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

The First Circuit held that federal law requires prior FDA approval for a manufacturer of prescription eye drops to change the medication’s bottle so as to alter the amount of medication dispensed into the eye, and therefore, state law claims challenging the manufacturers’ refusal to make this change are preempted.Plaintiff sued in federal court on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of prescription eye solution purchasers, asserting that Defendants deliberately designed their dispensers to emit unnecessarily large drops. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ practice was “unfair” under Massachusetts state law and twenty-five other states and allied claims for unjust enrichment and for “money had and received.” The district court dismissed the complaint without ruling on the merits, finding that FDA regulations preempted Plaintiffs’ suit. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) changing a product bottle so as to dispense a different amount of prescription eye solution is a “major change” under 21 C.F.R. 314.70(b); and (2) therefore, Plaintiffs’ state law claims were preempted. View "Gustavsen v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue was whether a sentencing court may assess criminal history points for a prison sentence imposed following revocation of probation when the revocation-triggering conduct also constitutes the gravamen of the federal offense of conviction.In 2013, Defendant was convicted in a Puerto Rico court of aggravated illegal appropriation and illegal possession of a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive three-year terms of probation. In 2016, a federal grand jury charged Appellant with being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. Appellant pleaded guilty. Before Appellant’s federal sentencing, a Puerto Rico court revoked Appellant’s terms of probation for the 2013 offenses and sentenced him instead to two consecutive three-year prison terms. The revocation was triggered by the same unlawful weapons possession that formed the basis of Appellant’s federal conviction. The district court factored the revocation sentence into Appellant’s criminal history score and proceeded to impose an upwardly variant sentence of forty-eight months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to the revocation sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rivera-Berrios" on Justia Law

In this action filed by Plaintiffs seeking to enjoin their property’s foreclosure sale, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the denial of Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the statute of limitations applied to the bulk of Plaintiffs' claims.Plaintiffs obtained a loan from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. to refinance their Massachusetts property. After Plaintiffs defaulted on their loan they initiated this action to void their transaction and enjoin their property’s foreclosure sale. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the bulk of Plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred and denied Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly found that the statute of limitations applied to the majority of Plaintiffs’ claims; and (2) the remainder of Plaintiffs’ arguments were meritless. View "Harry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court for Regional School Unit 57 (RSU 57) on Charlene Richard’s claims that RSU 57 violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, Maine Human Rights Act, and Maine Whistleblower Protection Act, holding that there was no clear error in the district court’s findings.Richard, a former kindergarten teacher at Waterboro Elementary School, claimed that RSU 57 retaliated against her for her advocacy on behalf of students with disabilities. The district court concluded that Richard had not met her burden of proving that her advocacy had actually prompted the adverse actions against her and entered judgment for RSU 57. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not improperly require Richard to present evidence of causation beyond that which supported her prima facie case; and (2) Richard’s remaining arguments were similarly unavailing. View "Richard v. Regional School Unit 57" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals from orders dismissing two putative antitrust class actions, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that purchasers of a brand-name prescription drug had not plausibly alleged that either exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity applied to the alleged conduct of the drug maker and, on that basis, dismissing the putative class actions for failure to state a claim.Plaintiffs filed these antitrust actions alleging that Defendant unlawfully delayed the entry of generic versions of the drug at issue into the United States market by a fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Defendant moved to dismiss the actions, arguing that there was no fraud and claiming that it was immune from antitrust liability based on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. See United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965). The district court dismissed the putative class actions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding that Noerr-Pennington immunity applied to Defendant’s alleged conduct and that the two exceptions to the immunity did not apply here. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no reason to disturb the district court’s ruling dismissing Plaintiffs’ antitrust suits for failure to state a claim. View "United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment findings, evidentiary rulings, and denials of various motions on claims brought by a member of the rock band BOSTON against a former BOSTON guitarist alleging trademark infringement and breach of contract and on the guitarist’s counterclaims alleging breach of contract and abuse of process.Donald Thomas Scholz sued Barry Goudreau alleging claims related to impermissible inferences that Goudreau had allegedly made regarding his former association with BOSTON. Goudreau counterclaimed. After the district court granted in part the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, the remaining claims proceeded to trial. The jury found in favor of the respective defendants on the remaining claims. The parties cross-appealed. The First Circuit affirmed the district court and denied the appeals, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion requiring reversal. View "Scholz v. Goudreau" on Justia Law

After addressing how a district court should apply the Sentencing Commission’s revised commentary regarding mitigating role adjustments the First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence to eighty-seven months of imprisonment, holding that Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant pled guilty to several drug-related offenses. After determining that Defendant was not entitled to a minor participant reduction, the district court imposed concurrent eighty-seven terms of confinement on all four counts of conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in refusing to grant him a minor participant reduction. See U.S.S.G. 3B1.2. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claim of legal error in the court’s application of section 3B1.2 was without merit, and the district court supportably found that Defendant was not entitled to the minor participant reduction; and (2) the challenged sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Arias-Mercedes" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, holding that there was no error in the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to Defendants on all of Plaintiff’s claims.Plaintiff’s lawsuit stemmed from the covert installment of screenshot-capturing software on Plaintiff’s work computer, which led to his arrest and plea of nolo contendere to one count of possession of child pornography. Plaintiff brought his claims against the individuals who participated in the events leading up to and following his arrest. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Boudreau v. Lussier" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the government on Plaintiff’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for false imprisonment, holding that while the decision of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to prevent Plaintiff and his son from leaving a Puerto Rico post office parking lot was wrong, that decision was reasonable and did not expose the United States to liability.After Plaintiff’s son retrieved some envelopes from the post office Plaintiff and his son began pulling out of the parking lot but were stopped by ATF agents with guns drawn. Plaintiff was removed from the vehicle and handcuffed, and Plaintiff and his son were detained for approximately twenty minutes. ATF agents released Plaintiff and his son when they realized they had stopped the wrong people in searching for the person who had received an illegal shipment of firearms. Based on this incident, Plaintiff filed his complaint. The district court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that even if the agents did not have probable cause to arrest, Puerto Rico would not impose liability for false imprisonment, and, given the vicarious liability premise of the FTCA, the United States was not exposed to liability. View "Soto-Cintron v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s retaliation claims as pertains to a handful of the original defendants in this case, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies in bringing her Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), 18 U.S.C. 1514A, claim to federal court.Plaintiff filed a complaint under SOX with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), claiming that she was retaliated against through termination in violation of SOX’s whistleblower protection provision. In the federal courts, the district court concluded that Plaintiff’s OSHA complaint was untimely and thus dismissed Plaintiff’s claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s OSHA complaint was filed outside the requisite timeframe, and Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies; and (2) therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to raise a plausible claim for relief under SOX. View "Newman v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc." on Justia Law