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

The First Circuit affirmed the sale of Debtor’s remaining finished goods inventory to Schleicher and Stebbins Hotels LLC (S&S) after Debtor auctioned of its assets pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Debtor and S&S completed the sale with the bankruptcy court’s approval. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. (Mission), an unsuccessful bidder at the auction, appealed, challenged the inventory sale. The bankruptcy court ultimately approved the sale of the inventory to S&S. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standards and that S&S was a good faith purchaser. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) S&S was a good faith purchaser entitled to the protection of section 363(m); and (2) Mission’s remaining challenges to the sale order were therefore rendered statutorily moot. View "Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Old Cold, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend a complaint after certain court proceedings, holding that the district court was not required to allow leave to amend.Plaintiffs filed suit against a group of healthcare entities alleging that Defendants’ compensation practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, including a request to amend should the court grant the motion. The district court ultimately granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims and noted that Plaintiffs’ counsel had voiced the possibility that Plaintiffs might seek leave to amend but never followed through with a proper motion to amend. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. View "Hamilton v. Partners Healthcare System, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the trial judge’s dismissal of counts in an indictment that charged Defendants with dispensing misbranded drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).Defendants, Massachusetts-licensed pharmacists, were charged with multiple crimes, including the allegation that Defendants dispensed drugs in violation of the FFDCA. The trial judge granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss the FFDCA charges, ruling that the indictment did not provide fair notice. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the indictment passed muster because it gave Defendants enough information to prepare a defense and to invoke double-jeopardy protections to forestall a later trial on the same charges. View "United States v. Stepanets" on Justia Law

In this case concerning the application and operation of Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the First Circuit held that the exclusionary remedy limned in Article 31(d) applies to evidence offered in a trial by court-martial but not in a non-judicial punishment proceeding.Petitioner, a petty officer in the United States Navy, received a non-judicial punishment, rescission of his recommendation for promotion, and an adverse employment evaluation. Petitioner appealed, alleging, inter alia, that his waiver of Article 31 rights was involuntary. The Board of Correction of Naval Records upheld the adverse employment consequences. Petitioner sought judicial review. The district court refused to set aside the Board’s decision. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the Board’s determination of voluntariness and its approval of the adverse employment consequences were in accordance with law. View "Sasen v. Spencer" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress drug evidence found on his person during a traffic stop.A law enforcement officer stopped a vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger for a traffic violation. On appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the officer violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by unreasonably extending the duration of the traffic stop and that the district court erred in ruling that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the drug evidence found during the resulting patdown search, which the government conceded was unlawful. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the officer did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop; and (2) the proper scope of a patdown search was exceeded in this case, but the district court properly applied the inevitable discovery rule. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions for armed assault with intent to murder and other offenses, holding that trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress Appellant’s statements to a police officer while in custody constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under clearly established law.In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Appellant argued, inter alia, that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to move to suppress his statements to the police officer. The district court denied the writ. The First Circuit reversed, holding that trial counsel’s deficient performance was sufficiently prejudicial to constitute a violation of Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. View "Rivera v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Gitau, a Kenyan citizen, married a U.S. citizen, Johnson, and became a lawful permanent resident on a conditional basis. Under 8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)(1)(A) and (B), she and Johnson could remove the conditional nature of her status by jointly filing Form I-751. They divorced, however, and Gitau was unable to satisfy the joint filing requirement. She filed a petition to waive the joint filing requirement, 8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)(4), which was denied. In removal proceedings she renewed her waiver request, arguing that she entered into the marriage in good faith and that her removal would result in extreme hardship. The IJ ruled against Gitau, finding her not to be a credible witness and that the evidence other than her own testimony was insufficient to support her claim of good faith. The IJ also found that Gitau had not demonstrated extreme hardship. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit dismissed a petition for review. The court noted inconsistencies in Gitau’s evidence and that, in 2007, Johnson purported to marry two other individuals seeking U.S. residence status. The only evidence of hardship not barred due to timing concerns was Gitau's testimony that it would be impossible for her to find work in her field in her parents' village in Kenya. View "Gitau v. Sessions" on Justia Law

After approximately 11 years of working his way up the Costco employment ladder, Garcia was fired following an investigation which revealed an inventory discrepancy in the Meat Department that he managed. Garcia sued, alleging six Puerto-Rico-based claims. The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Costco, upholding the admission of affidavits by Costco employees and attached exhibits. Puerto Rico’s "Law 80," provides a remedy to employees who are discharged "without just cause." Costco met its burden of proving just cause, which was not rebutted by evidence of Garcia’s employment history. Costco was not required to demonstrate without any doubt that Garcia manipulated the numbers, but only had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it had good cause to terminate Garcia, P.R. Laws tit. 29, 185b. Even a "perceived violation" is sufficient to rebut an allegation that the decision to dismiss an employee was made on a whim. Garcia’s claims of gender-discrimination, of retaliation for reporting such discrimination, and of defamation, failed for lack of evidence. View "Garcia-Garcia v. Costco Wholesale Corp." on Justia Law

Police officers were searching a mall for a motorcyclist who had violated traffic laws when they were spotted by Rivera-Cruz, who ran, yelling "police!" into a walkie-talkie. The officers recovered a loaded revolver with an obliterated serial number from a fanny pack that Rivera-Cruz had tossed onto the ground during his flight. On the eve of trial, Rivera-Cruz pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Sentencing Guidelines calculations in his plea agreement included a three-level reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility. The plea agreement permitted Rivera-Cruz to argue for a sentence of 96 months, and the government to argue for a statutory-maximum sentence of 120 months. The Guidelines calculations in the presentence investigation report also contained a three-level reduction for acceptance for responsibility. Unlike the plea agreement, the PSR contained a four-level enhancement because the gun had an obliterated serial number. The resulting Guidelines sentencing range in the PSR was 110-137 months. The district court adopted the PSR's calculations, and sentenced Rivera-Cruz to 120 months in prison. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting Rivera-Cruz’s argument that the plea agreement was invalid because it lacked consideration. As such, he argues that he should be entitled to withdraw his plea. View "United States v. Rivera-Cruz" on Justia Law

In 2011, Dr. Volkman was convicted of drug-related charges for illegally prescribing pain medication leading to the deaths of at least 14 individuals. Eil, a journalist writing a book on Volkman's case, attended portions of that public trial. In 2012, Eil submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the exhibits introduced by the government at the trial. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) provided thousands of pages of responsive documents, some of which were redacted, but withheld the medical records of Volkman's living former patients and the death-related records of his deceased former patients. Eil sued to compel disclosure of the withheld records. The court granted Eil summary judgment, ordering the DEA to release the records with certain redactions. The First Circuit reversed. The district court's balancing of the public interest in disclosure against the relevant privacy interests was flawed because the court applied the wrong standard. The release of the requested records is unlikely to advance a valid public interest, given the amount of relevant information that Eil already has access to and the substantial privacy interests implicated by the records would outweigh any public interest in disclosure. View "Eil v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration" on Justia Law