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

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court in the underlying action originally brought by Peter Marcus against the American Contract Bridge League (ACBL), where Marcus was formerly employed, holding that the district court erred in part.In the underlying amended complaint, Marcus and his co-plaintiffs sought unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a), and Marcus asserted that he was wrongfully discriminated and retaliated against for requesting his claimed pay. The district court entered summary judgment for certain plaintiffs and, as to Marcus's retaliation claim, entered summary judgment for ACBL. The First Circuit reversed in part and remanded the case, holding that the district court (1) erred in denying Plaintiffs' motion to substitute a party; (2) correctly granted judgment in favor of ACBL on Marcus's retaliation claim; (3) erred in granting judgment with respect to the FSLA overtime claims of certain plaintiffs; and (4) otherwise did not err. View "Marcus v. American Contract Bridge League" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of wire fraud and honest services wire fraud, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346, and 2 (count seven) for participating in a fraudulent scheme to obtain tests and test scores from ACT, Inc., holding that the district court did not err.Defendant, along with fourteen other parents, was named in an indictment resulting from an investigation into alleged fraudulent schemes designed to secure the admission of the children of the defendants into national elite universities. Defendant was charged with several crimes stemming from his payment of $50,000 to have an ACT proctor change his son's test scores. Defendant moved to dismiss count seven on the grounds that ACT test scores do not constitute money or property under the wire fraud statute. The motion was denied, and Defendant conditionally pled guilty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the property interest alleged in the indictment was the object of Defendant's fraud; and (2) Defendant's remaining arguments were either waived or without merit. View "United States v. McGlashan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief challenging the restraint procedures used by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) under the Eighth Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), holding that the district court did not err in denying relief.Plaintiff, an inmate who suffered from severe arthritis in his shoulder joints, challenged the restraint procedures used on him by the DOC, including "rear cuffing" with a single standard handcuff, then later rear cuffing using "double cuffs," and still later using custom modified handcuffs. In this action, Plaintiff argued that the unnecessary pain caused by these restraint procedures violated his constitutional and statutory rights and sought an order requiring the DOC to adopt his own proposed restraint procedure. The district court denied Plaintiff's request for preliminary relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that DOC did not respondent with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs and that Plaintiff was unlikely to prevail on the merits of his ADA claim. View "Sosa v. Mass. Dep't of Correction" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico on its action against the Governor of Puerto Rico seeking to block the implementation of Act 41-2022, which tightened certain labor regulations that had been loosened about five years earlier, holding that the district court did not err in nullifying the law.The Board sued to block the enforcement of Act 41-2022, which the Governor signed into law on June 20, 2022, by filing an adversary proceeding in the court overseeing Puerto Rico's bankruptcy process under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act. The Governor moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the Governor's motion and then nullified the law and any actions taken to implement it. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no reason to disturb the court's order nullifying Act 41. View "Financial Oversight & Management Board for P.R. v. Hernandez-Montanez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to 240 months imprisonment - double the statutory minimum - in connection with his plea of guilty to one count of knowingly carrying, brandishing, or discharging one or more firearms during and in relation to a kidnapping resulting in a crime of violence, holding that there was no error.Pursuant to his plea agreement, Defendant joined the government during sentencing to recommend a sentence of 210 months. The court rejected the recommendation and sentenced Defendant to 240 months - double the statutory minimum of 120 months. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court's upwardly variant sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Diaz-Serrano" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Insurer in this insurance dispute, holding that the failure to give notice according to the terms and conditions of an excess insurance policy forfeits any right to coverage.The President and Fellows of Harvard College purchased a one-year liability insurance policy from a member company of the American International Group, Inc. (AIG) requiring prompt notice of any claim filed against Harvard. Harvard purchased a secondary excess policy from Zurich American Insurance Co. providing that a policyholder give notice of any claims arising under the policy "in the same manner required by the terms and conditions of the [AIG] Policy." In 2014, a student organization sued Harvard for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Harvard timely notified AIG of the pending suit but neglected to notify Zurich until after the policy's notification window. Therefore, Zurich denied coverage. Harvard brought this action seeking declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for Zurich. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no basis for overturning the district court's entry of summary judgment. View "President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's prison sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to crimes arising from his role in a bank fraud scheme and vacated in part the restitution order, holding that the district court should not have included a certain auto loan in the restitution order.Defendant pleaded guilty to three crimes stemming from his involvement in a bank fraud conspiracy. The district court sentenced Defendant to 110 months' imprisonment and also ordered restitution in the amount of $256,537, an amount that included the auto loan at issue. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) Defendant's prison sentence was procedurally reasonable; and (2) the district court erred by including the auto loan at issue in its restitution order, but the remainder of the restitution order was proper. View "United States v. Gadson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the rulings of the district court requiring Timothy Day to pay NuVasive, Inc., his former employer, more than $1.7 million in damages and attorney's fees for breach of contract and spoliation of evidence, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.NuVasive brought suit against Day making claims arising from Day's business interactions with NuVasive's customers on behalf of Alphatec Spine, Inc., Day's new employer, in violation of non-competition and non-solicitation obligations in Day's contract with NuVasive. After the district court entered its final judgment Day appealed, arguing that the court erred in finding the requisite causal nexus between Day's improper solicitations and the decisions of certain NuVasive customers to switch to Alphatec as their primary supplier of spine-related surgical products. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error in the damages award or the sanctions-based award of attorney's fees and costs. View "NuVasive, Inc. v. Day" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied the petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) brought by Petitioners, several Peruvian nationals who were ordered removed from the United States, holding that Petitioners were not entitled to relief on their claims.Petitioners brought claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, contending that, if returned to Peru, they feared being seriously physically harmed or killed due to their former involvement with the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA) political party. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered Petitioners removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency's ruling that Petitioners had failed to make the requisite showing regarding government involvement. View "Vila-Castro v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for habeas review on the grounds that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, holding that, although this Court's reasoning differs from that of the district court, there was no error in the denial of the habeas petition.Petitioner pled guilty to transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. On appeal, Petitioner argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance based on a claim centered on the applicable statute of limitations, which had changed from the time when Petitioner committed the offense of conviction to the time that he was indicted. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss the charges against him on limitations grounds. View "Miller v. United States" on Justia Law