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

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s convictions of five counts of wire fraud, five counts of engaging in unlawful monetary transactions, two counts of filing false tax returns, and one count of bank fraud. The court held (1) the district court acted within its discretion in conducting its inquiry into the colorable allegation of juror misconduct and did not err in finding that no juror misconduct occurred; (2) the district court did not deprive Appellant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice by denying his continuance motion; and (3) even assuming that the bank fraud counts were improperly joined with the remaining counts, any misjoinder was harmless. View "United States v. Zimny" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district judge’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s eight-count complaint. Plaintiff filed his complaint in state court against the servicers, holders, and assignees of his mortgage loan. Relevant to this appeal was count one, a claim predicated on the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183C. The matter was removed to federal court, which dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The First Circuit held (1) Plaintiff’s chapter 183C was time-barred, and Plaintiff presented no reason to toll the applicable statute of limitations; and (2) the trial justice did not err in denying Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint because the amended complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Rife v. One West Bank, F.S.B." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s complaint brought under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148B for employee misclassification. A Georgia state court concluded that Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant under Massachusetts law. The Georgia court of appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiff was not an employee of Defendant for purposes of Section 148B. At the same time the case was making its way through the Georgia state-court system, a separate Massachusetts case was being litigated in the federal district court involving the same facts and the same parties. Ultimately, the district court judge granted preclusive effect to the Georgia decision and granted summary judgment for Defendant as to the Section 148B claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the federal courts were bound by the Georgia court judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. View "Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court denying Appellant’s motion brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255 regarding his underlying criminal case on the ground that the motion must be dismissed. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery and one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence. Under the plea agreement, Appellant waived his right to bring certain collateral challenges to either his convictions or his sentences. The district court sentenced Appellant to consecutive prison sentences for his two federal convictions. Seventeen years later, Appellant brought this section 2255 motion seeking to vacate his conviction for use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence and to vacate his sentence for bank robbery. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that the waiver in the plea agreement, combined with Appellant’s failure to argue in his briefs that the waiver was self-evidently inapplicable, barred Appellant from filing the motion. View "Remington v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s sentence of ten years’ imprisonment imposed after Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of accessing child pornography with the intent to view it. On appeal, Defendant asked the First Circuit to declare the mandatory minimum sentence for accessing child pornography applicable to any individual who has a prior state conviction for abusive sexual conduct involving a minor unconstitutional as violative of the Due Process Clause. The First Circuit held (1) the mandatory minimum sentence established under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(b)(2) is consistent with the Due Process Clause; and (2) Defendant’s ten-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the crime that he committed and thus did not infringe on his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. View "United States v. Blodgett" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of supervised release conditions upon Defendant after the court vacated his original sentence under Jonson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). On appeal, Defendant focused on the conditions requiring him to comply with a sex offender evaluation and restricting his contact with individuals under the age of eighteen. The First Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the supervised release conditions because they were grounded in Defendant’s criminal history, as well as in the goals of public protection and rehabilitation. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to intervene in an adversary proceeding arising within the Commonwealth’s debt adjustment case under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), 48 U.S.C. 2161-2177, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1109(b) provides an “unconditional right to intervene” within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1).Appellant, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (UCC), intervened in an adversary proceeding initiated by Plaintiffs within a larger case brought by the Financial Oversight and Management Board on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Board had commenced quasi-bankruptcy proceedings to restructure the Commonwealth’s debt under a part of PROMESA referred to as Title III. The district court denied the UCC’s motion to intervene with respect both to intervention as of right and to permissive intervention. The First Circuit reversed, holding that section 1109(b) provided the UCC with an unconditional right to intervene in the adversary proceeding. View "Assured Guaranty Corp. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the order of the district court vacating a sentence originally imposed upon Defendant. After sentencing Defendant to a fifty-seven-month term of immurement for violating 18 U.S. 2421(a), the court, acting sua sponte, concluded that section 2421(a) “does not apply to a purely intrastate criminal act committed within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” and dismissed the case. The government appealed, challenging the district court’s vacation of the earlier sentence. The First Circuit vacated the order voiding the sentence and dismissing the original case and ordered that the sentence be reinstated by the district court, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revisit Defendant’s sentence more than three weeks after its imposition. View "United States v. Mercado-Flores" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed a judgment entered by the district court against Hylas Yachts, LLC and in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $663,774 plus interest and costs in this case alleging numerous defects in a brand-new yacht that Hylas custom built and sold to Plaintiffs. The court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Plaintiffs to offer their evidence of damages for the jury’s evaluation; (2) the district court was not required to dismiss the case or give an adverse-inference instruction concerning spoliation of evidence; (3) the district court did not err in dismissing Hylas’s indemnification claim against the boom supplier; (4) there was no error in the jury instructions; (5) the jury’s verdict was not inconsistent; and (6) Plaintiffs were not entitled as a matter of law to multiple damages and attorneys’ fees under Massachusetts state law. View "Sharp v. Hylas Yachts, LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the summary judgment granted to Defendants as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiff, a Massachusetts property owner, brought this lawsuit against three police officers challenging the owner’s arrest for actions that he took in connection with his objection to the clearing of vegetation on his property by the work crew for an electrical utility that held an easement on the owner’s property. Specifically, the First Circuit (1) affirmed the entry of summary judgment as to the officers on Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, 11I; (2) affirmed the entry of summary judgment as to one of the officers on the malicious prosecution and false arrest claims; and (3) vacated the entry of summary judgment as to two of the officers on the malicious prosecution and false arrest claims and as to all three officers on the false imprisonment claim and remanded with instructions that the district court remand those claims to state court, holding that contested state law issues prevented summary judgment. View "Wilber v. Curtis" on Justia Law