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

The First Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s summary judgment motion in this case alleging that Liberty breached Plaintiff’s contractual rights by wrongfully denying his request for coverage under an insurance policy, holding that the district court’s reasoning in granting Liberty’s motion for summary judgment was flawed.Plaintiff argued in his complaint that Liberty improperly denied his coverage request under the Directors and Officers insurance policy that Liberty had issued to a Puerto Rico hospital where Plaintiff served as the medical director. The district court concluded that, under the policy, the “Claim” that would give rise to the “Loss” for which Plaintiff sought coverage should be “deemed first made” before the policy took effect and, therefore, was not covered by the policy. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order granting Liberty’s summary judgment motion, holding that the “Claim” for which Plaintiff sought coverage from Liberty was not “first made” prior to the beginning of the policy at issue, and the district court wrongly construed the policy in concluding otherwise. View "Jimenez-Castaner v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Medina & Medina, Inc. in this employment discrimination lawsuit, holding that summary judgment was properly granted as to Plaintiff’s discriminatory wage disparity claims and gender-based hostile work environment claims but improperly granted as to Plaintiff’s federal and Puerto Rico age-based hostile work environment claims and retaliation claims.The district court held that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment as to any of her claims. The First Circuit held (1) based on the evidence proffered by both parties, summary judgment was appropriate on Plaintiff’s discriminatory wage disparity and and gender-based hostile work environment claims; (2) where Plaintiff produced evidence that she was taunted about her age nearly every single day for over two years, summary judgment was not appropriate as to Plaintiff’s age-based hostile work environment claim; (3) there was a genuine issue of fact that precluded summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation; and (4) Plaintiff’s supplemental claims brought pursuant to Puerto Rico law were properly disposed of upon summary judgment. View "Rivera-Rivera v. Medina & Medina, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order granting summary judgment to Stericycle of Puerto Rico and other defendants on Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s related Puerto Rico law claims, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) did not err in holding that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Title VII claim for gender-based disparate treatment; (2) correctly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Title VII claim for retaliation; and (3) did not err in denying Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. View "Micheo-Acevedo v. Stericycle of Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s 120-month prison sentence, holding that the district court did not err in imposing a five-level enhancement for “engag[ing] in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor,” U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(5), and a two-level enhancement for “knowingly engag[ing] in [the] distribution” of child pornography, U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F).Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the district court properly increased Defendant’s offense level by five levels after finding the requisite pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant knowingly engaged in the distribution of child pornography, which resulted in a two-level enhancement. View "United States v. Cates" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed upon Defendant in connection with his plea of guilty to possessing a firearm while subject to a qualifying court order, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court erred in setting forth his sentence.The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-three months’ imprisonment, a term at the top of, but still within, the range set by a final total offense level of twelve and criminal history category of V. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that Defendant’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Tosi" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of Defendant on several of her counterclaims against her business partner (Plaintiff) and awarding Defendant more than $400,000 in damages, ordering her to provide Plaintiff certificates of authenticity for two disputed pieces of artwork, and dismissing several of her remaining counterclaims, holding that there was no error in the district court’s rationale.Unsatisfied with the underlying judgment, Defendant raised a number of issues on appeal. The First Circuit addressed each issue and then affirmed, holding that the record reflected that the district court’s factual findings were supported by the evidence, that the court properly applied the law to the facts, and that it did not abuse its discretion. View "Rojas-Buscaglia v. Taburno-Vasarhelyi" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the BIA did not err by affirming the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioner did not qualify for relief.Petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the CAT were principally supported by her testimony that she was mistreated in Honduras because of her Afro-Honduran race and physical disability caused by polio. The IJ found that Petitioner had failed to carry her burden in proving either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution and rejected Petitioner’s claims. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holing (1) there was substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s and IJ’s conclusions that Petitioner had not shown past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (2) the BIA did not err by failing to consider Petitioner’s claim for humanitarian asylum. View "Martinez-Perez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of Brown University’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this case brought by a college student alleging that she was sexually assaulted by three students of Brown University on Brown’s campus and that Brown abandoned the investigation and did not bring any disciplinary action against the Brown students.Plaintiff initiated this action seeking damages and equitable relief against Brown under Title IX of the Education Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 20 U.S. 1681 et seq. The district court granted Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege sufficient facts for a plausible Title IX claim against Brown. View "Doe v. Brown University" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the presentencing report erroneously applied an enhancement, but for which his United States Sentencing Guidelines range would have been lower.Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful re-entry into the United States. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of forty-two months in prison. On appeal, Defendant claimed for the first time that the district court’s application of a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(2)(D) was in error. Without the enhancement, Defendant’s Guidelines range would be thirty to thirty-seven months instead of forty-six to fifty-seven months. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding (1) application of the section 2L1.2(b)(2)(D) enhancement was a clear and obvious error that affected Defendant’s substantial rights; and (2) Defendant’s Guidelines range was more than a year higher than it should have been, and resentencing was clearly warranted. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit summarily affirmed Defendant’s 240-month incarcerative sentence, holding that the district court did not hold Defendant responsible for an incorrect drug quantity or improperly count two prior convictions when calculating Defendant’s criminal history score.Defendant entered a guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute heroin, conspiracy to possess stolen firearms, and attempted witness tampering. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err as a matter of law in including in its calculation drugs that Defendant personally consumed; and (2) the sentencing court did not miscalculate Defendant’s criminal history score, thus placing him into certain criminal history category III. View "United States v. Pinkham" on Justia Law