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

In this appeal arising from the post-settlement process of apportioning a $300 million recovery between a class and its lawyers the First Circuit affirmed the district court's Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b) sanction of Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP (Lieff) and otherwise dismissed as unappealable Lieff's challenges to the district court's criticisms of Lieff's actions, holding that there was no error.Lieff served as one of the principal law firms representing a class of investors in a successful challenge to charges imposed by State Street Bank and Trust Company on foreign exchange products. The district court awarded a $60 million fee to the lawyers representing the class but formally sanctioned Lieff for engaging in misconduct without imposing any monetary penalty. The First Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in sanctioning Lieff; and (2) the remainder of Lieff's allegations of error were unappealable. View "Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Berns v. Labaton Sucharow LLP" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the denial of Appellant's application for adjustment of status on statutory and federal constitutional grounds, holding that there was no error.Appellant conceded removability but sought to remain in the country by applying for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). An immigration judge denied Appellant's application for adjustment of status, concluding that Appellant had not met his burden of showing that he merited a favorable exercise of discretion. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Appellant's petition for review, holding that Appellant's claims on appeal were without merit. View "Thomas v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted in part and denied in part Appellant's petition for review of the judgment of the board of immigration appeals (BIA) finding that Appellant was ineligible for asylum and denying her application for withholding of removal, holding that Appellant's application for withholding of removal should be remanded.Appellant, a native of Guatemala, applied for relief that included asylum and withholding of removal. The immigration judge (IJ) and the BIA denied relief. On appeal, the government conceded that Appellant's application for withholding of removal should be remanded due to the failure of the IJ and BIA to consider relevant aspects of Appellant's claims of past persecution. The First Circuit (1) vacated the denial of Appellant's application for withholding from removal, holding that the IJ and BIA erred by failing to consider certain evidence and by failing to provide her with an opportunity to explain why she could not provide certain corroborating evidence in connection with her request for withholding; and (2) held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Appellant's request for asylum. View "Ixcuna-Garcia v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.Defendant Jose Mulero-Vargas and and Luis Merced-Marcia were charged with aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Both men entered guilty pleas to the counts. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by holding him responsible for two machine-guns. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court was entitled to draw a reasonable inference that Defendant, at the very least, constructively possessed the second machine-gun; and (2) Defendant's 168-month aggregate sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Mulero-Vargas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court finding that Electric Boat Corp. had failed to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) for federal officer removal, holding that Electric Boat established the statutory requirements for removal.During the late-1960s, Michael Moore was allegedly exposed to asbestos during construction of a submarine, the USS Francis Scott Key, where he worked as an electronics officer. Moore and his wife (collectively, Moore), brought suit against Electric Board and others, alleging several state claims. Electric Boat removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442. Moore filed a motion to remand to state court, which the district court granted after finding that Electric Boat had failed to satisfy the requirements for federal officer removal under section 1442(a)(1). The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) the district court interpreted section 1442(a)(1) in a manner inconsistent with the 2011 congressional amendment to the statute; and (2) Electric Boat satisfied the standard for federal officer removal under section 1442(a)(1). View "Moore v. Electric Boat Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss as to count one of Plaintiffs' complaint and reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings on counts two through four, holding that dismissal was improper as to the remaining three counts.Plaintiffs, S.R. and T.R. and their child N.R., brought this action against Raytheon Company, T.R.'s employer, after United Healthcare, which administered the company's health insurance plan, refused to pay for N.R.'s speech therapy, alleging various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. The district court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss in full. The First Circuit held (1) the district court properly dismissed count one of the complaint; but (2) the dismissal of Plaintiffs' remaining claims was improper. View "N.R. v. Raytheon Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court in this dispute between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 103 (the Union) and Johnson Controls Security Solutions, LLC over Johnson Controls' compliance with the terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), holding that the district court erred by failing to order arbitration as called for by a clause in the CBA.Johnson Controls' Norwood, Massachusetts facility entered into a CBA with the Union, a labor organization that represented employees of the company, that contained an arbitration clause. The Union filed a grievance concerning Johnson Controls' reduction in its matching contribution to the company's 401(k) plan, which Johnson Controls denied. When the Union filed a demand for arbitration Johnson Controls brought this lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the dispute was not arbitrable under the CBA. The district court concluded that the dispute was not arbitrable. The First Circuit reversed, holding that nothing in the record showed that the parties intended to exclude this type of dispute from the scope of the arbitration clause. View "Johnson Controls Security Solutions, LLC v. Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 103" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering compliance with an administrative subpoena issued to Appellant by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 876, to produce certain prescription drug records of an individual, holding that there was no error.The instant subpoena was issued by the DEA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 876 to produce the prescription drug records kept by New Hampshire's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (the PDMP) of an individual. The district court ordered Appellant, who was then the PDMP program manager, to comply with the subpoena. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the subpoena was enforceable under 21 U.S.C. 876(c); and (2) the third-party doctrine applied to this case. View "U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Jonas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's twelve-month prison sentence that was imposed after he committed and admitted to multiple supervised release violations, holding the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.The government argued that Defendant's appeal was moot because he had been released from incarceration, even though he was still serving his term of supervised release. The First Circuit held (1) this case was not mooted as a result of Defendant's release from incarceration; and (2) the sentence imposed in this case was defensible, and its duration was not an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Reyes-Barreto" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendants' claims that their prosecutions ran afoul of the prohibition in a congressional appropriations rider against spending federal funds to prosecute criminal defendants for marijuana-related offenses, holding that there was no error.The appropriations rider at issue placed a practical limit on federal prosecutors' ability to enforce the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., with respect to certain conduct involving medical marijuana. Defendants - two individuals and three companies - were indicted for marijuana-related offenses. Defendants moved to enjoin their prosecutions pursuant to the appropriations rider. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the appropriations rider did not bar the pending federal prosecution against Defendants. View "United States v. Bilodeau" on Justia Law