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

Appellant pleaded guilty to three charges related to his act of possessing guns and drugs while he was on supervised release. The federal district court denied Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea that he filed seven months after he pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced Appellant to a total of seventy-six months for the three charges. The court sentenced Appellant to an additional twenty-four months, to be served consecutively to his seventy-six-month sentence, for violating the conditions of his supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to change his plea; and (2) Appellant’s 100-month sentence was procedurally reasonable. View "United States v. Fernandez-Santos" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged the seventy-month prison sentence he received after pleading guilty in federal district court, pursuant to a plea agreement, to aiding and abetting a convicted felon in the possession of a firearm. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate that plain error occurred in the classification of his prior convictions as convictions that trigger the application of U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(1)(B); and (2) no plain error occurred in the district court’s consideration of the mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). View "United States v. Nieves-Borrero" on Justia Law

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute involving claims of defamation and other causes of action was premised on a diversity of citizenship. Hearts With Haiti Inc. and Michael Geilenfeld sued Paul Kendrick. Although a jury found for the plaintiffs, the First Circuit remanded the case to address the question of whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Geilenfeld was domiciled in Haiti and thus was not a citizen of a state for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) as a stateless American citizen domiciled abroad, Geilenfeld did not satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to cure the jurisdictional defect by dismissing Geilenfeld from the action. View "Hearts With Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick" on Justia Law

Gerardo Salvati died from injuries he sustained while doing maintenance work. Gerardo’s wife, Lucia (hereinafter referred to as Salvati) filed a lawsuit seeking damages for wrongful death and loss of consortium. The underlying defendants had a primary policy through Western World Insurance Company in the amount of $1 million and an excess policy through the American Insurance Company (AIC) in the amount of $9 million. AIC refused to provide coverage to the underlying defendants. Salvati and the underlying defendants eventually reached a $6 million settlement agreement. In exchange for tendering the full $1 million of the Western World primary insurance policy, the agreement released Western World and the underlying defendants from any further liability and assigned all rights held by the underlying defendants against AIC to Salvati. Thereafter, Salvati filed a complaint against AIC, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and seeking a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to collect $5 million from AIC under the excess policy. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Salvati failed to show that the settlement agreement triggered AIC’s duty to indemnify; and (2) Salvati may not bring a claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, and therefore, none of her causes of action survived. View "Salvati v. American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Pan Am Railways, Inc. brought charges of dishonesty and insubordination and threats of dismissal against Jason Raye, an injured employee who had filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). Raye then filed an amended complaint to OSHA accusing Pan Am of violating the FRSA for filing his original OSHA complaint. OSHA concluded that Pan Am had unlawfully retaliated against Raye for bringing charges after Raye had filed his original OSHA complaint. An administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected Pan Am’s affirmative defense and awarded $250,000 in punitive damages, the maximum amount that the FRSA allows. The Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board affirmed. The First Circuit denied Pan Am’s petition for review, holding (1) the ALJ did not err in rejecting Pan Am’s affirmative defense that it would have charged Raye with dishonesty even absent his protected activity; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the ALJ’s punitive damages award. View "Pan Am Railways, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Debtor after Debtor defaulted on a loan. Plaintiff secured a default judgment in the amount of $137,030.78. Without making payment on the judgment, Debtor later filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. Plaintiff commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court seeking an order declaring the debt non-dischargeable. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that the debt was within the purview of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(B), which exempts from discharge certain debts. Debtor answered the complaint and then moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff then moved to amend her complaint to include an alternative claim that the debt was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy court granted Debtor’s motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint and refusal to allow Plaintiff to add a section 523(a)(2)(A) claim to her complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the section 523(a)(2)(B) claim was properly dismissed; and (2) an adequate basis existed for the bankruptcy court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend. View "Privitera v. Curran" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense (Count 1) and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances (Count 5). The district court sentenced Defendant to eighty-four months’ imprisonment for Count 1 and to forty-one months for Count 5. The sentences were to be served consecutively, for a total of 125 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence, holding that the sentence “reside[d] within the expansive universe of reasonable sentences.” View "United States v. Vazquez" on Justia Law

Patrick Camerano died after suffering a fall while on a “respite/nursing stay” at a facility operated by East Boston Neighborhood Health center (EBNHC). Plaintiff, Patrick’s son, sent a letter styled as a “claim” to the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) alleging state common law and federal statutory violations and seeking $1,700,000 in damages for Patrick’s alleged wrongful death. The district court granted summary judgment to the government, concluding (1) Plaintiff’s tort claims against EBNHC are considered tort claims against the United States, which was subject to a two-year limitations period; and (2) Plaintiff did not file his administrative complaint with HHS until more than two years after learning that his father had suffered a fatal injury caused by a fall. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s arguments that his claim did not accrue until his newly retained counsel was able to ascertain the name of the respite/nursing home where his father’s accident happen failed; (2) Plaintiff’s argument that the two-year limitations period should be equitably tolled also failed; and (3) the district court did not commit procedural error in granting summary judgment to the government. View "Camerano v. United States" on Justia Law

Hubbard Systems, Inc. (HSI) was in the business of developing, marketing, and selling a debt collection software program titled “Collection Partner.” In 1992, Gregory Turner entered into a rent-to-own agreement with HSI in which he was granted a temporary rental license for the use of Collection Partner. Turner made the final installment payment in 1996, after which Turner owned a permanent license to the software. In April 2011, HSI sent Turner a new license key to reflect an update in the software. The license expired on May 31, 2011. On June 1, 2011, HSI sent Turner a new license key that permitted him uninterrupted access to the software. In 2012, Appellant brought suit, alleging that HSI violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when it issued a license key that expired on May 31, 2011, despite the fact that he owned a permanent license to the Collection Partner software. The district court accepted and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, denied Turner’s motion to strike, and granted summary judgment in favor of HSI. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting HSI’s motion for summary judgment and denying Turner’s motion to strike. View "Turner v. Hubbard Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Arabian Support & Services Co. (ASASCO), a Saudi Arabian business, sought compensation for assisting Textron Systems Corporation in its pursuit of a weapons deal in Saudi Arabia. ASASCO claimed that Textron backed away from its promises to supplement the modest fees paid under the parties’ written consulting agreements through an “offset” arrangement linked to the weapons sale. ASASCO’s complaint alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with ASASCO’s business and contractual relationship, and violations of Chapter 93A, the Massachusetts Deceptive Trade Practices Act. After limited discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for Textron on all of ASASCO’s claims. The First Circuit vacated the summary judgment in part, holding that the district court erred in dismissing ASASCO’s Chapter 93A misrepresentation claim based solely on the failure of the contract claim. Remanded for further proceedings on ASASCO’s misrepresentation theory. View "Arabian Support & Services Co. v. Textron Systems Corp." on Justia Law