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

In this case stemming from a lengthy and acrimonious family dispute over the property of Donelson Glassie, whose estate remained in probate in Rhode Island eleven years after his death, the First Circuit reversed the judgment of the federal district court dismissing Plaintiff's claims as barred by the probate exception to federal court jurisdiction, holding that the district court erred.Plaintiff, Donelson's daughter, brought this action against several family members, including the executor of Donelson's estate, alleging that Defendants were liable to her under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws, 18 U.S.C. 1962, because they formed an enterprise that engaged in a pattern of fraudulent interstate communications and that Defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to her as a minority member of an entity wholly owned by a company in which the estate held a fifty-eight percent interest, and other claims. The district court dismissed all claims. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in finding the probate exception applicable to this case. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

The affirmed the decision of the district court to allow the government to rescind a plea agreement previously entered into with Defendant and proceed to sentence Defendant to a 162-month term of immurement, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his arguments on appeal.Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing fentanyl. Thereafter, Defendant entered into a plea cooperation agreement with the government, which merged into and supplemented his plea agreement. Defendant, however, refused to perform under the agreement. Consequently, the district court rejected the supplemented plea agreement and sentenced Defendant to a 162-month term of immurement. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to enforce Defendant's supplemented plea agreement; and (2) there was no error in the sentence imposed. View "United States v. Mejia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the sentence the district court judge imposed after revoking Defendant's term of supervised release, holding that the district judge's use of alleged facts from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico court's prosecution of the charge against Defendant to determine Defendant's sentence was plain error.In 2011, Defendant was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846, 860, conspiracy to distribute narcotics. While Defendant was serving his term o supervised release, Commonwealth authorities charged him with violating Article 133 of the Puerto Rico Penal Code for attempting to commit lewd acts. A magistrate judge found probable cause that Defendant had violated a condition of his release and imposed a three-year term of imprisonment. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that the district judge procedurally erred by improperly relying on factual allegations that were not in the record when he imposed an upwardly variant sentence. View "United States v. Ramos-Carreras" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that couriers who deliver goods from local restaurants and retailers are transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce such that they are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Plaintiffs, who worked as couriers for Defendants making deliveries in the greater Boston area, filed suit in a Massachusetts state court on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated couriers, alleging that Defendant had misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees and that they were entitled to employee benefits and protections under Massachusetts law. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs were not exempt from the FAA, compelled arbitration of the dispute, and dismissed the lawsuit. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in compelling arbitration and dismissing the underlying complaint. View "Immediato v. Postmates, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the basis of qualified immunity and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint bringing various constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state law tort claims under the Maine Civil Rights Act (MCRA), Me. Stat. tit. 5, 4682, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this action against the City of Portland and six city police officers alleging that the officers used excessive force and otherwise violated his constitutional rights when they were investigating a domestic violence incident in which he was involved and left him standing outside in his socks in freezing temperatures for several minutes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case; and (2) the district court properly concluded that Plaintiff's tort claims had been waived and granted summary judgment in Defendants' favor. View "Punsky v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for wire fraud, extortion conspiracy, and extortion, holding that Defendant was "fairly tried and lawfully convicted by an impartial jury in a trial presided over by an able judge and unblemished by any reversible error."A jury convicted Defendant of nine counts of wire fraud, four counts of tax fraud, four counts of extortion conspiracy, and four counts of extortion in connection with his promotion of his SnoOwl app and public corruption as mayor of the city of Fall River, Massachusetts. The district court acquitted Defendant on six of the nine wire fraud counts and all four of the tax fraud counts and otherwise denied Defendant's post-trial motions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions that the district court allowed to stand; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by "evidentiary spillover" resulting from a "transference of guilt" from the counts that the district court dismissed in a post-trial ruling; (3) there was no instructional error in this case; and (4) any alleged misconduct on the part of the prosecutor did not support Defendant's claim that the alleged misconduct prejudiced the jury and, thus, influenced the outcome of the case. View "United States v. Correia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court granting Evenflo Company Inc.'s motion to dismiss this amended class action complaint brought by forty-three plaintiffs from twenty-eight states alleging that certain representations made by Evenflo were false or misleading, holding that Plaintiffs' pleadings plausibly demonstrated their standing to seek monetary relief.Plaintiffs alleged that Evenflo made several misrepresentations about the safety and testing of its children's Big Kid car booster seat and that Plaintiffs purchased the seat relying on the misrepresentations and that, but for the misrepresentations, Plaintiffs would not have purchased the seat or would have paid less for it. Plaintiffs sought both monetary relief and declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their complaint and granted Evenflo's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) Plaintiffs had standing to pursue monetary relief; and (2) Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. View "In re Evenflo Company, Inc. v. Xavier" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed certain Credit Unions' challenge to the district court's rejection of their objections to the Modified Eighth Amended Title III Joint Plan of Adjustment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (the confirmation order) and the findings of fact and conclusions of law in connection with the confirmation order (the FF/CL), holding that dismissal was warranted.The final debt restructuring plan at issue in this appeal was the product of evolving plans about how to resolve the initial petition for debt restructuring filed by Puerto Rico's Financial Oversight and Management Board on behalf of the Commonwealth and several of its agencies and instrumentalities pursuant to Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Stability Act. Six Credit Unions appealed to challenge the confirmation order and FF/CL. The First Circuit dismissed the Credit Unions' challenges, holding that because the Court has now affirmed the dismissal of the Credit Union' adversary claims, the appeal from the confirmation order and the FF/CL was moot. View "Financial Oversight & Management Bd. For Puerto Rico v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the claims brought by six Credit Unions against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and several of its agencies and instrumentalities, holding that the district court properly dismissed the claims.In this adversary proceeding brought as part of broader proceedings underway to restructure the Commonwealth's debts under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Stability Act, the Credit Unions argued that Defendants induced and forced them to invest in worthless government-issued securities and that Defendants failed to disclosure their knowledge that these would be losing investments. The district court dismissed the claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the Credit Unions' claims were properly dismissed. View "Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Abraham Rosa v. Financial Oversight & Management Bd. for Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the conclusion of the district court conclusion that the insurance policy issued by Motorists Commercial Mutual Insurance Company to the dealership that owned a motor vehicle that killed and injured several people did cover the accident at issue in this case, holding that the district court did not err.This dispute arose from an auction at which a motor vehicle being displayed for bidding suddenly accelerated into a group of auction attendees, killing five people and injuring several more. Motorists brought this action seeking a declaration that its policies did not provide coverage for the victims' claims against the auctioneer or its employee who was behind the wheel of the vehicle when it struck the victims. The district court granted summary judgment for Motorists. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policies at issue did not provide coverage for the accident. View "Motorists Commercial Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hartwell" on Justia Law