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

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this action filed by the Town of Westport against Monsanto Company, Solutia, Inc., and Pharmacia Corporation alleging that Phamacia was liable for “property damage” caused by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contamination at Westport Middle School (WMS). When WMS was built in 1969, the contractor used caulk that contained PCBs. Monsanto did not make the caulk but sold plasticizers, a component of caulk, to the third-party manufacturer who did. On appeal, Westport challenged the entry of judgment against its breach of warranty and negligent marketing claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Monsanto did not breach the implied warranty of merchantability because it was not reasonably foreseeable in 1969 that there was a risk PCBs would volatilize from caulk at levels requiring premeditation; and (2) as a matter of Massachusetts state law, a negligent marketing claim cannot be maintained independent of a design defect claim on these facts. View "Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court accepting Defendant’s unconditional plea of guilty to wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering and sentencing Defendant to 135 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the government unfairly procured his guilty plea by misusing information he provided during proffer sessions. The First Circuit held (1) it was not clear or obvious that Defendant’s plea was the involuntary product of impermissible government malfeasance under Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006); and (2) Defendant’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court accepting Defendant’s plea of guilty to wire fraud charges and sentencing Defendant to forty-one months’ imprisonment. This sentence meant that Defendant would serve six additional months of prison time beyond the amount to which he and the government had conditionally agreed in a plea agreement. Defendant was also ordered to pay $265,535 in restitution to various victims identified in the presentence report (PSR). The plea agreement called for $49,000 in restitution. The First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in rejecting the plea agreement Defendant negotiated with the government; (2) any error on the part of the district court in not allowing Defendant to negotiate and submit a new agreement was harmless; and (3) any error on the part of the district court in sentencing Defendant before he reviewed the PSR was harmless. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the largely debt-financed purchase of a family-owned leather manufacturer was not a fraudulent conveyance and was not a violation of the fiduciary duties of the company’s directors.The trustee of a trust established to benefit the creditors of several related insolvent entities filed a complaint alleging that the transaction at issue was a fraudulent conveyance and that the company’s directors were in breach of their fiduciary duties by approving it. The bankruptcy court ruled in the defendants’ favor on every count. The district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court’s factual determinations were not clearly erroneous, and the bankruptcy court found sufficient facts to support its conclusions. View "Development Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan" on Justia Law

The federal government’s sovereign immunity, as exemplified by the discretionary function exception, pretermitted Appellant’s effort to recover damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the loss of twenty-five of his shade trees.Appellant instituted this FTCA action alleging that twenty-five of his maple trees had been chopped down without his permission. The trees were removed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) pursuant to a quarantine order entered by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) in an effort to combat a bug infestation. The magistrate judge entered summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the discretionary function exception to liability under the FTCA barred Appellant’s lawsuit. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that APHIS’s decision to cut down Appellant’s trees without first securing his permission constituted a policy-driven exercise of discretion and therefore fell under the discretionary function exception. View "Evans v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Quincy, Massachusetts, the former employer of Plaintiff, on Plaintiff’s federal and pendent state claims of employment discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The First Circuit held (1) because Plaintiff was unable to rebut the City’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for its actions with evidence of pretext and discriminatory motive; (2) the record lacked evidence showing that the City retaliated against Plaintiff; and (3) Plaintiff did not meet her burden to show she was constructively discharged. View "Cherkaoui v. City of Quincy, Massachusetts" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Thomas G. Gallagher, Inc.’s petition for review challenging a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission that affirmed a fine levied against Gallagher, a Massachusetts-based employer, that was imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for two violations of OSHA workplace health and safety standards. In its petition for review, Gallagher challenged only the determination that Gallagher had constructive knowledge with respect to the serious violations for which OSHA cited Gallagher. The First Circuit denied the petition for review with respect to the order regarding both the first and second items of the citation, holding that Gallagher’s challenge to the constructive knowledge analysis could not succeed. View "Thomas G. Gallagher, Inc. v. Acosta" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant’s appeal of his conviction for attempted illegal reentry into the United States following removal subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony and sentence to thirty-three months’ imprisonment, holding that Appellant waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement. Appellant pled guilty to the charge pursuant to a plea agreement. On appeal, Appellant argued that his prior conviction was not an aggravated felony or crime of violence. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding (1) Appellant agreed to waive his right to appeal his conviction and sentence in this case, and that waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily; and (2) because enforcing the waiver would not work of miscarriage of justice, the waiver barred this appeal. View "United States v. Marte-De La Cruz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment entered by the trial court convicting Defendant of attempting to possess 500 grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for additional pretrial discovery and erred in instructing the jury regarding its duty to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant attempted to possess 500 grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the district court’s decision to deny the requested discovery was not an abuse of discretion and that the district court’s jury instructions were not erroneous. View "United States v. Goris" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in connection with this case brought by Plaintiff alleging various wage-and-hour claims. Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was based on an agreement between Defendant and a vendor affiliated with Defendant from whom Plaintiff received his compensation. The district court concluded that Plaintiff should not be compelled to arbitrate because he never signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause and had no idea that the agreement even existed. Defendant appealed, arguing that Plaintiff should be compelled to arbitrate under federal common law principles of contract and agency. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s arguments on appeal were without merit. View "Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC" on Justia Law