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

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, an insurance company, Berkley National Insurance Company, sued two of its insureds, Granite Telecommunications, LLC and Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC, seeking restitution for both the payment it had made to settle a personal-injury lawsuit against the insureds and the costs it had incurred to defend them against that suit. The insurer, Berkley, also sought a declaratory judgement that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds with respect to the personal-injury claims that they were facing. The District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Berkley, ordering the insureds to pay restitution for both the insurer's defense costs and its settlement payment. The insureds appealed the judgment.The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's order, concluding that the rulings conflicted with Massachusetts law governing when a liability insurer who has chosen to defend its insureds may seek reimbursement from them. The Court stated that under Massachusetts law, a liability insurer can only seek reimbursement for an amount paid to settle a lawsuit if the insured has agreed that the insurer may commit its own funds to a reasonable settlement with a right to seek reimbursement, or if the insurer secures specific authority to reach a particular settlement which the insured agrees to pay. The Court found that the insurer, Berkley, did not meet any of these conditions, and as a result, it could not seek reimbursement from the insureds. Consequently, the Court vacated the grant of summary judgment to the insurer and dismissed the remainder of the appeal as moot. View "Berkley National Ins. Co. v. Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC" on Justia Law

The defendant, Michael Rand, was indicted and pleaded guilty to one count of distributing a controlled substance. His sentence was time served followed by 36 months of supervised release. Shortly thereafter, Rand violated his supervised release multiple times, leading to a revocation hearing. At the hearing, Rand was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release. Rand appealed his sentence on the grounds that it was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the sentence. The court found that the district court had adequately explained its rationale for the sentence, which was based on a combination of Rand's lying and absconding shortly after his original sentence, his drug relapse, and his failure to comply with the terms of his supervised release. Lastly, the court found that the sentence fell within the broad range of reasonableness considering the totality of the circumstances. View "US v. Rand" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the defendant, Randall Crater, was convicted of wire fraud, unlawful monetary transactions, and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business based on his involvement in a cryptocurrency scheme. The trial lasted eight days and was based on Crater's management of My Big Coin (MBC), a cryptocurrency company that allegedly misrepresented itself as a gold-backed digital currency and claimed a partnership with MasterCard. The defendant appealed two of the district court's rulings.Firstly, Crater argued that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process by refusing to enforce subpoenas against three federal agency witnesses due to Crater's non-compliance with the agencies' Touhy regulations. Secondly, Crater contended that the district court did not perform its gatekeeping duty by admitting testimony from the government's cryptocurrency expert without holding a Daubert hearing.However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, stating that Crater's arguments could not be reconciled with controlling precedent or the record in the case. The court found that Crater's failure to show how the excluded testimony of the federal agents would have been both material and favorable to his defense invalidated his Sixth Amendment claim. Furthermore, the court held that Crater's objections to the expert witness's qualifications and methodology were insufficient to necessitate a Daubert hearing. View "US v. Crater" on Justia Law

Juan Sierra-Jiménez was a felon who pled guilty to possessing a firearm. While on supervised release for a prior federal firearm offense, Sierra was arrested and found with a Glock 22 pistol, which had been modified to function as a machine gun. He was also in possession of extra ammunition and approximately five grams of a substance suspected to be heroin. Sierra was sentenced to fifty-eight months in prison and an additional consecutive eighteen-month supervised release violation sentence. Sierra appealed, arguing that the fifty-eight-month sentence was procedurally unreasonable and that the government breached the plea agreement regarding his eighteen-month sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected Sierra's arguments and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court ruled that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings and did not rely on the suspected heroin possession in determining Sierra's sentence. The court also found that Sierra failed to show that the government's lack of an oral recommendation for a concurrent sentence prejudiced him. View "US v. Sierra-Jimenez" on Justia Law

Paulo Trindade, a former employee of Grove Services, Inc., sued his previous employer for breach of contract and violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act, claiming he had been underpaid on his sales commission compensation for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in part for Trindade and in part for Grove, awarding Trindade $330,597 in damages. Both parties appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court's judgment. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's conclusion that Trindade's amended complaint, which included a claim for unpaid wages for 2016, related back to his original complaint, making the claim timely under Massachusetts law. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the district court was correct in its decision to award the damages it did, including an amount for the late payment and underpayment of Trindade's 2016 commission. View "Trindade v. Grove Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute about the interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA"), specifically Section 8(i)(1). The plaintiff, Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. ("PILF"), requested a copy of the Maine Party/Campaign Use Voter File ("Voter File") from the Secretary of State for the State of Maine, Shenna Bellows. The Secretary denied the request under Exception J of Maine's Privacy Law, which restricts the use and publication of the Voter File.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Section 8(i)(1) of the NVRA applies to the Voter File and that Maine's restrictions on the use and publication of the Voter File are preempted by the NVRA. The court reasoned that both federal and state law require Maine election officials to create and update voter registration records, and these activities fall within Section 8(i)(1). The Voter File, as an electronic report generated from the Central Voter Registration system, reflects the additions and changes made by Maine election officials in carrying out voter list registration and maintenance activities. Therefore, it is a record concerning the implementation of those activities, and its use is subject to disclosure under Section 8(i)(1). The Use Ban and Publication Ban under Exception J, as applied to PILF, were found to be preempted by the NVRA, and the fines for violating these restrictions were also preempted. View "Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Bellows" on Justia Law

A pregnant inmate, Lidia Lech, filed a lawsuit against several healthcare providers and staff at the Western Massachusetts Regional Women's Correctional Center (WCC), alleging that they ignored her serious medical symptoms and denied her requests to go to the hospital, resulting in the stillbirth of her baby. The district court permitted most of Lech's claims to proceed to trial, but granted summary judgment in favor of one of the correctional officers. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in two evidentiary rulings. The first error was allowing the defense to use Lech's recorded phone calls to impugn her character for truthfulness. The second error was excluding testimony from Lech's friend, which would have corroborated her version of events. The court concluded that at least one of these evidentiary rulings was not harmless, vacated the jury verdict, and remanded for a new trial against most of the defendants. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the correctional officer, as well as the jury verdict in favor of one of the medical providers. View "Lech v. Von Goeler" on Justia Law

Clare Mundell worked as a licensed clinical psychologist for Acadia Hospital in Maine. She discovered that her male colleagues were paid significantly more than her for comparable work. Mundell brought a sex discrimination action against Acadia under federal and state law, specifically the Maine Equal Pay Law ("MEPL"). The district court found Acadia liable under the MEPL and awarded Mundell treble damages. On appeal, Acadia argued that the district court erred in holding that Mundell could prevail without establishing Acadia's discriminatory intent and because Acadia claimed a reasonable-factor-other-than-sex defense to explain the pay difference. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the MEPL does not impose an intent requirement on a plaintiff, nor does it permit a defendant to rely on a catch-all affirmative defense such as market factors to explain pay disparity. The court also concluded that treble damages are available for MEPL violations. View "Mundell v. Acadia Hospital Corp." on Justia Law

James De La Cruz was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin and 400 grams or more of fentanyl. He pleaded guilty to both counts and was subsequently sentenced to 108 months in prison. De La Cruz appealed the sentence, arguing it was substantively unreasonable. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court noted that the sentence was within the properly calculated sentencing guideline range and considered the dangerous nature of fentanyl, the large quantity involved in the transaction, and De La Cruz's role as a manager in the drug trafficking organization. Moreover, the court rejected De La Cruz's argument that his sentence was disproportionate to sentences for violent crimes and that he was unfairly punished for the potential harm caused by the drugs, not actual harm. The court also dismissed his claim of sentencing disparity with a co-defendant, noting that De La Cruz and his co-defendant were not identically situated. Lastly, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering deterrence when determining De La Cruz's sentence. View "US v. De La Cruz" on Justia Law

The case involves Nicholas Triantos, who sued various parties, including the law firm that represented Deutsche Bank in the foreclosure sale of his home, and the three partners of the firm. The district court dismissed his suit, and the law firm and its partners then moved for sanctions against Triantos under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The district court granted the motion and ordered Triantos to pay $10,000 in attorneys' fees and $32.00 in costs. Triantos appealed this order. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed and vacated the order. The court found that the district court had imposed sanctions under Rule 11 without following the rule's procedural requirements. The court explained that the law firm served its motion on Triantos only after the district court had dismissed the case, and it did not meet its obligation under Rule 11's safe-harbor provisions to serve the motion on Triantos twenty-one days prior to filing it with the court. The district court also erred by imposing sanctions without describing in its order the sanctionable conduct or explaining the basis for its decision. View "Triantos v. Guaetta & Benson, LLC" on Justia Law