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the government supported its case with insufficient evidence. View "United States v. Pothier" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements obtained from him during an interrogation and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's refusal to suppress his statements made during the interrogation after he received Miranda warnings, arguing that his mental capacity impeded his ability to waive his rights. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly found that Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. View "United States v. Rang" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the holding of the district court that Defendant had twice violated the conditions of his supervised release and sentencing Defendant to an eighteen-month term of immurement, to be followed by a new four-year term of supervised release, holding that any error was harmless and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the district court's findings.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the district court erred by relying on previously excluded evidence to find that Defendant violated a condition of his supervised release; and (2) the district court had insufficient evidence to find a second violation. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion when it relied upon previously excluded hearsay statements in formulating its decision, but the error was harmless; and (2) the evidence supporting the district court's two findings was sufficient. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court dismissing this putative class action against a bank after concluding that the bank's "Sustained Overdraft Fees" for overdrawn checking accounts were not "interest" under the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., holding that the bank's overdraft fees were not interest under the Act.Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging that Citizens Bank's Sustained Overdraft Fees violated the Act because they constituted interest at a rate above that allowed by Rhode Island, the state in which the bank was located. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that flat excess overdraft fees like the fee at issue in this case are not interest under the Act. View "Fawcett v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In this case brought by Puerto Rico general obligation bondholders (Bondholders), the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Bondholders' complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief claiming that they possessed a priority and property interest over certain revenues of the Puerto Rico government, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the Bondholders' complaint.This case arose from the restructuring of Puerto Rico's public debt under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act of 2016 (PROMESA). The Bondholders sought declarations to confirm their property rights to certain revenues of the Puerto Rico government, determine that the diversion of the revenues constituted an unconstitutional taking, and specify appropriate uses for those revenues. The district court dismissed certain counts of the Bondholders' complaint as seeking improper advisory opinions, another count presenting a takings claim as unripe, and almost all the remaining counts as barred under section 305 of PROMESA. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed all counts. View "Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law