Datasets:

---

jhu-clsp

/

CLERC

like 4

Follow

Center for Language and Speech Processing @ JHU 71

[ { "docid": "3972607", "title": "", "text": "which the unit[s] w[ere] accepted.” Count three charged that the HAP Contract contained Mandanici’s false representation that the 1477 Building “had been rehabilitated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the” AHAP Contract when he then knew that “the work had not been performed in accordance with the terms of the” AHAP Contract. Mandanici challenges the failure of count three to recite the full disjunctive warranty he made in the HAP Contract, contends that the disjunctive representation he made in the HAP Contract was literally true, and argues that in any event there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction on this count. We disagree. Mandanici first attacks his conviction on count three because count three charged that he represented that the work was completed and omitted the language “or will be completed in accordance with the terms on which the unit[s] w[ere] accepted.” While we agree that it is preferable for an indictment to set out the full text of the alleged false statement, the failure to do so in this case did not in any way prejudice Mandanici. We see no indication that the grand jury was not presented with Mandanici’s complete HAP Contract, and the record is clear that the petit jury was informed on several occasions of the full text of the representation Mandanici made in the HAP Contract. There is no indication in the record that either body was led to believe that Mandanici made only the first portion of this disjunctive representation. Nor do we find merit in Mandanici’s claim that his HAP Contract representation — i.e., that the work either was completed or would be completed in the future — was literally true. While a defendant may not be convicted under § 1001 on the basis of a statement that is, although misleading, literally true, see Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 359-62, 93 S.Ct. 595, 600-01, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), the factual premise for application of this principle here is absent. First, even as to the possibility of future completion, the HAP Contract required that the work be completed on" } ]

[ { "docid": "1166961", "title": "", "text": "challenged assignments from the indictment. Id.; United States v. Goldstein, 168 F.2d 666, 671 (2d Cir.1948). If that motion is not made, the issue may still be preserved for appeal if the appellant chooses an equivalent method that focuses the attention of the trial court on the alleged errors. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d at 1222; Natelli, 527 F.2d at 329-30. Although appellant did not move to withdraw portions of the penury indictment he did raise his Bronston claim before the trial court. During trial, Lighte’s counsel moved for a special verdict and argued this issue. He identified errors in various questions and argued for the application of that defense. At this point the district court commented on the quality of the questioning — an issue before us on this appeal — but made no findings respecting the questions asked. Given the length of the discussion, the direct references to Bronston, and the trial court’s subsequent charge on it, we believe the district court was properly apprised of appellant’s claim that the questions asked of him were ambiguous and his responses literally true and therefore protected under Bronston. Hence, the issue was preserved for appeal. B. The Bronston Defense In Bronston, a creditor was attempting to ascertain whether Bronston, then in bankruptcy, maintained any Swiss bank accounts. After receiving a “no” answer to the question, Bronston was then asked, “Have you ever?” to which he replied, “The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich.” 409 U.S. at 354, 93 S.Ct. at 598. Later, it was proved that Bronston, prior to the questioning, had for five years held a personal bank account in Geneva. As a consequence, the Supreme Court overturned Bronston’s perjury conviction holding that the perjury statute did not reach his literally true but unresponsive answer, even though it was arguably misleading by negative implication. A peijury conviction must rest on the utterance by the accused of a false statement; it may not stand on a particular interpretation that a questioner places upon an answer. See Id. at 360, 93 S.Ct. at 600; United States v. Corr," }, { "docid": "23381521", "title": "", "text": "violate 18 U.S.C. § 1623, testimony must be “both false and material. If literally true, there was no offense, even if ... [the defendant’s] answer was deliberately misleading.”) (citing Bronston, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595 (1973)). However, this case bears no resemblance to Bronston. Bronston involved a perjury prosecution arising from a bankruptcy hearing at which one of the defendant’s creditors asked him whether he had ever had a Swiss bank account, and the defendant responded by stating that his company once had a Swiss bank account for six months. Id. at 354, 93 S.Ct. at 598. Though the defendant’s answer was unresponsive and created the false implication that he had never had a Swiss bank account, his literal statement regarding his company’s Swiss bank account was true. Id. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that he could not be convicted of perjury as Congress did not intend to criminalize “answers unresponsive on their face but untrue only by ‘negative implication.’ ” Id. at 361, 93 S.Ct. at 601. We cannot classify Reilly’s responses in the district court or to the grand jury as “literally true.” Moreover, we have “eschewed] a broad reading of Bronston,” id., and held that [a]s a general rule, the fact that there is some ambiguity in a falsely answered question will not shield the respondent from a perjury or false statements prosecution.... Normally, it is for the petit jury to decide which construction the defendant placed on the question.... It is difficult to define the point at which a question becomes so ambiguous that it is not amenable to jury interpretation. We have stated that the point is reached *when it [is] entirely unreasonable to expect that the defendant understood the question posed to him.’ Slawik, 548 F.2d at 86. Other courts have said that ‘[a] question is fundamentally ambiguous when it “is not a phrase with a meaning about which men of ordinary intellect could agree, nor one which could be used with mutual understanding by a questioner and answerer unless it were defined at the time it were sought and offered as testimony.”’" }, { "docid": "6694411", "title": "", "text": "v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), addressed the “narrow but important question [of] whether a witness may be convicted of penury for an answer, under oath, that is literally true but not responsive to the question asked and arguably misleading by negative implication.” Id. at 352-53, 93 S.Ct. at 597. Bronston had given the following set of responses under oath: Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich. Q. Have you any nominees who have bank accounts in Swiss banks? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. No, sir. Id. at 354, 93 S.Ct. at 598. Everything Bronston actually stated was true; it was also true, however, that Bronston once had a Swiss bank account. Nonetheless, the Court held that he could not be convicted of perjury for implying an untruthful answer under oath when everything he stated was, in fact, literally true. The Court offered several sound reasons for this strict rule. It noted that our adversary system relies heavily on witnesses testifying freely and without fear of retribution from the legal establishment. The Court feared that, if a jury were permitted to conjecture whether a true but unresponsive answer was intended to mislead, “[witnesses would be unsure of the extent of their responsibility for the misunderstandings and inadequacies of examiners, and might well fear having that responsibility tested by a jury under the vague rubric of ‘intent to mislead’ or ‘perjury by implication.’ ” Id. at 359, 93 S.Ct. at 600. Even the most honest and well-intentioned witnesses, the Court stated, may occasionally give an unresponsive answer due to a misunderstanding of the meaning or scope of the question. Id. at 358, 93 S.Ct. at 600. The Court reasoned, then, that a penury prosecution is an unnecessarily “drastic sanction ... to cure a testimonial mishap that could readily have been reached with a single additional question by counsel alert ... to the incongruity of [the witness’]" }, { "docid": "8188836", "title": "", "text": "for a judgment of acquittal and moved for a new trial. The district court denied both motions and sentenced Sarwari to three concurrent terms of twelve months and one day in prison. Sarwari timely filed this appeal. II. Relying on Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), Sarwari initially argues that his answers on the passport applications were “literally true,” and therefore his convictions cannot stand as a matter of law. In Bronston, the Supreme Court held that an individual cannot be convicted of perjury when the allegedly false statement was “literally true but not responsive to the question asked and arguably misleading by negative implication.” 409 U.S. at 353, 93 S.Ct. 595. The Government charged Bronston with perjury based on his allegedly intentionally misleading answer to an unambiguous question in a bankruptcy proceeding: Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich. Id. at 354, 93 S.Ct. 595. In fact, Bronston had held a personal bank account in Zurich, although the negative implication of his answer suggested that he had not. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, emphasizing that a perjury conviction is a “drastic sanction,” and identifying “a serious literal problem” in basing a violation of a statute that criminalizes “willfully ... staffing] ... any material matter that [a defendant] does not believe to be true” on a statement that is literally true, even if nonresponsive or misleading. Id. at 357-58, 93 S.Ct. 595. We and our sister circuits have, on occasion, applied Bronston to reverse a conviction based on a literally true answer. For example, in United States v. Good, 326 F.3d 589, 591-92 (4th Cir.2003), we reversed a false statement conviction because the defendant’s negative response to a question on a security badge application as to whether she had been convicted of “Burglary, Theft, Armed robbery, Possession or Distribution of Stolen Property ... [,] Dishonesty, Fraud, or Misrepresentation” was “literally true.” Although the defendant had been" }, { "docid": "19529492", "title": "", "text": "orthogonal but \"true and complete on its face\": it accurately stated that Bronston's company had briefly banked with the Swiss. 409 U.S. at 354, 359, 93 S.Ct. 595. To support a perjury conviction, the government argued that Bronston misled with \"literal truthfulness\" that \"unresponsively addressed\" his company's affairs, \"thereby implying that he had no personal Swiss bank account at the relevant time.\" Id. at 355, 93 S.Ct. 595. The Supreme Court reversed because perjury statutes do not punish \"answers unresponsive on their face but untrue only by 'negative implication.' \" Id. at 361, 93 S.Ct. 595. Rather, \"any special problems arising from the literally true but unresponsive answer are to be remedied through the 'questioner's acuity' and not by a federal perjury prosecution.\" Id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. 595 ; see also id. (\"[T]he examiner's awareness of unresponsiveness should lead him to press another question or reframe his initial question with greater precision.\"). At best (from Spalding's perspective), Bronston is inapposite. Bronston's statement was evasive and facially true, Spalding's responsive and false-triply so. When asked to describe noteholders, Spalding lied about when, whether, and how many people either executed notes or got repaid. See United States v. Schafrick , 871 F.2d 300, 303 (2d Cir. 1989) (\"If an answer is responsive to the question, then there is no notice to the examiner and no basis for applying Bronston .\"). The jury was well within bounds to find Spalding guilty on this count. III. Spalding also asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress some prior statements under the Fifth Amendment. According to Spalding, a state court unconstitutionally compelled him to answer a disgruntled investor's questions during a deposition-testimony that the district court should have suppressed from his criminal case. This Fifth-Amendment claim is a nonstarter. First, and on this record, the district court's decision denying Spalding's motion is unreviewable. Appraising suppression motions on appeal typically involves two steps: the merits (we afford factual findings clear-error deference but view legal conclusions de novo), and the injury (we ask whether the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)." }, { "docid": "10898087", "title": "", "text": "same Terrance Alan Eddy who attempted to gain staff privileges at the Putnam County Community Hospital in Palatka, Florida, and in doing so showed credentials from the Ohio State University and a certificate from the Board of Medical Examiners from the State of Florida indicating that you were licensed to practice medicine in that state? And I think we can take that to mean you represented yourself as a physician. Did you do that? EDDY: Like I said, I don’t remember going there. I don’t remember doing this action. No, sir. Here, Eddy argues the United States failed to prove that his declarations were false. In response it is argued that Eddy’s claims that his declarations were literally true provide no protection from a perjury conviction because the falsity of the statements and the questions were sufficiently clear to withstand a vagueness challenge. We address first the argument by Eddy that his testimony was the literal truth. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), the Court held a witness may not be convicted of “perjury for an answer, under oath, that is literally true but not responsive to the question asked and arguably misleading by negative implication.” Id. at 353, 93 S.Ct. at 597. In Bronston, the defendant had petitioned for an arrangement with creditors under old Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. At a hearing to determine the location of certain assets connected with the company, the following exchange between Bronston and a lawyer occurred: Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. The company had an account there for six months, in Zurich. Q. Have you any nominees who have bank accounts in Swiss banks? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. No, sir. As a matter of later proven fact, Bron-ston once had a personal Swiss bank account, but did not have one at the time of his testimony. Bronston was later charged with and convicted of perjury based on the government’s theory that he had" }, { "docid": "23381520", "title": "", "text": "the term “ ‘knowledge,’ without further definition, is inherently ambiguous.” See R. br. at 54 (citing United States v. Cook, 497 F.2d 753, 764 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1972) (dissenting opinion), majority opinion withdrawn and dissenting opinion reinstated on rehear ing as majority position in relevant part, 489 F.2d 286 (9th Cir.1973)). Reilly cites Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 361-62, 93 S.Ct. 595, 601-02, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), in support of his argument that the questions underlying his false declaration convictions were excessively vague. However, Bronston is distinguishable because, as we noted in United States v. Slawik, 548 F.2d 75, 86 (3d Cir.1977), “Bronston involved literally true but misleading answers.” In Bronston, 409 U.S. at 361-62, 93 S.Ct. at 601-02, the Supreme Court held that the perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, does not apply to statements that are literally true, even if these statements create an implication which is false. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bronston applies equally to the false declarations statute, section 1623. See Slawik, 548 F.2d at 83 (To violate 18 U.S.C. § 1623, testimony must be “both false and material. If literally true, there was no offense, even if ... [the defendant’s] answer was deliberately misleading.”) (citing Bronston, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595 (1973)). However, this case bears no resemblance to Bronston. Bronston involved a perjury prosecution arising from a bankruptcy hearing at which one of the defendant’s creditors asked him whether he had ever had a Swiss bank account, and the defendant responded by stating that his company once had a Swiss bank account for six months. Id. at 354, 93 S.Ct. at 598. Though the defendant’s answer was unresponsive and created the false implication that he had never had a Swiss bank account, his literal statement regarding his company’s Swiss bank account was true. Id. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that he could not be convicted of perjury as Congress did not intend to criminalize “answers unresponsive on their face but untrue only by ‘negative implication.’ ” Id. at 361, 93 S.Ct. at 601. We cannot classify Reilly’s responses in" }, { "docid": "2392987", "title": "", "text": "loan.” Finally Caucci argues that, because the word “associates” was subject to varying interpretations, he could not have deliberately answered the grand jury falsely. It is noted that earlier in his testimony before the grand jury Caucci asked for clarification of the term “associates” when asked if he had ever borrowed any money from anyone associated with Anthony Plate. Caucci did not ask for clarification when later asked about any of his associates. He answered without evading the question or qualifying his answer and the record shows that he did not evidence any hesitancy in answering the question as presented. See United States v. Whitaker, 619 F.2d 1142, 1148 (5th Cir. 1980). Caucci relies on Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), in which the Court reversed the defendant’s perjury conviction because the prosecutor failed to follow a non-responsive but literally true answer with a more precise question. Although Bronston expressly declined to reach the issue of the ambiguity of the question, it did note that “[pjrecise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury.” Id. at 356, 362, 93 S.Ct. at 599, 601. Bronston was concerned with a situation where the declarative statement that was made was literally true regardless of the context of the question asked, rather than with the situation where a “yes or no” answer was given, the truth of which can be ascertained only in the context of the question asked. See United States v. Cuesta, supra, 597 F.2d at 920. There is no Bronston situation in this case. Although the questions at issue in this case could perhaps have been more clear or precise, we cannot conclude that they were so imprecise as a matter of law that they were insufficient to support a perjury conviction. United States v. Whitaker, supra, 619 F.2d at 1148-49; United States v. Calimano, 576 F.2d 637, 640-42 (5th Cir. 1978). The function of this Court on review of the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government," }, { "docid": "11767015", "title": "", "text": "595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973). With respect to Count Six the defendant also maintains there was an ambiguity in the questioning that would render Mahoney’s challenged deposition testimony true. The government concedes in its memorandum that the portion of Count Five charging that Mahoney falsely testified he personally made repayments on the Sterling loan must be dismissed. That portion of Mahoney’s testimony before the grand jury was literally true, albeit perhaps unresponsive. Mahoney, in fact, personally forwarded payments to Sterling, although the government contends, and intends to prove at trial, that Hyman provided Mahoney with the money for such payments. Under the landmark case of Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed. 2d 568 (1973) a statement that is “literally true but unresponsive” cannot form the basis of a federal perjury prosecution. See id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. at 602. Such evasiveness is better “remedied through the ‘questioner’s acuity.’ ” Id. Accordingly, the portion of Count Five that relates to Maho-ney’s testimony regarding the repayment of the Sterling loan is dismissed. Nevertheless, with respect to other testimony challenged by Mahoney, Count Five should not be dismissed. The findings of a grand jury are accorded a strong presumption of regularity and a defendant challenging the competence or admissibility of evidence supporting an indictment bears a heavy burden. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). Further, in a perjury trial, the truth or falsity of a particular statement is a question for the jury to decide. See United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367, 372 (2d Cir.1986); United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir.1970). The jury must determine “whether the question — as the declarant must have understood it, giving it a reasonable reading — was falsely answered.” Id. Mahoney contends that his testimony on Hyman’s role in arranging for the loan was equivocal. For example, Maho-ney responded, “I’m not so sure he [Hy-man] arranged for it [the loan]” and “I really can’t say” when asked whether Hy-man arranged the transaction. Testifying as to lack of recollection," }, { "docid": "18563630", "title": "", "text": "failed to present any evidence that “hearings” were held without the presence of the prosecutor as the term “hearing” is commonly defined in legal parlance. Judge Anderson concedes that eight witnesses testified that they pleaded guilty to DUI charges in his chambers out of the presence of a prosecutor, but contends that accepting guilty pleas in chambers is not equivalent to a “hearing.” Orval Anderson thus asserts that because the government used the word “hearing” in its prior questioning, his response to the government’s question “was at best equivocal and literally true.” In support of his contention, Judge Anderson relies on Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), for the proposition that “if an alleged statement is not responsive to the question asked and it is literally true, it cannot be the basis of a conviction for perjury.” Judge Anderson’s claim that accepting guilty pleas in chambers is not equivalent to a “hearing” is without merit. Judge Anderson’s acceptance of a guilty plea and his entry of a final disposition in DUI cases in his chambers terminated the formal proceedings by the state against the DUI defendants and is thus obviously encompassed within the definition of the term “hearing.” Furthermore, a review of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bronston reveals that the defendant-appellant Anderson’s reliance on that case is misplaced. In Bronston, the prosecuting attorney asked the defendant whether he ever had any bank accounts in Swiss banks. Rather than disclosing that he previously had an account in Geneva, he stated that his company had an account in Zurich for about six months. The answer was misleading and not responsive to the question asked, but was truthful if viewed in isolation. The court held that an unresponsive but literally true answer to questioning cannot support a conviction for perjury. Id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. at 601. The specific argument raised by Orval Anderson in the present case (that his answers were literally true) was addressed and rejected by the court in United States v. Bell, 623 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir.1980). The defendant in" }, { "docid": "18848814", "title": "", "text": "newsletters. Trial Transcript at 20-24. Agent O’Connell also indicated that the questions asked in each proceeding were not identical, and that there was some uncertainty in one of defendant’s answers given in the habeas petition hearing. Id. at 29. The' second witness, Scott Sullivan, was a former employee of defendant’s company, and testified that defendant provided the information for the newsletters, but that either Mr. Sullivan or the secretary typed up the newsletters, duplicated them, placed them in envelopes and delivered them to the post office. He testified that these activities took place at defendant’s request and under his direction. Tidal Transcript at 34-35. The Court concludes that the evidence presented by the government, with the exception of the transcripts of the grand jury proceeding and the habeas petition hearing containing the testimony quoted in the indictment, addresses only whether defendant was guilty of mail fraud and certain securities violations. However, these charges were not before the jury, and such evidence was not relevant to the question of whether defendant made irreconcilably inconsistent statements such that one statement was “necessarily false.” The jury had the opportunity to compare the transcripts and the portions of those transcripts reproduced in the indictment, but such a comparison could not yield a conclusion that defendant’s statements were “irreconcilably inconsistent” — vague, evasive or unresponsive, yes, but not irreconcilably inconsistent. When a defendant’s testimony is vague, unresponsive or evasive, there can be no basis for a perjury conviction when the answers given are literally true. See Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 361-62, 93 S.Ct. 595, 601, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973) ; Flowers, 813 F.2d at 1325. In addition, the questions in the two proceedings were not identical, allowing defendant to give answers in the habeas petition hearing which did not directly contradict his previous answers. See Bronston, 409 U.S. at 361, 363, 93 S.Ct. at 601, 602 (“The burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down to the specific object of the questioner’s inquiry.... Precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury.”); United States v. Reveron Martinez," }, { "docid": "8188835", "title": "", "text": "completed a N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, for one of the stepchildren and checked a box which read: “I am a U.S. citizen parent applying for a Certificate of Citizenship on behalf of my minor (under 18 years) BIOLOGICAL child.” Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship (rev. 01/08/09), at 1 (emphasis in original). At the conclusion of the Government’s case, Sarwari moved pursuant to Rule 29 for a judgment of acquittal. He asserted that the Government produced insufficient evidence that he had made a false statement on the passport applications. The -district court denied the motion. During the charge conference, Sarwari requested that the district court instruct the jury as to the lack of a definition of the word “father” in the statutes and regulations governing passport applications. The district court denied the motion. The district court did, however, instruct the jury that good faith constituted a complete defense to the crimes charged against Sarwari. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts. Following the verdict, Sarwari renewed his motion for a judgment of acquittal and moved for a new trial. The district court denied both motions and sentenced Sarwari to three concurrent terms of twelve months and one day in prison. Sarwari timely filed this appeal. II. Relying on Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), Sarwari initially argues that his answers on the passport applications were “literally true,” and therefore his convictions cannot stand as a matter of law. In Bronston, the Supreme Court held that an individual cannot be convicted of perjury when the allegedly false statement was “literally true but not responsive to the question asked and arguably misleading by negative implication.” 409 U.S. at 353, 93 S.Ct. 595. The Government charged Bronston with perjury based on his allegedly intentionally misleading answer to an unambiguous question in a bankruptcy proceeding: Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich. Id. at" }, { "docid": "1166962", "title": "", "text": "ambiguous and his responses literally true and therefore protected under Bronston. Hence, the issue was preserved for appeal. B. The Bronston Defense In Bronston, a creditor was attempting to ascertain whether Bronston, then in bankruptcy, maintained any Swiss bank accounts. After receiving a “no” answer to the question, Bronston was then asked, “Have you ever?” to which he replied, “The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich.” 409 U.S. at 354, 93 S.Ct. at 598. Later, it was proved that Bronston, prior to the questioning, had for five years held a personal bank account in Geneva. As a consequence, the Supreme Court overturned Bronston’s perjury conviction holding that the perjury statute did not reach his literally true but unresponsive answer, even though it was arguably misleading by negative implication. A peijury conviction must rest on the utterance by the accused of a false statement; it may not stand on a particular interpretation that a questioner places upon an answer. See Id. at 360, 93 S.Ct. at 600; United States v. Corr, 543 F.2d 1042, 1049 (2d Cir.1976). The Supreme Court instructs “that any special problems arising from the literally true but unresponsive answer are to be remedied through the ‘questioner’s acuity’ and not by a federal peijury prosecution.” Bronston, 409 U.S. at 362, 93 S.Ct. at 601. “The burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down to the specific object of the questioner’s inquiry.” Id. at 360, 93 S.Ct. at 600. The defense applies solely to those cases where a defendant’s testimony is literally truthful — even if unresponsive. Id.; Corr, 543 F.2d at 1048-49. When testimony is knowingly false, perjury has been committed. Appellant contends that although his answers were unresponsive, many were truthful. Specifically, he asserts that confusion arose from the questioner’s use of the pronoun “you” to refer to the appellant in some cases as acting in his personal capacity, and in others acting as trustee. Ordinarily, absent a finding of fundamental ambiguity, a reviewing court’s role is quite limited. When a jury is properly charged on the Bronston defense, and" }, { "docid": "19529491", "title": "", "text": "not responsive to the question asked and arguably misleading by negative implication.\" 409 U.S. 352, 352-53, 362, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973) ; cf. 18 U.S.C. § 1621. This appeal is not the first time Spalding leveled his falsity and intent arguments; the jury heard and rejected them as well. We see no reason to disturb that sound judgment. Rational jurors could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Spalding knowingly lied about the lenders' number, their repayments, and the relevant timeframe to \"deceive or cheat [a] creditor [or] trustee.\" 5th Cir. Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal) § 2.08(B) (2015). And the jury reasonably rejected Spalding's position that his answer was literally true or expressed no facts. See United States v. Nixon , 816 F.2d 1022, 1030 (5th Cir. 1987) (\"If in the natural meaning in the context in which [the defendant's] words were used they were materially untrue, perjury was established.\"). Nor does Bronston aid Spalding. There, an examiner asked whether Bronston had ever owned a Swiss bank account, and Bronston's answer was orthogonal but \"true and complete on its face\": it accurately stated that Bronston's company had briefly banked with the Swiss. 409 U.S. at 354, 359, 93 S.Ct. 595. To support a perjury conviction, the government argued that Bronston misled with \"literal truthfulness\" that \"unresponsively addressed\" his company's affairs, \"thereby implying that he had no personal Swiss bank account at the relevant time.\" Id. at 355, 93 S.Ct. 595. The Supreme Court reversed because perjury statutes do not punish \"answers unresponsive on their face but untrue only by 'negative implication.' \" Id. at 361, 93 S.Ct. 595. Rather, \"any special problems arising from the literally true but unresponsive answer are to be remedied through the 'questioner's acuity' and not by a federal perjury prosecution.\" Id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. 595 ; see also id. (\"[T]he examiner's awareness of unresponsiveness should lead him to press another question or reframe his initial question with greater precision.\"). At best (from Spalding's perspective), Bronston is inapposite. Bronston's statement was evasive and facially true, Spalding's responsive and false-triply so. When asked" }, { "docid": "7117171", "title": "", "text": "(2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) specific intent, and (5) agency jurisdiction. United States v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1544 (9th Cir.1991). Camper concedes that all elements are met except for the element of falsity. He argues that his conviction must be reversed under Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), because his response to the question was literally true. Under Bronston, a defendant cannot be convicted for perjury when his statement was literally true under the only possible interpretation. Bronston was asked whether he had any Swiss bank accounts, and he answered, “The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich.” Id. at 354, 93 S.Ct. 595. The statement was indisputably true, as far as it went, but Bronston neglected to mention that he also had once had a personal Swiss bank account. Id. Bronston was prosecuted for perjury, but the Supreme Court reversed his conviction because he had not made a false statement. Id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. 595. Bronston’s rule is limited to cases in which the statement is indisputably true, though misleading because it was unresponsive to the question asked. Different rules govern statements that are ambiguous, in which the statement may be true, according to one interpretation and false according to another. This circuit distinguishes between answers that contain some ambiguity and those that are fundamentally ambiguous. United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 840-41 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 941, 124 S.Ct. 359, 157 L.Ed.2d 254 (2003). A fundamentally ambiguous statement cannot, as a matter of law, support a perjury conviction. United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1087, 157 L.Ed.2d 900 (2004). A statement is not fundamentally ambiguous simply because the questioner and respondent could possibly have had different interpretations. Id. at 1079. “A question is fundamentally ambiguous when men of ordinary intelligence cannot arrive at a mutual understanding\" of its meaning.” Id. at 1078 (internal quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, the existence of “some ambiguity” in a falsely" }, { "docid": "17075356", "title": "", "text": "met his burden to prove a need for transfer. The motion to transfer venue is therefore denied. (3) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One, Three, Four, Five, Six and Seven for Failure to State an Offense Carey next moves to dismiss Counts One, Three, Four, Five, Six and Seven for failure to state an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1623, arguing that those counts contain numerous statements that are (1) literally true or (2) responsive to fundamentally ambiguous questions. Carey’s “Literal Truth” Defense The United States Supreme Court made clear in Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), that an individual cannot be convicted of perjury for an answer given under oath that is literally true, even if it is unresponsive and intended to mis lead. The Court noted that “[t]he burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down to the specific object of the questioner’s inquiry.” Id. at 360, 93 S.Ct. 595. (The “literal truth” defense also applies to false statement prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. See United States v. Mandanici, 729 F.2d 914, 921 (2d Cir.1984).) Whether a statement was literally true is generally an issue for the jury to decide. See United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367, 372, 374 (2d Cir.1986). Nevertheless, the court may make this determination in limited circumstances where “there can be no doubt that [the defendant’s] answers were literally true under any conceivable interpretation of the questions.” Id. at 374. The consideration of this defense, whether by the court or the jury, is not made in a vacuum; it must take into account the context of the testimony as a whole. See United States v. Schafrick, 871 F.2d 300, 303-04 (2d Cir.1989). Turning to the facts of this case, Carey argues that many of his statements listed in Counts One, Three, Four and Seven were literally true in that they were responses to (1) hypothetical questions about what Carey “would have done” in particular situations, or (2) questions which merely asked Carey to confirm his earlier testimony. Hypothetical Questions Carey" }, { "docid": "3562273", "title": "", "text": "Rule ll’s literal language and insist on written pleas under Rule 11(a)(2). The parties likewise should insist on them. This is especially so for defendants, for they have the most to lose if a plea is held invalid. III. We turn now to Yasak’s substantive arguments. Yasak first says his responses in the grand jury session were literally true and cannot support a perjury conviction. Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568, holds that literally true but unresponsive answers are to be remedied by questioner acuity, not by a federal perjury prosecution. Id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. at 601. In Bronston, the perjury conviction (under 18 U.S.C. § 1621) was based upon answers given by Bronston at a bankruptcy hearing to determine the extent and location of Bronston’s company's assets. The following colloquy provided the basis for the perjury charge: Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? . A. The company had an account there for about six months in Zurich. Q. Have you any nominees who have bank accounts in Swiss banks? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. No, sir. It was undisputed, though, that Bronston, personally, had previously had a Swiss bank account for nearly five years. So his answer (regarding the company’s account), while literally true, was unresponsive, and even misleading, as it implied there never was a personal bank account. Id. at 357, 93 S.Ct. at 599. Even so, the Court overturned his perjury conviction, explaining “[i]t may well be that petitioner’s answers were not guileless but were shrewdly calculated to evade. Nevertheless ... any special problems arising from the literally true but unresponsive answer are to be remedied through the ‘questioner’s acuity’ and not by a federal perjury prosecution.” Id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. at 601. Yasak claims two responses were literally true; first, that he took money for parking tickets and turned it over to the corporation counsel’s office for them to pay for the tickets, and second, that he never received any benefits" }, { "docid": "7117170", "title": "", "text": "review his claim de novo. United States v. Naghani, 361 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir.2004). There is sufficient evidence if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Tobias, 863 F.2d 685, 687-88 (9th Cir.1988). Specifically, when a perjury defendant contends that he made no false statement, “Our central task is to determine whether the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant understood the question as did the government and that, so understood, the defendant’s answer was false.” United States v. Sainz, 772 F.2d 559, 562 (9th Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). Camper was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which prohibits giving false information in any matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. The government must prove five elements to obtain a conviction for making a false statement under § 1001:(1) a statement, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) specific intent, and (5) agency jurisdiction. United States v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1544 (9th Cir.1991). Camper concedes that all elements are met except for the element of falsity. He argues that his conviction must be reversed under Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), because his response to the question was literally true. Under Bronston, a defendant cannot be convicted for perjury when his statement was literally true under the only possible interpretation. Bronston was asked whether he had any Swiss bank accounts, and he answered, “The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich.” Id. at 354, 93 S.Ct. 595. The statement was indisputably true, as far as it went, but Bronston neglected to mention that he also had once had a personal Swiss bank account. Id. Bronston was prosecuted for perjury, but the Supreme Court reversed his conviction because he had not made a false statement. Id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. 595. Bronston’s rule is limited to" }, { "docid": "6694410", "title": "", "text": "grand jury testimony than when they were giving it. The jury obviously found the more recent version of the Farinas’ explanation of the payment to Glantz, the Knight Street deal, to be more credible. While not agreeing with that conclusion, Glantz does not directly attack it on this appeal. As to Count Three, Glantz presented a “literal truth” defense. In essence, he argued that his response — “Absolutely not,” to the question, “Did you ever tell anyone that the money was passed on to them?”— was literally true because, at the meeting with Perl and his associates, he never used the precise phrase “the money was passed on to them.” On appeal, Glantz has not only abandoned this argument, but denies he ever made it; instead, he now presents a different version of the literal truth defense: his response to the question was true because he told those at the meeting that the money was passed on to “six families,” not to the Migliaccios and the Capua-nos. II The United States Supreme Court, in Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), addressed the “narrow but important question [of] whether a witness may be convicted of penury for an answer, under oath, that is literally true but not responsive to the question asked and arguably misleading by negative implication.” Id. at 352-53, 93 S.Ct. at 597. Bronston had given the following set of responses under oath: Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich. Q. Have you any nominees who have bank accounts in Swiss banks? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. No, sir. Id. at 354, 93 S.Ct. at 598. Everything Bronston actually stated was true; it was also true, however, that Bronston once had a Swiss bank account. Nonetheless, the Court held that he could not be convicted of perjury for implying an untruthful answer under oath when everything he stated was, in fact, literally true." }, { "docid": "19391459", "title": "", "text": "He admits he knew the woman in the photo was his sister Burmaa. He even admits he gave the name \"Jianmei Li\" because he wanted to protect his sister from immigration problems. Nevertheless, Chogsom argues the jury should not have convicted him because his answer was not literally false. Chogsom maintains his sister was using the name Jianmei Li in the United States. It was her American alias, like a \"street name.\" Because Burmaa was using the name Jianmei Li in the United States, Chogsom maintains his answer that the woman in the photo was Jianmei Li was literally true, and thus he did not \"make a false statement\" in violation of the statute. A statement that is literally true cannot support a conviction under § 1001(a)(2), \"even if a defendant gives a misleading or nonresponsive answer.\" Rahman , 805 F.3d at 838. For example, in Bronston v. United States , 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), the government charged Samuel Bronston with committing perjury at a bankruptcy hearing. An attorney for a creditor asked Bronston, the president of the bankrupt company, if Bronston had ever had an account at a Swiss bank. Bronston answered, \"The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich.\" He did not mention his former personal account at the International Credit Bank in Geneva. However, it was undisputed that his statement concerning the company's account was true. Id. at 353-54, 93 S.Ct. 595. And that made all the difference to the Supreme Court, which overturned Bronston's conviction under the perjury statute. Id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. 595. Though his answer gave \"an implication ... that there was never a personal bank account ... [t]he [perjury] statute does not make it a criminal act for a witness to willfully state any material matter that implies any material matter that he does not believe to be true.\" Id. at 357-58, 93 S.Ct. 595. The Court stated, \"The burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down to the specific object of the questioner's inquiry.\" Id. at 360, 93 S.Ct." } ]

[ { "docid": "552170", "title": "", "text": "tannic acid, is employed in approximately one-half the quantity that is contained in a cup of tea or coffee. Record in The Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 2651 (3d Cir.1921), Second Affidavit of George T. Hunter, Exh. 56, at 1341-43 [hereinafter cited as Rec.] (cited in Dkt. 63, ¶ 6, Second Affidavit of Emmet J. Bondurant). Dr. Pemberton’s formula changed over the years yet the product retained its identity as Coke. The parties have stipulated for purposes of this preliminary injunction proceeding that throughout its history the secret blend of flavor oils and ingredients— known as Merchandise 7X — has remained constant in composition and quantity. Nonetheless, many known alterations of the formula have occurred since the July 21, 1899 contract. For purposes of this litigation, the most important historical change was the inclusion and subsequent elimination of saccharin in 1907. Until 1907 the Company manufactured a single Coke syrup for use in bottling and fountains. According to Charles Howard Chandler, this syrup contained both sugar and saccharin. Rec. supra, page 15, at 1714. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 prohibited the use of saccharin in food products and it was removed and replaced with a larger quantity of granulated sugar. This change resulted in an alteration in the taste of Coke. The bottlers now argue that diet Coke is simply a resurrection of the pre-1907 version. This, of course, is incorrect because diet Coke contains no sugar and the pre-1907 version contained both sugar and saccharin. The bottlers’ position is weakened further in that at all times until the introduction of diet Coke, only one form of Bottler's Syrup bore the name Coca-Cola. Now, however, two forms of Bottler’s Syrup bear the name — Coca-Cola and diet Coca-Cola. It is now undisputed that the chemical compositions of the two Bottler’s Syrups differ. Other than Merchandise 7X, which, as the parties have stipulated for the purpose of this motion, is common to both syrups, the contents are as follows: Ingredient Quantity per gallon of Coca-Cola Syrup Quantity per gallon of diet Coca-Cola Syrup Caramel Water" } ]

[ { "docid": "3266814", "title": "", "text": "injunction, the first issue addressed was whether Coke and diet Coke are two versions of the same product. Although the parties’ contentions have evolved in the intervening two years, the issue of product identity remains a part of these lawsuits. See Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Statement Of Issues, Dkt. 223, at 2-10; Defendant’s Preliminary Statement Of Issues, Dkt. 223, at 2-5. Although defendant has attempted to define the issues so that the only relevant ingredient is the sweetener, all the ingredients are relevant to determine whether the two colas are the same product. ■ In fact, the secret ingredients may be the most relevant ones because the secret ingredients are what gives these drinks their distinctive tastes. Plaintiffs could use the secret formulae to prove one of several product identity theories. An analysis of the secret ingredients in diet Coke and old Coke might show that diet Coke was designed to taste as much like old Coke as a low calorie cola could, and that any differences in secret ingredients reflect defendant’s attempts to achieve taste identity. Alternatively, plaintiffs might use the secret formulae for diet Coke, old Coke, and new Coke in the following way: The syrup for old Coke and new Coke have both been sold as Coca-Cola Bottler's Syrup by the Company. It has been publicly disclosed, however, that the formula for new Coke was derived from the research used for diet Coke. If plaintiffs, armed with the complete formulae, can show that diet Coke is very similar to new Coke, and that diet Coke is more like new Coke than new Coke is like old Coke, that fact could tend to show that diet Coke is within the range of syrups that have been sold as Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup. These examples, based only on speculation as to what plaintiffs might learn through discovery, illustrate that the complete formulae for diet Coke, old Coca-Cola, and new Coca-Cola are relevant to one of the primary issues in this litigation — product identity. The complete formulae, once known, will tend to make a disputed fact more (or less) likely: that, for" }, { "docid": "10568567", "title": "", "text": "at 374. They all contained Merchandise No. 5, which is a flavoring compound that has been used in every version of “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” produced since 1899. Id. at 374-75. They also contained Merchandise 7X which constitutes the core of the Coca-Cola formula and distinguishes Coca-Cola from other competing soft drinks. Merchandise 7X has been used without change in every version of Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup sold since 1899, with the exception of caffeine-free Coca-Cola syrup which contains a modified version of Merchandise 7X and new Coca-Cola syrup which contains no Merchandise 7X. Id. at 375. The preclusion order established that the caffeine-free Coca-Cola syrup does not contain kola nut extract, caffeine, or extract of vanilla, all of which have been ingredients in every previous version of “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup,” and it uses a modified form of Merchandise 7X. Id. Nevertheless, caffeine-free Coca-Cola syrup is the same from the standpoint of chemical composition, ingredient composition, and for-mulae as the syrup which the Company was selling as “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” between 1980 and April 1985 (and which is now sold as Coca-Cola Classic syrup). Id. Later, in diet Coke V, the district court inferred from the preclusion order additional facts about diet Coke syrup. It found that diet Coke syrup contains the same amounts of Merchandise 7X, Merchandise No. 5, vanilla extract, and caffeine as the version of Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup sold from 1980 through 1985 (Coca-Cola Classic syrup), diet Coke V, 696 F.Supp. at 109. It also stated that the Company changed the other publicly-disclosed ingredients in diet Coke to counterbalance the taste difference caused by the low-calorie sweetener. Id. In addition, “the formula, compositional, taste, and other physical organoleptic distinctions” between diet Coke and classic Coke are much less significant and much less noticeable to the consumer than: (a) the differences between Classic Coke and earlier versions of Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup; (b) the differences between new Coke syrup and the syrup for Classic Coke and previous versions of Coke; (c) the differences (except for taste and organoleptic properties) between caffeine-free Coke syrup and Classic Coke syrup; and (d) the differences" }, { "docid": "3266808", "title": "", "text": "The affidavit concludes by stating that because of intense competition in the soft drink industry, the disclosure of any information reflecting the formulae or the Company’s research and development would be extremely damaging to the Company. New Coke was introduced after the Keller affidavit was filed, but the materials supplied to the Court about new Coke provide information about the secret formula in new Coke. To develop new Coke, Merchandise 7X was “optimized,” i.e., changed, and the new secret ingredient is called “7X-100,” to commemorate the one hundredth year of Coca-Cola. This is the first change in the secret ingredient in Coca-Cola since the invention of Coke in 1886. According to the Company’s promotional materials, “7X-100 is just as much a secret as 7X and will be kept in a locked vault in the Trust Company of Georgia Bank in Atlanta.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9, May 8, 1985 Hearing, at 2. The formula for caffeine free Coke has also been changed and is presumably still subject to the same safeguards. Although some of the mystique surrounding the Coca-Cola formulae is the creation of marketing hype, it is beyond dispute that, behind the hype, the Company possesses trade secrets which have been carefully safeguarded and which are extremely valuable. It is also evident that any disclosure of those trade secrets would be harmful to the Company. Accordingly, I find that defendant’s secret formulae are trade secrets and subject to the maximum protection that the law, as set forth above, allows. C. Relevance and Necessity of the Formulae Plaintiffs contend that discovery of these secret formulae is required because they are relevant and necessary to the presentation of plaintiffs’ case. In order to determine whether these trade secrets are in fact relevant and necessary, a review of the issues in the two cases is warranted. 1. Unamended Bottlers The unamended bottlers claim that defendant must furnish diet Coke syrup to them pursuant to the terms of their Bottler’s Contracts and the 1921 Consent Decrees. The standard form contract for unamended bottlers states, in pertinent part: “COMPANY agrees to furnish to BOTTLER ... sufficient" }, { "docid": "10568569", "title": "", "text": "between various versions of Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup sold between 1899 and 1980. Id. (quotations omitted). Most significantly, perhaps, in diet Coke IV the district court inferred that the preclusion order had established that the syrup in new Coke is Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup even though new Coke is produced by an entirely new and different formula, with materially different ingredients (including secret ingredients), a materially different flavor profile, and a materially different taste than [Coca-Cola Classic]; and ... the syrup for new Coca-Cola also materially differs in all of the respects enumerated above from any earlier version of “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” which defendant has ever produced. ... diet Coke IV, 110 F.R.D. at 376. The district court adhered to this inference de spite a finding in diet Coke V that noted significant differences in ingredients between new Coke and old or Classic Coke. In diet Coke V, the court noted that new Coke’s formula is not a modification of the original Coca-Cola formula because it does not contain Merchandise 7X, the most significant part of the original formula for Coke, and new Coke’s secret ingredients are different from the secret ingredients in the original Coke formula, diet Coke V, 696 F.Supp. at 109. Thus, the use of different secret ingredients in new Coca-Cola gives new Coca-Cola a significantly different taste than the version of “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” which was sold to bottlers from 1980 through April 1985. Id. In diet Coke IV, the court further inferred that the preclusion order established that diet Coke is distinguished from new Coke, old or Classic Coke and caffeine-free Coke only by the type of sweetener used, and that the Company formulated diet Coke so as to replicate the taste and appearance of the three other Cokes listed above, diet Coke IV, 110 F.R.D. at 376. It also established that the secret ingredients in diet Coke, new Coke, and/or old or Classic Coke are identical and used in the same ratios. Id. In response to the bottlers’ second request for admissions served on the Company in November 1986, the Company replied that it was “willing" }, { "docid": "10568566", "title": "", "text": "the earlier versions of Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup sold to bottlers as Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup between 1899 and 1980 were more significant and more noticeable to consumers than any such differences between the syrup for diet Coca-Cola and the version of “Coca-Cola Bottler's Syrup” which was sold to bottlers under their contracts between 1980 and 1985, immediately prior to introduction of new Coca-Cola. Id. In addition, the ingredient differences between diet Coke syrup and Coca-Cola Classic syrup were less significant than the ingredient differences which existed between the syrup for Coca-Cola Classic and the syrup for new Coca-Cola that the Company has sold as “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” since 1985. Id. The order further established that prior to the Company’s introduction of new Coca-Cola syrup in April 1985, all of the syrups which it formulated and sold to bottlers as “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup,” including diet Coke (but with the exception of caffeine-free Coca-Cola), shared certain attributes. All were caramel colored, were colas, and were sold under the trademarks Coca-Cola or Coke for consumption as a beverage. Id. at 374. They all contained Merchandise No. 5, which is a flavoring compound that has been used in every version of “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” produced since 1899. Id. at 374-75. They also contained Merchandise 7X which constitutes the core of the Coca-Cola formula and distinguishes Coca-Cola from other competing soft drinks. Merchandise 7X has been used without change in every version of Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup sold since 1899, with the exception of caffeine-free Coca-Cola syrup which contains a modified version of Merchandise 7X and new Coca-Cola syrup which contains no Merchandise 7X. Id. at 375. The preclusion order established that the caffeine-free Coca-Cola syrup does not contain kola nut extract, caffeine, or extract of vanilla, all of which have been ingredients in every previous version of “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup,” and it uses a modified form of Merchandise 7X. Id. Nevertheless, caffeine-free Coca-Cola syrup is the same from the standpoint of chemical composition, ingredient composition, and for-mulae as the syrup which the Company was selling as “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” between 1980 and April 1985 (and which" }, { "docid": "3266805", "title": "", "text": "at 189; Centurion Industries, 665 F.2d at 326; Covey Oil Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 340 F.2d at 999; Kleinerman v. United States Postal Service, 100 F.R.D. at 69-70; Davis v. General Motors Corp., 64 F.R.D. 420, 422 (N.D.Ill.1974); Maritime Cinema Service Corp. v. Movies En Route, Inc., 60 F.R.D. 587, 590 (S.D.N.Y.1973); Spartanics, Ltd. v. Dynetics Engineering Corp., 54 F.R.D. 524, 526 (N.D.Ill.1972); cf. Cleo Wrap Corp. v. Elsner Engineering Works, Inc., 59 F.R.D. 386, 388 (M.D.Pa.1972) (discovery denied where relevance slight, need small, and harm great). The reason for allowing the discovery of trade secrets whenever they are needed to advance the just adjudication of a lawsuit is simple: in the absence of an applicable privilege, “[¿judicial inquiry should not be unduly hampered.” Covey Oil Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 340 F.2d at 999. As Judge Learned Hand stated in one of the earliest trade secret cases: It is true that the result may be to compel the defendant to disclose [trade secrets], and that that may damage the defendant ... That is, however, an inevitable incident to any inquiry in such a case; unless the defendant may be made to answer, the plaintiff is deprived of its right to learn whether the defendant has done it a wrong. Grasselli Chemical Corp. v. National Aniline & Chemical Co., 282 Fed. 379, 381 (S.D.N.Y.1920). B. The Coca-Cola Formulae Are Trade Secrets To satisfy its burden of proving that the Coca-Cola formulae qualify for trade secret protection, defendant has submitted the affidavit of Robert A. Keller, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Company. Dkt. 197. According to the Keller affidavit, the Company has taken every precaution to prevent disclosure of the formula for “Merchandise 7X,” the secret ingredient in old Coke. The written version of the secret formula is kept in a security vault at the Trust Company Bank in Atlanta, and that vault can only be opened by a resolution from the Company’s Board of Directors. It is the Company’s policy that only two persons in the Company shall know the formula at any one time, and" }, { "docid": "3266798", "title": "", "text": "for the present, it will supply them with Coca-Cola Classic syrup under the terms of their contracts for Coca-Cola, but without prejudicing the Company’s rights. Dyson Affidavit, Docket Item (“Dkt.”) 168 (83-120). As defendant’s supplemental brief makes clear, the Company is ostensibly reserving the right to decide at a later time that the syrup for Coca-Cola Classic is not Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup, even though the identical syrup was considered Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup a few months ago. The merits of this remarkable position, however, are not before the Court at this time. II. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel After extensive discovery, plaintiffs filed the instant motion that, in essence, seeks to compel the Company to produce the complete formulae, including secret ingredients, for Coca-Cola, diet Coke, caffeine free Coca-Cola, caffeine free diet Coke, TAB, and every experimental cola formula developed and tested by the Company for possible marketing under the Coca-Cola or Coke trademarks. Defendant’s responses to the discovery requests at issue, which plaintiffs filed as an appendix to their motion, demonstrate that defendant has objected to plaintiffs’ discovery wherever it approached matters related to the secret formulae. Thus, plaintiffs have been foreclosed both from learning the formulae themselves and from learning about other matters that relate to the formulae. In support of their motion to compel, plaintiffs have contended that the secret formulae are relevant and necessary to prove their contentions and respond to defendant’s argument that Coca-Cola and diet Coke are two different products. In response, the Company denies that the formulae are relevant and essential to resolve the central issues in these cases, and also contends that disclosure of these trade secrets is inappropriate at this stage of the litigation. On May 8, 1985, the Court heard extensive oral argument on these issues and received evidence concerning the introduction of new Coke. At the hearing, the Court explored with the parties the possibility of resolving the formula discovery issues by a suitable stipulation, which would obviate the need for the Company to disclose its secrets. A stipulation that the secret ingredients in diet Coke and Coke are identical was" }, { "docid": "3266819", "title": "", "text": "show whether, as defendant has contended through an expert, the Company could have made a diet cola that tastes more like regular Coke than does diet Coke. Comparison of the experimental low-calorie colas with diet Coke and regular Coke would show why the Company chose the diet Coke formula over other available alternatives. If the Company chose the formula most like Coke, that tends to show the Company’s intent to have diet Coke taste just like Coke. In addition, plaintiffs have discovered that the Company tested a low-calorie cola in 1978, which bears on the intent and understanding of the Company in signing the 1978 Amendment. The formula of that cola is certainly relevant. 4. Necessity of Discovery of This Information As in most disputes over the discoverability of trade secrets, see cases cited at page 292-293 supra, ■ the necessity of the discovery of the complete formulae follows logically from.the determination that the formulae are relevant. Plaintiffs need the complete formulae in order to address the product identity issue by comparing the ingredients of the various soft drinks involved. Plaintiffs cannot respond to the assertions of defendant’s experts that diet Coke and Coca-Cola are two products unless plaintiffs’ experts can analyze the complete formulae and explain why the products are the same. Merely using the publicly-disclosed ingredients is obviously insufficient, because they would present an incomplete picture, and because the secret ingredients' are the key to the taste of Coca-Cola. The differences in the public ingredients, including sweeteners, cannot be understood unless they are put in context through disclosure of the similarities and differences in the secret ingredients. Without the complete formulae, plaintiffs will be foreclosed from presenting all the relevant evidence in support of their position. In addition, plaintiffs need the complete formulae in order to explore on cross-examination the bases for the opinions of Company witnesses that Coca-Cola and diet Coke are two separate products. As plaintiffs’ counsel stated at oral argument, see Tr. at 124-25, plaintiffs’ cross-examination of defendant’s witnesses has been foreclosed by defendant’s objections that plaintiffs’ questions relate to trade secrets. Plaintiffs cannot be" }, { "docid": "3266790", "title": "", "text": "OPINION MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. The complete formula for Coca-Cola is one of the best-kept trade secrets in the world. Although most of the ingredients are public knowledge, see Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 563 F.Supp. 1122, 1132 (D.Del.1983), the ingredient that gives Coca-Cola its distinctive taste is a secret combination of flavoring oils and ingredients known as “Merchandise 7X.” The formula for Merchandise 7X has been tightly guarded since Coca-Cola was first invented and is known by only two persons within The Coca-Cola Company (“the Company”). The only written record of the secret formula is kept in a security vault at the Trust Company Bank in Atlanta, Georgia, which can only be opened upon a resolution from the Company’s Board of Directors. The impregnable barriers which the Company has erected to protect its valuable trade secret are now threatened by pretrial discovery requests in two connected cases before this Court. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are bottlers of Coca-Cola products who seek declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief against the Company based upon allegations of breach of contract, violation of two 1921 Consent Decrees, trademark infringement, dilution of trademark value, and violation of federal antitrust laws, all of which allegedly occurred when the Company introduced diet Coke in 1982. Stripped to bare essentials, the plaintiffs’ contention is that the Company is obligated to sell them the syrup used in the bottling of diet Coke under the terms of their existing contracts covering the syrup used in the bottling of Coca-Cola. The primary issue arising from this contention is whether the contractual term “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” includes the syrup used to make diet Coke. Plaintiffs contend that in order to prevail on this issue, they need to discover the complete formula, including the secret ingredients, for Coca-Cola, as well as the complete formulae, also secret, for diet Coke and other Coca-Cola soft drinks. Accordingly, plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel production of the complete formulae under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). Defendant, which has resisted disclosure of its secret formulae at every turn, contests the relevance of the complete" }, { "docid": "3266812", "title": "", "text": "A-4, 111(c). The amended bottlers have contended that “another sweetening ingredient” includes saccharin or aspartame, the sweeteners that the Company has used in diet Coke. The Company argues that this contractual language is inapplicable because diet Coke is a new and different product and is not modified Coca-Cola. Plaintiffs’ response is that diet Coke' is “simply a version of a product which has undergone evolutionary change but which retains its identity as Coke,” and “that any differences between Coke and diet Coke Bottler’s Syrup are either insignificant or reflect attempts to achieve taste identity.” 563 F.Supp. at 1130. On plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, the Court conducted an extensive analysis of the product identi ty question, including a comparison of the publicly-disclosed ingredients of diet Coke and Coca-Cola, before concluding that “for at least some purposes diet Coke may be Coke.” Id. at 1134. 3. Relevancy of the Secret Ingredients A major issue common to both actions is whether diet Coke and Coca-Cola are the same product. The Company’s primary defense has been that Coca-Cola and diet Coke are two separate and distinct products. Plaintiffs contend that the complete formulae for diet Coke and Coca-Cola would be relevant to rebut this defense by showing that the two colas share common attributes and that any differences between the two are insignificant and merely reflect attempts to achieve taste identity. With the introduction of new Coke, plaintiffs argue that because new Coke was derived in part from the secret formula for diet Coke, it may be true that new Coke is more like diet Coke than new Coke is like old Coke. In response, defendant argues that except for the difference in sweeteners, ingredient similarities and differences are not relevant to the determination of whether diet Coke and Coca-Cola are the same product. Instead, defendant relies upon the difference in taste, different essential characteristics of the beverages, different consumer markets for the beverages, and different consumer perceptions of the beverages. Defendant’s response is unavailing. When this Court previously addressed the merits of this litigation in the context of a motion for preliminary" }, { "docid": "10568562", "title": "", "text": "bottlers could not rebut the Company’s “separate products” argument without knowing the precise ingredients of the syrups that the Company used to make the different varieties of Coca-Cola it was selling. Id. at 296. The court, therefore, ordered the Company to disclose several of its formulas. Id. at 300. These formulas are “one of the best-kept trade secrets in the world.” Id. at 289. They are kept locked away in an Atlanta bank vault which may “only be opened upon a resolution from the Company’s Board of Directors.” Id. The court reasoned that the bottlers had shown the secret ingredients were relevant and material in determining the nature of the syrup the Company was obligated to provide under the 1921 contracts. A stringent protective order could avoid any potential harm from disclosure, especially since the disclosure would be made not to the Company’s competitors but to parties who shared the Company’s interest in protecting the secret formula for Coca-Cola. Id. at 296-99. The Company did not comply with the disclosure order the district court entered in diet Coke III. The bottlers moved for sanctions in the form of an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) striking the Company’s answer and entering judgment in the bottlers’ favor on Counts One and Two of their complaint alleging breach of contract and breach of the Consent Decrees, diet Coke IV, 110 F.R.D. at 366-67. The district court did not grant the sanction the bottlers requested. Instead, it entered a preclusion order that gave the bottlers “the advantage of every possible inference that fairly could be drawn from the formulae evidence sought.” Id. at 369. The district court was unwilling to grant a preclusion order, “coextensive with the issues to which the withheld formulae evidence is relevant,” id. at 369, because such an order would be the “functional[ ] equivalent [of] a default judgment.” Id. at 369 n. 16. The district court sought to avoid this result because it concluded “[ijngredient identity is not necessarily the same as product identity.” Id. at 370. Categories of evidence other than the formulae —" }, { "docid": "10568568", "title": "", "text": "is now sold as Coca-Cola Classic syrup). Id. Later, in diet Coke V, the district court inferred from the preclusion order additional facts about diet Coke syrup. It found that diet Coke syrup contains the same amounts of Merchandise 7X, Merchandise No. 5, vanilla extract, and caffeine as the version of Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup sold from 1980 through 1985 (Coca-Cola Classic syrup), diet Coke V, 696 F.Supp. at 109. It also stated that the Company changed the other publicly-disclosed ingredients in diet Coke to counterbalance the taste difference caused by the low-calorie sweetener. Id. In addition, “the formula, compositional, taste, and other physical organoleptic distinctions” between diet Coke and classic Coke are much less significant and much less noticeable to the consumer than: (a) the differences between Classic Coke and earlier versions of Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup; (b) the differences between new Coke syrup and the syrup for Classic Coke and previous versions of Coke; (c) the differences (except for taste and organoleptic properties) between caffeine-free Coke syrup and Classic Coke syrup; and (d) the differences between various versions of Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup sold between 1899 and 1980. Id. (quotations omitted). Most significantly, perhaps, in diet Coke IV the district court inferred that the preclusion order had established that the syrup in new Coke is Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup even though new Coke is produced by an entirely new and different formula, with materially different ingredients (including secret ingredients), a materially different flavor profile, and a materially different taste than [Coca-Cola Classic]; and ... the syrup for new Coca-Cola also materially differs in all of the respects enumerated above from any earlier version of “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” which defendant has ever produced. ... diet Coke IV, 110 F.R.D. at 376. The district court adhered to this inference de spite a finding in diet Coke V that noted significant differences in ingredients between new Coke and old or Classic Coke. In diet Coke V, the court noted that new Coke’s formula is not a modification of the original Coca-Cola formula because it does not contain Merchandise 7X, the most significant part of the" }, { "docid": "3266797", "title": "", "text": "have been two significant and widely-publicized changes in Coca-Cola. First, in April, 1985, the Company announced that it would stop producing Coca-Cola under the existing formula (“old Coke”) and immediately start producing “new” Coke, which, the Company proclaims, tastes even better than old Coke. According to the promotional materials that accompanied the announcement of new Coke, the formula for new Coke was derived from the research that led to the development of diet Coke. The secret ingredient in new Coke, called “7X-100,” is different than the secret ingredient in old Coke, but it is still only known to a handful of individuals and is kept locked in a bank vault in Georgia. The second significant change came when the Company, in response to consumer demand, announced in July, 1985, that it would bring back old Coke under the name “Coca-Cola Classic.” The Company will now provide bottlers with two kinds of sugar-sweetened cola syrups — old Coke syrup, to be packaged as Coca-Cola Classic, and new Coke syrup. The Company has informed its bottlers that for the present, it will supply them with Coca-Cola Classic syrup under the terms of their contracts for Coca-Cola, but without prejudicing the Company’s rights. Dyson Affidavit, Docket Item (“Dkt.”) 168 (83-120). As defendant’s supplemental brief makes clear, the Company is ostensibly reserving the right to decide at a later time that the syrup for Coca-Cola Classic is not Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup, even though the identical syrup was considered Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup a few months ago. The merits of this remarkable position, however, are not before the Court at this time. II. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel After extensive discovery, plaintiffs filed the instant motion that, in essence, seeks to compel the Company to produce the complete formulae, including secret ingredients, for Coca-Cola, diet Coke, caffeine free Coca-Cola, caffeine free diet Coke, TAB, and every experimental cola formula developed and tested by the Company for possible marketing under the Coca-Cola or Coke trademarks. Defendant’s responses to the discovery requests at issue, which plaintiffs filed as an appendix to their motion, demonstrate that defendant has objected to" }, { "docid": "10568554", "title": "", "text": "was intended to be an interim measure. Most of the bottlers have accepted it. About 191 have signed the Temporary Amendment and another 181 bottlers, who have not actually signed, have agreed to its terms. Id. These 372 bottlers are receiving diet Coke syrup and are marketing diet Coke within their territories. The bottlers in this case have refused either to sign or accept the terms of the Temporary Amendment. They object to its Paragraph Nine which státes that “[i]t is further agreed, however, that during the period this Temporary Amendment is in effect, the price of Coca-Cola syrup and beverage base for diet Coca-Cola as between the parties hereto shall be determined solely under this Temporary Amendment.” Id. (quoting diet Coke I, 563 F.Supp. at 1127-29 (footnotes and quotations omitted)). Consequently, the Company has refused to provide diet Coke syrup or beverage base to these bottlers. Id. Shortly after its introduction of diet Coke, the Company embarked on a new project: [I]n April, 1985, the Company announced that it would stop producing Coca-Cola under the existing formula (“old Coke”) and immediately start producing “new” Coke, which, the Company proclaims, tastes even better than old Coke.... The secret ingredient in new Coke, called “7X-100,” is different than the secret ingredient in old Coke, but it is still only known to a handful of individuals and is kept locked in a bank vault in Georgia. ... [I]n response to consumer demand, [the Company] announced in July, 1985, that it would bring back old Coke under the name “Coca-Cola Classic.” The Company will now provide bottlers with two kinds of sugar-sweetened cola syrups — old Coke syrup, to be packaged as Coca-Cola Classic, and new Coke syrup. The Company has informed its bottlers that for the present, it will supply them with Coca-Cola Classic syrup under the terms of their contracts for Coca-Cola, but without prejudicing the Company’s rights.... Id. at 103-04 (quoting diet Coke III, 107 F.R.D. at 291). Within the same general time frame of its introduction of diet Coke and new Coke, the Company also introduced four other types" }, { "docid": "10568561", "title": "", "text": "examine the bottlers’ trademark rights. It concluded that the bottlers had the “exclusive right to use the trademark, tradename, and bottle in their exclusive territories.” Id. at 1138. It also decided, however, that the Company had not abrogated this right. Id. at 1138. It held that the dissident bottlers had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the law of trademarks compelled the Company to give them diet Coke syrup and precluded it from giving diet Coke syrup to the bottlers who agreed to the Company’s temporary amendment. Id. at 1138-39. diet Coke III concerned the unamended bottlers’ motion to compel disclosure of several of the Company’s secret formulae. diet Coke III, 107 F.R.D. at 289-90. It was a significant victory for the bottlers. The Company took the position that Coke and diet Coke are two separate products, id. at 295, but the district court rejected its supporting argument that Coca-Cola syrup could be defined solely by its sweetener. Id. at 296. The district court also decided that the bottlers could not rebut the Company’s “separate products” argument without knowing the precise ingredients of the syrups that the Company used to make the different varieties of Coca-Cola it was selling. Id. at 296. The court, therefore, ordered the Company to disclose several of its formulas. Id. at 300. These formulas are “one of the best-kept trade secrets in the world.” Id. at 289. They are kept locked away in an Atlanta bank vault which may “only be opened upon a resolution from the Company’s Board of Directors.” Id. The court reasoned that the bottlers had shown the secret ingredients were relevant and material in determining the nature of the syrup the Company was obligated to provide under the 1921 contracts. A stringent protective order could avoid any potential harm from disclosure, especially since the disclosure would be made not to the Company’s competitors but to parties who shared the Company’s interest in protecting the secret formula for Coca-Cola. Id. at 296-99. The Company did not comply with the disclosure order the district court entered" }, { "docid": "3266796", "title": "", "text": "The name was chosen carefully and focused on the descriptive nature of the word “diet” and the tremendous market recognition of “Coke.” The advertising emphasized the taste of the new cola and its relationship to Coke. The public response to diet Coke has been phenomenal — in just three years, it has become the third largest selling soft drink in the United States and the best-selling diet soft drink in the world. The introduction of diet Coke immediately gave rise to a dispute between Coke bottlers and the Company over what price bottlers must pay for diet Coke syrup. The Company took the position that diet Coke was not within the scope of the existing contracts, and a new contract term with flexible pricing would have to be developed. Many of the bottlers — both amended and unamended — believed that the Company was. obligated to provide diet Coke under the terms of their existing Bottler’s Contracts for Coca-Cola. This dispute led to the filing of these lawsuits in early 1983. Since that time, there have been two significant and widely-publicized changes in Coca-Cola. First, in April, 1985, the Company announced that it would stop producing Coca-Cola under the existing formula (“old Coke”) and immediately start producing “new” Coke, which, the Company proclaims, tastes even better than old Coke. According to the promotional materials that accompanied the announcement of new Coke, the formula for new Coke was derived from the research that led to the development of diet Coke. The secret ingredient in new Coke, called “7X-100,” is different than the secret ingredient in old Coke, but it is still only known to a handful of individuals and is kept locked in a bank vault in Georgia. The second significant change came when the Company, in response to consumer demand, announced in July, 1985, that it would bring back old Coke under the name “Coca-Cola Classic.” The Company will now provide bottlers with two kinds of sugar-sweetened cola syrups — old Coke syrup, to be packaged as Coca-Cola Classic, and new Coke syrup. The Company has informed its bottlers that" }, { "docid": "3266806", "title": "", "text": "however, an inevitable incident to any inquiry in such a case; unless the defendant may be made to answer, the plaintiff is deprived of its right to learn whether the defendant has done it a wrong. Grasselli Chemical Corp. v. National Aniline & Chemical Co., 282 Fed. 379, 381 (S.D.N.Y.1920). B. The Coca-Cola Formulae Are Trade Secrets To satisfy its burden of proving that the Coca-Cola formulae qualify for trade secret protection, defendant has submitted the affidavit of Robert A. Keller, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Company. Dkt. 197. According to the Keller affidavit, the Company has taken every precaution to prevent disclosure of the formula for “Merchandise 7X,” the secret ingredient in old Coke. The written version of the secret formula is kept in a security vault at the Trust Company Bank in Atlanta, and that vault can only be opened by a resolution from the Company’s Board of Directors. It is the Company’s policy that only two persons in the Company shall know the formula at any one time, and that only those persons may oversee the actual preparation of Merchandise 7X. The Company refuses to allow the identity of those persons to be disclosed or to allow those persons to fly on the same airplane at the same time. The same precautions are taken regarding the secret formulae of the Company’s other cola drinks — diet Coke, caffeine free diet Coke, TAB, caffeine free TAB, and caffeine free Coca-Cola. The secret formula for each drink is only known to three or four persons in the Company. Similar precautions attend the experimental formulae sought by plaintiffs. The Keller affidavit further states that these secret formulae are highly valued assets of the Company and have never been disclosed to persons outside the Company. As an indication of the value the Company places on its secret formulae, Keller avers that the Company elected to forego producing Coca-Cola in India, a potential market of 550 million persons, because the Indian government required the Company to disclose the secret formula for Coca-Cola as a condition of doing business there." }, { "docid": "10568555", "title": "", "text": "the existing formula (“old Coke”) and immediately start producing “new” Coke, which, the Company proclaims, tastes even better than old Coke.... The secret ingredient in new Coke, called “7X-100,” is different than the secret ingredient in old Coke, but it is still only known to a handful of individuals and is kept locked in a bank vault in Georgia. ... [I]n response to consumer demand, [the Company] announced in July, 1985, that it would bring back old Coke under the name “Coca-Cola Classic.” The Company will now provide bottlers with two kinds of sugar-sweetened cola syrups — old Coke syrup, to be packaged as Coca-Cola Classic, and new Coke syrup. The Company has informed its bottlers that for the present, it will supply them with Coca-Cola Classic syrup under the terms of their contracts for Coca-Cola, but without prejudicing the Company’s rights.... Id. at 103-04 (quoting diet Coke III, 107 F.R.D. at 291). Within the same general time frame of its introduction of diet Coke and new Coke, the Company also introduced four other types of syrup. In April of 1983, the Company introduced caffeine-free Coca-Cola and caffeine-free diet Coke. In 1985, the Company introduced Cherry Coca-Cola and diet Cherry Coke. These four new products supplemented the existing versions of Coca-Cola and diet Coke and were offered as additional syrups. Each of these syrups have always contained less than the 5.32 pounds of sugar refined from cane or beets per gallon of syrup that the Consent Decrees required, diet Coke VII, 769 F.Supp. at 687-88. In Coke VIII, we held that the syrup the bottlers were entitled to under the Consent Decrees contains 5.32 pounds of cane or beet sugar per gallon of syrup. As explained in our opinion in Coke VIII, the district court found in Coke VII that this type and quantity of sugar defined the term “Coca-Cola bottling syrup” as it was used in the bottling contracts based on the Consent Decrees. Though the parties entered into separate letter agreements governing the bottling of caffeine-free Coca-Cola and Cherry Coke, no separate agreements were made with respect to" }, { "docid": "3266807", "title": "", "text": "that only those persons may oversee the actual preparation of Merchandise 7X. The Company refuses to allow the identity of those persons to be disclosed or to allow those persons to fly on the same airplane at the same time. The same precautions are taken regarding the secret formulae of the Company’s other cola drinks — diet Coke, caffeine free diet Coke, TAB, caffeine free TAB, and caffeine free Coca-Cola. The secret formula for each drink is only known to three or four persons in the Company. Similar precautions attend the experimental formulae sought by plaintiffs. The Keller affidavit further states that these secret formulae are highly valued assets of the Company and have never been disclosed to persons outside the Company. As an indication of the value the Company places on its secret formulae, Keller avers that the Company elected to forego producing Coca-Cola in India, a potential market of 550 million persons, because the Indian government required the Company to disclose the secret formula for Coca-Cola as a condition of doing business there. The affidavit concludes by stating that because of intense competition in the soft drink industry, the disclosure of any information reflecting the formulae or the Company’s research and development would be extremely damaging to the Company. New Coke was introduced after the Keller affidavit was filed, but the materials supplied to the Court about new Coke provide information about the secret formula in new Coke. To develop new Coke, Merchandise 7X was “optimized,” i.e., changed, and the new secret ingredient is called “7X-100,” to commemorate the one hundredth year of Coca-Cola. This is the first change in the secret ingredient in Coca-Cola since the invention of Coke in 1886. According to the Company’s promotional materials, “7X-100 is just as much a secret as 7X and will be kept in a locked vault in the Trust Company of Georgia Bank in Atlanta.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9, May 8, 1985 Hearing, at 2. The formula for caffeine free Coke has also been changed and is presumably still subject to the same safeguards. Although some of the mystique surrounding" }, { "docid": "3266792", "title": "", "text": "formulae to the instant litigation and avers that disclosure of the secret formulae would cause great damage to the Company. The issue squarely presented by plaintiffs’ motion to compel is whether plaintiffs’ need for the secret formulae outweighs defendant’s need for protection of its trade secrets. In considering this dispute, I am well aware of the fact that disclosure of trade secrets in litigation, even with the use of an appropriate protective order, could “become by indirection the means of ruining an honest and profitable enterprise.” 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2212, at 155 (McNaughton rev. 1961). Moreover, I am also aware that an order compelling disclosure of the Company’s secret formulae could be a bludgeon in the hands of plaintiffs to force a favorable settlement. On the other hand, unless defendant is required to respond to plaintiffs’ discovery, plaintiffs will be unable to learn whether defendant has done them a wrong. Grasselli Chemical Co. v. National Aniline & Chemical Co., 282 Fed. 379, 381 (S.D.N.Y.1920) (L. Hand, J.). Except for a few privileged matters, nothing is sacred in civil litigation; even the legendary barriers erected by The Coca-Cola Company to keep its formulae from the world must fall if the formulae are needed to allow plaintiffs and the Court to determine the truth in these disputes. I. Factual Background The history of The Coca-Cola Company and its bottlers has been set forth at length in earlier opinions in these cases, see Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 563 F.Supp. 1122, 1124-29 (D.Del.1983) (“Preliminary Injunction Opinion”); Alexandria Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 83-120, slip op. at 2-13 (D.Del. Aug. 14, 1984) (“Summary Judgment Opinion”), and that history does not bear repeating here. Instead, only a brief description of these two cases is warranted in order to establish the issues involved. Since the turn of the century, Coca-Cola has been produced in a two-stage process: the Company manufactures “Coca-Cola Bottler’s Syrup” (“Bottler’s Syrup”) and sells it to bottlers, who add carbonated water to the syrup and place the resulting product in bottles and cans. In 1921," } ]

[ { "docid": "5811754", "title": "", "text": "principal manufacturing facilities located in Port Jervis, New York. From December 2, 1974 until October 31, 1976, Barrier had been a successful competitive bidder for and supplier of floor wax on the GSA Qualified Products List [QPL] for Regions 1 through 8, inclusive. Jack M. Eckard, Administrator of GSA, is named as a defendant. * * * Defendant Charles W. Fletcher is the Executive Director of the Committee. The Committee was created pursuant to the Act for the purpose of increasing employment opportunities for the blind and other severely handicapped individuals and, wherever possible, preparing such persons to engage in normal competitive employment. 41 U.S.C. § 47(e). The Committee’s functions under the Act include responsibility for determining what products are suitable for procurement by the Government from qualified workshops for the blind and other severely handicapped, 41 U.S.C. § 47(a), and for establishing the fair market prices which the Government should pay for those products. 41 U.S.C. § 47(b). When a determination has been made by the Committee that a commodity is suitable for Government procurement, it is then added to the current procurement list and * * * entities of the Federal Government in all or certain specified GSA Regions are then required to purchase that item through GSA from the designated source. 41 U.S.C. §§ 47-48. Defendant W. Harold Bleakley is President of the Center for the Blind [the Center] a private nonprofit corporation established under the laws of Pennsylvania in 1874 and located in Philadelphia where it operates a sheltered workshop for the employment and rehabilitation of sightless and multihandicapped persons. The Center has been engaged in the manufacture of various products for the past 102 years. On November 9, 1976, the National Industries for the Blind4 [N.I.B.] requested 4 N.I.B. is a non-profit agency incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and is separate and distinct from the Center for the Blind. It has been designated by the Committee as the central non-profit agency to facilitate distribution of Government orders for Procurement List commodities and services among qualified non-profit agencies for the blind" } ]

[ { "docid": "23547806", "title": "", "text": "TAMM, Circuit Judge: For the past few years the appellants have supplied the federal government with the ball point pens used assiduously by civil servants from the White House to the neighborhood post office. This commodity has traditionally been procured through the system of bidding generally used to obtain supplies for the government. Use of this system is required by the provisions of law governing public contracts, unless another provision authorizes procurement without advertising. (41 U.S.C. § 252(c) (Supp. IV 1965-68).) One such other provision of law was established by Congress in 1938 through passage of the Wagner-O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. §§ 46-48 (1964)) which creates a Committee on Purchases of Blind-Made Products (hereinafter “Committee”), the duties of which include selecting commodities suitable for inclusion on a Schedule of Blind-Made Products (hereinafter “schedule”); once included on this schedule, the product is no longer subject to procurement through the traditional bid system. I The statutory framework is essentially as follows: section 46 establishes the Committee, “to be composed of a private citizen conversant with the problems incident to the employment of the blind” and representatives from various government agencies. (41 U.S.C. § 46 (1964).) Section 47 provides that: It shall be the duty of the Committee to determine the fair market price of all * * * suitable commodities manufactured by the blind and offered for sale to the Federal Government by any non-profit-making agency for the blind organized under the laws of the United States * * *. (41 U.S.C. § 47 (1964).) The non-profit agency for the blind which has been set up to serve as the liaison between the Committee and the blind workshops is the National Industries for the Blind (hereinafter “NIB”). Section 48 of the Act then provides that: All brooms and mops and other suitable commodities hereafter procured in accordance with applicable Federal specifications by or for any Federal department or agency shall be procured from, such non-profit-making agencies for the blind in all cases where such articles are available within the period specified at the price determined by the committee to be the fair" }, { "docid": "3605902", "title": "", "text": "with contracting with NISH for the pertinent laundry services under the listing that is being set aside. The Department and its contracting officers and officials are also enjoined to follow and implement the New Guidelines in any follow-on procurement, excepting only a temporary contract to provide services for an interim period during which the Veterans Benefits Act and the New Guidelines are being implemented. The clerk shall issue final judgment in accord with this opinion. No costs. It is so ORDERED. . The first two portions of Section 1491(b)(1) address pre-award and post-award bid protests, constituting actions \"by an interested party” either \"objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). By contrast, the third portion of the Section concerns protests involving “any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” Id. . The Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 46-48c, establishes an independent federal agency, The Committee For Purchase From People Who Are Blind Or Severely Disabled (\"Committee”), which in turn creates and maintains a list (the \"AbilityOne Procurement List” or \"List”) of products and services that must be purchased by federal governmental agencies from qualifying nonprofit entities employing handicapped and disabled persons when a need for those particular products or services arises. . The recitations that follow constitute findings of fact by the court drawn from the administrative record of the procurement and the parties’ evidentiary submissions related to prejudice and equitable relief. See Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2005) (noting that bid protest proceedings \"provide for trial on a paper record, allowing factfinding by the trial court”). . The contract initially ran until March 31, 2006, and contained four one-year option contracts, each of which was exercised. AR 1-85 to 90, 3-103 to 6-113. . \"AR _” refers to the administrative record filed with this court in accord with RCFC 52.1 (a). The administrative record has been subdivided into tabs. The first number in a" }, { "docid": "3605892", "title": "", "text": "noncompetitive procedures to award contracts implementing the Act’s priority preferences, valued under $5,000,000. 38 U.S.C. § 8127(a)-(e). The Act also allows the use of restricted competition if a contracting officer “has a reasonable expectation that two or more small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price that offers best value to the United States.” 38 U.S.C. § 8127(d). The final regulations implementing the Veterans Benefits Act became effective on January 7, 2010. See 74 Fed.Reg. 64619-01 (Dee. 8, 2009). The New Guidelines in effect pick up where the regulations left off, because they provide mandatory procedures for Departmental contracting officers and procurement officials to explore whether SDVOSB and VOSB entities are potential suppliers, in which instances they are to be accorded first priority over that provided by the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act. The Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act implements the government’s policy of “increas[ing] employment and training opportunities for persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities through the purchase of commodities and services from qualified nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.” 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.1. The Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act created the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 41 U.S.C. § 46, which establishes the AbilityOne Procurement List, 41 U.S.C. § 47, and the Act essentially requires that services and commodities on the list must be procured by governmental agencies from a qualified nonprofit agency employing the blind or severely disabled. 41 U.S.C. § 48; 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.2. To add new services to the AbilityOne Procurement List, one of the designated “central” nonprofit agencies, of which NISH is one, determines along with the relevant federal contracting activity the suitability of a proposed addition to the list. 41 C.F.R. § 51-3.2(e). The Committee then considers the nonprofit’s proposal, 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.4(a)(2) to (a)(3), and allows for notice and comment. 41 U.S.C. § 47(a)(2); 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.3. The recent changes to the VA Acquisition Regulations did “not impact items on the AbilityOne [PJrocurement [L]ist or items that" }, { "docid": "2020658", "title": "", "text": "Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH. RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: In September 1991, the Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped included tabulating machine paper, known by the last four digits of its National Stock Number as “0996,” in the list of commodities all federal government entities must purchase from nonprofit agencies employing blind or other severely disabled persons. At the time of the Committee’s decision, McGregor Printing Corporation was one of two suppliers of 0996 to the federal government. McGregor sued to set aside the Committee’s decision. In a memorandum opinion and order the district court ruled in favor of the Committee. Because we find the Committee’s decision to add 0996 to the fist arbitrary and capricious, we reverse. I In 1938, Congress established the Committee on Purchases of Blind-made Products, composed of “a private citizen conversant with the problems incident to the employment of the blind” and representatives of the Departments of the Navy, War, Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. Act of June 25, 1938, ch. 697, 52 Stat. 1196 (“the Wagner-O’Day Act”). The Wagner-O’Day Act assigned the Committee the duty of determining the fair market price “of all brooms and mops and other suitable commodities manufactured by the blind and offered for sale to the Federal Government by any non-profit-making agency for the blind,” id., and required that in procuring such products, the government should purchase them from the blind so long as the products were manufactured according to federal specifications. See id. Now known as the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (“the Act”), the current Act establishes the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind and Severely Disabled, 41 U.S.C. § 46, composed of fifteen members. Eleven represent the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Veterans Affairs, Justice, Labor, and the General Services Administration; of the others, one must be conversant with the problems incident to employment of the blind, one must be conversant with the same problems of other severely handicapped individuals, one must represent individuals employed in qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind, and" }, { "docid": "2020659", "title": "", "text": "Stat. 1196 (“the Wagner-O’Day Act”). The Wagner-O’Day Act assigned the Committee the duty of determining the fair market price “of all brooms and mops and other suitable commodities manufactured by the blind and offered for sale to the Federal Government by any non-profit-making agency for the blind,” id., and required that in procuring such products, the government should purchase them from the blind so long as the products were manufactured according to federal specifications. See id. Now known as the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (“the Act”), the current Act establishes the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind and Severely Disabled, 41 U.S.C. § 46, composed of fifteen members. Eleven represent the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Veterans Affairs, Justice, Labor, and the General Services Administration; of the others, one must be conversant with the problems incident to employment of the blind, one must be conversant with the same problems of other severely handicapped individuals, one must represent individuals employed in qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind, and one must represent other severely handicapped individuals so employed. See id. The Committee is responsible for establishing and publishing in the Federal Register a list of commodities and services provided by “qualified nonprofit agencies” for the blind and other severely handicapped individuals which the Committee determines, through informal rulemaking in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), (c), (d), & (e), are suitable for procurement by the government, 41 U.S.C. § 47(a). The Committee also must determine, and revise periodically, the fair market value of those commodities and services. See 41 U.S.C. § 47(b). The Act requires that: If any entity of the Government intends to procure any commodity or service on the procurement list, that entity shall, in accordance with rules and regulations of the Committee, procure such commodity or service, at the price established by the Committee, from a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or such an agency for other severely handicapped.... 41 U.S.C. § 48. “[Qualified nonprofit agency for the blind” is defined, in part, as a nonprofit organization operated in the" }, { "docid": "2020660", "title": "", "text": "one must represent other severely handicapped individuals so employed. See id. The Committee is responsible for establishing and publishing in the Federal Register a list of commodities and services provided by “qualified nonprofit agencies” for the blind and other severely handicapped individuals which the Committee determines, through informal rulemaking in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), (c), (d), & (e), are suitable for procurement by the government, 41 U.S.C. § 47(a). The Committee also must determine, and revise periodically, the fair market value of those commodities and services. See 41 U.S.C. § 47(b). The Act requires that: If any entity of the Government intends to procure any commodity or service on the procurement list, that entity shall, in accordance with rules and regulations of the Committee, procure such commodity or service, at the price established by the Committee, from a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or such an agency for other severely handicapped.... 41 U.S.C. § 48. “[Qualified nonprofit agency for the blind” is defined, in part, as a nonprofit organization operated in the interest of blind individuals that, in the production of commodities and in the provision of services (whether or not the commodities or services are procured under this Act) during the fiscal year employs blind individuals for not less than 75 per centum of the man-hours of direct labor required for the production or provision of the commodities or services. 41 U.S.C. § 48b(3). “[D]irect labor” is defined as “all work required for preparation, processing, and packing of a commodity, or work directly relating to the performance of a service, but not supervision, administration, inspection, or shipping.” 41 U.S.C. § 48b(5). The Act directs the Committee to “designate a central nonprofit. agency or agencies to facilitate the distribution ... of orders of the Government for commodities and services on the procurement list among qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or such agencies for other severely handicapped.” 41 U.S.C. § 47(c). The Committee revised its regulations after it had added 0996 to the procurement list but before the Committee rejected McGre-gor’s petition for reconsideration. See 56 Fed.Reg." }, { "docid": "4549531", "title": "", "text": "what the Army proposes is sheer folly, the government has aggressively defended its actions as permissible under the Javits-Wag-ner-O’Day Act (“JWOD”), 41 U.S.C. §§ 8501-506. That act authorized creation of the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (the “Committee” or “AbilityOne”). Id. § 8502; see Pub.L. No. 95-739, 52 Stat. 1196 (1938) (“That there is hereby created a Committee ... to determine the fair market price of all brooms and mops and other suitable commodities manufactured for the blind and offered for sale to the Federal Govern-ment_”). The purpose of the Committee is to “increase employment and training opportunities for persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.” 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.1(a) (2012). A “severely disabled” individual is the following: [A] person other than a blind person who has a severe physical or mental impairment (a residual limiting condition resulting from an injury, disease, or congenital defect) which so limits the person’s functional capabilities (mobility, communication, self-care, self-direction, work tolerance, or work skills) that the individual is unable to engage in normal competitive employment over an extended period of time. 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.3. The Committee is responsible for developing a “Procurement List” of products and services which are suitable for the Federal Government to procure from qualified nonprofit agencies (“NPA”) which employ a workforce of blind or severely disabled individuals. 41 U.S.C. § 8503. For a commodity or service to be suitable for addition to the Procurement List, each of the following criteria must be satisfied: (1) Employment potential. The Proposed addition must demonstrate a potential to generate employment for persons who ... have other severe disabilities. (2) Nonprofit agency qualifications. The nonprofit agency (or agencies) proposing to furnish the item must qualify as a nonprofit agency serving persons who ... have other severe disabilities... (3) Capability. The nonprofit agency (or agencies) desiring to furnish a ... service under the JWOD program must satisfy the Committee as to the extent of the labor operations to be performed and that it will have the capability to meet Government quality standards and delivery schedules by" }, { "docid": "2020666", "title": "", "text": "has been a continuous supplier to the Government of the specific commodity or service proposed for addition- and is, therefore, more dependent on the income from such sales to the Government, and (3) Any substantive comments received as the result of the notice in the FEDERAL Register. 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6(d) (1990); see 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.4(e) (1993) (no substantive changes). The Committee has made this determination, almost exclusively, by reviewing GSA contracts, bid sheets and the current suppliers’ Dun & Bradstreet Reports to learn what percentage of the suppliers’ total sales stemmed from providing the commodity to the government. See, e.g., Barrier Indus., Inc. v. Eckard, 584 F.2d 1074, 1082-83 (D.C.Cir.1978). The Committee has not stated what proportion of the suppliers’ sales would have to be lost to constitute a “serious adverse impact.” With approximately 100 new commodities and services added to the procurement list each year, the list now contains approximately 4,500 entries. In 1993, procurement under the Act brought more than 500 nonprofit agencies for the blind and severely handicapped persons approximately $75.6 million in government contracts, and resulted in the employment or training of more than 23,000 Americans with disabilities. Beverly L. Milkman, et al., Who are they? some answers from a survey of Javits-Wagner-O’Day employees, AmericaN Rehabilitation, Spring 1993, at 7, 8, 10. Due to the large scope of the program and the small size of the Committee’s resources — Congress appropriated only $1.6 million for the Committee’s fiscal year 1991, see Kenneth R. Laureys, The JWOD Program and NISH: making America strong by employing people with severe disabilities, AmeRican Rehabilitation, Spring 1991, at 14 — the Committee relies heavily on the two central nonprofit agencies it has designated under the Act, 41 U.S.C. § 47(c), to represent the workshops for the blind and other severely handicapped: the National Industries for the Blind (“NIB”) and the National Industries for the Severely Handicapped. In return for their assistance, the central agencies receive a four percent commission of the contracts received by the workshops. II On May 21, 1991, NIB submitted to the Committee a request for" }, { "docid": "14868475", "title": "", "text": "Administrative Record is GRANTED. Each party is to bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. . The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act established the Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely Disabled, which is required under the JWOD to create a procurement list, to be published in the Federal Register, of the commodities produced by and the services provided by any qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely handicapped individuals. 41 U.S.C. § 47. . The Randolph-Sheppard Act states that \"[flor the purposes of providing blind persons with remunerative employment, enlarging the economic opportunities of the blind, and stimulating the blind to greater efforts in striving to make themselves self-supporting, blind persons licensed under the provisions of this chapter shall be authorized to operate vending facilities on any Federal property.” 20 U.S.C. § 107(a). The RSA also requires that, in \"authorizing the operation of vending facilities on Federal property,” priority be given \"to blind persons licensed by a State agency.” 20 U.S.C. § 107(b). The procedures for licensing a State agency under the RSA are set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 107b. . During MCS's post-award debriefing, the CO stated that the statement “price will not be rated” indicated that \"unlike past performance information and experience, price does not receive any type of rating ... it is evaluated for reasonableness.” AR246. . MCS set forth numerous detailed arguments about the complexities of the IGE, including: challenges to the data included in Technical Exhibit 2; a supplemental declaration of Daniel V. Moore, President of MCS; and a table comparing the data relied upon for the IGE to actual data compiled by MCS. Because the court has determined that, even if the IGE was flawed, MCS did not suffer any resulting prejudice, a detailed evaluation of these arguments is not necessary to the resolution of this case. For the same reasons, the plaintiff’s June 15, 2007 Motion to Supplement the Record to further explore the IGE is DENIED. . Because the court has determined that the government is entitled to judgment upon the Administrative Record, the court need not" }, { "docid": "3605893", "title": "", "text": "services from qualified nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.” 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.1. The Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act created the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 41 U.S.C. § 46, which establishes the AbilityOne Procurement List, 41 U.S.C. § 47, and the Act essentially requires that services and commodities on the list must be procured by governmental agencies from a qualified nonprofit agency employing the blind or severely disabled. 41 U.S.C. § 48; 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.2. To add new services to the AbilityOne Procurement List, one of the designated “central” nonprofit agencies, of which NISH is one, determines along with the relevant federal contracting activity the suitability of a proposed addition to the list. 41 C.F.R. § 51-3.2(e). The Committee then considers the nonprofit’s proposal, 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.4(a)(2) to (a)(3), and allows for notice and comment. 41 U.S.C. § 47(a)(2); 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.3. The recent changes to the VA Acquisition Regulations did “not impact items on the AbilityOne [PJrocurement [L]ist or items that may be added to the procurement list in the future.” 74 Fed.Reg. at 64622. However, the Department’s regulations issued under the Veterans Benefits Act are silent regarding whether the Department should give priority to SDVOSBs and VOSBs over adding new requirements to the AbilityOne Procurement List. The New Guidelines fill that lacuna. See AR 38-540 to 542. The New Guidelines required a contracting officer to take a sequential series of steps before recommending a new requirement for the Abili-tyOne Procurement List, including researching whether SDVOSBs or VOSBs were available to fulfill the requirement. See id. Because Ms. Jones did not adhere to the New Guidelines, but rather worked with NISH to recommend that the Committee phase the services Angelica had performed onto the AbilityOne Procurement List, she intentionally sidestepped required procedure. The government argues that Ms. Jones’ omissions do not violate the Veterans Benefits Act because the Department’s New Guidelines do not have the force of law. Hr’g Tr. 26:23-27:1 (Sept. 14, 2010). The government is correct in part — the guidelines do not have" }, { "docid": "3605873", "title": "", "text": "determining a need for property or services and ending with the contract completion and closeout.” 41 U.S.C. § 403(2). In this instance, therefore, the contested actions of the contracting officer are manifestly part of a procurement process for the laundry services and thus fall within the jurisdictional ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). On its face and as interpreted by RAM-COR and Distributed Solutions, Section 1491(b)(1) grants the court jurisdiction to issue the remedy Angelica requests. However, the government maintains that any removal of items from the AbilityOne Procurement List is beyond the power of the court because the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act, 41 U.S.C. § 47(a)(2), lays out a specific procedure for how the AbilityOne Procurement List may be changed. Section 47(a)(2) provides, “The Committee [for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled] may, by rule made in accordance with the requirements of [5 U.S.C. § 553(b) — (e) ], add to and remove from the procurement list commodities so produced and services so provided.” The government argues that because additions to and deletions from the list made pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553 are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), this court does not have jurisdiction to alter or affect such additions or deletions because it has no independent federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to conduct such a review. See Def.’s Posb-Hearing Br. at 2 (citing HLI Lordship Indus., Inc. v. Comm. for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped, 791 F.2d 1136, 1138 (4th Cir.1986)). The government thus asserts that the rule-making provisions of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act in effect supersede and displace the statutory grant of authority to this court in 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). For its argument that the rulemak-ing provisions of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act implicitly repeal the jurisdictional grant in the third prong of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), the government relies on the canon of construction that “even where Congress has not expressly stated that statutory jurisdiction is ‘exclusive,’ ... a statute which vests jurisdiction in a particular court cuts off original jurisdiction in other courts in all" }, { "docid": "4549532", "title": "", "text": "engage in normal competitive employment over an extended period of time. 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.3. The Committee is responsible for developing a “Procurement List” of products and services which are suitable for the Federal Government to procure from qualified nonprofit agencies (“NPA”) which employ a workforce of blind or severely disabled individuals. 41 U.S.C. § 8503. For a commodity or service to be suitable for addition to the Procurement List, each of the following criteria must be satisfied: (1) Employment potential. The Proposed addition must demonstrate a potential to generate employment for persons who ... have other severe disabilities. (2) Nonprofit agency qualifications. The nonprofit agency (or agencies) proposing to furnish the item must qualify as a nonprofit agency serving persons who ... have other severe disabilities... (3) Capability. The nonprofit agency (or agencies) desiring to furnish a ... service under the JWOD program must satisfy the Committee as to the extent of the labor operations to be performed and that it will have the capability to meet Government quality standards and delivery schedules by the time it assumes responsibility for supplying the Government. (4) Level of impact on current contractor for the commodity or service. (i) ... whether or not a proposed addition to the Procurement List is likely to have a severe adverse impact on the current contractor for the specific commodity or service ... 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.4. Once the Committee concludes that a product or service is suitable, it is added to the Procurement List and the agency is obligated to obtain that product or service from the AbilityOne approved NPA. 41 U.S.C. §§ 8503(a), 8504. Here, the Committee, with the Army’s concurrence, has designated the contract suitable for addition to the Procurement List and for award on a sole source basis to Skookum, an AbilityOne NPA. Before us is a bid protest filed by S A-TECH, the incumbent contractor. During oral argument on November 16, 2012, the court granted a permanent injunction against placement of this contract on the Procurement List for AbilityOne contractors. As we explained then, the injunction prevents Skoo-kum from being awarded" }, { "docid": "2020664", "title": "", "text": "Oct. 16, 1989. The factors relevant to the Committee’s determination that a nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely handicapped is “qualified” are found in three places in the regulations. The first, the definition of “[qualified nonprofit agency for the blind,” see 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.2(h) (1990); 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.3 (1993), is nearly identical to that in the Act, requiring that the agency be operated in the interest of the blind, and not for profit, and that 75 percent of the man-hours of direct labor required for production be performed by the blind. The second is in the discussion of suitability. The 1990 regulations required that a specific workshop must: satisfy the Committee that it will have the capability to meet the Government’s quality standards and delivery schedules by the time it assumes responsibility for supplying the Government under the Act and that it can supply he [sic] commodity or service at a fair market price. 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6(b) (1990). The revised regulations are substantially similar, see 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.4(c) & (d) (1993), but require in addition that the workshops “satisfy the Committee as to the extent of the labor operations to be performed.” Id. § 51-2.4(c). This addition, like the added suitability requirement noted above, derives from the Committee’s determination, discussed in the preamble of the final rule, that “it is the policy of the Government to increase employment and training opportunities for persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities through ... the [Javits-Wagner-O’Day program].” (56 Fed.Reg. at 48,974). Third, the workshop must meet detailed application, recordkeeping, and financial requirements specified at 41 C.F.R. pt. 51-4 (1990 & 1993). The portion of the regulations concerning “serious adverse impact” provides: (d) In deciding whether or not a proposed addition to the Procurement List would have a serious adverse impact on the current or most recent contractor for the particular commodity or service, the Committee gives particular attention to: (1) The possible impact on that contractor’s sales, including any cumulative impact as the result of other recent Committee actions. (2) Whether or not that contractor" }, { "docid": "14868474", "title": "", "text": "data upon which the court could rely to evaluate the IGE. 56 Fed.Cl. at 595. The CO’s decision in this case does not suffer from the same lack of transparency as that in Nutech. Most importantly, the IGE was not the CO’s sole basis for making a price reasonableness determination. Instead, the CO primarily relied upon a comparison of the SLA’s offer to two other technically acceptable offers, and determined that the SLA’s offer was reasonable. Indeed, the CO noted that she would “still find that the proposed price of the Kentucky SLA is reasonable,” based on a comparison to the other bids received, even if the IGE were determined to be flawed. AR313. Accordingly, the plaintiffs arguments challenging the IGE are not sufficient to demonstrate prejudice to the plaintiff in the bidding process and therefore do not form a basis for setting aside the procurement decision. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction is DENIED. The government’s motion for judgment upon the Administrative Record is GRANTED. Each party is to bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. . The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act established the Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely Disabled, which is required under the JWOD to create a procurement list, to be published in the Federal Register, of the commodities produced by and the services provided by any qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely handicapped individuals. 41 U.S.C. § 47. . The Randolph-Sheppard Act states that \"[flor the purposes of providing blind persons with remunerative employment, enlarging the economic opportunities of the blind, and stimulating the blind to greater efforts in striving to make themselves self-supporting, blind persons licensed under the provisions of this chapter shall be authorized to operate vending facilities on any Federal property.” 20 U.S.C. § 107(a). The RSA also requires that, in \"authorizing the operation of vending facilities on Federal property,” priority be given \"to blind persons licensed by a State agency.” 20 U.S.C. § 107(b). The procedures for licensing a State agency under" }, { "docid": "1515032", "title": "", "text": "of review is defined by 5 U.S.C. § 706, which, inter alia, directs a reviewing court to hold unlawful and set aside agency action found to be “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; [or] ... (D) without observance of procedure required by law .... ” A combination of the provisions of the statute and of the regulations, adopted under the authority conferred on the Committee by 41 U.S.C. § 47(d)(1), establish a number of requirements for adding a commodity to the procurement list. The item proposed for addition must be “suitable” for procurement under the Act, 41 U.S.C. § 47(a)(1) (1982), which is defined to require that a qualified workshop must be “capable of producing the commodity ... at a fair market price.” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.-6(a)(1) (1984). A qualified workshop must be a nonprofit agency for blind or other severely handicapped persons which, during the fiscal year, employs blind or other severely handicapped individuals for not less than 75% of the man-hours of direct labor required in the production of commodities or providing of services, whether or not procured under the Act. 41 U.S.C. § 48(b)(3)(C), (4)(C) (1982). “Suitability” also includes a requirement that the workshop proposed to produce a commodity demonstrate that it will have “the capability to meet the Government’s quality standards and delivery schedules by the time it assumes responsibility for supplying the Government under the Act.” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6(b) (1984). The Committee’s regulations also require it to consider whether the addition of the commodity or service to the Procurement List will have a “serious adverse impact on the current or most recent contractor for the commodity or service.” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6(a)(2) (1984). In assessing the impact on the current or most recent contractor, the Committee gives “particular attention” to the “possible impact on that contractor’s sales .... ” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6(d)(l) (1984). Finally, since the primary objective of the Act is to provide employment opportunities for blind and severely handicapped workers, the Committee has acknowledged its “responsibility for assuring that the approval of the" }, { "docid": "2020661", "title": "", "text": "interest of blind individuals that, in the production of commodities and in the provision of services (whether or not the commodities or services are procured under this Act) during the fiscal year employs blind individuals for not less than 75 per centum of the man-hours of direct labor required for the production or provision of the commodities or services. 41 U.S.C. § 48b(3). “[D]irect labor” is defined as “all work required for preparation, processing, and packing of a commodity, or work directly relating to the performance of a service, but not supervision, administration, inspection, or shipping.” 41 U.S.C. § 48b(5). The Act directs the Committee to “designate a central nonprofit. agency or agencies to facilitate the distribution ... of orders of the Government for commodities and services on the procurement list among qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or such agencies for other severely handicapped.” 41 U.S.C. § 47(c). The Committee revised its regulations after it had added 0996 to the procurement list but before the Committee rejected McGre-gor’s petition for reconsideration. See 56 Fed.Reg. 48,974 (Sept. 26, 1991) (effective date Oct. 28,1991). Both sets of regulations closely track the Act’s language. In order for the Committee to conclude that a commodity is suitable for addition to the procurement list, the Committee is required to determine a fair market price for the commodity and to determine that a qualified workshop is capable of producing the commodity at that price and in accordance with government quality standards and delivery schedules. See 41 C.F.R. §§ 51-2.5, 51-2.6(a)(l) & (b) (1990); 41 C.F.R. §§ 51-2.2(c), 51-2.4(c) & (d) (1993). The Committee must determine that “[t]he addition of the commodity ... to the Procurement List would not have a serious adverse impact on the current or most recent contractor for the commodity.” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6 (1990); see 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.4(e) (1993). To these conditions, the new regulations add an explicit requirement that “the proposed addition must demonstrate a potential to generate employment for persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.4(a) (1993). In making the first determination," }, { "docid": "2020667", "title": "", "text": "$75.6 million in government contracts, and resulted in the employment or training of more than 23,000 Americans with disabilities. Beverly L. Milkman, et al., Who are they? some answers from a survey of Javits-Wagner-O’Day employees, AmericaN Rehabilitation, Spring 1993, at 7, 8, 10. Due to the large scope of the program and the small size of the Committee’s resources — Congress appropriated only $1.6 million for the Committee’s fiscal year 1991, see Kenneth R. Laureys, The JWOD Program and NISH: making America strong by employing people with severe disabilities, AmeRican Rehabilitation, Spring 1991, at 14 — the Committee relies heavily on the two central nonprofit agencies it has designated under the Act, 41 U.S.C. § 47(c), to represent the workshops for the blind and other severely handicapped: the National Industries for the Blind (“NIB”) and the National Industries for the Severely Handicapped. In return for their assistance, the central agencies receive a four percent commission of the contracts received by the workshops. II On May 21, 1991, NIB submitted to the Committee a request for the addition of 0996 to the procurement list. In its request and the accompanying documentation, NIB certified that an NIB engineer had visited six workshops for the blind and found them able to produce the government’s total annual requirement for 0996 (1,053,981 boxes). NIB calculated the fair market price for 0996 to be $13.02 per box, or a total of $13,722,-832.07. It certified that the workshops would be able to produce 0996 for that price, and that doing so would create 78 new jobs for blind workers. With the application, NIB also submitted a form listing two current and three prior contractors for 0996, and information regarding how adding 0996 to the procurement list would affect the sales of the two current contractors. NIB also submitted forms on which the participating workshops certified, with NIB’s concurrence, that their employment of blind persons would make up between 95 and 100 percent of the total direct labor hours required for producing 0996. The Committee staff reviewed NIB’s submission and, on May 23,1991, requested GSA to inspect the" }, { "docid": "18401546", "title": "", "text": "“commission” or “council,” and is established as a quasi-independent unit reporting to the President directly, or through a Cabinet officer. Some, like the Advisory Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking People, and the National Commission on Productivity, perform both operational- and advisory functions. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the Office of Management and Budget to determine whether such committees are primarily operational, rather than advisory. If so, they would not fall under the ambit of this bill. S.Rep. 1098, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1972). Defendant attaches a recent district court decision from the Eastern District of Virginia which applies this distinction. That court found an organization designated by an agency to aid the agency in its function of listing items which could be purchased from disabled persons to be “primarily operational.” As to the duties found operational, the court stated that the organization: investigates what items may be suitable for procurement from the blind and handicapped, evaluates the qualifications and capabilities of the workshops who offer commodities and services, distributes government orders for items off the procurement list among various qualified workshops, maintains the necessary administrative records for the JWOD Act program, and monitors and inspects the various participating workshops in order to insure compliance with the Act. HLI Lordship Industries, Inc. v. The Committee For Purchase From the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped, 615 F.Supp. 970, 978-79 (E.D.Va.1985). Defendant argues that the Commission’s duties to “plan”, “encourage,” and “coordinate” are even more clearly operational. Defendant sidesteps the constitutional issue raised by plaintiff. Defendant recognizes the argument in a footnote, and admits that “it cannot be doubted that the Commission is part of the federal government.” Defendant’s Mem. at 21 n. 14. Defendant argues that the only question before the Court is whether the Commission is an advisory committee, stating that “the Court need not reach the issue of whether the Commission can be an agency.” Id. In fact, the government contends that the Court cannot reach the issue because plaintiff lacks standing to assert the claim since it does not allege any concrete injury suffered from" }, { "docid": "2020665", "title": "", "text": "(d) (1993), but require in addition that the workshops “satisfy the Committee as to the extent of the labor operations to be performed.” Id. § 51-2.4(c). This addition, like the added suitability requirement noted above, derives from the Committee’s determination, discussed in the preamble of the final rule, that “it is the policy of the Government to increase employment and training opportunities for persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities through ... the [Javits-Wagner-O’Day program].” (56 Fed.Reg. at 48,974). Third, the workshop must meet detailed application, recordkeeping, and financial requirements specified at 41 C.F.R. pt. 51-4 (1990 & 1993). The portion of the regulations concerning “serious adverse impact” provides: (d) In deciding whether or not a proposed addition to the Procurement List would have a serious adverse impact on the current or most recent contractor for the particular commodity or service, the Committee gives particular attention to: (1) The possible impact on that contractor’s sales, including any cumulative impact as the result of other recent Committee actions. (2) Whether or not that contractor has been a continuous supplier to the Government of the specific commodity or service proposed for addition- and is, therefore, more dependent on the income from such sales to the Government, and (3) Any substantive comments received as the result of the notice in the FEDERAL Register. 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6(d) (1990); see 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.4(e) (1993) (no substantive changes). The Committee has made this determination, almost exclusively, by reviewing GSA contracts, bid sheets and the current suppliers’ Dun & Bradstreet Reports to learn what percentage of the suppliers’ total sales stemmed from providing the commodity to the government. See, e.g., Barrier Indus., Inc. v. Eckard, 584 F.2d 1074, 1082-83 (D.C.Cir.1978). The Committee has not stated what proportion of the suppliers’ sales would have to be lost to constitute a “serious adverse impact.” With approximately 100 new commodities and services added to the procurement list each year, the list now contains approximately 4,500 entries. In 1993, procurement under the Act brought more than 500 nonprofit agencies for the blind and severely handicapped persons approximately" }, { "docid": "1515030", "title": "", "text": "HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief Judge: HLI Lordship Industries, Inc. (Lordship) appeals from a judgment of the district court sustaining a decision of the Committee for Purchase From the Blind and Severely Handicapped (the Committee) allocating to Elwyn Industries (Elwyn) future procurement contracts for certain military medals which had previously been awarded to Lordship and others under a competitive bidding system. 615 F.Supp. 970. Because we conclude that the Committee in reaching its decision failed to comply with the rule-making procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 553, as required by 41 U.S.C. § 47(a)(2), we reverse and remand the case to the district court with directions to set aside the decision on that ground. I. The Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 46, et seq., established the Committee and authorized it to set aside commodities and services for procurement by the government from sheltered workshops for the blind and other severely handicapped. Once a commodity or service is placed on the procurement list, the various agencies of the federal government must procure that item or service from a qualified nonprofit agency rather than through competitive bidding. In formulating a procurement list and modifying it from time to time, the Committee is required to proceed by rule in compliance with 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), (c), (d), and (e). Briefly stated, those provisions of APA require that notice of a proposed rule be given to interested persons, § 553(b), that interested persons have the “opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation,” § 553(c), that the rule-making agency “[ajfter consideration of the relevant matter presented ... shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose,” § 553(c), that the rule adopted be published at least 30 days before it becomes effective, § 553(d), and that the agency give interested persons “the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule,” § 553(e). Rules thus adopted are subject to judicial review, 5 U.S.C. § 704, and the scope" } ]

[ { "docid": "18808184", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KAZEN, District Judge. On December 6, 1994, the Court entered an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), remanding this' case to state court and awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees. Plaintiff has requested $14,987.50 in attorney fees and $1,404.00 in expenses. Defendants contend that these fees are excessive. A. Reasonable Attorney Fees. In computing an attorney fees award under § 1447(c), the Court first multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. E.g., Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Granite State Ins. Co., 764 F.Supp. 1146 (S.D.Tex.1990); Wahl v. Ravenswood Hosp. Med. Ctr., 1993 WL 311733 (N.D.Ill.). This calculation provides an objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of a lawyer’s services. The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed. Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the-award accordingly. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 432, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). In this case, Plaintiff’s counsel, H.N. Cunningham and Robert H. Bezueha, billed a total of 119.9 hours. They spent 34.4 hours preparing the first motion to remand (Cunningham: 5.0 hrs; Bezueha: 29.4 hrs) and 85.5 hours (Cunningham: 32 hrs; Bezueha: 53.5 hrs) preparing their second motion to remand. While Plaintiff provides the Court with a list of the activities performed by counsel, such as conducting “[v]arious telecoms with opposing counsel and client; reviewing Defendants’] response to remand motion; researching] various aspects of removal jurisdiction; [and] preparation] of Motion for Leave to Reply to Defendants’ Response,” see Supplemental Affidavit of Robert H. Bezucha ¶¶ 5 & 6, it has failed to document in sufficient detail the number of hours devoted to each of these activities. The Court did receive Plaintiff counsel’s time sheets, albeit as an. exhibit to Defendant’s Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney Fees. However, these time sheets provide little insight. Prior to turning the sheets over to Defendants, Plaintiffs counsel redacted many of the captions describing the work performed. The remaining captions are vague, consisting" } ]

[ { "docid": "21791680", "title": "", "text": "and rates for clear error and the application of the relevant factors for abuse of discretion. La. Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 329 (5th Cir.1995). NBI contends that the court erred in failing to calculate a “lodestar” amount determined by the reasonable number of hours expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rates for the attorneys involved. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The “lodestar” may be adjusted according to (1) the time and labor required for the litigation; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney by acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the result obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Shipes v. Trinity Indus., 987 F.2d 311, 319-20 (5th Cir.1993) (citing Johnson v. Ga. Hwy. Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974)). Moreover, NBI asserts that because Brinker’s application for fees did not state how long the participating attorneys had been practicing law, the court could not (and did not) calculate a reasonable hourly rate. Brinker presented details of the work completed and the rates charged by each attorney, a total of 818.8 hours and $112,796. Although the court did not provide a specific calculation, it awarded only a small fraction of the amount requested— $8,000. When a prevailing party submits a fee application without proper documentation, the court has the discretion to reduce the award to a reasonable amount. Moreover, the court need not explicitly calculate the lodestar to make a reasonable award. In Wegner, as here, the party challenging the attorney’s fees did not explain why they were unreasonable. Id. at 823. The court upheld the award, stating: Under these circumstances, given the" }, { "docid": "2570718", "title": "", "text": "to warrant appellate review of minutia; and (3) the desirability of avoiding “a second major litigation” strictly over attorneys’ fees is high. Id. An award under § 1988 is to be “based on the totality of the case in light of the purpose of the act: to permit and encourage plaintiffs to enforce their civil rights.” Lynch v. Milwaukee, 747 F.2d 423, 426 (7th Cir.1984) (citations and quotations omitted). The district court concluded that the plaintiffs were a prevailing party under the language of § 1988. Thus, the attorneys were entitled to fees. The only consideration after such an entitlement is established is the reasonableness of the fees. See Alexander v. Gerhardt Enters., Inc., 40 F.3d 187, 194 (7th Cir.1994). Reasonableness is determined by a number of considerations. In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), the Supreme Court set forth the methodology and the considerations that affect the determination of § 1988 attorneys’ fee awards. These principles are well established in our jurisprudence, and we set them forth here in abbreviated fashion. Initially, the court must determine the “lodestar” amount by multiplying the reasonable number of hours expended' by a reasonable hourly rate. This “lodestar” amount may be reduced or augmented on the basis of the following twelve factors: the time and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of the questions; the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly; the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the ease; the customary fee; whether the fee is fixed or contingent; time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; the amount involved and the results obtained; the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; the “undesirability” of the case; the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and awards in similar eases. Id. at 430 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. at n. 3 (citing Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974)). District courts may not reduce or augment the lodestar amount arbitrarily, and consequently, we have required a “concise but clear explanation” to" }, { "docid": "6114786", "title": "", "text": "n. 11, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). The product of reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable rate does not end the inquiry. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939-40, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). In considering an adjustment to the lodestar calculation in order to arrive at a “reasonable” fee in a civil rights case, the district court may consider the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974). These factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the question; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the “undesirability” of the ease; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Id. However, many of these factors are subsumed within the initial lodestar calculation. Thus, in Blum, the Supreme Court held that the novelty and complexity of the issues, the quality of representation, the special skill and experience of counsel, and the .results obtained are factors fully reflected in the lodestar calculation and cannot serve as independent bases for adjusting the basic fee award. Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-900, 104 S.Ct. at 1548- 50; see also Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U.S. at 564-65, 106 S.Ct. at 3097-98; United States Football League v. National Football League, 887 F.2d 408, 415 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1071, 110 S.Ct. 1116, 107 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1990). In determining the amount of an attorney’s fee, the prevailing parties “are entitled to reasonable hourly rate which fall within the prevailing marketplace rates in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Cruz, 34 F.3d at 1159; New York State Nat’l Org. for Women" }, { "docid": "8348031", "title": "", "text": "warranted, can be adjusted upward or downward. At the end of its discussion of the law, the court added: “see Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974) (listing numerous factors to be considered in awarding attorneys’ fees).” Id. Johnson was concerned with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). The Fifth Circuit in that case set forth 12 factors which have since become quite well known and widely cited: (I) The time and labor required, (2) The novelty and difficulty of the questions, (3) The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) The customary fee, (6) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) The amount involved and the results obtained, (9) The experience, reputation, and the ability of the attorneys, (10) The undesirability of the case, (II) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) Awards in similar cases. Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19. Accord Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 1726, 48 L.Ed.2d 195 (1976). The Ninth Circuit’s approach in Yerma-kov is consistent with that later expressed by the United States Supreme Court in other contexts providing for statutory attorney’s fees. That Court has contexts providing for statutory attorney held that the “initial estimate” of a reasonable attorney’s fee is properly calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended times a reasonable hourly rate. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1543, 79 L.Ed.2d 891, 895 (1984); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 432-34, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40, 50 (1983). Thereafter, adjustments to that fee may be made as appropriate in the particular case. Blum, 465 U.S. at 888-90, 104 S.Ct. at 1544, 79 L.Ed.2d at 896; Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434-35, 103 S.Ct. at 1940, 76 L.Ed.2d at 51. In a footnote, the Hensley" }, { "docid": "17667409", "title": "", "text": "reasonably expended, for claims not heard in the lawsuit, and for duplicative effort on the part of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Second, Baylor contends that the award improperly used a uniform hourly rate per attorney without regard for the type of work actually performed. Finally, the college vigorously contests the 25% “upward adjustment” of the fee fixed by the District Court on the basis of the novelty of the issues, the undesirability of the case, and the exceptional success the plaintiffs obtained in the litigation. In Johnson, we enumerated in great detail the factors to be considered by the district courts in arriving at an appropriate fee award. Among the most important of these factors is the lodestar figure; that is, the hours reasonably expended on a case multiplied by the prevailing hourly rate in the community for similar work. Graves v. Barnes, 700 F.2d 220, 222 (5th Cir.1983). The reasonableness of the time expended and its worth is governed by Johnson’s instruction that the trial judge should weigh the hours claimed against [the judge’s] own knowledge, experience, and expertise of the time required to complete similar activities. If more than one attorney is involved, the possibility of duplication of effort along with the proper utilization of time should be scrutinized. The time of two or three lawyers in a courtroom or conference when one would do may be obviously discounted. It is appropriate to distinguish between legal work, in the strict sense, and investigation, clerical work, compilation of facts and statistics and other work which can often be accomplished by non-lawyers but which a lawyer may do because he has no other help available. Such nonlegal work may command a lesser rate. Its dollar value is not enhanced just because a lawyer does it. 488 F.2d at 717. The court should also bear in mind that the fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434-35, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1940, 76 L.Ed.2d 40, 50 (1983). Where the documentation is inadequate, the District Court has discretion to reduce the" }, { "docid": "22915502", "title": "", "text": "(1984); Comacho v. Colorado Electronic Technical College, Inc., 590 F.2d 887 (10th Cir.1979); see also Copeland, 641 F.2d at 901; Konczack v. Tyrrell, 603 F.2d 13, 19 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1016, 100 S.Ct. 668, 62 L.Ed.2d 646 (1980); Carr v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., 598 F.2d 1368 (5th Cir.1979). Findings on underlying questions of fact are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Ries Biologicals, Inc. v. Bank of Santa Fe, 780 F.2d 888 (10th Cir.1986). “We reemphasize that the district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). In that process “the fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Id. “It remains important, however, for the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.” Id. Such explanations must “give us an adequate basis for review.” Ramos, 713 F.2d at 552. And, in reaching their determinations district courts must follow the guidelines established by the Supreme Court and this court. See, e.g., Delaware Valley, 106 S.Ct. 3088; Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541; Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933; Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546. “[T]he benchmark for the awards under nearly all of ... [the statutes awarding fees] is that the attorney’s fee must be ‘reasonable.’ ” Delaware Valley, 106 S.Ct. at 3096. I Determination of Allowable Hours The district court perceptively and accurately focused its attention on the question of reasonable hours in this case. In Blum and Delaware Valley the Supreme Court emphasized that the “basic standard” for finding reasonable fees is the determination of reasonable hours and rates. Blum, 465 U.S. at 898, 104 S.Ct. at 1548. The many factors for evaluating legal representation set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974), and elsewhere, “usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate.”" }, { "docid": "16813280", "title": "", "text": "the district court’s conclusion that the hourly rates used to calculate the “lodestar” award were “modest.” In Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974), the Fifth Circuit enunciated 12 factors that trial courts may consider in calculating reasonable attorney-fee awards. The Supreme Court has determined that “Johnson’s ‘list of 12’ ... provides a useful catalog of the many factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees.... ” Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 93, 109 S.Ct. 939, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989). These 12 factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Id. at 91 n. 5, 109 S.Ct. 939. This court has held that a trial court may apply the Johnson factors during its initial calculation of the attorney-fee award or when the court is considering a request for an enhancement. United State, Tile & Composition Roofers v. G & M Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 732 F.2d 495, 502-03, 503 n. 3 (6th Cir.1984) (stating that the trial court should first conduct the initial evaluation, then examine the award against several factors, including the Johnson factors, but also noting that trial courts usually subsume the analysis of those factors within the initial calculation). The district court should also “provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons” for its conclusions regarding an attorney-fee award. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). In support of their request, the plaintiffs emphasized that the following factors justify an" }, { "docid": "9686968", "title": "", "text": "factors are: (1) the time and labor required for the litigation; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the result obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 209 (citing Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19); see Kellstrom, 50 F.3d at 329 n. 19; Fender, 12 F.3d at 487 n. 10; Shipes, 987 F.2d at 320 n. 6; Longden, 979 F.2d at 1100 n. 10. Many of these factors usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate and should not be double-counted. See Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 209 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1933; Shipes, 987 F.2d at 320). The Supreme Court has observed, “ ‘[T]he most critical factor’ in determining the reasonableness of a fee award ‘is the degree of success obtained.’ ” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436, 103 S.Ct. 1933); see Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 209. The court, therefore, should consider the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff as compared to the amount of damages sought. See Farrar, 506 U.S. at 114, 113 S.Ct. 566 (citing City of Riverside, 477 U.S. at 585, 106 S.Ct. 2686). There is no windfall of attorney’s fees when the district court properly considers the relationship between the extent of the success and the amount of the fee that is awarded. See Clear Lake Dodge, 60 F.3d at 1154. “This factor is particularly crucial when ... a plaintiff is deemed ‘prevailing’ even though he succeeded on only some" }, { "docid": "19779474", "title": "", "text": "v. Deal, 5 F.3d 1406, 1409 (11th Cir.1993) (district court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing where there was dispute of material fact that could not be resolved from the record); Norman v. Housing Auth., 836 F.2d 1292, 1304 (11th Cir.1988) (“[Wjhere there is a dispute of material historical fact such as whether or not a case could have been settled without litigation ..., an evidentiary hearing is required.”). III. CONCLUSION Because the magistrate judge failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts material to whether the litigation was unnecessary, the district court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s R&R, which recommended reducing the fee award based on that factor. Therefore, we vacate the award and remand for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion, on the amount of attorney’s and expert fees to be awarded to the Association. VACATED AND REMANDED. .The Hensley Court acknowledged that district courts may continue to consider the twelve factors outlined by the former Fifth Circuit in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974), although it noted that \"many of these factors usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. at 1940 n. 9. The Johnson factors include: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (.10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. See Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19. . It is undisputed that the magistrate did not examine the settlement agreement. . The district court also adopted the magistrate’s" }, { "docid": "9686959", "title": "", "text": "provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title ... the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.... Although discretionary, the Fifth Circuit has declared that an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in a civil rights case “ ‘should be in such an amount to insure that attorneys will undertake representation in this type of case.’ ” Fisher v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 613 F.2d 527, 547 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1115, 101 S.Ct. 929, 66 L.Ed.2d 845 (1981) (quoting Baxter v. Savannah Sugar Ref. Corp., 495 F.2d 437, 447 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1033, 95 S.Ct. 515, 42 L.Ed.2d 308 (1974)); see also Abrams v. Baylor College of Medicine, 805 F.2d 528, 536 (5th Cir.1986). It is well settled, however, that attorneys’ fees are awarded only for those hours that are reasonably necessary to prosecute the case. See EEOC v. Clear Lake Dodge, 60 F.3d 1146, 1154 (5th Cir.1995) (citing City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 568, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). Thus, the fee applicant bears the burden of proving that the number of hours spent litigating the lawsuit is reasonable. See Cooper v. Pentecost, 77 F.3d 829, 832 (5th Cir.1996) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933); Von Clark v. Butler, 916 F.2d 255, 259 (5th Cir.1990); Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 896 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir.), vacated in part, 903 F.2d 352 (5th Cir.1990). The Fifth Circuit has adopted the “lodestar” method for calculating the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded a prevailing civil rights plaintiff. See Jason D.W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205, 208-09 (5th Cir.1998); In Matter of Fender, Zapata Partnership, Ltd., 12 F.3d 480, 487 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1143, 114 S.Ct. 2165, 128 L.Ed.2d 888 (1994); Longden v. Sunderman, 979 F.2d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir.1992); Sims v. Jefferson Downs" }, { "docid": "19158796", "title": "", "text": "“Motions for Attorneys’ Fees” and states in pertinent part: (3) In all motions for attorneys’ fees, movant shall, by affidavit of counsel, address the following factors relating to the determination of a reasonable allowance: (a) The time and labor required, including an itemized statement of all time expended by counsel and a brief description of the services performed during each period of time itemized. (b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions. (c) The skill requisite to perform the legal services properly. (d) The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case. (e) The customary fee. (f) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent. (g) Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances. (h) The amount involved and the results obtained. (i) The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney(s). (j) The “undesirability” of the case. (k) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. (l) Awards in similar cases. These factors, originally set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19, (5th Cir.1974), ordinarily guide federal courts in the Fifth Circuit in search of appropriate fee awards. See Worldcom, Inc., 75 F.Supp.2d at 530. District courts in Texas have used the Johnson factors when determining what amount to award pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Wermelinger v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:97-CV-1100D, 1998 WL 401607 (N.D.Tex. July 15, 1998); Summit Mach. Tool Mfg. Corp. v. Great N. Ins. Co., 883 F.Supp. 1532 (S.D.Tex.1995); Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Granite State Ins. Co., 764 F.Supp. 1146 (S.D.Tex.1990). While these factors may be helpful in reaching an attorneys’ fee award, many of these factors usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonably hourly rate and should not be double counted. Jason D.W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205 (5th Cir.1998) (citations omitted). The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. Abrams v. Baylor College of Medicine, 805 F.2d 528, 535-36 (5th Cir.1986) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434-35, 103" }, { "docid": "19158795", "title": "", "text": "and the rate of compensation requested. B. Calculating Attorneys’ Fees Once a court determines that the removal was improper, § 1447(c) gives a court discretion to determine what amount of costs and fees, if any, to award the plaintiff. Avitts v. Amoco Production Co., 111 F.3d 30, 32 (5th Cir.1997). The Fifth Circuit has interpreted the language “incurred as a result of removal” to limit the litigation expenses that may be awarded under this section to fees and costs incurred in federal court that would not have been incurred had the case remained in state court. Avitts, 111 F.3d at 32. In calculating attorneys’ fees, the court is to calculate the lodestar, which is the product of the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly billing rate. Worldcom, Inc. v. Automated Communications, Inc., 75 F.Supp.2d 526, 530 (S.D.Miss.1999) (diversity case where the contracts in question provided for the recovery of attorney’s fees and the court used the Johnson factors for guidance) (citations omitted). Uniform Local Rule 54.2(B) is titled “Motions for Attorneys’ Fees” and states in pertinent part: (3) In all motions for attorneys’ fees, movant shall, by affidavit of counsel, address the following factors relating to the determination of a reasonable allowance: (a) The time and labor required, including an itemized statement of all time expended by counsel and a brief description of the services performed during each period of time itemized. (b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions. (c) The skill requisite to perform the legal services properly. (d) The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case. (e) The customary fee. (f) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent. (g) Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances. (h) The amount involved and the results obtained. (i) The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney(s). (j) The “undesirability” of the case. (k) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. (l) Awards in similar cases. These factors, originally set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19," }, { "docid": "11207976", "title": "", "text": "legal work and the time he is paid; rather, under the lodestar approach, the court can specifically account for delay by determining an appropriate hourly fee on the basis of current market rates. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 283-84, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2469, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989); Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302. B. The “starting point” in setting an attorney’s fee under the lodestar method is to determine the lodestar figure — that is, “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). Accord Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir.1988). The fee applicant bears the burden of “establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours and hourly rates.” Id. at 1303. After calculating the lodestar fee, the court should then proceed with an analysis of whether any portion of this fee should be adjusted upwards or downwards. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air (“Delaware Valley I”), 478 U.S. 546, 565-66, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3098, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986); Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. In making the above determinations, the court is guided by the 12 factors set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974). See Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 564, 106 S.Ct. at 3097-98; Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299. These factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of any professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar" }, { "docid": "9686967", "title": "", "text": "adjust it upward or downward based upon the respective weights of the factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. See 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974); accord Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 209; Fender, 12 F.3d at 487; Shipes, 987 F.2d at 320; Curtis, 822 F.2d at 552; Sims, 778 F.2d at 1084. Enhancement of the lodestar amount, however, “is appropriate only in certain ‘exceptional’ cases— those in which there is a substantial risk of not prevailing, or in which the issues are so novel or complex that the lodestar amount awarded would not provide a reasonable fee that would adequately reflect the quality of the representation.” Von Clark, 916 F.2d at 260 (citing Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U.S. at 566-67, 106 S.Ct. 3088); see also Shipes, 987 F.2d at 320; Alberti, 896 F.2d at 930. It is also within the court’s discretion to reduce the amount of an award of attorneys’ fees. See United States Leather, Inc. v. H &W Partnership, 60 F.3d 222, 229 (5th Cir.1995). The twelve Johnson factors are: (1) the time and labor required for the litigation; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the result obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 209 (citing Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19); see Kellstrom, 50 F.3d at 329 n. 19; Fender, 12 F.3d at 487 n. 10; Shipes, 987 F.2d at 320 n. 6; Longden, 979 F.2d at 1100 n. 10. Many of these factors usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate and should not be double-counted. See" }, { "docid": "17696844", "title": "", "text": "Cir.1982)) (appropriate to consider all factors in, rather than apply strict time/hourly rate analysis to, “repetitive” black lung and social security disability benefit cases). Despite Harman’s other objections to the fee awards, we cannot say that under all the facts and circumstances the awards were clearly wrong. Barber, 577 F.2d at 226. For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the district court appealed from herein are AFFIRMED. . Under Barber a court fixing a fee award must consider the following twelve factors: (I) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (II) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases. 577 F.2d at 226 n. 28 (relying on Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974)). Although the Supreme Court noted in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1940 n. 9, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), that many of these factors may be duplicative if the court first determines the hours expended by the attorney and a reasonable hourly rate for his services, independent consideration of each factor is within the discretion of the trial court. Ibid.; Arnold v. Burger King Corp., 719 F.2d 63, 67 & n. 4 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 108, 83 L.Ed.2d 51 (1984). . Fees requested and awarded were (1) request $1,026, award $600; (2) request $1,500, award $675; (3) request $1,000, award $600; (4) request $1,000, award $600; (5) request $1,000, award $600; (6) request $1,000, award $600; (7) request $1,000, award" }, { "docid": "19823046", "title": "", "text": "setting an attorney’s fee is to determine the lodestar figure: the number of hours -reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, - 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983); Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir.1988); Bowen v. Southtrust Bank of Alabama, 760 F.Supp. 889, 896 (M.D.Ala. 1991). In making this determination, the district court is guided by the 12 factors identified in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974). These factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill required to perform, the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of any professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Id. at 717-19. The fee applicant bears the burden of “establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours and hourly rates.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303. In circumstances where the court is faced with an inadequate fee application, the law in this circuit is well established that: [t]he court, either trial or appellate, is itself an expert on the question and may consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an independent judgment either with or without the aid of witnesses as to value. Id. Accordingly, the district court may make the award on its own experience when the time or fees claimed seemed expanded or there is a lack of documentation or testimonial support. Id. The district court’s order must articulate the decisions it made, give principled reasons and show calculations. Id. (citations omitted). “If the court disallows hours, it must explain which hours are" }, { "docid": "2529985", "title": "", "text": "of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the result obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. These 12 factors are consistent with the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-106 (1980). See Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 719 (5th Cir. 1974). The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 n. 7 (1983), that although Hensley was a Civil Rights Act case, the standards set forth in Hensley “are generally applicable in all cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a “prevailing party.’ ” In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. at 429-430, the Supreme Court cited the Johnson factors as the appropriate standard for determining a reasonable attorney’s fee award. The Supreme Court noted, however, as the Sixth Circuit did in Northcross v. Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, 611 F.2d at 642, that many of the Johnson factors may be subsumed in the calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. at 434 n. 9. Thus, it appears that the Johnson and Northcross standards are compatible. Consistent with Theresa’s recollection, the record indicated that she fully cooperated with Simmerman." }, { "docid": "7372486", "title": "", "text": "Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974), the Fifth Circuit enunciated twelve factors that trial courts may consider in calculating reasonable attorneys’ fee awards. See Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 93, 109 S.Ct. 939, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989) (“Johnson ’s ‘list of 12’ thus provides a useful catalog of the many factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees ... ”). The twelve factors are as follows: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances;- (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (summarizing the Johnson factors). This court has held that the trial court may apply the Johnson factors either after the court’s initial valuation of the hours reasonably expended at a reasonable rate or during its initial valuation. United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers v. G & M Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 732 F.2d 495, 502-03, 503 n. 3 (6th Cir.1984) (stating that the trial court should first conduct the initial valuation, then examine the award against several factors, including the Johnson factoi’s, but also noting that trial courts usually subsume the analysis of those factors within the initial calculation). The district court should also “provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons” for its conclusions regarding an attorneys’ fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933. I. The district court’s rationale for the reduction of the attorneys’ fee award by 50% was an abuse of discretion The district court stated" }, { "docid": "6451971", "title": "", "text": "abuse of discretion. Johnson v. City of Aiken, 278 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir.2002). Indeed, “[o]ur review of the district court’s award is sharply circumscribed; we have recognized that because a district court has close and intimate knowledge of the efforts expended and the value of the services rendered, the fee award must not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong.” Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273, 277-78 (4th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration marks omitted). Here, the parties agree that in calculating an appropriate attorneys’ fee award, a district court must first determine the lodestar amount (reasonable hourly rate multiplied by hours reasonably expended), applying the Johnson/Barber factors when making its lodestar determination. Barber v. Kimbrell’s Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 (4th Cir.1978) (adopting twelve factor test set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974), overruled on other grounds, Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 109 S.Ct. 939, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989)). See also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (approving twelve factors set forth in Johnson); Trimper v. City of Norfolk, 58 F.3d 68, 73-74 (4th Cir.1995) (applying Johnson/Barber factors in reviewing fee award under § 1988). This court has summarized the Johnson factors to include: (1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases. Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1402 n. 18 (4th Cir.1987). The parties also agree that" }, { "docid": "19158797", "title": "", "text": "(5th Cir.1974), ordinarily guide federal courts in the Fifth Circuit in search of appropriate fee awards. See Worldcom, Inc., 75 F.Supp.2d at 530. District courts in Texas have used the Johnson factors when determining what amount to award pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Wermelinger v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:97-CV-1100D, 1998 WL 401607 (N.D.Tex. July 15, 1998); Summit Mach. Tool Mfg. Corp. v. Great N. Ins. Co., 883 F.Supp. 1532 (S.D.Tex.1995); Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Granite State Ins. Co., 764 F.Supp. 1146 (S.D.Tex.1990). While these factors may be helpful in reaching an attorneys’ fee award, many of these factors usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonably hourly rate and should not be double counted. Jason D.W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205 (5th Cir.1998) (citations omitted). The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. Abrams v. Baylor College of Medicine, 805 F.2d 528, 535-36 (5th Cir.1986) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434-35, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1940, 76 L.Ed.2d 40, 50 (1983)). Where the documentation is inadequate, the district court has discretion to reduce the award accordingly. Abrams, 805 F.2d at 536. 1. Number of Hours Reasonably Required Plaintiff is represented by the firm of McTeer & Associates. Three attorneys within the McTeer firm worked on the remand and attorneys’ fees issues. Bennie Richard, an associate with four years experience, did most of the work on the motion to remand and other related motions. Charles Victor McTeer, an accomplished attorney with approximately thirty years experience also spent a considerable amount of time on the motions. Finally, Ray Chambers, an associate with six years experience, spent a minor amount of time working on the motions. Defendants assert that the time entries by Plaintiffs counsel are general, duplicative and excessive. The Defendants submitted the affidavit of L. Carl Hagwood, whose firm represents one of the Defendants. Hagwood stated in his affidavit “I, along with other lawyers and paralegals in my firm, worked on all of the removal and remand issues in" } ]

[ { "docid": "16537581", "title": "", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. The question on which this case turned below was whether Myers, the lessee of property situated on the bank of the Mississippi River within the city of St. Louis, which had been improved with a view to its use, and was used in connection with the navigation of the river, could maintain an action against the city for extending one of its streets into the river so as to divert the natural course of the water and destroy the water privileges which were appurtenant to the property. The Supreme Court of the State decided that he could ; and to reverse that decision this writ of error was brought. We are unable to discover that any federal right was denied the city by the decision which has been rendered. The act of Congress providing for the admission of Missouri into the Union, Act of March 6, 1820, ch. 22, 3 Stat. 545, and which declares that the Mississippi River shall be “ a common highway, and forever free,” has been referred to in the argument here, but the rights of riparian owners are nowhere mentioned in that act. They are left to be settled according to the principles of State law. Certainly there is nothing in the provisions of the act from which a right can be claimed by the city of St. Louis, even though it be the owner of the bed of the river, to change the course of the water as it flows, to the injury of those who own lands on the banks. This act was not mentioned in the pleadings, and, so far as we can discover, it was not alluded to in the ^opinions of either of the courts below except for the purpose of showing that the Mississippi River was in law a navigable stream. . By an act passed June 12, 1866, ch. 116 § 9, 14 Stat. 63, Congress relinquished to the city of St. Louis all the right, title and interest of the United States “ in and to all" } ]

[ { "docid": "22549976", "title": "", "text": "of the rule would equally apply to navigable waters above the flow of the tide; that reason being that the public authorities ought to have entire control of the great passageways of commerce and navigation, to be exercised for the public advantage and convenience. The confusion of navigable with tide water, found in the monuments of the common law, long prevailed in this country, notwithstanding the broad differences existing between * the extent arid topography of the British island and. that of the American continent. ' It had the influence for two generations of excluding the admiralty jurisdiction froin our great rivers and inland seas; and under the like influence it laid the foundation in many States of doctrines, with regard to the ownership of the soil in navigable waters above tide water, at variance with sound principles of public policy. Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our' view of the subject, the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471. These cases related to tide water, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this court, in the case of The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, has declared that the Great Lakes and other navigable waters of the country, above as well as below the flow of the tide, are, in the strictest sense, entitled to the denomination of navigable waters, and amenable to the admiralty jurisdiction, there seems to be no sound reason for adhering to the old rule as to the proprietorship of the beds and shores of such waters. It properly belongs to the States by their inherent sovereignty, and' the United States has wisely abstained from extending" }, { "docid": "22890049", "title": "", "text": "said: “It is generally conceded that the riparian title attaches to subsequent accretions to the land affected by the gradual and imperceptible operation of natural causes. But whether it attaches to land reclaimed by artificial means from the bed of the river, or to sudden accretions produced by unusual floods, is a question which each State decides for itself. . . . The confusion of navigable with tide water, found in the monuments of the common law, long prevailed in this country, notwithstanding the. broad differences existing between the extent and topography of the British island and that of the American continent. It had the influence for two generations of excluding the admiralty jurisdiction from our great rivers and inland seas; and, under the like influence, it laid the foundation in many States of doctrines with regard to the ownership of the soil in navigable waters above tide water at variance with sound principles of public policy. Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine: If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in the sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections.” In Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 669, where a similar question arose, and where it was claimed that the fact that the title was derived by a grant from the United States afforded a reason for decision, Mr. Justice Field stated the question as follows: “ The courts of the United States will construe the grants of the general government without reference to the rules of construction adopted by the States for their grants; but whatever incidents of rights attach to the ownership of property conveyed by the government will be determined by the States, subject to the condition that their rules do not impair the efficacy of the grants or the use and enjoyment of the property by the grantee. As an incident of such ownership the right of the riparian owner, where-" }, { "docid": "22198248", "title": "", "text": "have been very different. He was the organ of this court in pronouncing the opinion in Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, where the question was whether the title of riparian proprietors on the banks of the Mississippi extended to ordinary high-water mark or to the shore between high and low-water mark, and said: “ In our view of the subject the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471. These cases related to tidewater, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this court, in the case of The Genessee Chief, 12 How. 443, has declared that the Great Lakes and other navigable waters of the country, above as well as below the flow of the tide, are, in the strictest sense, entitled to the denomination of navigable waters, and amenable to the' admiralty jurisdiction, there seems to be no sound reason for adhering to the-old rule as to the proprietorship, of the beds and shores of such waters. It properly belongs to the States by their inherent sovereignty, and the United States has wisely abstained from extending (if it could extend) its survey and grants beyond the limits of high water. The cases in which this court has seemed to hold a contrary view depended, .as most cases must depend, on the local laws of the States in which the lands are situated. In Iowa, as before stated, the more correct rule seems to have been adopted after a most elaborate investigation of the subject.” Whether the distinction suggested by Mr. Justice Bradley, between property held by the State for public purposes and private property, be or be not sound, the doctrine has no application to the present case, and, as the Circuit Court case was not brought for review to this court, the suggestion remains unadjudged. The so-called Hawkins Point Lighthouse case was an ejectment brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland" }, { "docid": "22989674", "title": "", "text": "change these doctrines where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our view of the subject the correct principle was laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471. These cases related to tide-water, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this court, in the case of The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, has declared that the great lakes and other navigable waters of the country, above as well as below the flow of the tide, are, in the strictest sense, entitled to the denomination of navigable waters, and amenable to the admiralty jurisdiction, there seems, to be no sound reason for adhering to the old rule ^s to the proprietorship of the beds and shores of such waters. It properly belongs to the States by their inherent sovereignty, and the United' States has wisely abstained from extending (if it could extend) its survey and grants beyond the limits of high water.” The legislation of Congress for the survey of the public lands recognizes the general rule as to the public interest' in waters of navigable streams without reference to the existence or absence of the tide in them. As early as 1796, in an act providing for the sale of such lands in the territory northwest of the river Ohio and above the mouth of Kentucky Biver, Congress déclared “ that all navigable rivers within the territory to be disposed of by virtue of the act shall be deemed to be and remain public highways; and that in all cases where the opposite banks of any stream, not navigable, shall belong to different persons, the stream and the bed thereof shall become common to both.” Act of May 18, 1796, c. 29, § 9, 1 Stat. 468. In Railroad" }, { "docid": "22355805", "title": "", "text": "now between Iowa and Illinois. ... The grant was to them as individuals, — as tenants in common, — and is to be construed as any other grant or sale to individuals.” The court then goes on to refer to various cases to show that the government cannot convey the land between high and low water on the public or navigable rivers, but that this space belongs to the State; citing Mayor of Mobile v. Eslava, 9 Port. 578; 16 Pet. 234;, Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212. It is generally conceded that the riparian title attaches to\" subsequent accretions to the land effected by the gradual and imperceptible operation of natural causes. But whether it attaches to land reclaimed by artificial means from the bed of the river, or to sudden accretions produced by unusual floods, is a question which each State decides for itself. By the common law, as before remarked, such additions to the land on navigable waters belong to the crown ; but as the only -waters recognized in England as navigable were tide-waters, the rule was often expressed as applicable to tide-waters only, although the reason of the rule would equally apply to navigable waters above tbe flow of the tide; that reason being, that the public authorities ought to have entire' control- of the great passageways of commerce and navigation, to be exercised for the public advantage and convenience. The confusion of navigable with tide water, found in the monuments of the common law, long prevailed in this country, notwithstanding the broad differences existing between the extent and topography of the British island and that of the American continent. It had the influence for two generations of excluding the admiralty jurisdiction from our great rivers and inland seas; and under the like influence it laid the foundation in many States of doctrines with regard to the ownership of the soil in navigable waters above tide-water at variance with sound principles of public policy. Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines where they have been applied, as" }, { "docid": "22566492", "title": "", "text": "not pass under the equal-footing doctrine. This Court has consistently held that state law governs issues relating to this property, like other real property, unless some other principle of federal law requires a different result. Under our federal system, property ownership is not governed by a general federal law, but rather by the laws of the several States. “The great body of law in this country which controls acquisition, transmission, and transfer of property, and defines the rights of its owners in relation to the state or to private parties, is found in the statutes and decisions of the state.” Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 144, 155 (1944). This is particularly true with respect to real property, for even when federal common law was in its heyday under the teachings of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 (1842), an exception was carved out for the local law of real property. Id., at 18. See United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U. S. 580, 591 (1973). This principle applies to the banks and shores of waterways, and we have consistently so held. Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324 (1877), involved an ejectment action by the plaintiff against the city involving certain land along the banks of the Mississippi River. After noting that the early state doctrines regarding the ownership of the soil of nontidal waters were based upon the then-discarded English view that nontidal waters were presumed nonnavigable, the Court clearly articulated the rule that the States could formulate, and modify, rules of riparian ownership as they saw fit: “Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines [arising out of the confusion of the original classification of nontidal waters as non-navigable] where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our view of the subject the correct principles were laid down in Martin" }, { "docid": "22989673", "title": "", "text": "features was under consideration in this court, and the language used is especially applicable to cases like the one before us. That action was against the city of Keokuk and a steam packet company, to recover the possession of certain premises occupied by them with railroad tracks, buildings and sheds on the bank of the Mississippi River, and in that city. The court, in considering the question presented, observed that “ the confusion of navigable with tide-water, found in the monuments of the common law, long prevailed in this country, notwithstanding the broad differences existing between the extent and topography of the British Island and that of the American Continent. It had the influence for two generations of excluding the admiralty jurisdiction from our great rivers and inland seas; and under the like influence it laid the foundation in many States of doctrines with regard to the ownership of the soil in navigable waters above tidewater at variance with sound principles of public policy. Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our view of the subject the correct principle was laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471. These cases related to tide-water, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this court, in the case of The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, has declared that the great lakes and other navigable waters of the country, above as well as below the flow of the tide, are, in the strictest sense, entitled to the denomination of navigable waters, and amenable to the admiralty jurisdiction, there seems, to be no sound reason for adhering to the old rule ^s to the proprietorship of the beds and" }, { "docid": "22355806", "title": "", "text": "as navigable were tide-waters, the rule was often expressed as applicable to tide-waters only, although the reason of the rule would equally apply to navigable waters above tbe flow of the tide; that reason being, that the public authorities ought to have entire' control- of the great passageways of commerce and navigation, to be exercised for the public advantage and convenience. The confusion of navigable with tide water, found in the monuments of the common law, long prevailed in this country, notwithstanding the broad differences existing between the extent and topography of the British island and that of the American continent. It had the influence for two generations of excluding the admiralty jurisdiction from our great rivers and inland seas; and under the like influence it laid the foundation in many States of doctrines with regard to the ownership of the soil in navigable waters above tide-water at variance with sound principles of public policy. Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our view of the subject the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 id. 471. These cases related to tide-water, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this court, in the case of The Genesee Chief 12 id. 443, has declared that the Great Lakes and other navigable waters of the country, above as well as below the flow of the tide, are, in the strictest sense, entitled to the denomination of navigable waters, and amenable to the admiralty jurisdiction, there seems to be no sound reason for adhering to the old rule as to the proprietorship of the beds and shores of such waters. It properly belongs to the" }, { "docid": "22566493", "title": "", "text": "the banks and shores of waterways, and we have consistently so held. Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324 (1877), involved an ejectment action by the plaintiff against the city involving certain land along the banks of the Mississippi River. After noting that the early state doctrines regarding the ownership of the soil of nontidal waters were based upon the then-discarded English view that nontidal waters were presumed nonnavigable, the Court clearly articulated the rule that the States could formulate, and modify, rules of riparian ownership as they saw fit: “Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines [arising out of the confusion of the original classification of nontidal waters as non-navigable] where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our view of the subject the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 id. 471. These cases related to tide-water, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters.” Id., at 338. In Shively v. Bowlby, the Court canvassed its previous decisions and emphasized that state law controls riparian ownership. The Court concluded that grants by Congress of land bordering navigable waters “leave the question of the use of the shores by the owners of uplands to the sovereign control of each State, subject only to the rights vested by the Constitution in the United States.” 152 U. S., at 58. As the Court again emphasized in Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 669 (1891): “ [W]hatever incidents or rights attach to the ownership of property conveyed by the government will be determined by the States, subject to the condition that their rules do not impair the efficacy of the grants or the use and enjoyment of the property by the grantee.” This doctrine" }, { "docid": "22328834", "title": "", "text": "or of the right to build upon it, by reason of the gradual washing away of the banks of'the river; that the State chose to resign to the riparian proprietors its right to such additions from the moving landward of the low-water mark, and required the owner at the same time to surrender in the interest of navigation his right to alluvion. In support, the complainant cites the opinion of. the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Allegheny County in Briggs v. Pheil (1894), 42 Pittsburgh Legal Journal, p. 18, in which it is said with respect to the-same statute: “At the passage of this act the riparian owner owned absolutely to high water mark, and had a qualified property to low water mark, and outside of the low water mark the. title to the soil was in the State. • It seems to us there can be no doubt that the State had power to enact that thereafter the legal limits of the' property should remain unchanged, either by gradual accretions or by gradual cutting- away. This in our opinion was intended to be done and was done by the Act of Assembly and the proceedings thereunder. . . . It seems to us that the establishing of these lines,.at least, .as between the State and rip'arian owners, fixed the lines for the.future. If the river washes in beyond the high-water line the owner may fill up and reclaim the lost land, and on the other hand accretions belong to the State or the municipalities.” ' The established doctrine is invoked that the title to the soil under navigable waters within their territorial limits, and the extent of riparian rights, are governed by the laws of the^several States, subject to the authority of Congress under the Constitution of the United States. Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Weber v. Harbor Commissioners, 18 Wall. 57; Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338; Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 669; St. Louis v. Rutz, 138 U. S. 226, 242; Hardin v. Jordan," }, { "docid": "23019094", "title": "", "text": "the ownership of the exposed land, virtually the twin of this case, the Court has said: “How the land that emerges . . . shall be disposed of as between public and private ownership is a matter to be determined according to the law of each State, under the familiar doctrine that it is for the States to establish for themselves such rules of property as they deem expedient with respect to the navigable waters within their borders and the riparian lands adjacent to them. . . . Thus, [the State] may limit riparian ownership by the ordinary high-water mark ... [or] may, in the case of an avulsion followed by a drying up of the old channel of the river, recognize the right of former riparian owners to be restored to that which they have lost through gradual erosions in times preceding the avulsion . . . .” Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U. S. 158, 175-176 (1918). Along the same vein, the Court has said: “It is generally conceded that the riparian title attaches to subsequent accretions to the land effected by the gradual and imperceptible operation of natural causes. But whether it attaches to land reclaimed by artificial means from the bed of the river, or to sudden accretions produced by unusual floods, is a question which each State decides for itself. . . . The confusion of navigable with tide water, found in the monuments of the common law, long prevailed in this country .... [I]t laid the foundation in many States of doctrines with regard to the ownership of the soil in navigable waters above tide-water at variance with sound principles of public policy. Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines where they have been applied ... is for the several States themselves to determine. . . . [The decision] properly belongs to the States by their inherent sovereignty . . . Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 337-338 (1877). To put the matter bluntly, the Court’s application of the equal-footing doctrine in this, case seems to me" }, { "docid": "22198247", "title": "", "text": "original use.” . Mr. Justice Bradley was himself a New Jersey lawyer, and availed himself, in that case, of the law of that State, which has always been to the effect that the land underlying the tide waters belonged to the State, and was held for a public use. His view was that as, under the law of New Jersey, the land •beneath tide waters was held by the State for public uses, such land was not private property within the meaning of the Constitution, or that, at all events, its occupation, to a limited extent, by the pier of a bridge intended to promote commerce, was not a diversion of the property from its original use. It needs no argument to show that such a decision is not applicable to the present case. Indeed, it is plain that if the case had been one involving the right of an abutter to access to the tide water, the same being, under the laws of the State, private property, the decision of that learned justice would have been very different. He was the organ of this court in pronouncing the opinion in Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, where the question was whether the title of riparian proprietors on the banks of the Mississippi extended to ordinary high-water mark or to the shore between high and low-water mark, and said: “ In our view of the subject the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471. These cases related to tidewater, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this court, in the case of The Genessee Chief, 12 How. 443, has declared that the Great Lakes and other navigable waters of the country, above as well as below the flow of the tide, are, in the strictest sense, entitled to the denomination of navigable waters, and amenable to the' admiralty jurisdiction, there seems to be no sound reason for adhering to the-old" }, { "docid": "22549975", "title": "", "text": "deemed navigable which are really so; and especially is it true with regard to the Mississippi- and its principal branches. The question as to the extent of the riparian title was elaborately discussed in the case of McManus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa, 1. The above conclusion was reached, and has always been adhered to in that State. Haight v. Keokuk, 4 Iowa, 199; Tomlin v. Dubuque &c. Railroad, 32 Iowa, 106.” “It is generally conceded that the riparian title attaches to subsequent accretions to the land, effected by the gradual and imperceptible operation of natural causes. But whether it attaches to land reclaimed by artificial means from the bed of the river, or to sudden accretions produced by unusual floods, is a question wfii'ch each State decides for itself. By the common law, as before remarked, such additions to the land on navigable waters belong to the Crown; but, as the only waters recognized in England as navigable were tide waters, the rule was often expressed as applicable to tide waters only, although the reason of the rule would equally apply to navigable waters above the flow of the tide; that reason being that the public authorities ought to have entire control of the great passageways of commerce and navigation, to be exercised for the public advantage and convenience. The confusion of navigable with tide water, found in the monuments of the common law, long prevailed in this country, notwithstanding the broad differences existing between * the extent arid topography of the British island and. that of the American continent. ' It had the influence for two generations of excluding the admiralty jurisdiction froin our great rivers and inland seas; and under the like influence it laid the foundation in many States of doctrines, with regard to the ownership of the soil in navigable waters above tide water, at variance with sound principles of public policy. Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to" }, { "docid": "22734805", "title": "", "text": "State had the same rights, sovereignty,. and jurisdiction over the navigable waters as the original States, and could exercise all the powers of government which belong to and may be exercised by them, excepting with respect to control over public lands owned by the United States; and that the title of the navigable waters, and the; soil beneath them, was in the State and subject to its sovereignty and jurisdiction. In Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443, it was settled that for. purposes of admiralty jurisdiction the tidal test, prevailing in England for determining, what is navigable water, is not applicable to this country. In Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338, it was held that it is for the States to establish for themselves such rules of property as they may deem expedient with respect to the navigable waters within their borders and the riparian lands adjacent thereto. The court, speaking through Mr. Justice Bradley, said (94 U. S. 338): “The confusion of navigable with tide water, found in the monuments of the common-law, long prevailed in this country, notwithstanding the broad differences existing between the extent and topography of the British island and that of the American continent. It had the influence for two generations of excluding the admiralty jurisdiction from our great rivers and inland seas; and- under the like influence it laid the foundation in many States of doctrines With regard to the ownership of the soil in navigable waters above tide-water at variance with sound principles of public policy. Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our view, of the subject the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 Id. 471. These cases related to" }, { "docid": "22355807", "title": "", "text": "before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our view of the subject the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 id. 471. These cases related to tide-water, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this court, in the case of The Genesee Chief 12 id. 443, has declared that the Great Lakes and other navigable waters of the country, above as well as below the flow of the tide, are, in the strictest sense, entitled to the denomination of navigable waters, and amenable to the admiralty jurisdiction, there seems to be no sound reason for adhering to the old rule as to the proprietorship of the beds and shores of such waters. It properly belongs to the States by their inherent sovereignty, and the United States has wisely abstained from extending (if it could extend) its survey and grants beyond the limits of high water. The cases in which this court has seemed to hold a contrary view depended, as most cases must depend, on the local laws of the States in which the lands were situated. In Iowa, as before stated, the more correct rule seems to, have been adopted after a most elaborate investigation of the subject. The exhaustive examination of this question by the Supreme Court of Iowa in 1856, in the case of McManus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa, 1, really leaves nothing to be said. The precise point was directly before the court, — namely,whether the title of the riparian proprietor extends below high water, in the Mississippi River; and it was decided that it does not. This decision has been followed by subsequent cases, especially the cases of Haight v. The City of Keokuk, 4 id. 199; and Tomlin v. Dubuque Railroad Co., 32 id. 106. But" }, { "docid": "22566494", "title": "", "text": "v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 id. 471. These cases related to tide-water, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters.” Id., at 338. In Shively v. Bowlby, the Court canvassed its previous decisions and emphasized that state law controls riparian ownership. The Court concluded that grants by Congress of land bordering navigable waters “leave the question of the use of the shores by the owners of uplands to the sovereign control of each State, subject only to the rights vested by the Constitution in the United States.” 152 U. S., at 58. As the Court again emphasized in Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 669 (1891): “ [W]hatever incidents or rights attach to the ownership of property conveyed by the government will be determined by the States, subject to the condition that their rules do not impair the efficacy of the grants or the use and enjoyment of the property by the grantee.” This doctrine was squarely applied to the case of a riparian proprietor in Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332 (1906). The land at issue had originally been granted to the patentee’s predecessor by Spain, and Congress had confirmed the grant and issued letters patent. This Court held that the fact that a plaintiff claimed accretions to land patented to his predecessor by the Federal Government did not confer federal-question jurisdiction, and implicitly rejected any notion that “federal common law” had any application to the resolution. Central to this result was the holding: “As this land in controversy is not the land described in the letters patent or the [A]cts of Congress, but, as is stated in the petition, is formed by accretions or gradual deposits from the river, whether such land belongs to the plaintiff is, under the cases just cited, a matter of local or state law, and not one arising under the laws of the United States.” Id., at 343. V Upon full reconsideration of our decision in Bonelli, we conclude that it" }, { "docid": "22549977", "title": "", "text": "resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our' view of the subject, the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471. These cases related to tide water, it is true; but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this court, in the case of The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, has declared that the Great Lakes and other navigable waters of the country, above as well as below the flow of the tide, are, in the strictest sense, entitled to the denomination of navigable waters, and amenable to the admiralty jurisdiction, there seems to be no sound reason for adhering to the old rule as to the proprietorship of the beds and shores of such waters. It properly belongs to the States by their inherent sovereignty, and' the United States has wisely abstained from extending (if it-could extend) its survey and grants beyond the limits of high water. The oases in which this court has seemed to hold a contrary view depended, as most cases must depend, on the local laws of the States in which the lands were situated. In Iowa, as before -stated, the more correct rule seems to háve been adopted after a most elaborate investigation of the subject.” 94 U. S. 336-338. In St. Louis v. Myers, (1885,) 113 U. S. 566, the court, speaking by Chief Justice Waite, held that the act of Congress for the admission into the Union of the State of Missouri, bounded by the Mississippi River, which declared that the river should be “ a common highway and forever free,” left the rights of riparian owners to be settled according to the principles of state law; and that no Federal question was involved in a judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri as to the right of a riparian' proprietor in the city of St. Louis to maintain" }, { "docid": "22549978", "title": "", "text": "(if it-could extend) its survey and grants beyond the limits of high water. The oases in which this court has seemed to hold a contrary view depended, as most cases must depend, on the local laws of the States in which the lands were situated. In Iowa, as before -stated, the more correct rule seems to háve been adopted after a most elaborate investigation of the subject.” 94 U. S. 336-338. In St. Louis v. Myers, (1885,) 113 U. S. 566, the court, speaking by Chief Justice Waite, held that the act of Congress for the admission into the Union of the State of Missouri, bounded by the Mississippi River, which declared that the river should be “ a common highway and forever free,” left the rights of riparian owners to be settled according to the principles of state law; and that no Federal question was involved in a judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri as to the right of a riparian' proprietor in the city of St. Louis to maintain an action .against the city for extending one of its streets into the river so as to divert the natural course of the water and thereby to injure his property. In Packer v. Bird, (1891,) 137 U. S. 661, the general rules governing this class of cases were clearly .and succinctly laid down by the court, speaking by Mr. Justice Field, as follows: “ The courts of the United States will construe the grants of the general government without reference to the rules of construction adopted by the States for their grants; but whatever incidents or rights attach to the ownership of property conveyed by the government will be determined by the States, subject to the condition that their rules do not impair the efficacy of the grants, or the use and enjoyment of the property by the grantee. As an incident of such ownership, the right of the riparian owner, where the waters are above the influence of the tide, will be limited according to the law of the State, either to low or" }, { "docid": "22734806", "title": "", "text": "the common-law, long prevailed in this country, notwithstanding the broad differences existing between the extent and topography of the British island and that of the American continent. It had the influence for two generations of excluding the admiralty jurisdiction from our great rivers and inland seas; and- under the like influence it laid the foundation in many States of doctrines With regard to the ownership of the soil in navigable waters above tide-water at variance with sound principles of public policy. Whether, as rules of property, it would now be safe to change these doctrines where they have been applied, as before remarked, is for the several States themselves to determine. If they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. In our view, of the subject the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; and Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 Id. 471. These cases related to tide-water, it is true;, but they enunciate principles which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this court, in the case of The Genesee Chief, 12 Id. 443, has declared that the Great Lakes and other navigable, waters of the country, above as well as below the flow of the tide, are, in the strictest sensé, entitled to the denoniination of navigable waters, and amenable to the admiralty jurisdiction, there seems to be no sound reason for adhering to the old rule as to the proprietorship of the beds and shores of such waters. It properly belongs to the States by their inherent sovereignty, and the United States has wisely abstained from extending (if it could extend) its survey and grants beyond the limits of high water. The cases in which this court has seemed to hold a contrary view depended, as most cases must depend, on the local laws of the States in which .the lands were situated'.” The doctrine thus enunciated has since been adhered to. Packer v. Bird, 137 U." }, { "docid": "22733567", "title": "", "text": "in particular localities; also, by the reclamation of submerged flats, and the erection of wharves and piers and other adventitious aids of commerce. Sometimes large areas so reclaimed are occupied by cities, and are put to other public or private ■ uses, state control and ownership therein being supreme, subject only to the paramount authority of Congress in making regulations of commerce, and in subjecting the lands to the necessities and uses of commerce. See Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71; McCready v. Virgvnia, 94 U. S. 391; Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Den v. Jersey Co., 15 How. 426. This right of the States to regulate and control the shores of tide waters, and the land under them, is the same as' that which is exercised by the Crown in England. In this country the same rule has been extended to our great navigable lakes, which are treated as inland seas; and also, in some of the States, to navigable rivers, as the Mississippi, the Missouri, the Ohio, and, in Pennsylvania, to all the permanent rivers of the State; but it depends on the law of each State to what waters and to what extent this prerogative of the State over the lands under water shall be exercised. In the case of Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, we held that it is for the several States themselves -to determine this question, and that if they choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them, in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections. That was a case which arose in the State of Iowa with regard to land on the banks of the Mississippi, in'the city of Keokuk, and it appearing to be the settled law of that State that the title of riparian proprietors on the banks of the Mississippi extends only to ordinary high-water mark, and that the shore between high and low-water mark, as well as the bed of the' river, belongs to the State, this court accepted the" } ]

[ { "docid": "18782865", "title": "", "text": "In re Darwin, supra; In re Torres, 61 A.D.2d 681, 403 N.Y.S.2d 527 (1st Dep’t 1978); see also In re Jolly Joint, Inc., 23 B.R. 395 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1984), the cases do not compel the conclusion that the tenant’s residual interest in the lease is forfeited. Both the trustee and the debtor have essentially asserted that the lease is assumable at the present time in view of the debtor’s current possession of the premises as well as its ability to seek a vacatur of the warrant of eviction. The court does not agree with this conclusion. Certainly, the trustee and the debtor correctly argue that possession is an equitable interest afforded protection by the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 541; In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980); Onio’s Italian Restaurant, 42 B.R. 319 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984). But the mere potentiality of a restoration of the landlord tenant relationship through vacatur of the warrant of eviction, Novick v. Hall, 70 Misc.2d 641, 334 N.Y.S.2d 698 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1972), Lindsay Park Houses v. B & L Greer, N.Y.L.J., May 24, 1985, at 16, Col. 4 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1985), does not vest the debtor with a sufficient interest in the leased property to allow assumption and assignment of the lease. Indeed, the reported decisions on which the trustee and debtor rely do not allow that type of relief or compel the conclusion that such relief is warranted, absent vacatur of the warrant. In this vein, both parties have cited for support the decision of In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., supra, 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980), which affirmed the decision of Judge Schwartzberg reported at 3 B.R. 491, modifying the automatic stay so as to allow the landlord to have its warrant of eviction executed. In affirming Judge Schwartzberg, Judge Goettel noted: [A] trustee or a debtor in possession under the bankruptcy laws may assume and protect whatever rights the debtor had as of the time of the filing. If the termination of a lease has not been completed, or if it can be reversed by application of state procedures (so that the matter is" } ]

[ { "docid": "1160035", "title": "", "text": "the estate.” By virtue of section 541, which is meant to be read broadly, the commencement of a case creates an estate comprising all the debt- or’s legal and equitable interests. 11 U.S.C. § 541; see United States v. Whiting Pools, 462 U.S. 198, 103 S.Ct. 2309, 76 L.Ed.2d 515 (1983). The estate is not confined to property owned by the debtor, for a leasehold or a mere possessory interest falls within section 541. Carls v. Bonanza International Development Company (In re Allan Steaks Corporation), 22 B.R. 881, 882 (Bankr.D.Mass.1982) citing H.Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 367 (1977); S.Rep. No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 82 (1978), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, p. 5787. That 48th Street’s interest is arguably limited to that of a subtenancy is of no consequence since a sublease is sufficient to constitute property of the estate protected by the automatic stay. See Colonial Village Meat Market Leasing, Inc. v. Andorra Meat Market (In re Andorra Meat Market), 7 B.R. 744 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1980). Moreover, a mere possessory interest enjoys the protection of the automatic stay. In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. 969 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1985); In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980); In re Onio’s Italian Restaurant Corp., 42 B.R. 319 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984). That the landlord served the notices on ISH, rather than 48th Street, does not insulate the landlord. Indisputably, the landlord’s actions were intended to obtain for it by indirection that which it recognized it could not obtain directly — recapture of the premises in which 48th Street had an interest. But that effort cannot be allowed to succeed, for section 362(a)(3) stays not only acts to obtain “property of the estate” but acts to obtain “property from the estate” and the attempt to wrest possession of property away from a debtor without the imprimatur of the bankruptcy court is therefore proscribed. The legislative history is ample testimony to Congress’ intention to protect interests other than fee simple title. Paragraph (3) stay any act to obtain possession of ... property from the estate (property over which" }, { "docid": "1089322", "title": "", "text": "9; Bankruptcy Tr. at 88. We do not find any inconsistency here. Moreover, the cancelled check date-stamped January 7, attached to EBG’s Reply Memorandum, provides conclusive documentation for the January 7 date. Because we hold that no genuine dispute over material facts exists, we do not find further discovery to be necessary. . In certain circumstances, New York courts have vacated warrants of eviction even after execution. See, e.g., Central Brooklyn Urban Devel. Corp. v. Copeland, 122 Misc.2d 726, 729-30, 471 N.Y.S.2d 989, 993 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1984); Albany v. White, 46 Misc.2d 915, 918-19, 261 N.Y.S.2d 361, 364 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1965). . Because of the possibility that the court will vacate an unexecuted warrant, the courts have found that a debtor/tenant retains an equitable interest of possession in the lease despite the issuance of the warrant which is subject to the automatic stay provision in section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. See In re Emilio Cavallini, Ltd., 112 B.R. at 77; In re Onio’s Italian Restaurant Corp., 42 B.R. 319, 320 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984); In the Matter of GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980). As the Bankruptcy Judge put it in In re Richard’s Pontiac, Inc., 6 B.R. at 775, ”[t]he exact nature of this property right, however, is unclear.” The courts have held that the debt- or/tenant's equitable interest in the lease provides that he may inherit the right to seek vaca-tur of the warrant. See In re Emilio Cavallini, Ltd., 112 B.R. at 77; In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. 969, 972 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1985). However, this equitable right of possession may not necessarily encompass the right of the debt- or to assume and assign the lease itself. See In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. at 972 (construing district court opinion in In Re GSVC Restaurant Corp. to hold that absent the actual vacatur of the warrant by the state court, the lease cannot be assumed or assigned). The Bankruptcy Court in the present case concluded that such a possessory right would allow for such assumption and assignment. See discussion at 591, supra. Under the" }, { "docid": "1089321", "title": "", "text": "where EBG officers work, but were not actually delivered to the officers. See Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss or Stay the State Court Complaint, June 3, 1991, at 7 n. 5, attached as Exhibit D to Feldman Aff. In any event, the parties agree that service was effective on May 15, 1991 when the Secretary of State was served pursuant to New York BCL § 306. . See discussion at n. 1 supra. . Hart raises several alleged factual variations concerning the payment of rent and the issuance of the warrant. See Hart Memorandum in Opposition to EBG’s Motion for Summary Judgment, at 10-13 (hereinafter \"Hart Mem. in Opp.”). Upon examination of the record in this case, we find that no genuine discrepancy exists. For example. Hart points out that EBG claims that Sanshoe’s payment of the rent was accepted by 470 Park South on January 7, while Mr. Carlozzi, Sanshoe’s chief financial officer, testified at the bankruptcy hearing that the payment was \"early in January.” See Feldman Aff. ¶ 9; Bankruptcy Tr. at 88. We do not find any inconsistency here. Moreover, the cancelled check date-stamped January 7, attached to EBG’s Reply Memorandum, provides conclusive documentation for the January 7 date. Because we hold that no genuine dispute over material facts exists, we do not find further discovery to be necessary. . In certain circumstances, New York courts have vacated warrants of eviction even after execution. See, e.g., Central Brooklyn Urban Devel. Corp. v. Copeland, 122 Misc.2d 726, 729-30, 471 N.Y.S.2d 989, 993 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1984); Albany v. White, 46 Misc.2d 915, 918-19, 261 N.Y.S.2d 361, 364 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1965). . Because of the possibility that the court will vacate an unexecuted warrant, the courts have found that a debtor/tenant retains an equitable interest of possession in the lease despite the issuance of the warrant which is subject to the automatic stay provision in section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. See In re Emilio Cavallini, Ltd., 112 B.R. at 77; In re Onio’s Italian Restaurant Corp., 42 B.R. 319, 320 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984); In the Matter of GSVC Restaurant Corp.," }, { "docid": "3697172", "title": "", "text": "trigger the protection of the automatic stay. See, e.g., In re Onio’s Italian Restaurant Corp., 42 B.R. 319, 320-21 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984); Matter of GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code stays “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). The Landlord maintains that its sending of the termination notice to I.S.H. did not violate the automatic stay with respect to 48th Street, because termination of I.S.H.’s lease would have had no effect on 48th Street’s sublease. In this contention, the Landlord is simply wrong. As Judge Brozman observed, “it is axiomatic that, under New York law, when a prime lease falls, so does the sublease.” 61 B.R. at 189 (citing 34 N.Y.Jur. Landlord & Tenant § 270 (1964), and In re Shoppers Paradise, Inc., 8 B.R. 271, 275 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1980)). See also World of Food, Inc. v. N.Y. World’s Fair, 22 A.D.2d 278, 280, 254 N.Y.S.2d 658, 661 (1st Dep’t 1964); Levchuk v. Briksza, 126 Misc.2d 369, 371-72, 481 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1000-01 (Civ.Court N.Y.Co.1984). The Landlord asserts that the foregoing proposition is not uniformly correct; rather, it argues, termination of I.S.H.’s lease would have resulted in a “merger” between the estates of Landlord and I.S.H., while leaving 48th Street’s sub-lease unimpaired. The cases which Landlord relies upon to support this theory, however, involved in stances where the prime tenant surrendered its lease to the landlord pursuant to a separate agreement. See e.g., Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hellinger, 246 A.D. 7, 284 N.Y.S. 432 (1st Dep’t 1935), aff'd, 272 N.Y. 24, 3 N.E.2d 621 (1936); see also Precision Dynamics Corp. v. Retailers Representatives, Inc., 120 Misc.2d 180, 465 N.Y.S.2d 684 (Civ.Ct.N.Y.Co.1983). These cases do not apply to 48th Street’s situation, where the Landlord attempted unilaterally to terminate the prime tenant’s lease for non-payment of rent. Under such circumstances, termination of the prime lease results in termination of the sub-lease as well. Because Landlord’s attempt to terminate I.S.H.’s lease, if" }, { "docid": "8661791", "title": "", "text": "court does not have the power to resurrect a lease which was terminated prior to the filing of a lessee's bankruptcy petition. See Bell v. Alden Owners, Inc., 199 B.R. 451, 458 (S.D.N.Y.1996); Bucknell Leasing Corp. v. Darwin (In re Darwin), 22 B.R. 259, 262 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1982). A state court judgment issued prior to the filing of a debtor’s bankruptcy case is res judicata in the bankruptcy case, and the debt- or may not relitigate issues already decided by the state court. Bell, 199 B.R. at 458; Manhattan King David Restaurant, Inc. v. Levine, 163 B.R. 36, 39 (S.D.N.Y.1993); In re Lady Liberty Tavern, 94 B.R. 812, 814 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (a bankruptcy court judge should give preclusive effect to a state court’s judgment terminating a lease prepetition and awarding possession of the premises to the landlord). .See In re 48th Street Steakhouse, 835 F.2d 427 (2d Cir.1987) (affirming the protection of that possessory right). . Judge Schwartzberg noted: Assuming ... that the debtor’s de facto possession is a sufficient nexus to invoke the protection of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, such stay is subject to termination or modification by the court ... for cause. Id. . She held that while the debtor and trustee correctly argued that “possession is an equitable interest afforded protection by the automatic stay,” Id. at 972: [T]he mere potentiality of a restoration of the landlord tenant relationship through va-catur of the warrant of eviction ... does not vest the debtor with a sufficient interest in the leased property to allow assumption and assignment of the lease. Id. (citations omitted). .She stated: This court is empowered to continue that stay, if the circumstances so require, to give the debtor a reasonable opportunity to re- negoliate with the landlord or to seek vaca-tur of the warrant of eviction. Id. at 972. . Nevertheless, Judge Brozman granted a debtor motion for stay of her ruling — even though the debtor's argument in support of a debtor appeal was \"of dubious validity,” 142 B.R. at 78—as (1) the landlord did not oppose the motion and (2) the debtor" }, { "docid": "8661751", "title": "", "text": "earlier issuance of the warrant of eviction and consequent termination of the lease. What then remains are (1) an equitable interest in the property and the potential to reinstate the landlord-tenant relationship, as RPAPL § 749(3) provides, and (2) a possessory interest in the property. As the Debtor points out, each of these two interests triggers the protection of the automatic stay. The first is in the nature of a redemption right, which can be exercised by returning to state court to seek vacatur of the warrant of eviction, or such other relief as the state court might consider appropriate. The second is the naked possessory right recognized by the Second Circuit in In re 48th Street Steakhouse. See 835 F.2d at 430 (“a mere possessory interest in real property, without any accompanying legal interest, is suffi- dent to trigger the protection of the automatic stay”). However, while these remaining rights on the part of the debtor tenant trigger the applicability of the automatic stay in the first instance, they are not determinative of the fundamentally different question as to whether the stay, once triggered, should be modified or terminated for cause. That distinction was confirmed by the analysis of Judge Schwartz-berg (later affirmed by Judge Goettel of the District Court) in In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Thus the Debtor’s analysis, which seeks to equate the two, misses the mark. Instead, it is necessary to review the case law dealing with the real question — to what extent does the issuance of the warrant prior to the filing provide cause, under section 362(d)(1), for relief from the stay? In addressing this, the Court has the benefit of a substantial body of authority in this district since the enactment of the Code and its section 362(d)(1), establishing the general rule and its limited exceptions. Judge Brozman’s 1985 decision in W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. 969 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1985), explains both. In W.A.S., in the now-familiar fact pattern, the debtor tenant remained in possession following prepetition defaults and state court landlord-tenant proceedings in" }, { "docid": "10977804", "title": "", "text": "Madison Tower from taking any further action to terminate the Lease. Accordingly, the Lease never expired by operation of its own terms. The next step is to determine whether the lease terminated as of the date the Settlement Agreement was signed by the parties. The court, in Grand Hudson Corp. v. GSVC Restaurant Corp., (In re GSVC Restaurant Corp.), 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980) noted: Undoubtedly a trustee or a debtor in possession under the bankruptcy laws may assume and protect whatever rights the debtor had as of the time of the filing. If the termination of a lease has not been completed, or if it can be reversed by application of state procedures (so that the matter is still sub judice), the trustee or debtor in possession may still assume such rights and pursue them. Id. at 302 (citations omitted); quoted in, Irving Byelas Irrevocable Trust v. KDT Indus., Inc. (In re KDT Indus., Inc.) 32 B.R. 852, 856 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1983). In the instant case, pursuant to New York Law the Lease was not irredeemably terminated despite the fact that the Settlement Agreement states that the Lease is terminated and provides for the issuance of the warrant of eviction. Under § 749(3) of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“N.Y.R.P.A. P.L.”), the issuance of a warrant of eviction cancels the lease agreement and annuls the landlord-tenant relationship. That section, however, goes on to allow the courts to vacate the unexecuted warrant of eviction where “good cause” has been sufficiently demonstrated. Korenman v. Barr (In re Richards Pontiac, Inc.), 6 B.R. 773, 776 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1980). Courts have interpreted this clause as creating an equitable interest of possession in the debtor/tenant which is subject to the automatic stay embodied in § 362 of the Code. In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 10 B.R. 300, 302 (S.D.N. Y.1980); In re Lane Foods, Inc., 213 F.Supp. 133, 135 (S.D.N.Y.1963) (the court found that the debtor had a post-petition possessory interest in lease where warrant was issued, pre-petition, but not executed as of the time of filing); In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R." }, { "docid": "8661752", "title": "", "text": "fundamentally different question as to whether the stay, once triggered, should be modified or terminated for cause. That distinction was confirmed by the analysis of Judge Schwartz-berg (later affirmed by Judge Goettel of the District Court) in In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Thus the Debtor’s analysis, which seeks to equate the two, misses the mark. Instead, it is necessary to review the case law dealing with the real question — to what extent does the issuance of the warrant prior to the filing provide cause, under section 362(d)(1), for relief from the stay? In addressing this, the Court has the benefit of a substantial body of authority in this district since the enactment of the Code and its section 362(d)(1), establishing the general rule and its limited exceptions. Judge Brozman’s 1985 decision in W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. 969 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1985), explains both. In W.A.S., in the now-familiar fact pattern, the debtor tenant remained in possession following prepetition defaults and state court landlord-tenant proceedings in the New York City Civil Court. A stipulation in that court had provided for the immediate issuance of a warrant of eviction, but with an opportunity to cure: so long as rent payments under the stipulation were timely tendered, execution of the warrant of eviction was stayed. See 49 B.R. at 970-971. Judge Brozman was faced with a trustee’s motion to assume and assign a lease; the effort was opposed by the landlord, who had noted, in reliance on RPAPL § 749(3) and GSVC, that there no longer was a living lease for the trustee to assume and assign. Judge Brozman recognized that the trustee or debtor in possession would inherit the tenant’s rights and could seek to pursue them, see 49 B.R. at 972, but quoted approvingly Judge Goettel’s analysis in GSVC: [A] more difficult problem arises where the lease has already been terminated according to its terms under the applicable state law and final state process has been issued, evicting the tenant. In this instance, the trustee has nothing to assume. Id. In" }, { "docid": "1089323", "title": "", "text": "3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980). As the Bankruptcy Judge put it in In re Richard’s Pontiac, Inc., 6 B.R. at 775, ”[t]he exact nature of this property right, however, is unclear.” The courts have held that the debt- or/tenant's equitable interest in the lease provides that he may inherit the right to seek vaca-tur of the warrant. See In re Emilio Cavallini, Ltd., 112 B.R. at 77; In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. 969, 972 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1985). However, this equitable right of possession may not necessarily encompass the right of the debt- or to assume and assign the lease itself. See In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. at 972 (construing district court opinion in In Re GSVC Restaurant Corp. to hold that absent the actual vacatur of the warrant by the state court, the lease cannot be assumed or assigned). The Bankruptcy Court in the present case concluded that such a possessory right would allow for such assumption and assignment. See discussion at 591, supra. Under the circumstances of the present case, we find that the warrant was waived, and so we do not need to reach the issue of the extent of an equitable right of possession under § 365(c)(3). . Though further non-payment proceedings were initiated with regard to the January and February rents, hearings were never held, and no judgment or warrant ever issued. Therefore, these proceedings had no effect on the validity of the lease. . Even assuming arguendo that the leases should be construed as a single agreement, at least one bankruptcy court has approved a partial assignment. See In re Brentano's, 29 B.R. 881 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1983) (where a single lease covered two floors, the court permitted the as signment of the lease pro tanto for one of the floors)." }, { "docid": "1088222", "title": "", "text": "property right in the premises. The exact nature of this property right, however, is unclear. In In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 6 B.C.D. 134 (Bkrtcy.B.C.S.D.N.Y.1980), the bankruptcy court held that after the issuance of the warrant “the debtor’s sole interest in the property is predicated on its possession in the face of a judicially ordered warrant of eviction”. 3 B.R. 491, 6 B.C.D. at 135. The bankruptcy court therein concluded that possession constituted an equitable interest in property which was property of the estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 541. However, the bankruptcy court found that “the debtor’s right to possess the property in question has been judicially determined as demonstrably no-nexistant resulting in a state court ordered warrant of eviction.” 3 B.R. 491, 6 B.C.D. at 135. In affirming the bankruptcy court, the district court stated that in addition to the equitable right of possession, the tenant may also have rights of redemption under N.Y.R.P.A.P.L. section 761 (McKinney’s 1979). The district court characterized these rights as “no more than a chose in action”. In the matter of GSVC Restaurant Corp., 6 B.C.D. 295 (S.D.N.Y.1980). No matter how characterized, such rights are part of the debtor’s estate. Undoubtedly a trustee or debtor-in-possession under the bankruptcy laws may assume and protect whatever rights the debtor had as of the time of the filing. If the termination of a lease has not been completed, or if it can be reversed by application of state procedures (so that the matter is still sub judice), the trustee or debtor-in-possession may still assume such rights and pursue them. In re Burke, 76 F.Supp. 5 (S.D.Cal.1948). In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 6 B.C.D. 295, 295-96 (S.D.N.Y.1980). In GSVC Restaurant Corp., prior to the district court’s decision but after the court had denied the debtor-tenant’s motion for a stay pending appeal, it appears that the Sheriff executed the warrant and evicted the debtor from possession. As the warrant had been executed, the district court held that the debtor-in-possession had nothing to assume. 6 B.C.D. at 296. Cf. People v. Stadtmore, supra; Novick" }, { "docid": "5494908", "title": "", "text": "potentiality of restoration of the landlord tenant relationship through vacatur of the warrant of eviction does not vest the debtor with a sufficient interest in the leased property to allow assumption and assignment of the lease. In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. 969, 972 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1985) (citations omitted). Although in W.A.S. I continued the automatic stay for a reasonable time in order to allow the debtor to pursue a vacatur of the warrant in state court, I declined to do so here because the debtor had already pursued such a remedy without success and the stipulation of October 29, 1991 provided that in the event of default the debtor “shall be prohibited from applying to this court by order to show cause or otherwise for any stay of execution of the warrant.” (see aff. Cherkla, exh. c, para. 14.). In other words, not only was the lease terminated, but so, too, was the debtor’s equitable interest. As I observed in W.A.S., at some point the estate’s rights must expire. The cases are many which require the bankruptcy judge to give preclusive effect to a state court’s judgment terminating a lease prepetition and awarding possession of the premises to the landlord. See, e.g., In re Neville, 118 B.R. 14, 17 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1990); In re Lady Liberty Tavern Corp., 94 B.R. 812 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1988); Latham Sparrowbush Associates v. Cohoes Industrial Terminal, Inc. (In re Cohoes Industrial Terminal, Inc.), 70 B.R. 214, 218 (S.D.N.Y.1986). In light of the State court’s termination of the lease, its denial of vacatur of the warrant of eviction, and the debtor’s breach of its second stipulation with the landlord, this debtor simply retained no right to its premises at the time it filed its chapter 11 petition. Since, under New York law, this debtor had neither legal nor equitable entitlement to the lease, pursuant to § 362(b)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code, the automatic stay did not apply. Whereas the debtor's argument in support of its appeal is of dubious validity, the landlord has not opposed the request for a stay. Indisputably, the debtor will suffer irreparable injury if the" }, { "docid": "10977805", "title": "", "text": "despite the fact that the Settlement Agreement states that the Lease is terminated and provides for the issuance of the warrant of eviction. Under § 749(3) of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“N.Y.R.P.A. P.L.”), the issuance of a warrant of eviction cancels the lease agreement and annuls the landlord-tenant relationship. That section, however, goes on to allow the courts to vacate the unexecuted warrant of eviction where “good cause” has been sufficiently demonstrated. Korenman v. Barr (In re Richards Pontiac, Inc.), 6 B.R. 773, 776 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1980). Courts have interpreted this clause as creating an equitable interest of possession in the debtor/tenant which is subject to the automatic stay embodied in § 362 of the Code. In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 10 B.R. 300, 302 (S.D.N. Y.1980); In re Lane Foods, Inc., 213 F.Supp. 133, 135 (S.D.N.Y.1963) (the court found that the debtor had a post-petition possessory interest in lease where warrant was issued, pre-petition, but not executed as of the time of filing); In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. at 972; In re Onio’s Italian Restaurant Corp., 42 B.R. 319, 320 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984). According to the line of cases cited above, Cavallini retained, at the minimum, a possessory interest in the Lease as of the Filing Date. Absent the Settlement Agreement, Cavallini, as debtor in possession, would have inherited, at the absolute minimum, the right to seek a vacatur of the warrant of eviction. In re W.A.S., 49 B.R. at 972. The cure provision in the Settlement Agreement, however, gave Cavallini an assumable interest in the executory Lease. A contrary conclusion would not be in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement itself. Madison Tower correctly stated, at the March 1 hearing, that this Court must abide by the terms of a court approved stipulation that has been signed by the parties. (Transcript of March 7, 1990, hearing at 4, citing Suarez v. Ward, 896 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir. Feb. 1990)). A determination that Cavallini retained some interest in the Lease as of the Filing Date is not contrary to the terms of" }, { "docid": "1160036", "title": "", "text": "protection of the automatic stay. In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. 969 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1985); In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980); In re Onio’s Italian Restaurant Corp., 42 B.R. 319 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984). That the landlord served the notices on ISH, rather than 48th Street, does not insulate the landlord. Indisputably, the landlord’s actions were intended to obtain for it by indirection that which it recognized it could not obtain directly — recapture of the premises in which 48th Street had an interest. But that effort cannot be allowed to succeed, for section 362(a)(3) stays not only acts to obtain “property of the estate” but acts to obtain “property from the estate” and the attempt to wrest possession of property away from a debtor without the imprimatur of the bankruptcy court is therefore proscribed. The legislative history is ample testimony to Congress’ intention to protect interests other than fee simple title. Paragraph (3) stay any act to obtain possession of ... property from the estate (property over which the estate has control or possession). H.R. No. 95-595, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 340-2 (1977); S.R. No. 95-989, 95th Cong. 2nd Sess. 49-51 (1978), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5836, 6298. See also Superior Propane v. Zartun (In re Zartun), 30 B.R. 543, 545(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1983); Turbowind v. Post Street Management, Inc., 42 B.R. 579 (Bankr.S.D.Cal. 1984). Since 48th Street had a ten-year-old pos-sessory interest in the premises as well as, at a minimum, the interest of an assignor and sublessee in those premises, 48th Street necessarily enjoyed the freedom from dismemberment afforded by the automatic stay. And the landlord’s actions were therefore violative of the stay. See A. Dan Chisholm Inc. v. B.P. Oil Inc. (In re A. Dan Chisholm), 57 B.R. 718, 720 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1986) (“If defendant’s attempt to terminate the leased franchise constituted an act to obtain or to exercise control over the [leased premises] then this action violated the stay injunction”). The landlord makes much of the argument that the automatic stay is not intended to afford injunctive coverage to" }, { "docid": "10977806", "title": "", "text": "at 972; In re Onio’s Italian Restaurant Corp., 42 B.R. 319, 320 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984). According to the line of cases cited above, Cavallini retained, at the minimum, a possessory interest in the Lease as of the Filing Date. Absent the Settlement Agreement, Cavallini, as debtor in possession, would have inherited, at the absolute minimum, the right to seek a vacatur of the warrant of eviction. In re W.A.S., 49 B.R. at 972. The cure provision in the Settlement Agreement, however, gave Cavallini an assumable interest in the executory Lease. A contrary conclusion would not be in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement itself. Madison Tower correctly stated, at the March 1 hearing, that this Court must abide by the terms of a court approved stipulation that has been signed by the parties. (Transcript of March 7, 1990, hearing at 4, citing Suarez v. Ward, 896 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir. Feb. 1990)). A determination that Cavallini retained some interest in the Lease as of the Filing Date is not contrary to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The cure provision, embodied in paragraph 8, in and of itself gave Cavallini a continuing interest in the Lease until the date by which Cavallini had to either vacate the Premises or cure all defaults. Pursuant to a cure by Cavalli-ni, the Lease would be reinstated nunc pro tunc (¶ 8 of Settlement Agreement). Unlike many other situations where the debtor must return to court to vacate the warrant of eviction, here the warrant of eviction is automatically vacated upon timely cure of all defaults. The Lease cannot possibly be deemed completely and irredeemably terminated given this cure provision. The court in In re DeSantis, 66 B.R. 998 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1986), a case factually similar to the instant case, recognized that the right to cure defaults represents an interest in a lease and therefore property of the estate. In that case, just like in the instant case, the landlord instituted eviction proceedings against the tenant but prior to trial, the parties entered into a stipulation which granted the tenant the right to reinstate the" }, { "docid": "15138688", "title": "", "text": "of the warrant of eviction per se did not terminate the debtor’s leasehold interest. Onio’s is presently proceeding in Civil Court to vacate the warrant on the ground of improper service of the landlord’s petition. Under New York law, issuance of a warrant of eviction cancels the lease agreement and annuls the landlord-tenant relationship. New York City Housing Authority v. Torres, 61 A.D.2d 681, 682, 403 N.Y.S.2d 527 (1st Dep’t 1978); N.Y.R.P.A. P.L. § 749(3) (McKinneys 1979). On the issuance of the warrant, the tenant has no legal interest in the property. He does have an equitable interest based upon possession. Matter of GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 10 B.R. 300 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1980). Section 362(a)(2) of the Code stays enforcement of pre-petition judgments against property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2). Under § 541(a), “property of the estate” consists of “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Thus, if the debtor holds an equitable interest in property even though without legal title, the estate acquires that equitable interest of the debtor in the property. 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 541.06 at 541-26 (15th ed. 1984). Despite termination of the legal interest of a tenant in the premises when the warrant is issued, the tenant’s equitable interest of possession allows him to petition the court to vacate the warrant after issuance, but prior to execution, “for good cause shown.” New York City Housing Authority v. Torres, 61 A.D.2d at 682, 403 N.Y.S.2d 527; N.Y. R.P.A.P.L. § 749(3). It is this equitable right to which the debtor-in-possession in these circumstances succeeds upon filing of the bankruptcy petition. See Matter of GSVC Restaurant Corp., 10 B.R. at 302. In United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 103 S.Ct. 2309, 76 L.Ed.2d 515 (1983), even though the debtor’s property had been seized by the Internal Revenue Service to satisfy a tax lien and the property was no longer in the debtor’s possession, his residual interest in the property was held sufficient to justify use of" }, { "docid": "18782866", "title": "", "text": "L Greer, N.Y.L.J., May 24, 1985, at 16, Col. 4 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1985), does not vest the debtor with a sufficient interest in the leased property to allow assumption and assignment of the lease. Indeed, the reported decisions on which the trustee and debtor rely do not allow that type of relief or compel the conclusion that such relief is warranted, absent vacatur of the warrant. In this vein, both parties have cited for support the decision of In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., supra, 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980), which affirmed the decision of Judge Schwartzberg reported at 3 B.R. 491, modifying the automatic stay so as to allow the landlord to have its warrant of eviction executed. In affirming Judge Schwartzberg, Judge Goettel noted: [A] trustee or a debtor in possession under the bankruptcy laws may assume and protect whatever rights the debtor had as of the time of the filing. If the termination of a lease has not been completed, or if it can be reversed by application of state procedures (so that the matter is still sub judice), the trustee or debtor in possession may still assume such rights and pursue them. Id. at 302 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). This court does not read GSVC to suggest that the lease is assumable if the tenant’s rights to seek vacatur of a warrant have not been exhausted but rather to suggest that the trustee or debtor in possession inherits the tenant’s rights and may seek to pursue them. Indeed this conclusion is compelled by Judge Goettel’s holding that: a more difficult problem arises where the lease has already been terminated according to its terms under the applicable state law and final state process has been issued, evicting the tenant. In this instance, the trustee has nothing to assume. Id. at 302. In re Richard’s Pontiac, 6 B.R. 773 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1980) does not provide a sufficient predicate for the relief which the trustee and the debtor in possession seek, that is, for a declaration that the lease survives and is presently capable of assumption and assignment. In Richard’s Pontiac, the court granted the" }, { "docid": "3697171", "title": "", "text": "enumerates the types of property interests which are included in the bankrupt estate. The estate is defined broadly to include “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” Id. § 541(a)(1). The courts are in agreement that unexpired leasehold interests, including subleases, constitute property of the bankrupt estate. See, e.g., In re American International Airways, Inc., 44 B.R. 143, 145 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1984); In re KDT Industries, Inc., 32 B.R. 852, 856 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1983); In re Allan Steaks Corp., 22 B.R. 881, 882 (Bankr.D.Mass.1982); In re Andorra Meat Market, Inc., 7 B.R. 744, 745-46 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1980). See also H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 367, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5963, 6323; S.Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 82, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5787, 5868 (“debtor’s interest in property also includes ‘title’ to property, which is an interest, just as are a possessory interest, or leasehold interest”). Indeed, a mere possessory interest in real property, without any accompanying legal interest, is sufficient to trigger the protection of the automatic stay. See, e.g., In re Onio’s Italian Restaurant Corp., 42 B.R. 319, 320-21 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984); Matter of GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code stays “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). The Landlord maintains that its sending of the termination notice to I.S.H. did not violate the automatic stay with respect to 48th Street, because termination of I.S.H.’s lease would have had no effect on 48th Street’s sublease. In this contention, the Landlord is simply wrong. As Judge Brozman observed, “it is axiomatic that, under New York law, when a prime lease falls, so does the sublease.” 61 B.R. at 189 (citing 34 N.Y.Jur. Landlord & Tenant § 270 (1964), and In re Shoppers Paradise, Inc., 8 B.R. 271, 275 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1980)). See also World of Food, Inc. v. N.Y. World’s Fair, 22 A.D.2d 278, 280," }, { "docid": "18782867", "title": "", "text": "still sub judice), the trustee or debtor in possession may still assume such rights and pursue them. Id. at 302 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). This court does not read GSVC to suggest that the lease is assumable if the tenant’s rights to seek vacatur of a warrant have not been exhausted but rather to suggest that the trustee or debtor in possession inherits the tenant’s rights and may seek to pursue them. Indeed this conclusion is compelled by Judge Goettel’s holding that: a more difficult problem arises where the lease has already been terminated according to its terms under the applicable state law and final state process has been issued, evicting the tenant. In this instance, the trustee has nothing to assume. Id. at 302. In re Richard’s Pontiac, 6 B.R. 773 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1980) does not provide a sufficient predicate for the relief which the trustee and the debtor in possession seek, that is, for a declaration that the lease survives and is presently capable of assumption and assignment. In Richard’s Pontiac, the court granted the landlord relief from the automatic stay to have the debtor evicted. Grappling with the rights remaining in the tenant after issuance of the warrant, the court admitted that “[t]he exact nature of this property right, however, is unclear.” Id. at 775. The court held that: [While] the issuance of the warrant technically terminates the landlord-tenant relationship, the summary proceeding remains open, and hence, the relationship is subject to revival until the actual execution of the warrant. In re Richard’s Pontiac, 6 B.R. 773, 775 quoting People v. Stadtmore, 52 A.D.2d 853, 382 N.Y.S.2d 807, 809-10 (2d Dep’t 1976) (emphasis omitted). This court, adopting the reasoning of GSVC, holds that absent a revival of the landlord tenant relationship by the state court, the lease cannot be assumed. Because the debtor is currently in possession of the premises, the automatic stay prohibits an eviction. This court is empowered to continue that stay, if the circumstances so require, to give the debtor a reasonable opportunity to re-negotiate with the landlord (see In re Lane Food, supra) or to" }, { "docid": "5494907", "title": "", "text": "Bankruptcy Code provides that “[f]or the purposes of this section 365 ... leases of real property shall include any rental agreement to use real property.” 11 U.S.C. § 365(m). Therefore, the debtor’s assertion that the action concerned the assumption of a contract and not a lease is questionable. New York law provides that the issuance of a warrant of eviction annuls the relationship of landlord and tenant. Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 749(3); Iltit Associates v. Sterner, 63 A.D.2d 600, 405 N.Y.S.2d 68, 69 (1st Dep’t 1978). The fact that the debtor filed its petition before the marshall could execute the warrant is therefore irrelevant, since the debtor had been dispossessed of its legal interest in the property as of the date the warrant was issued. What then remained was an equitable interest in the property, and the potential to reinstate the landlord-tenant relationship. Alloy Briquetting Corp. v. Niagara Vest, Inc., 756 F.Supp. 713, 720 (W.D.N.Y.1991); In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980). But the mere potentiality of restoration of the landlord tenant relationship through vacatur of the warrant of eviction does not vest the debtor with a sufficient interest in the leased property to allow assumption and assignment of the lease. In re W.A.S. Food Service Corp., 49 B.R. 969, 972 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1985) (citations omitted). Although in W.A.S. I continued the automatic stay for a reasonable time in order to allow the debtor to pursue a vacatur of the warrant in state court, I declined to do so here because the debtor had already pursued such a remedy without success and the stipulation of October 29, 1991 provided that in the event of default the debtor “shall be prohibited from applying to this court by order to show cause or otherwise for any stay of execution of the warrant.” (see aff. Cherkla, exh. c, para. 14.). In other words, not only was the lease terminated, but so, too, was the debtor’s equitable interest. As I observed in W.A.S., at some point the estate’s rights must expire. The cases are many which" }, { "docid": "4622273", "title": "", "text": "both Autoskill and here, no appeal was pending at the time of commencement of the case and, therefore, section 108(b) provides the applicable time period within which a motion for leave to appeal must be filed and served. For the above reasons, section 108(b), not section 362(a), applies here and Appellant’s time to file a motion for leave to appeal expired on January 12, 1996. 3. The Lease Could Not Be Assumed A debtor’s interest in an unexpired lease constitutes property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, and under Code section 365, a debtor has the right to assume or reject its unexpired leases. Once a lease is terminated, however, nothing remains for a debtor to assume under section 365. In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, aff'd 10 B.R. 300 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1980); In re Autobahn Classics, Inc., 29 B.R. 625, 627 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1983). This Court has recognized that a debtor’s inability to assume a lease constitutes “cause” for relief from the automatic stay under Bankruptcy Code section 362(d)(1). In re GSVC Restaurant Corp., 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Other jurisdictions have agreed. See In re Acorn Investments, 8 B.R. 506 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1981); In re Andorra Meat Market, Inc., 7 B.R. 744 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1980); In re R.R.S., Inc., 7 B.R. 870 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1980). This Court’s decision in GSVC Restaurant Corp. is instructive here. In GSVC Restaurant Corp., this Court affirmed a bankruptcy court order modifying the automatic stay to permit the execution of a warrant of eviction against a commercial tenant, where the tenant had filed Chapter 11 a few hours prior to the scheduled eviction. The Honorable Gerard L. Goettel held that because the lease had been terminated and the debtor had exhausted all legal means for opposing the eviction, the Chapter 11 trustee could not assume the lease under Bankruptcy Code section 365 and, therefore, cause existed to lift the automatic stay and permit the landlord to proceed with the eviction. Judge Goettel’s holding is directly on point: Upon this appeal the debtor argues that the court below did not consider the possible rights of redemption which" } ]

[ { "docid": "18188704", "title": "", "text": "for their work on the Panama Canal. The sole and single purpose of the statute was to give them additional compensation for services rendered. The Bogardus case, then, does not sustain the plaintiff’s contention. The case of Old Colony Trust Company v. Commissioner, 279 U. S. 716, at page 730, refuses the plaintiff’s contention. The court said: Nor can it be said that the payment of the tax in .Wo. 130. vras a gift. The payment for services, though on- tirely voluntary was nevertheless compensation .within the statute. (Italics added.) The court cited with approval the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Noel v. Parrott, 15 F. (2d) 669, where Judge Parker, in a well reasoned opinion considered the question of the taxability of bonuses to employees. This court, in Schumacher v. United States, 74 C. Cls. 720, had essentially the same problem as is involved in the instant case. One whose employment had ceased, and who had been paid all that was legally owed him, was awarded a bonus by his former employer. The court held that it was not tax-exempt as a gift. The provision in Section 7 of the statute providing for the plaintiff’s annuity, that the amounts payable thereunder are not assignable or subject to legal process does not show a Congressional intent to make them exempt from income tax. Section 14 of the Civil Service Eetirement Act, 14 Stat. 614, 5 U. S. C. 1946 ed. Sect. 729, provides for a similar exemption from legal process, yet such annuities are taxable as income. T. D. 3112, 4 Cum. Bull. 76 (1921); IT 2984, XV 1 Cum. Bull. 87 (1936); T. D. 5208, 1943 Cum. Bull. 65. I see no reason why the plaintiff’s annuity as a former civil servant should be in a different status from those paid under the Civil Service Retirement Act. Neither statute contains any express provision as to the taxability vel non of the annuities created by it. In the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935, C. 812, 49 Stat. 967, as amended in 1937, 50" } ]

[ { "docid": "21364738", "title": "", "text": "was, in effect, one huge service organization, and members were served just as assuredly by employees working behind the scenes as by those whose jobs brought them into direct contact with members. Other circumstances surrounding these transfers are equally compelling as indicia of an intent to reward past services and encourage the faithful performance1 of duties in the future. The letter to club members soliciting contributions to the Christmas fund asked members to contribute in order to provide “tangible recognition * * * of the faithful and efficient service rendered by our employees.” Moreover, a rule of the club’s House Committee provided that the letter sent to employees explaining •the computation of payments from the fund “should be an expression of appreciation and encouragement.” Finally, the method whereby the club computed the size of the payment each employee was to receive indicates that the purpose of the payment was to compensate employees for past services and encourage them to continue to perform their duties ably in the future. The size of the payments was based upon the regular salary and length of service of each employee, thereby tying fund distributions directly to services rendered to members of the club. Moreover, a rule of the House Committee provided for adjustments in the size of payments in the event of “inequalities” arising from the application of the distribution formula, indicating that employees earned the right to have payments they received compare somehow with payments which other employees received. Petitioners also argue that we cannot rule that these payments were not gifts because the Tax Court failed to take testimony from contributors as to their reasons for contributing. While such testimony may have been helpful in determining the issue at hand, we believe that the other indicia of intent stipulated into the record more than support a finding as to the nature of the contributions. More importantly, however, since the burden of proof was on petitioners to show that they were entitled to exclude these payments from their gross income, Gaugler v. United States, 312 F.2d 681, 684 (2 Cir. 1963), it was" }, { "docid": "6226827", "title": "", "text": "1, 19 L. Ed. 590, the Supreme Court recognizes a condition as being attached to a gift, the expression of the court being fairly epitomized in the syllabus as follows: “3. Equity protects a parol gift of land equally with a parol agreement to sell it, if accompanied by possession, and .the donee, induced by the promise to give it, has made valuable improvements on the property. And this is particularly true where the donor stipulates that the expenditure shall be made, and by doing this makes it the consideration or condition of the gift.” So that,-even though the' condition applying to the grant between the United States and the mineral claimant directly affected the latter’s title as against the government, it would not necessarily mean that the grant because of a condition imposed would thereby lose its nature as a gift. Reward in some form or other is frequently the basis of a gift, as in the ease of Barnes v. Poirier, supra, the court recognized the grant to be in the nature of a gift to old soldiers as compensation for past services to their government. If there could be a reward offered to old soldiers for past services to the government, upon the same theory why cannot a reward be offered to a discoverer of mineral deposits? The result of the endeavor in each ease is a benefit tp; the nation. This court is not concerned in what may be saved or lost to the government by virtue of a construction of the law, but has arrived at the conclusion that a transaction in which the possessory title of a mineral claimant based upon discovery, without patent and without any direct consideration passing to the government, entitling the claimant to a removal of the mineral even to exhaustion, partakes more of the nature of a gift than that of any other method of acquiring title to property known to the law. Had Congress desired to exclude from its exemption of gifts any particular kind, it would have so declared. Furthermore revenue statutes must be more strongly construed" }, { "docid": "16856840", "title": "", "text": "payment was its desire to do an act of kindness for petitioner.” See also Haskell v. Commissioner, 14 T.C.M. 788 (1955), and Estate of Albert W. Morse, CCH Dec. 22, 916 (M) (March 31, 1958). Even where the corporation had frequently in the past made payments to widows of deceased officers and executives, the payments have been held to be gifts. Rodner v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1957, 149 F.Supp. 233. The reasoning of Judge Dimock is persuasive. After noting that Section 22(b) (1)(B), Internal Revenue Code of 1939, exempts from gross income payments up to $5,000 under a contract of an employer providing for payments to a beneficiary of an employee by reason of the death of the employee, he states, at page 237 of 149 F.Supp.: “By those provisions Congress excluded from gross income for income tax purposes the first $5,000 of amounts paid as death benefits to a beneficiary of an employee pursuant to contract. As stated above footnote 1, death benefits paid to a beneficiary pursuant to contract are not exempt as gifts. I do not believe that Congress would favor exempting up to $5,000 death benefits paid pursuant to contract but taxing the whole of gratuitous death benefits. If I am right in this thought, the provision in section 22(b)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 limiting the $5,000 exemption to death benefits paid under contract was in perfect harmony with the above cited cases which hold gratuitous death benefits to be exempt as gifts. The legislative intention seems to me to have been that all death benefits that were gratuitous should be exempt and all over $5,000 that were paid under contract should be taxable.” It is significant that the Commissioner has recognized the weakness of his position in cases like the one now before us. In light of the unmistakable trend of judicial decisions holding similar payments to be gifts, as noted above, the Commissioner promulgated an Information Release on August 25, 1958. He therein formally announced that the Internal Revenue Service would not litigate, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, cases involving" }, { "docid": "16856836", "title": "", "text": "the payment was, nevertheless, held upon the facts to be compensation for services rendered by the recipient. It is not enough to say that the payments here were motivated by the past efforts of the taxpayer’s husband, for a gift is nonetheless a gift because inspired by gratitude for past faithful services. Bogardus v. Commissioner, 1937, 302 U.S. 34, 44, 58 S.Ct. 61, 82 L.Ed. 32. Rarely is a gift bestowed upon a complete stranger who has never had even an indirect relation to the donor or to someone related to the donor. In any event, it seems more reasonable to view the payments here in question as being prompted by the taxpayer’s widowed position rather than by the desire of the corporation to additionally compensate her for services already performed by her husband; for full compensation had been paid for the decedent’s services, and nothing more was due or could be claimed by anyone. If in the course of a eulogistic resolution recognizing the decedent’s personal merits and past contributions to the company, the additional payment is denominated “compensation,” this does not alter the realities; just as calling the payment a “gift” would not be effective to make it such, if it in fact bore the marks of true compensation. Substance, not form, must prevail in each instance. Numerous cases, both in District Courts and in the Tax Court, have held that payments to widows under circumstances similar to the instant case constituted gifts and not compensation, even though in many instances the payments were treated as deductions in the payor’s income tax return, and the amounts were measured by the salary of the widow’s husband at the time of his death. See Jackson v. Granquist, D.C.Ore.1957, 169 F.Supp. 442, 443, 52 A.F.T.R. 1476, where, “in recognition of the services to the corporation rendered by” her husband, the widow was paid “$2,000.00 per month of his salary” for one year; Bank of the Southwest Nat’l Ass’n, Houston v. United States, D.C.S.D.Tex.1958, 165 F.Supp. 200, 202, where the widow was paid for five months “the amount of salary formerly paid" }, { "docid": "6028383", "title": "", "text": "ordinary business man would consider an enforceable obligation to pay money on demand or at a fixed future date as an “indebtedness,” whether the obligation were created in exchange for a valuable consideration or gratuitously, and that periodic payments agreed to be paid as interest thereon are properly described in common parlance as payments of “interest on indebtedness.” While it may be possible to view the petitioner’s bond as an obligation to make a series of annual gifts of $5,000 and a gift of $125,000 in 1954, such a concept seems to us as esoteric as the “effective interest”' concept which the Supreme Court rejected in the Old Colony case, supra. When a donor transfers as a gift the bond of a third person, we do not view the annual interest payments thereon as a series of gifts reduced to possession by the donee in the year of receipt, and we see no reason why this should be the view when the donor gives his own legally enforceable bond. His gift is complete when the bond is delivered whether his own obligation or another’s is the subject of the gift. Nor do we see any valid reason for supposing that Congress wished to restrict the meaning of “indebtedness” to that contracted “for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth.” Where that was its intent Congress expressly so stated. See Section 303(a)(1) Revenue Act of 1926; section 812 Int.Rev.Code; Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 62. It is urged that the purpose of section 23(b) was to grant a credit against gross income for the expense of borrowing money to beget income, but we find no justification for so limiting it. Interest paid on a mortgage given for the purchase of a dwelling house is no less a permissible deduction than interest on a loan for business purposes. We cannot doubt that interest paid on money borrowed to make a gift is an allowable deduction. In practical effect what the petitioner did was to shift to the Trust Company as trustee the" }, { "docid": "6226828", "title": "", "text": "a gift to old soldiers as compensation for past services to their government. If there could be a reward offered to old soldiers for past services to the government, upon the same theory why cannot a reward be offered to a discoverer of mineral deposits? The result of the endeavor in each ease is a benefit tp; the nation. This court is not concerned in what may be saved or lost to the government by virtue of a construction of the law, but has arrived at the conclusion that a transaction in which the possessory title of a mineral claimant based upon discovery, without patent and without any direct consideration passing to the government, entitling the claimant to a removal of the mineral even to exhaustion, partakes more of the nature of a gift than that of any other method of acquiring title to property known to the law. Had Congress desired to exclude from its exemption of gifts any particular kind, it would have so declared. Furthermore revenue statutes must be more strongly construed against the government and in favor of the citizen in case of doubt. Gould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151, 38 S. Ct. 53, 62 L. Ed. 211. For the reasons stated, the demurrer to the second defense will be overruled. In regard to the demurrer to the third defense, this court is of the opinion that it must be sustained. Had there been an effected compromise between the department and the taxpayer, it must have been sustained as against an attack in the courts. United States v. Kaufman, 96 U. S. 567, 24 L. Ed. 792. Here the matter was at all times in the process of adjustment, and merely because the department made answer to a supposititious ease, upon which the later return purports to have been filed, does not and should not estop the government from asserting its claim to the tax. Neither does the nature of the statute, so far as the pleadings reveal the situation in the ease, relieve a person charged with the payment of federal taxes on the" }, { "docid": "7851377", "title": "", "text": "like result was reached. Noel v. Parrott (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 669, was approved. In Fisher v. Commissioner (C. C. A.) 59 F.(2d) 192, it was ruled that absence of legal duty to pay is not conclusive of a gift. Whether a pay- meat in a given ease shall he deemed taxable compensation or a gift exempt from tax depends on the intention of the parties and particularly that of the payer, to be determined from the attending facts and circumstances. Income that may bo taxed includes gain derived from labor. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 40 S. Ct. 189, 64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A. L. R. 1570. One who in the peace and under the protection of the United States gainfully exercises his faculties of mind or body may be called on to share the gain with the public treasury. Section 213 of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 USCA § 954) here applicable includes in gross income to be taxed “gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service * * * of whatever kind and in whatever form paid.” It excludes property acquired by “gift, bequest, devise or inheritance.” The intent is that all receipts in whatever form that come because of labor and service, whether payment could be compelled or not, shall be taxed as arising from labor. That only is a gift which is purely such, not intended as a return of value or made because of any intent to repay another what is his due, but bestowed only because of personal affection or regard or pity, or from general motives of philanthropy or charity. Those payments made because of past services, but over and above what was contracted and compellable to be paid, have been called additional compensation and bonuses, and are taxable income to the recipient. From the standpoint of the payer also they are recognized as disbursements for wages or salaries, and when paid in the conduct of a regular business may be deducted as an expense thereof. See Regulation 69', art. 108. The" }, { "docid": "18188697", "title": "", "text": "Whitaker, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff sues to recover income taxes assessed against him by reason of the inclusion in his gross income of amounts which, he says, were gratuities, and, therefore, not to be included. If they were gratuities, they are not to be included because section 22 of Title 26, Internal Bevenue Code, says that “gifts” are not to be included in gross income. The report of Commissioner Foster, to which no exception is taken, shows that the controversial sums were paid plaintiff pursuant to an Act of Congress (58 Stat. 257) which was passed in recognition of the exceptional character of the services rendered by plaintiff, among other United States citizens, in the construction of the Panama Canal. The first two sections of this Act read: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in recognition of the distinguished services rendered in and about the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and government of the Panama Canal, and the Canal Zone, during the construction period of the Panama Canal, from May 4,1904, to March 31, 1914, inclusive, by civilian officials and employees, citizens of the United States, the thanks of Congress are hereby extended to all and each of them so engaged or employed, who were not included in the recognition and benefits accorded by the Act of March 4,1915 (38 Stat. 1190). Sec. 2. That in further recognition of the exceptional character of the services described in section 1, each civilian official and each civilian employee entitled to receive the thanks of Congress agreeably to the provisions of section 1, who has not been heretofore specially rewarded by gratuity, annuity, or other benefit under any provision of law; and who was engaged with, or employed by, the Isthmian Canal Commission or the Panama Eailroad Company on the Isthmus of Panama during the aforesaid construction period of the Panama Canal, for three years or more; and who, during such service, was a citizen of the United States; and who, on the date whereon this" }, { "docid": "14419933", "title": "", "text": "of other executives above referred to were entirely voluntary. There was no plan under which such payments were made other than can be inferred from the fact that they were made. Decedent’s salary was paid in full up to the date of his death and decedent’s widow rendered no services to his employer or any of its affiliates. The Income Tax Laws beginning with the 1913 Act have always exempted gifts. 38 Stat. 114, ch. 16, See. II, par. B, p. 167. Just as consistently, the Income Tax Laws have always levied a tax upon “salaries, wages or compensation for personal service * * * ”, e. g. 38 Stat. 114, ch. 16, Sec. II, par. B; section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The line between gifts and compensation was drawn by the Supreme Court in Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34, 58 S.Ct. 61, 82 L.Ed. 32, where payments were held to be gifts. The Court said in 302 U.S. on page 44, 58 S.Ct. 66, “A gift is none the less a gift because inspired by gratitude for the past faithful ■services of the recipient.” The Court remarked, 302 U.S. on page 43, 58 S.Ct. on page 65, that the facts indicated that the intention of the persons who decided that the payments should be made “was to make gifts in recognition of, not payments for, former services”. Payments by an employer to an employee or his estate are strongly presumed to be made for services and consequently not gifts. Willkie v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 127 F.2d 953, 955. Payments made by an employer to a beneficiary of an employee, if made pursuant to an enforcible contract between employer and employee, are not gifts even though the beneficiary has done nothing to earn them. The beneficiary has a legal right to them under Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268. That leaves the question which I deem to be presented in this case: is a gratuitous payment by an employer to a presumptive beneficiary of a deceased employee a gift? In every case where the question" }, { "docid": "16856835", "title": "", "text": "by the corporation’s characterizing the payments as “additional compensation for services rendered.” While it is true that a party’s description of a transaction is entitled to some weight, it would strain reason to think that by the words chosen here, the true nature of the transaction could be transformed into something completely different. To borrow the words of the Government’s brief, “ * * whether the payments in question represented income or gifts to the taxpayer cannot be answered by mere definitions or categories. Rather, it presents a problem to be decided in the light of all the facts and circumstances showing the intention of the parties, particularly that of the corporation-payor.” Indeed, in several instances the Commissioner himself has been successful in circumventing the payor’s characterization of the transaction. See Wallace v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 855 and Nickelsburg v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 70. In each of these cases, even though the corporation adopted a resolution bestowing a monetary “gift” and even failed to claim an income tax deduction, the payment was, nevertheless, held upon the facts to be compensation for services rendered by the recipient. It is not enough to say that the payments here were motivated by the past efforts of the taxpayer’s husband, for a gift is nonetheless a gift because inspired by gratitude for past faithful services. Bogardus v. Commissioner, 1937, 302 U.S. 34, 44, 58 S.Ct. 61, 82 L.Ed. 32. Rarely is a gift bestowed upon a complete stranger who has never had even an indirect relation to the donor or to someone related to the donor. In any event, it seems more reasonable to view the payments here in question as being prompted by the taxpayer’s widowed position rather than by the desire of the corporation to additionally compensate her for services already performed by her husband; for full compensation had been paid for the decedent’s services, and nothing more was due or could be claimed by anyone. If in the course of a eulogistic resolution recognizing the decedent’s personal merits and past contributions to the company, the" }, { "docid": "21364735", "title": "", "text": "the problem of observing the demeanor of witnesses and apportioning degrees of credibility was nonexistent. The only evidence upon which the decision below could have been based was of a type which this court is in a position to evaluate as ably as the court below. Therefore, we are permitted to review freely the decision which has prompted this appeal. United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency v. Glass Production Methods, Inc., 291 F.2d 168, 172 (2 Cir. 1961). Even when subjected to the more stringent test of full review, however, the Tax Court’s decision to refuse to label the transfers in question as gifts must be deemed correct. While we have already noted that no hard and fast rule has been established for deciding when a transfer is a gift within the meaning of Section 102(a) of the Code, some guiding principles were laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Duber-stein, supra. According to the Duber-stein case, the voluntariness of a transfer is not determinative; what controls is the intent with which the transferor executed the transfer. If a payment of the kind involved in this case proceeds from a “detached and disinterested generosity,” out of “affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses,” it is a gift. If, on the other hand, a payment proceeds primarily from “the constraining force of any moral or legal duty,” or constitutes a reward for “services rendered,” or proceeds from “ ‘the incentive of anticipated benefit’ of an economic nature,” the transfer ought not to be deemed a gift. Commissioner v. Duberstein, supra, 363 U.S. at 285, 80 S.Ct. at 1196-1197, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218. We agree with the Tax Court, that the transfers here in question were not gifts, but were, like tips or bonuses, of a compensatory nature and therefore taxable income under the internal revenue laws. If the sums which petitioners, received from the Christmas fund had been received directly from club members, as tips, they would have been payments, in reward for services rendered, and’, hence taxable income. E. g., Roberts v. Commissioner, 176 F.2d 221 (9 Cir. 1949); Andrews" }, { "docid": "17248243", "title": "", "text": "case, the payments were provided by Congress because it thought that the country was under a heavy moral obligation to the civilian employees for their work on the Panama Canal. The sole and single purpose of the statute was to give them additional compensation for services rendered. The Borgardus case, then, does not sustain the plaintiff’s contention. The case of Old Colony Trust Company v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716, at page 730, 49 S. Ct. 499 at page 504, 73 L.Ed. 918, refutes the plaintiff’s contention. The court said: “Nor can it be argued that the payment of the tax in No. 130 was a gift. The payment for services, even though entirely voluntary, was nevertheless compensation within the statute.” (Italics added.) The court cited with approval the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Noel v. Parrott, 15 F.2d 669, where Judge Parker, in a well reasoned opinion considered the question of the tax-ability of bonuses to employees. This court, in Schumacher v. United States, 55 F.2d 1007, 74 CtCl. 720, had essentially the same problem as is involved in the instant case. One whose employment had ceased, and who had been paid all that was legally owed him, was awarded a bonus by his former employer. The court held that it was not tax-exempt as a gift. The provision in Section 7 of the statute providing for the plaintiff’s annuity, that the amounts payable thereunder are not assignable or subject to legal process does not show a Congressional intent fo make them exempt from income tax. Section 14 of the Civil Service Retirement Act, 41 Stat. 614, 5 U.S.C.A. § 729, provides for a similar exemption from legal process, yet such annuities are taxable as income. T.D. 3112, 4 Cum.Bull. 76 (1921); IT 2984, XV 1 Cum. Bull. 87 (1936); T.D. 5208, 1943 Cum.Bull. 65. I see no reason why the plaintiff’s annuity as a former civil servant should be in a different status from those paid under the Civil Service Retirement Act. Neither statute contains any express provision as to the taxability" }, { "docid": "12750002", "title": "", "text": "and one of them was a sister of an employee killed in an explosion about 1910. None was or ever had been employed by Unop-co. At the Unopco meeting, the president stated that the stockholders of Unopco had met with great good fortune in Universal, starting with nothing. That through struggling years, employees had given loyal support; that it would be a “nice and generous” thing to show appreciation by a “gift or honorarium”. All acquiesced and it was understood as the president stated “that we [the stockholders] would come forward and make these presents or gifts * * It was stipulated that neither Universal nor United nor Unopco owed any of the recipients any legal or other obligation to pay any compensation in addition to that paid them prior to the payments under consideration. None of the corporations mentioned in the Bogardus case claimed any deduction for income tax purposes in respect of the payments made. The court held that “The whole tone of the meeting [at which the payments were determined upon] indicates that the intention was to make gifts in recognition of, not payments for, former services.” And the order was in accord with this statement. The distinguishing features between the cited and the instant cases are markedly discernible. The voucher attached to the check for the payment to petitioner designates it as “additional compensation”, and the president’s letter states “arrangements have been made to grant you additional compensation in recognition of the value of your past services”. In the cited case, the payment is designated a “bonus”, a “gift”, an “honorarium”, “a nice and generous thing to show appreciation”.' The amount of money paid petitioner herein was calculated upon a basis of salary received before severance of the employer relation. In the cited case, there is no basis shown for the sums paid and there is no evidence from which it could be deduced that the sums paid had any relation to the severance of employment. Some recipients in that case had not worked for the company for years; one never had been an employee, but" }, { "docid": "23520505", "title": "", "text": "clearly can not be charged with the tax knowledge of a pur ported IRS tax expert. Furthermore, although the government claims that these items constituted a personal benefit to Inge, demonstrating a personal benefit is not enough. Support and gifts also benefit the recipient. Indeed, it is hard to imagine giving a gift that the grantor does not intend to benefit the recipient. The same is true of support; it certainly benefits the recipient who may be dependent upon it. Thus, benefit alone can not establish income. A transfer of property is income if it is the result of “the constraining force of any moral or legal duty, constitutes a reward for services rendered, or proceeds from the incentive of anticipated benefit of an economic nature.” United States v. Harris, 942 F.2d 1125, 1128 (7th Cir.1991) (quoting Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 285, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960)). “Under Commissioner v. Duberstein, the donor’s intent is the critical consideration in distinguishing between gifts and income.” Harris, 942 F.2d at 1127 (citations and quotation marks omitted). The evidence here does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Joseph intended to compensate Inge for her help by giving her money to paint the home they lived in, rather than simply conveying a gift. “A transfer of property is a gift if the transferor acted out of a detached and disinterested generosity, ... out of affection, respect, admiration, charity, or like impulses.” Id. at 1128 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Harris is instructive. There, the jury convicted two women for tax evasion based on a substantial sum of money each was paid by a very wealthy widower who enjoyed the company of younger women. On appeal, the convictions were reversed because the evidence failed to show the money was intended as income as opposed to a gift, and because the government did not establish the recipients knew the money was intended as income. In reversing, the court of appeals explained, “[t]his failure to show [the donor’s] intent is fatal to the government’s case.” Id. at 1129. The same fatal flaw" }, { "docid": "17248236", "title": "", "text": "WHITAKER, Judge. Plaintiff sues to recover income taxes assessed against him by reason of the inclusion in his gross income of amounts which, he says, were gratuities, and, therefore, not to be included. If they were gratuities, they are not to be included because section 22 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 22, says that “gifts” are not to be included in gross income. The report of Commissioner Foster, to which no exception is taken, shows that the controversial sums were paid plaintiff pursuant to an Act of Congress, 58 Stat. 257, 48 U.S.C.A. § 1373 et seq., which was passed in recognition of the exceptional character of the services rendered by plaintiff, among other United States citizens, in the construction of the Panama Canal. The first two sections of this Act read: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in recognition of the distinguished services rendered in and about the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and government of the Panama Canal, and the Canal Zone, during the construction period of the Panama Canal, from May 4, 1904, to March 31, 1914, inclusive, by civilian officials and employees, citizens of the United States, the thanks of Congress are hereby extended to all and each of them so engaged or employed, who were not included in the recognition and benefits accorded by the Act of March 4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1190). “Sec. 2. That in further recognition of the exceptional character of the services described in section 1, each civilian official and each civilian employee entitled to receive the thanks of Congress agreeably to the provisions of section 1, who has not been heretofore specially rewarded by gratuity, annuity, or other benefit under any provision of law; and who was engaged with, or employed by, the Isthmian Canal Commission or the Panama Railroad Company on the Isthmus of Panama during the aforesaid construction period of the Panama Canal, for three years or more; and who, during such service, was a citizen of the United States; and" }, { "docid": "14685047", "title": "", "text": "between Scott and Wirtz so as to “shed light on the knowledge and intentions of both the Wirtzes and Scott regarding the payments . . . to Ellen Cooper in 1972. ...” Tr. at 2934-35. . Wirtz testified under a grant of immunity from the United States. . Scott maintained his campaign fund accounts, however, throughout this period. By October, 1967, he had declared his candidacy for Attorney General of Illinois. . Cooper declared these payments on her 1972 and 1973 tax returns, and payroll deductions were made by the Chicago Stadium Corporation. . Had she stayed on the Wirtz payroll after the marriage, Scott would have had to disclose that income on his state economic interest statements. . An additional “gift” witness testified during the government’s case in chief. See Part I-B-4, supra. . J. D. Quarant’s “gift” of $100 in 1968 was recorded as a campaign contribution. Tr at 7880. Scott reported William A. Barnett’s 1972 “gift” of $750.00 on his state Disclosure of Economic Interest forms, pursuant to Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 127 § 604A et seq. (1973). This “gift” was included as a nontaxable cash source in the government’s schedule. . The jury could have believed that the witnesses gave money to Scott because of his services as a candidate for office or as a public officer. Such payments could arguably constitute income taxable upon receipt. The government did not rely on this latter theory at trial, and its failure to do so operated to Scott’s benefit. We do not rely on this theory, either. The I.R.S. guidelines, however, state that once it is shown that contributions to a political candidate were intended for the unrestricted personal use of the candidate, then the Duberstein principles apply in determining whether the funds are nontaxable “gifts.” William G. Stratton, 54 T.C. 255, 280-81 (1970). Duberstein excludes payments proceeding from a sense of moral or legal duty or from the incentive of anticipated benefit of an economic nature, as well as payments made in return for services rendered, even if the donor derives no economic benefit from the payment. Commissioner" }, { "docid": "1203161", "title": "", "text": "whether the receipts are gifts is primarily a question of fact to be resolved upon the peculiar circumstances of the case; the mere fact that the payments were voluntary does not establish them as gifts; if the payments were made without a donative intent and as compensation for services they constitute taxable income. The term “gift” as used in the revenue statute “denotes * * * the receipt of financial advantages gratuitously.” The testimony fully established that defendant’s unreported receipts, which he treated as “gifts” were compensation for services rendered or to be rendered, even though the payments were volun tarily made. They could, at the- least, be broadly identified as “gratuities” or “tips” and it is well-settled that such receipts are not gifts, but taxable income. Two examples will suffice. Captain David T. Hart, a commercial fisherman and “public relations man” for the Fishermen and Food Workers, testified that he gave the defendant his personal checks for $2,000 in 1947 and $1,000 in 1948. Hart said he was reimbursed by the group he represented. In 1949 and 1950 the defendant was paid $2,000 annually directly by the group. The nature of Hart’s payments to the defendant is illuminatingly illustrated by the following: “Q. What did you pay out your money for, Captain? A. I gave Mr. Burdick this money for educating me to the ways of the Legislature because of the knowledge he had of the Legislature. Being a fisherman, I had none. I had never been to the State House until 1946. We felt that during that period, Mr. Burdick did us the service we wanted. He certainly educated me in the ways of the Legislature, and he knew the routine to be followed.” George M. Harvey, Jr., an officer of the Outdoor Advertising Association, testified that the Association “paid” the defendant $500 in each of the years 1946, 1947 and 1948, and $1,000 in both 1949 and 1950. These payments were treated by the defendant as “gifts” and not reported in his returns. Harvey was asked: “Q. What did Mr. Burdick do for your association? A. Well," }, { "docid": "23212296", "title": "", "text": "arose out of a private arrangement on the one hand, or under the Federal Social Security program on the other, the Commissioner is not disentitled to treat these strike benefits as he has the non-governmental payments in the past. Surely there is a fair basis for differentiating, for income tax purposes, payments under a comprehensive scheme of federal welfare legislation from private payments, although their ultimate social purposes may be similar. To say that the Social Security rulings control private welfare schemes is to say that the Commissioner has not been entitled to find in the policy of the Social Security legislation, in relation to the tax statutes, a reason for excluding its benefits from taxation, while this policy does not apply to other payments. The remaining ruling, Number 22, deals with a state assistance payment to the blind. Aside from the differences which arise from the fact that this payment involved federal funds, which was set forth in the ruling as one of the relevant facts, it may well have been treated by the Commissioner as a gift, and not unreasonably so, for the blind are a common object of charity. In any case, this payment cannot alone create an administrative practice binding the Commissioner in the present case. In summary, the relevant instances in which the Commissioner has ruled payments not taxable can all be explained according to principles other than the general principle of “subsistence relief” urged by the taxpayer. Putting aside the question of “gift,” these principles do not cover the present case. Therefore the Commissioner, in seeking to tax these strike benefits, has not denied the taxpayer “equal” treatment. No one argues that a tax principle regarding “subsistence relief” can be drawn from the statute or the cases. The taxpayer does urge, however, that a principle concerning “alleviative,” “reparations” payments can and should be derived. I have already discussed why such a principle in my view does not include the present strike benefits, which compensate no loss but the loss of wages, and these would have been included in gross income if received. It might" }, { "docid": "16856839", "title": "", "text": "v. Commissioner, 1958, 29 T.C. 647, CCH Dec. 22, 801, the widow received for two years “the same salary as received by [her late husband] ... in consideration of past services rendered by” him to the company. (Our italics.) On stipulated facts, the payment was held to be a gift even though the company was allowed a deduction in its income tax returns. The controlling factors were (1) the voluntary nature of the payment (2) made directly to the widow, (3) who performed no services to the corporation, (4) which received no benefit from the payment, (5) the husband having been fully compensated for his services during his lifetime. To the same effect is Estate of Arthur W. Hellstrom v. Commissioner, 1955, 24 T.C. 916, tried on stipulated facts. Judge Rice there said: “In view of the other evidence in the record, we attach no particular significance to the fact that the corporation claimed deductions on its returns for the amount paid to petitioner. We think the principal motive of the corporation in making the payment was its desire to do an act of kindness for petitioner.” See also Haskell v. Commissioner, 14 T.C.M. 788 (1955), and Estate of Albert W. Morse, CCH Dec. 22, 916 (M) (March 31, 1958). Even where the corporation had frequently in the past made payments to widows of deceased officers and executives, the payments have been held to be gifts. Rodner v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1957, 149 F.Supp. 233. The reasoning of Judge Dimock is persuasive. After noting that Section 22(b) (1)(B), Internal Revenue Code of 1939, exempts from gross income payments up to $5,000 under a contract of an employer providing for payments to a beneficiary of an employee by reason of the death of the employee, he states, at page 237 of 149 F.Supp.: “By those provisions Congress excluded from gross income for income tax purposes the first $5,000 of amounts paid as death benefits to a beneficiary of an employee pursuant to contract. As stated above footnote 1, death benefits paid to a beneficiary pursuant to contract are not exempt as gifts." }, { "docid": "7835940", "title": "", "text": "Coal C’ompany nor any one connected with it agreed to pay, or promised that anything would be paid, Lunsford by reason of his part in negotiating or aiding in effecting the sale, but concluded that the evidence did not overcome the presumption that the Commissioner’s determination was correct, and entered the order here sought to be reviewed. The applicable statute, section 213, of the Revenue Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 237), defines gross income to include income derived from .compensation for personal service, but not to include the value of property acquired by gift. It has been said that whether a payment in a given case is taxable compensation, or a gift exempt from tax, depends upon the intention of the parties, particularly that of the employer, to bo determined from the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction. Fisher v. Commissioner, 59 F.(2d) 192 (C. C. A. 2). The mere fact that payment for services by an employer is entirely voluntary does not necessarily mean that such payment is not compensation within the statute. Old Colony Trust Company v. Commissioner, 279 U. S. 716, 49 S. Ct. 499, 73 L. Ed. 918; Noel v. Parrott, 15 F.(2d) 669 (C. C. A. 4). Even where compensation has been voluntarily paid to an employee for services rendered in prior years, it has been held that an employer may deduct as a business expense so much thereof as is reasonable compensation for services rendered. Such payments have been referred to as “bonuses,” and as “added compensation,” and have been frequently recognized as taxable income to the employee. Fisher v. Commissioner, supra; Noel v. Parrott, supra; Schumacher v. United States (Ct. Cl.) 55 F.(2d) 1007; Weagant v. Bowers, 57 F.(2d) 679 (C. C. A. 2). On the other hand, voluntary payments made to employees without any obligation to do' so, or in consideration of past services already compensated for by salary, have been held to be gifts, and not taxable income to the payee. Jones v. Commissioner, 31 F.(2d) 755 (C. C. A. 3); Blair v. Rosseter, 33 F.(2d) 286 (C. C. A. 9)." } ]

[ { "docid": "16839117", "title": "", "text": "on his recommendation, without any supporting appraisal data. After 129 of these transactions had been closed and conveyances of title completed— approximately $1,000,000 having been paid out in public funds — the situation appears to have been made the subject of investigation by the Department of Justice. The remaining 149 contracts were thereafter repudiated by the Government, and condemnation proceedings were instituted against the landowners, declarations of taking were filed, deposits of estimated just-compensation were made, and the appointment of commissioners was requested. These estimates were materially less than the theretofore-approved contract prices, and the landowners accordingly set up the contracts as legally haying fixed the measure of their compensation rights, and prayed that awards be entered for the contract amounts, without the appointment of commissioners. The Government in reply alleged that the purchase-contracts were invalid and renewed its demand for the appointment of commissioners to appraise the value of the property. Because individual condemnation proceedings were instituted against the properties involved, resulting cases fell upon the dockets of all of the then-three judges for the district. One case from each judge’s docket was taken as a test case, and the three judges sat together to hear the evidence and the argument as to the general invalidity of the contracts. Each judge, however, made dispositidn of his own case. One judge held that the purchase contract was within the congressional prohibition against any use of “the cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system of contracting”, and hence was invalid. That case is not involved in this appeal. In the other cases, each of the two judges held that the contract was not violative of the congressional prohibition, nor was it otherwise invalid, and that the landowner was accordingly entitled to have an award entered for the contract amount, without the appointment of commissioners. It is these two cases which are now before us, on the Government’s appeal. That purchases of real estate, which allow the landowner to fix his wanted-price and then add a certain percentage of this amount for some special purpose, all to be paid to him solely as consideration for the conveyance," } ]

[ { "docid": "22940117", "title": "", "text": "the 1946 Act to the present contract. If it is not applicable, the Government’s position must be rejected for the additional reason that in 1953 and 1954 there was no recognized federal public policy invalidating Contract 1213. Cf. Muschany v. United States, 324 U.S. 49, 66-67, 65 S.Ct. 442, 451, 89 L.Ed. 744 (1945) If the 1960 anti-kickback legislation was the first provision covering Contract 1213, the improper actions which took place in 1953 hardly contravened “long government practice or statutory enactments.” When Acme’s agents received kickbacks about which plaintiff had no knowledge, it can scarcely be said that plaintiff (as distinguished from the agents) violated “obvious ethical or moral standards”, and that its contract with the defendant could therefore be canceled on that ground. The unreported district court decision granting the motion for acquittal of Tucker, Norris, and Jack Epstein is, of course, a direct holding that the 1946 anti-kickback legislation did not cover the present contract. One of the primary reasons behind the enactment of the 1960 amendment was to remove serious doubt that fixed-price contracts with redetermination clauses were included in the act’s coverage. See S.Rep. No.1585, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-6 (1960). While the Tenth Circuit has held that the 1946 Act covers certain contracts having price-redetermination provisions, it emphasized that the contract with which it was dealing had “[n]o limitation * * * upon the range of redetermination or revision of prices, upward or downward.” United States v. Barnard, 255 F.2d 583, 588 (C.A. 10), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 919, 79 S.Ct. 287, 3 L.Ed.2d 238 (1958). Acme’s contract, however, had a limited range of upward revision. See finding 15. The applicability of the 1946 Act to Contract 1213 is thus highly questionable. For these reasons, the present case is not like United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 81 S.Ct. 294, 5 L.Ed.2d 268 (1961). There, the dual agent violated a federal conflict-of-interest statute, 62 Stat. 703, 18 U.S.C. § 434, in the negotiation of a contract entered into with the United States. Unlike our case, the statutory provision which the" }, { "docid": "23458581", "title": "", "text": "SIMONS, Circuit Judge. The appeal is from a judgment for the appellees for unpaid overtime compensation provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., and attorney’s fees. The appellant is a window cleaning company serving manufacturing industries in Detroit, Michigan, most of which are engaged in interstate commerce, and the appellees are window washers under contract with appellant. The cause is before the court for the third time. Originally the complaint was dismissed upon the pleadings and stipulations of fact on the ground that the ap-pellees were not within the coverage of the Act and that the appellant was exempt under § 13(a) (2) as a retail and service establishment, Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., D.C., 51 F.Supp. 505. We affirmed, 145 F.2d 163, finding it impossible to entertain the concept that window cleaning becomes interstate commerce or in pursuance of the production of goods for commerce by the mere fact that the windows that are cleaned are in the manufacturing establishments of industries engaged in interstate commerce. Certiorari was denied on February 26, 1945, 324 U.S. 849, 65 S.Ct. 685, 89 L.Ed. 1409. On June 18, 1945, the Supreme Court, without explanation, set aside its denial, 325 U.S. 849, 65 S.Ct. 1565, 89 L.Ed. 1970, granted certiorari and upon hearing reversed, 327 U.S. 173, 66 S.Ct. 379, 90 L.Ed. 603, remanding the cause to the district court for proceedings in accordance with its opinion. The appellees had sought answers to interrogatories concerning hourly wage rates, hours worked, the premises upon which they were employed, the names and businesses of the customers, and the workweek under which the appellant operated with respect to each claimant. The court ordered the interrogatories answered and gave the appellant a month to comply. Answers made were held not responsive and additional time was granted. After other delays, default was entered against the appellant for failure to respond to interrogatories, the court pointing out that it had provided adequate opportunity to present required information as a basis for computation of the individual claims and that appellant had" }, { "docid": "14608351", "title": "", "text": "SANBORN, Circuit Judge. These are consolidated appeals from orders denying the government’s motions to delete interest from two judgments entered in condemnation proceeding instituted for the purpose of acquiring title to lands for the Weldon Springs Ordnance Plant in St. Charles County, Missouri. The appeals also cover orders denying motions for reconsideration of the motions to modify the judgments. Prior to the institution of the condemnation proceedings, the War Department had entered into contracts with property owners, including the appellees, to purchase the lands at fixed prices. In the condemnation proceedings the appellees contended that the government was obligated to pay, as just compensation, the prices fixed by the contracts. The government asserted that the contracts were invalid. The District Court ruled that the purchase contracts were valid and that their effect was to fix the compensation to which the appellees were entitled, 46 F.Supp. 921. The judgment in No. 13,234 (Muschany) was entered October 12, 1942. The judgment in No. 13,235 (Andrews) was entered on November 5, 1942. Each of the judgments provided for interest at 6% per annum upon the amount of the award. In December, 1942, the government appealed from these judgments. This Court reversed the District Court on the ground that the purchase contracts were invalid. 139 F.2d 661. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 321 U.S. 760, 64 S.Ct. 846, 88 L.Ed. 1058, and reversed this Court, 324 U.S. 49, 65 S.Ct. 442, 89 L.Ed. 744, holding that the compensation recoverable by the appellees was to be determined from the contracts. Each of the cases was remanded by the Supreme Court to the District Court with directions “that such further proceedings be had in said cause, in conformity with the opinion and judgment of this Court [Supreme Court], as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had.” The mandates were filed April 2, 1945. On April 6, 1945, the government filed motions to modify the judgments by deleting the provisions with reference to the payment of interest on the awards. The court, 61 F.Supp. 199, denied the motions" }, { "docid": "13823068", "title": "", "text": "SIBLEY, Circuit Judge. The appeal is from a judgment dated July 26, 1945, amending a judgment fixing the just compensation due Consolidated Naval Stores Company for the taking of its lands by condemnation rendered Aug. 6, 1942, the effect of the amendment being to require the United States to deposit in court an additional sum of $1,542 to meet taxes for the year 1942, claimed by Polk County, Florida. Consolidated-Naval Stores Company, ap-pellee, moves to dismiss the -appeal on two grounds: 1. That the judgment appealed from was presented to the judge by appellant without notice to appellee, and in legal fraud upon the court and appellee. 2. That the appeal comes too late, the judgment of July 26, 1945, being only a reaffirmance of one dated April 30, 1945, and the appeal not being taken till October 23, 1945. 1. The first ground is supported by a certificate of the judge that counsel for the United States presented the judgment on July 26, representing that it was necessary as a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken, and that it was desired to protect the right to appeal to have advantage of a decision on a similar question pending before the Supreme Court, and the judgment was signed without requiring notice to respondent; that the judgment recites that the matter was before the- court on motion of Consolidated Naval Stores Company which was an error, it being presented entirely by counsel for the United States; that in the orders of April 30, 1945, and July 26, 1945, the Court was not acting to amend the judgment of Aug. 6, 1942, but was making partial distribution of the money paid in under that judgment. Notwithstanding this certificate, we do not think there was anything wrong in the taking of the judgment by counsel for the United States. The record shows that on April 13, 1944, appellee filed a motion setting up that tax claims for 1942 had arisen, and $3,717 had been held in court from the money awarded it as compensation, and that the United States contended" }, { "docid": "13513720", "title": "", "text": "in the Court’®' ¡mind that even if you gentlemen of the jury .were to return a verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue; óf the validity . of the law, so the Court instructs you that on this contract, the Court would not allow it to stand, couldn’t allow it to stand under that issue you will return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in this case as to the validity of the contract.” It is true, as argued by the government, that the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution does not prohibit a landowner and the government from agreeing •as to what is just compensation for property taken. Albrecht v. United States, 329 U.S. 599, 67 S.Ct. 606. In case of a valid agreement, the amount fixed is binding. Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 282, 283, 60 S.Ct. 231, 84 L.Ed. 240. This is true, even if there be condemnation proceedings. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 98 F.2d 609, 612. But is does not follow that an option contract, if procured by fraud upon the owner of the land, would be binding upon him. Indeed, as we read Muschany v. United States, 324 U.S. 49, 57, 58, 65 S.Ct. 442, 447, 89 L.Ed. 744, there is an intimation to the contrary. There, the Supreme Court said that the case came before it “without any suggestion of fraud or unfairness such as would justify holding the contracts invalid”; and that, inasmuch as the trial court’s findings on the issues of fraud, misrepresentation and duress were supported by substantial evidence and these issues were not a'rgued before the Supreme Court, an independent examination of these issues would not be undertaken under the guise of determining “just compensation.” As was said by Chief Justice Shields ■of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in Richardson v. Vicks, 125 Tenn. 532, 540, 145 S.W. 174, 176, “It is elementary law, of universal application, that fraud renders all contracts voidable, ab initio, at the option of the defrauded party, when diligently exercised, in the absence of" }, { "docid": "13822409", "title": "", "text": "in the Muschany case as to the validity of the purchase contract there brought in question, which was identical with the contract involved in the present case so far as material to the question here, nothing more was done until after the decision of the Supreme Court in that case came down on February 5, 1945. 324 U.S. 49, 65 S.Ct. 442. On April 6, 1945, the United States filed a motion in the condemnation proceedings, reciting that the validity of the purchase contract had been sustained by the Supreme Court in the Muschany case, and asking an order of the District Court directing the United States to pay into the registry of the court the difference between the sum of $21,500 theretofore deposited as estimated compensation and the price stipulated in the purchase contract and for judgment in condemnation in accordance with the contract. To this motion the landowners filed a response, consenting to judgment in condemnation in favor of the United States for the price stipulated in the purchase contract, plus interest thereon from the date of acceptance of the contract by the Government until the deposit of the estimated compensation made with the declaration of taking in the condemnation proceedings on June 6, 1941, and with interest at six per cent thereafter on the difference ($48,500) between the amount deposited with the declaration of taking and the price stipulated in the purchase contract. On May 14, 1945, the trial court entered a judgment sustaining the motion of the United States and denying interest. The landowners appeal. The right of an owner to just compensation for his land taken by the United States is guaranteed by the Constitution. Just compensation is the fair value of the land paid contemporaneously with its taking. Where the taking precedes the payment of fair value, the owner is deprived of the use of the land or of the use of its equivalent in money for the time between the taking and payment. In such cases, in order that the owner shall not suffer loss and shall receive the just compensation guaranteed him" }, { "docid": "13822408", "title": "", "text": "in accordance with all the terms and provisions of this option and will upon filing its petition in such proceedings deposit said agreed purchase price with the clerk of said court, same to be disbursed by said officer pursuant to the decree entered in such condemnation proceedings.” After taking possession under the contract and following the conclusion that the purchase contract was void, the United States on June 6, 1941, instituted proceedings for condemnation of the land. On that date the United States filed its declaration of taking and deposited in the registry of the court $21,500 as estimated just compensation. On the same day an order was entered vesting title in the United States. The landowners filed an answer, setting up the purchase contract, insisting upon its validity, and requesting the court to fix the award for the land at the sum stipulated in the contract with interest at six per cent per an-num from the date of the acceptance of the contract by the Government. Perhaps because the parties were awaiting final decision in the Muschany case as to the validity of the purchase contract there brought in question, which was identical with the contract involved in the present case so far as material to the question here, nothing more was done until after the decision of the Supreme Court in that case came down on February 5, 1945. 324 U.S. 49, 65 S.Ct. 442. On April 6, 1945, the United States filed a motion in the condemnation proceedings, reciting that the validity of the purchase contract had been sustained by the Supreme Court in the Muschany case, and asking an order of the District Court directing the United States to pay into the registry of the court the difference between the sum of $21,500 theretofore deposited as estimated compensation and the price stipulated in the purchase contract and for judgment in condemnation in accordance with the contract. To this motion the landowners filed a response, consenting to judgment in condemnation in favor of the United States for the price stipulated in the purchase contract, plus interest thereon" }, { "docid": "8313010", "title": "", "text": "Government in 1940. The option contracts were accepted by the Government and possession of the lands thereby taken by the Government. Subsequently the Government charged that the option contracts were illegal and sought to repudiate the contracts which had not been closed and to acquire the land by the usual condemnation proceedings. In such cases, including those now before the Court, the plaintiff filed a declaration of taking in conventional form and deposited a sum with the Clerk of the Court, based upon an estimate of value. This estimate was less than the contract prices. It is interest on this deficit that is here involved. This move by plaintiff was opposed by the landowners. There seems to have been acquiescence if not agreement that the issue thus created would be tried out in three cases, one before each Court of this division. After success for the position of each party in the lower courts, a decision of the Supreme Court settled the controversy in favor of the landowners, and sustained the validity of the option agreements. Muschany et al. v. United States, 65 S.Ct. 442, 445, 89 L.Ed. —. The litigants are not now in accord in their interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the landowners insist that the opinion of the Supreme Court supports their claim for interest, and equally learned counsel for the Government insist with equal earnestness that the decision of the Supreme Court supports their position that no interest shall be paid. The question of interest was not directly before the Supreme Court, but it may serve some purpose in determining what effect that decision has on the present question, to examine the issues. Following the act of the Government in serving notice of repudiation of the option agreements, it proceeded to initiate condemnation proceedings, wholly without any reference to the option agreements, by filing, in the early part of 1941, (1) motion for Leave to File Petition for Order of Summons, which was granted; (2) petition to Condemn and Fix Compensation; (3) declaration of Taking, under Section 171, 50 U.S.C.A." }, { "docid": "6277551", "title": "", "text": "WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge. This case raises once more the question of the validity of contingent fee contracts based on sales to the Federal Government. The District Court found that the plaintiff Webb (appellee here) was to receive a commission of five per cent on all consummated sales of defendant company’s products to the United States. It gave judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the amount of the commission, and the defendant appeals. The arrangement between Webb and the company was an oral one. The product chiefly involved was electric fans, and the main sales made were to the armed services. Plaintiff was to receive a commission only on such sales as actually were consummated, being paid nothing for his efforts or expenses unless successful. He was not committed to any specified or regular duties in connection with procurement, and was not obligated to devote any particular amount of time to the defendant's business. His agency extended only to sales to the Government. The defendant’s non-government sales in the District of Columbia were handled by another agency. “Contingent fee contracts to secure Government business for the employer of the recipient [of the fee] have been held invalid because of their tendency to induce improper solicitation of public officers and the exercise of political pressure.” Muschany v. United States, 1945, 324 U.S. 49, 64, 65 S.Ct. 442, 450, 89 L.Ed. 744. This traditional policy of the courts was reinforced by Executive Order No. 9001, 6 Fed.Reg. 6787, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 611 note, issued pursuant to the First War Powers Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 601 et seq., and by Section 4(a) of the Armed Services Procurement Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 153(a). At the time the arrangement in this case was made, the Executive Order required Government procurement contracts to contain the following warranty: “The contractor warrants that he has not employed any person to solicit or secure this contract upon any agreement for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. Breach of this warranty shall give the Government the right to annul the contract, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price" }, { "docid": "13822410", "title": "", "text": "from the date of acceptance of the contract by the Government until the deposit of the estimated compensation made with the declaration of taking in the condemnation proceedings on June 6, 1941, and with interest at six per cent thereafter on the difference ($48,500) between the amount deposited with the declaration of taking and the price stipulated in the purchase contract. On May 14, 1945, the trial court entered a judgment sustaining the motion of the United States and denying interest. The landowners appeal. The right of an owner to just compensation for his land taken by the United States is guaranteed by the Constitution. Just compensation is the fair value of the land paid contemporaneously with its taking. Where the taking precedes the payment of fair value, the owner is deprived of the use of the land or of the use of its equivalent in money for the time between the taking and payment. In such cases, in order that the owner shall not suffer loss and shall receive the just compensation guaranteed him by the Constitution, he is entitled to interest upon the fair value of the land from the date of the taking until payment. United States v. Rogers, 255 U.S. 163, 169, 41 S.Ct. 281, 65 L.Ed. 566; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 299, 305-306, 43 S.Ct. 354, 67 L.Ed. 664. This constitutional right of the owner whose property is taken is recognized in the Act under which the condemnation in this case proceeded. The statutory provision is that just compensation “shall be ascertained and awarded in said proceeding and established by judgment therein, and the said judgment shall include, as part of the just compensation awarded, interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum on the amount finally awarded as the value of the property as of the date of taking, from said date to the date of payment; but interest shall not be allowed on so much thereof as shall have been paid into the court.” 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a. Contracts between the Government and a landowner" }, { "docid": "5570464", "title": "", "text": "ALLEN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the judgment oif the District Court entered upon a complaint filed by the Government to recover a sum found by the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board to be due as excessive profits under the Renegotiation Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1191, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1191. Notice of the unilateral Order and determination of the Board was sent to the appellees October 15, 1945. The complaint was' filed February 13, 1950. On June 2, 1950 and prior to the decision of the District Court, appellees paid $50,-152.72, which the court found was the principal sum due. The Government had prayed for judgment of interest at six per cent, but the District Court allowed three per cent interest on the principal from May •15, 1946 to June 2, '1950. The appeal is prosecuted from that part of the judgment which allowed interest at three per cent instead of six per cent. The Government contends (1) that under valid regulations it was entitled to recover six per cent interest; and (2) that even in the absence of regulations the trial court should have awarded six per cent. We think the judgment of the District Court was correct as to its authority to fix the interest. It is in accord with the weight of opinion as expressed by the Courts of Appeals and by the District Courts, and we think is necessitated by the provisions oif the Renegotiation Act. United States v. Bonnell, 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 145, 148; United States v. United Drill & Tool Corp., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 183 F.2d 998; United States v. Star Construction Co., Inc., 10 Cir., 186 F.2d 666, 669; United States v. Clark, D.C., 72 F.Supp. 393; United States v. American Metal Co., D.C., 86 F.Supp. 533; United States v. Hopkins, D.C., 95 F.Supp. 14. The applicable statute is the Renegotiation Act of 1942. It fixed no rate of interest and delegated to the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board no power'to fix the rate of interest. In addition, the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board was given no general authority to" }, { "docid": "23025278", "title": "", "text": "Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. The question here is whether the Government is obligated to pay interest in connection with the following land-purchase arrangements and condemnation proceedings. The Government made separate contracts with the petitioners to buy certain lands from them to be used for a public purpose. The contracts stipulated a purchase price to be paid at an indefinite future time when certain conditions had been fulfilled. They also granted the Government the right to immediate possession. Later the Government questioned the validity of the contracts and attempted to rescind them on the ground that by reason of fraud and other things the contract prices were grossly excessive and represented far more than the “just compensation” required by the Fifth Amendment. It filed condemnation proceedings in District Courts under 40 Stat. 241, as amended, 50 U. S. C. § 171, asking the Courts to fix “just compensation” after hearing evidence on that subject. It also filed a declaration of taking under 46 Stat. 1421, 40 U. S. C. § 258a, at the same time depositing in the Courts sums of money, substantially less than the contract prices, which it estimated to be the true “just compensation” for the property taken. The Courts then entered orders divesting the property owners of all title and vesting it in the Government. A companion case in which a District Court held an identical contract valid was appealed and eventually reached this Court. Prior to and pending this appeal these petitioners vigorously asserted the validity of the terms of the contracts which fixed the agreed prices for transfer of possession and title to their properties. Several years later this Court upheld the validity of the identical contract in the companion case. Thereupon the Government, complying with that decision, paid the full contract purchase prices into the District Courts. It prayed that the landowners’ compensation be fixed as the contract price without interest. Petitioners asserted that they had a right to interest from the time of the “taking,” guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment’s provision for “just compensation.” The Government contended that" }, { "docid": "13513721", "title": "", "text": "follow that an option contract, if procured by fraud upon the owner of the land, would be binding upon him. Indeed, as we read Muschany v. United States, 324 U.S. 49, 57, 58, 65 S.Ct. 442, 447, 89 L.Ed. 744, there is an intimation to the contrary. There, the Supreme Court said that the case came before it “without any suggestion of fraud or unfairness such as would justify holding the contracts invalid”; and that, inasmuch as the trial court’s findings on the issues of fraud, misrepresentation and duress were supported by substantial evidence and these issues were not a'rgued before the Supreme Court, an independent examination of these issues would not be undertaken under the guise of determining “just compensation.” As was said by Chief Justice Shields ■of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in Richardson v. Vicks, 125 Tenn. 532, 540, 145 S.W. 174, 176, “It is elementary law, of universal application, that fraud renders all contracts voidable, ab initio, at the option of the defrauded party, when diligently exercised, in the absence of intervening rights of innocent third parties.” In a condemnation case,whe;re there is substantial evidence that fraud was perpetrated by an agent of the United States in procuring an option on land taken for public use, where the issue involved is just compensation, there seems no reason whatever for departing from the accepted principle. There is substantial evidence that, as soon as the fraud was discovered, the owner of the land made his position clear that he did not intend to be bound by the option. He was entitled to go to the jury upon the issue of fraud in the procurement or mistake resulting from misrepresentation; and, if the jury should find that issue in his favor, to have a verdict rendered by the jury fixing just compensation for the land taken. Accordingly, the' judgment of the district court is reversed; and the cause is remanded for a new trial." }, { "docid": "22607541", "title": "", "text": "Mr. Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court. The United States instituted this suit on August 15, 1940, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia against United States Gypsum Com pany, five other corporate defendants, and seven individual defendants, as a civil proceeding under the Sherman Act. The complaint charged that the appellees had violated both §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to fix prices on patented gypsum board and unpatented gypsum products, to standardize gypsum board and its method of production for the purpose of eliminating competition, and to regulate the distribution of gypsum board by eliminating jobbers and fixing resale prices of manufacturing distributors. The Attorney General filed an expediting certificate on December 16, 1941, and on September 17, 1942, a three-judge court was constituted to hear the case. By amendment to the complaint the government charged that the article claims of five patents owned by United States Gypsum were invalid and void. The appellees moved to strike the amendment to the complaint or in the alternative for partial judgment dismissing the amendment. On November 15, 1943, the court granted appellees’ motion for partial judgment on the ground that the government had no standing to attack the validity of the patents in an antitrust proceeding. The case thereupon went to trial and upon conclusion of the government’s case on April 20, 1944, the appellees moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon the ground that on the facts and the law the government had shown no right to relief. On June 15, 1946, the court filed an opinion holding that the motion should be granted, and on August 5, 1946, the court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment dismissing the complaint. The government appealed directly to this Court, 32 Stat. 823, and probable jurisdiction was noted on December 16, 1946. The decisions below are reported as United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 53 F. Supp. 889 and 67 F. Supp. 397. United" }, { "docid": "23458582", "title": "", "text": "commerce. Certiorari was denied on February 26, 1945, 324 U.S. 849, 65 S.Ct. 685, 89 L.Ed. 1409. On June 18, 1945, the Supreme Court, without explanation, set aside its denial, 325 U.S. 849, 65 S.Ct. 1565, 89 L.Ed. 1970, granted certiorari and upon hearing reversed, 327 U.S. 173, 66 S.Ct. 379, 90 L.Ed. 603, remanding the cause to the district court for proceedings in accordance with its opinion. The appellees had sought answers to interrogatories concerning hourly wage rates, hours worked, the premises upon which they were employed, the names and businesses of the customers, and the workweek under which the appellant operated with respect to each claimant. The court ordered the interrogatories answered and gave the appellant a month to comply. Answers made were held not responsive and additional time was granted. After other delays, default was entered against the appellant for failure to respond to interrogatories, the court pointing out that it had provided adequate opportunity to present required information as a basis for computation of the individual claims and that appellant had failed to furnish any records. A motion to set aside the default was denied. The court concluded that the appellant had made every attempt to frustrate and defeat its mandated purpose of determining the sums due the respective claimants; that appellant’s course of conduct indicated that it was deliberately trying to confuse and impede progress; that its failure to make any attempt to give adequate and complete answers to the interrogatories left it with no alternative but to enter the order of default. From such order the appellant sought review in this court but its appeal was dismissed, 6 Cir., 164 F.2d 93, because it was not from a final judgment or decree. Upon remand the district court took evidence from the claimants as to hours of work and rates of pay, declined to receive appellant’s evidence or permit it to cross-examine witnesses, and finally, on November 26, 1947, entered judgment for the appellees in the sum of $3,417.02, with interest thereon from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court. It also denied" }, { "docid": "14608352", "title": "", "text": "interest at 6% per annum upon the amount of the award. In December, 1942, the government appealed from these judgments. This Court reversed the District Court on the ground that the purchase contracts were invalid. 139 F.2d 661. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 321 U.S. 760, 64 S.Ct. 846, 88 L.Ed. 1058, and reversed this Court, 324 U.S. 49, 65 S.Ct. 442, 89 L.Ed. 744, holding that the compensation recoverable by the appellees was to be determined from the contracts. Each of the cases was remanded by the Supreme Court to the District Court with directions “that such further proceedings be had in said cause, in conformity with the opinion and judgment of this Court [Supreme Court], as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had.” The mandates were filed April 2, 1945. On April 6, 1945, the government filed motions to modify the judgments by deleting the provisions with reference to the payment of interest on the awards. The court, 61 F.Supp. 199, denied the motions to modify, mainly upon the ground that the opinion and mandates of the Supreme Court precluded any modification of the judgments. The government has appealed, not from the judgments but from the order, in each case, “filed and entered July 10, 1945, overruling plaintiff’s motion to modify the judgment by deleting therefrom the payment of interest in addition to the optioned amount, and from the order of the Court entered on July 31, 1945, overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial or rehearing of said motion to delete.” The question which the government seeks to raise on these appeals is that of the right of the appellees to have interest. That question was not argued or ruled upon by this Court or by the Supreme Cotirt in the former appeals in these cases. If the question were reviewable on these appeals, it would be resolved in favor of the government under our decisions in Oliver v. United States, 155 F.2d 73, and United States v. Albrecht et al., 155 F.2d 77. The appellees contend" }, { "docid": "12194440", "title": "", "text": "by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, pursuant to Rule 71A(h), F.R.Civ.P. Trial was had before the commission and its report duly filed on April 20, 1965. The government filed written objections to the report, a hearing was had before one of the judges of the court and on July 15, 1965, the court entered a memorandum decision overruling the government’s objections to the report and confirming the same in all respects, including the commission’s findings as to just compensation to be allowed to appellees. On July 23, 1965, a formal order was entered journalizing the action of the court as reflected by the memorandum decision. The landowners, having not received all of the awarded compensation due them under the July 23rd order, on October 4, 1965, filed their motion to require the government to pay the deficiency and on October 14, 1965, the court sustained the motion in a journal entry entitled “Order Sustaining Motion to Direct United States of America to Pay Deficiency Plus Interest and Judgment and Order of Distribution.” At the October 14 hearing the government orally moved for the entry of a judgment in the matter. The order that was entered, recording the proceedings had at that time, contained not only an order directing the government to pay into the registry of the court the amount necessary to satisfy the full amount of compensation awarded plus interest but it contained all of the usual findings and orders of a journal entry concluding and closing a condemnation case. The precise question is whether the July 23 order, approving and confirming the commissioners’ report, constituted a final judgment as between appellant and appellees. At the outset, we are confronted with Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L. Ed. 911 and United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227, 78 S.Ct. 674, 2 L.Ed.2d 721. In Catlin a condemnation proceeding was involved and the appealability of an order entered was the issue. Speaking generally about a final appealable order in condemnation cases, the court said" }, { "docid": "8494110", "title": "", "text": "MOORE, District Judge. All of these cases, except Numbers 807 and 874, now come before this Court on motions filed in each by the plaintiff, United States of America, for entry of judgment in the amount of the compensation fixed in certain option contracts, but without interest thereon, and certain counter-motions by defendants asking for judgment with interest on the principal amounts since the date of taking. Numbers 807 and 874 (Muschany and Andrews cases) are here on motions by the plaintiff to delete interest from judgments already entered, but the issues therein presented differ only slightly. This opinion is to be considered as filed in and ruling all of the above numbered separate proceedings. The lengthy history of this condemnation litigation is already adequately documented in the Reports and needs no further recitation. The facts of the original proceedings appear in the contrary opinions of District Court Judges Davis and Collet, United States v. Certain Land Situate in St. Charles County, Mo., et al., D.C., 46 F.Supp. 921, and United States v. 94.68 Acres of Land in St. Charles County, Mo., et al., D.C., 45 F.Supp. 1016; in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in United States v. Muschany, 139 F.2d 661; and in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Muschany v. United States, 324 U.S. 49, 65 S.Ct. 442. In addition, the facts surrounding the present motions are ably stated in the opinion of Judge Hulen filed in Division No. 2 of this Court on the 4th day of May, 1945, 60 F.Supp. 741, covering identical motions in companion cases to those now before this division. The issues here presented differ in no respect from those decided by Judge Hulen and, with the above references to source materials where the facts may be found, the Court will state its views and holding on the issues presented, which, I deeply regret, are not in accord with those of my learned brother Hulen. After careful consideration of the various submitted briefs of counsel, the real issues presented for decision appear to be four in" }, { "docid": "13823069", "title": "", "text": "an appeal could be taken, and that it was desired to protect the right to appeal to have advantage of a decision on a similar question pending before the Supreme Court, and the judgment was signed without requiring notice to respondent; that the judgment recites that the matter was before the- court on motion of Consolidated Naval Stores Company which was an error, it being presented entirely by counsel for the United States; that in the orders of April 30, 1945, and July 26, 1945, the Court was not acting to amend the judgment of Aug. 6, 1942, but was making partial distribution of the money paid in under that judgment. Notwithstanding this certificate, we do not think there was anything wrong in the taking of the judgment by counsel for the United States. The record shows that on April 13, 1944, appellee filed a motion setting up that tax claims for 1942 had arisen, and $3,717 had been held in court from the money awarded it as compensation, and that the United States contended the loss was on appellee; and if that be correct, appellee asserted that the judgment of Aug. 6, 1942, did not include interest at 6% from the date of taking to the deposit of the money in court, as provided by the statute; and the prayer was \"that the Court enter an order herein amending the final judgment heretofore entered in this cause on Aug. 6, 1942, by providing that the just compensation to which respondent is entitled is the sum of $286,729 plus interest’ thereon at 6%.” The judge had testimony taken as to the stipulation on which the judgment of Aug. 6, 1942, was based, and after a hearing, on April 17, 1945, rendered an opinion holding that the interest was due by law, that some of the tax claims had not been prosecuted, but that for $1,542 payable to Polk County should be paid, and that appellee should have the $3,717 balance of the money in court, but the United States would be directed to pay into court a further deposit of" }, { "docid": "8313011", "title": "", "text": "agreements. Muschany et al. v. United States, 65 S.Ct. 442, 445, 89 L.Ed. —. The litigants are not now in accord in their interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the landowners insist that the opinion of the Supreme Court supports their claim for interest, and equally learned counsel for the Government insist with equal earnestness that the decision of the Supreme Court supports their position that no interest shall be paid. The question of interest was not directly before the Supreme Court, but it may serve some purpose in determining what effect that decision has on the present question, to examine the issues. Following the act of the Government in serving notice of repudiation of the option agreements, it proceeded to initiate condemnation proceedings, wholly without any reference to the option agreements, by filing, in the early part of 1941, (1) motion for Leave to File Petition for Order of Summons, which was granted; (2) petition to Condemn and Fix Compensation; (3) declaration of Taking, under Section 171, 50 U.S.C.A. and 46 Stat. p. 1421, 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a. Summons was issued and served upon the landowners. Pleadings of the landowners are now substantially in agreement. They allege the execution of the option contract between the Government and the landowner; that the Government is bound by the option agreement; and therefore without power to proceed under the condemnation statutes independent of the terms of the option contract. The Supreme Court, in connection with the issues presented by the pleadings, stated: “Thereafter the petitioners herein filed their answers in which they consented to the condemnation and demanded that the price which was fixed in the option, and accepted by the Government, be adopted by the trial court as just compensation.” (Emphasis added) Interpreting the contracts, under which the landowners now claim interest, the opinion states: “The offer was to sell to the Government at a fixed, definite price. The Government when it accepted this offer agreed to pay this set amount and no more. The contract contains no provision allowing adjustment of price based on possible" } ]

[ { "docid": "7084154", "title": "", "text": "one-year statute of limitations provided by article 1868(2) of the Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5298(2). A cause of action under article 1802 accrues — and the prescriptive period set by article 1868(2) therefore begins to run— when the injured party knew or should have known of the injury and of the likely identity of the tortfeasor. See Colon Prieto v. Geigel, 115 P.R. Dec. 232, 243, 1984 WL 270950 (1984). As noted above, the district court found that the cars in the M/V ORION HIGHWAY shipment were damaged at some point no later than February 23, 1993. This suit was filed on April 19, 1994, more than one year after the cause of action had accrued. Therefore, unless the prescription of the' cause of action was interrupted, the cause of action relating to the cars in the M/V ORION HIGHWAY shipment would be time-barred. Pursuant to article 1873 of the Civil Code, a prescriptive period may beJ interrupted in one of three ways: by the institution of an action “before the courts, by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.” P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303 (official translation 1991). Although prescription is an affirmative defense, once it has been raised, the burden of proving that prescription has been interrupted shifts to the plaintiff. See Velez Rodriguez v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc., 135 P.R. Dec.-, 1994 WL 909577, at *8 (Mar. 18, 1994); Zambrana, Maldonado v. Puerto Rico, 129 P.R. Dec.-, 1992 WL 754996, at *4 (Jan. 30, 1992). Under article 1874 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, the interruption of prescription against one defendant also tolls the statute against any other defendants who are solidarily liable with the first. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5304 (“Interruption of prescription of actions in joint obligations equally benefits or injures all the creditors or debtors.”) (official translation 1991); Arroyo v. Hospital La Concepcion, 130 P.R. Dec. -, 1992 WL 755630, at *6 (June 5, 1992). Regardless of the method used, when the prescriptive period is successfully interrupted," } ]

[ { "docid": "23145533", "title": "", "text": "punish the negligent prosecution of actions, see Silva Wiscovich, 87 J.T.S. at 5132, 5133; it seeks to promote stability in juridical relations, see Ortiz v. Municipality of Orocovis, 113 P.R.R. 619, and it pursues the practical concern of avoiding the institution of actions long after memories have faded. See generally De Jesús v. Chardón, 116 D.P.R. 238, 243 (1985). We must also pause to point out the fact that the courts of Puerto Rico have consistently observed that civil law tradition, and not common law, governs the rules applicable to limitation periods and tolling provisions under Puerto Rican law. Silva Wiscovich, 87 J.T.S. at 5131; Mortensen v. San Juan Mercantile Co., 87 J.T.S. 76, 5051 (1987); Olmo v. Young & Rubicam of P.R., Inc., 110 P.R.R. 965, 969 (1981); Febo Ortega v. Tribunal Superior, 102 P.R.R. 506, 509 (1974); De Jesús Martinez v. Chardón, 116 D.P.R. 238 n. 4 (1985). Moreover, the same cases reveal that the rules governing the limitation of actions form part of the substantive, not procedural, law of Puerto Rico. See also Feliciano v. A.A.A., 93 P.R.R. 638, 640 (1966). Thus, it is evident that special care must be taken when dealing with limitation problems under Puerto Rican law. Several other points of law are worthy of mention at this juncture in our discourse. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has stated that in view of the importance of the institution of “extinctive prescription” in the civil law tradition tolling provisions must be interpreted restrictively against the person invoking their protection. Diaz de Diana v. A.J.A.S. Ins. Co., 110 P.R.R. 602, 607-608, n. 1 (1980). See also Fernández v. Chardón, 681 F.2d 42, 54 (1st Cir.1982) (following this directive). It is also well established that once the period of limitations is interrupted through any of the ways available under Puerto Rico laws and the tolling ends, the statute of limitations begins to run anew, Díaz de Diana v. A.J.A.S. Ins. Co., 110 P.R.R. at 606; Duran Cepeda v. Morales Lebrón, 112 P.R.R. 776, 779 (1982); Silva Wiscovich v. The Weber Dental Manufacturing Co., 87 J.T.S. at" }, { "docid": "21084978", "title": "", "text": "trigger the six-month limitations period. DISCUSSION I. Claims Against the Agents Appellants do not dispute the settled proposition that their claims against Morán, Hernández, and two other unknown DEA agents are subject to Puerto Rico’s one-year statute of limitations governing, inter alia, personal injury torts. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31 § 5298(2) (1991); cf. Ramirez Morales v. Rosa Viera, 815 F.2d 2, 4 (1st Cir. 1987). Rather, they argue that the period, which would have barred their suit from being brought after April 21,1994, was tolled under the Puerto Rico tolling statute’s extrajudicial claim provision. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31 § 5303 (1991). Specifically, they argue that under the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s interpretation of the extrajudicial claim provision, their claim was tolled from the time of their August 18,1993 letter to the DEA (stating appellants’ “intent to submit a claim against the United States government” and requesting a “reprimand” of the officers) to at least January 4, 1994, the date of the government’s letter purportedly denying the claim, at which point, under Puerto Rico law, the one-year period would have been restarted at zero and would have begun to run anew. See Rodriguez Narvaez v. Nazario, 895 F.2d 38, 45 (1st Cir.1990). The problem -with appellants’ argument is that their August 18 letter — like the other letters they sent to the DEA — did not identify any legal claim against the individual officers, and therefore cannot be deemed to have tolled the statute of limitations as to the suit against the officers. Puerto Rico Supreme Court decisions applying the tolling provision of section 5303 indicate that one of the necessary requirements of an extrajudicial claim for the purposes of tolling is the requirement of “identity.” See Galib-Frangie v. El Vocero de Puerto Rico, 1995 WL 905884 (P.R.1995); see also Kery v. American Airlines, Inc., 931 F.Supp. 947, 951-53 (D.P.R.1995) (summarizing Puerto Rico Supreme Court interpretation of section 5303). The identity requirement means that the same right and the same relief affected by the statute of limitations must appear in the extrajudicial claim. See Nazario, 895 F.2d" }, { "docid": "2193037", "title": "", "text": "Fernandez, 681 F.2d at 49-50 (applying this rule to § 1983 claims). Under 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5303, “[prescription of actions is interrupted by their institution before the courts, by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.” When a complaint is filed in the Commonwealth courts, the statute of limitations begins to run anew from the date on which that action “comes to a definite end.” Silva-Wiscovich v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 835 F.2d 409, 410 (1st Cir.1987) (quoting Silva-Wiscovich v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 19 P.R. Offic. Trans. 592, 604, 119 P.R. Dec. 550 (1987)). Here, that date would be November 9, 2001, when Rodríguez-García voluntarily dismissed her state complaint. See id. (voluntary dismissal without prejudice brings action to definite end). Rodriguez-Garcia’s Puerto Rico complaint must assert causes of action “identical” to her federal claims in order to toll the statute of limitations as to those federal claims under § 5303. Rodriguez Narvaez, 895 F.2d at 43 (citing Fernandez, 681 F.2d at 49, and Ramirez de Arellano v. Alvarez de Choudens, 575 F.2d 315, 319-20 (1st Cir.1978)). “[T]he filing of one action does not toll the statute of limitations for all claims arising out of the same facts.” Fernandez, 681 F.2d at 49. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has approved this identicality requirement. See Cintron v. Estado Libre Asociado de P.R, 27 P.R. Offic. Trans. 582, 127 P.R. Dec. 582 (1990) (holding that a timely filed extrajudicial claim did not toll the statute of limitations for a suit in the Puerto Rico courts because it did not “pursue identical claims”). The identicality requirement prevents plaintiffs from circumventing the notice function of the statutes of limitations by asserting different claims in belated federal court complaints. Cf. Rodriguez Narvaez, 895 F.2d at 43 (statutes of limitations exist to prevent defendants from being surprised by long-dormant causes of action). In determining whether causes of action identical to Rodriguez-Garcia’s federal claims were brought in her state complaint, the first question is whether the basis for comparison is her original or her" }, { "docid": "11477", "title": "", "text": "in regards to [the Port Authority] not being time barred, and joint liability between [the Port Authority] and American having been alleged, the interruption of the prescriptive term with regards to [the Port Authority] interrupted the term equally for American.” Id. (citing Martínez Díaz v. E.L.A., 132 D.P.R. 200 (1992)); see also García Colón v. Garcia Rinaldi, 340 F.Supp.2d 113, 126 (D.P.R.2004) (holding that by sending extrajudicial claim letter to one physician, malpractice plaintiff effectively tolled the statute of limitations as to the other joint tortfeasors including another physician and the hospital, thereby rendering suit against the others, outside the one-year limitations period, timely). Suzuki acknowledges that these cases support the proposition that “the filing of an extrajudicial claim letter toll[s] the running of the statute of limitations, even against those parties to whom a tolling letter had not been sent,” but attempts to distinguish them on the ground that Rodriguez did not file an extrajudicial claim, but rather, instituted a judicial action. We find this distinction unpersuasive. As noted above, Article 1873 provides three mechanisms which can be employed to toll the statute of limitations, and these include, inter alia, filing an “extrajudicial claim” and “instituti[ng] [an action] before the courts.” P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303. Neither the statute nor the case law provide a basis for differentiating among these mechanisms with respect to the consequences of solidarity upon their operation, nor does Suzuki provide us such a basis. In fact, the case law suggests the contrary. For example, in Tokyo Marine, when discussing the § 5303 tolling mechanism in the context of the solidarity doctrine, we stated as follows: [T]he interruption of prescription against one defendant also tolls the statute against any other defendants who are solidarily liable with the first. Regardless of the method used, when the prescriptive period is successfully interrupted, the full period begins to run again. 142 F.3d at 4 (emphasis added and footnote and citation omitted). Although in Tokyo Marine the statute of limitations was tolled via the filing of an extrajudicial claim letter, we stated that the result would be" }, { "docid": "15163290", "title": "", "text": "June 30, 2008)). Thus, we apply Puerto Rico’s tolling rules. Puerto Rico’s tolling rules provide three ways that a plaintiff can interrupt the statute of limitations, which, as relevant here, include the sending of an “extrajudicial” letter. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303. “[A] letter sent by a tort plaintiff to the tortfeasor, complaining of the tortious conduct and demanding compensation, is an extrajudicial claim that, if timely, interrupts the prescription of the cause of action in tort.” Tokyo Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Pérez y Cía. De P.R., Inc., 142 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st. Cir.1998). We note, however, that an extrajudicial letter will not toll the limitations period “ ‘for all claims arising out of the same facts.’ ” Municipality of Caguas, 354 F.3d at 97 (quoting Fernandez v. Chardón, 681 F.2d 42, 49 (1st Cir.1982)). The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has limited the tolling effect of an extrajudicial letter to situations where the letter is “identical” to a subsequently filed complaint. Id. (citing Cintron v. Estado Libre Asociado de P.R., 27 P.R. Offic. Trans. 582, 1990 WL 658719 (1990)). This identicality requirement has three components. First, the extrajudicial letter and subsequent complaint “must seek the same form of relief.” Id. at 98. Second, “[t]he causes of action asserted [in the complaint] must be based on the same substantive claims” as asserted in the extrajudicial letter. Id. Lastly, “provided that other Puerto Rico tolling statutes do not rescue the claims on other grounds, they must be asserted against the same defendants in the same capacities; new defendants should not be added.” Id. Before we proceed to our analysis as to whether the identicality requirement is met here, we note some tension in the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s approach to identicality and its tolling provisions. On the one hand, it has stated, and we have often repeated, that the “tolling provisions [are] interpreted restrictively against the party invoking their protection.” Nieves-Vega v. Ortiz-Quiñones, 443 F.3d 134, 137 (1st Cir.2006) (quoting Rodríguez Narváez, 895 F.2d at 43); see also Díaz de Diana v. A.J.A.S., 10 P.R. Offic. Trans." }, { "docid": "23145531", "title": "", "text": "the first of them, however, we need not travel far. Ever since the days of the Spanish-American war it has been the law of Puerto Rico that the limitations period for tort actions, or “obligations arising from fault or negligence,” is the one year limitations period provided by Article 1868(2) of the Civil Code, P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5298(2). De León Otero v. Rubero, 820 F.2d 18, 19 (1st Cir.1987); Ramírez Morales v. Rosa Viera, 815 F.2d, at 4; Altair Corp. v. Pesquera de Busquets, 769 F.2d, at 31; Rivera Fernández v. Chardón, 648 F.2d, at 766; Ramírez de Arellano v. Alvarez de Choudens, 575 F.2d, at 318; Hernández del Valle v. Santa Aponte, 575 F.2d 321 (1st Cir.1978); Graffals González v. García Santiago, 550 F.2d 687, 688 (1st Cir.1977). See also Díaz Maldonado v. Lacot, 89 J.T.S. 14, 6602 (1989); Delgado Rodríguez v. Nazario de Ferrer, 88 J.T.S. 63, 5867 (1988); Silva Wiscovich v. The Weber Dental Manufacturing Co., 87 J.T.S. 93 (1987). It is therefore unnecessary to pursue this point any further. Turning to the tolling issue, however, we observe that although this path has been just as well travelled in our courts, it does require a little clearing. We therefore digress for a moment and proceed to present it in expository form. We begin with bedrock concepts of Puerto Rico’s limitation laws. Le raison d’etre of the doctrine of “extinctive prescription” has been worded differently at different periods of time by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, but we consider the ensuing definition to be a fair representation of it. In Agulló v. ASERCO, 104 P.R.R. 346, 351 (1975), following the lead of a renowned Spanish commentator, the Court stated: The statutory limitation of actions protects ... a very concrete particular interest: the interest of an individual not to be exposed to old claims, of which memory has been lost, because silence has created an objective and reasonable confidence that the right or power would not be exercised. Diez Picazo, La Prescripción en el Código Civil, (1964), p. 56. Thus, its objective is threefold: it attempts to" }, { "docid": "20997453", "title": "", "text": "Rico, that statute is Civil Code Art. 1868, codified at P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5298(2) (1995), which provides a one-year period for personal tort actions. As for the tolling of such period, the Puerto Rico Civil Code, at Art. 1873, provides that: [The][p]rescription of actions is interrupted by their institution before the courts, by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303 (Official translation 1990). Whenever the running of a statute of limitations is tolled by any of these three methods, the period of limitations begins to run again from the beginning. Diaz-de-Diana v. A.J.A.S. Ins. Co., 110 P.R. Dec. 471 (1980). The third method, voluntary acknowledgment of debt, is not applicable to this case because the defendants have not admitted responsibility. The first method of tolling is likewise inapplicable. Although at first blush the filing of an administrative claim may seem akin to the filing of a complaint in the courts, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has held that the filing of administrative claims is instead to be analyzed as an extrajudicial claim. Secretario del Trabajo v. Finetex Hosiery Co., 116 P.R. Dec. 823, 826-27 (1986); Cintrón v. E.L.A., 127 P.R. Dec. 582, 593 (1990). The principal distinction between these two methods is that the filing of a complaint in court will toll the running of the statute of limitations even if the complaint is not notified to the defendant, while an extrajudicial claim must be notified to the defendant if it is to have a tolling effect. Compare Silva-Wiscovich v. The Weber Dental Manufacturing Co., 835 F.2d 409 (1987) (statute of limitations was tolled by filing of suit, even when suit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs before serving process upon the defendants), with Secretario del Trábalo v. Finetex, 116 P.R. Dec. at 827 (timely notification of administrative charge tolls running of statute of limitations). The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has often relied on a definition of “extrajudicial claim” written by a Spanish commentator: In principle, claim stands" }, { "docid": "21443879", "title": "", "text": "case. Finally, the plaintiff asserts that summary judgment is generally inapplicable in actions raising equitable tolling or estoppel arguments, and that genuine issues of material fact in this case precluded the grant of summary judgment. We review motions for summary judgment de novo. See Associated Fisheries of Maine, Inc. v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104, 108-09 (1st Cir.1997). Discussion State law statutes of limitations govern suits in federal courts arising under § 1983. See Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980). In Wilson v. Garcia, the Supreme Court - determined that the state statute of limitations applicable in tort actions for personal injuries governs § 1983 claims. See 471 U.S. 261, 276-80, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1947-49, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). The plaintiff does not dispute that Puerto Rico law establishes a one year prescription period for the claims in this ease. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5298 (1994); Rodriguez Narvaez v. Nazario, 895 F.2d 38, 41-42 (1st Cir.1990). The one year period begins running one day after the date of accrual, which is the date plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the injury. See Carreras-Rosa v. Alves-Cruz, 127 F.3d 172 (1st Cir.1997): The tolling of the statute of limitations is also governed by state law. See, e.g., Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404, 407 (1st Cir.1990). Article 1873 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico provides that extrajudicial claims will toll the one-year statute of limitations: Prescription of actions is interrupted by their institution before the courts, [or] by extrajudicial claims of the creditor____ P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303 (1994). “[T]he tolling is effective with regard only to identical causes of action. The statute of limitations is not tolled for all claims arising out of the same facts.... ” Rodriguez Narvaez, 895 F.2d at 43 (citations omitted). Moreover, the relief requested in the extrajudicial claim must be the same relief that is later requested in court. See Riofrio Anda v. Ralston Purina, Co., 959 F.2d 1149, 1154 (1st Cir.1992); Rodriguez Narvaez, 895 F.2d at 44;" }, { "docid": "2193036", "title": "", "text": "Corp. v. Pesquera de Busquets, 769 F.2d 30, 31 (1st Cir.1985). Federal law determines the date on which the claim accrued. Rivera-Muriente v. Agosto-Alicea, 959 F.2d 349, 353 (1st Cir.1992). Under federal law, the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis for his claim.” Rodriguez Narvaez v. Nazario, 895 F.2d 38, 41 n. 5 (1st Cir.1990). The parties do not appear to dispute that the claim accrued on February 29, 2000, when Rodríguez-García was transferred to the Office of Federal Funds and Affairs. Absent any tolling, Rodríguez-García had to file her federal complaint on or before March 1, 2001. The issue, then, is whether Rodriguez-Garcia’s filing of her state complaint on October 25, 2000, and her later amendment of that complaint on August 31, 2001, tolled the statute of limitations. Where suit is brought in Puerto Rico, federal law under §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 borrows Puerto Rico law on tolling, provided that it is consistent with underlying federal policy. See Fernandez, 681 F.2d at 49-50 (applying this rule to § 1983 claims). Under 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5303, “[prescription of actions is interrupted by their institution before the courts, by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.” When a complaint is filed in the Commonwealth courts, the statute of limitations begins to run anew from the date on which that action “comes to a definite end.” Silva-Wiscovich v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 835 F.2d 409, 410 (1st Cir.1987) (quoting Silva-Wiscovich v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 19 P.R. Offic. Trans. 592, 604, 119 P.R. Dec. 550 (1987)). Here, that date would be November 9, 2001, when Rodríguez-García voluntarily dismissed her state complaint. See id. (voluntary dismissal without prejudice brings action to definite end). Rodriguez-Garcia’s Puerto Rico complaint must assert causes of action “identical” to her federal claims in order to toll the statute of limitations as to those federal claims under § 5303. Rodriguez Narvaez, 895 F.2d at 43 (citing Fernandez, 681 F.2d at 49," }, { "docid": "23145534", "title": "", "text": "also Feliciano v. A.A.A., 93 P.R.R. 638, 640 (1966). Thus, it is evident that special care must be taken when dealing with limitation problems under Puerto Rican law. Several other points of law are worthy of mention at this juncture in our discourse. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has stated that in view of the importance of the institution of “extinctive prescription” in the civil law tradition tolling provisions must be interpreted restrictively against the person invoking their protection. Diaz de Diana v. A.J.A.S. Ins. Co., 110 P.R.R. 602, 607-608, n. 1 (1980). See also Fernández v. Chardón, 681 F.2d 42, 54 (1st Cir.1982) (following this directive). It is also well established that once the period of limitations is interrupted through any of the ways available under Puerto Rico laws and the tolling ends, the statute of limitations begins to run anew, Díaz de Diana v. A.J.A.S. Ins. Co., 110 P.R.R. at 606; Duran Cepeda v. Morales Lebrón, 112 P.R.R. 776, 779 (1982); Silva Wiscovich v. The Weber Dental Manufacturing Co., 87 J.T.S. at 5133; Chardón v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. at 661, 103 S.Ct. at 2618; Fernández v. Chardón, 681 F.2d, at 49. Lastly, tolling the statute as to one jointly and severally liable defendant tolls it as to all, P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5304, Rivera Otero v. Casco Sales Co., 115 D.P.R. 662, 667 (1984), but the tolling is effective with regard only to identical causes of action. The statute of limitations is not tolled for all claims arising out of the same facts, Ramírez de Arellano v. Alvarez de Choudens, 575 F.2d, at 319-320; Fernández v. Chardón, 681 F.2d, at 49. We now introduce the specific tolling provisions prescribed by Puerto Rican law. They are found in Article 1873 of the Civil Code, P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303, which states: Prescription of actions is interrupted by their institution before the courts, by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and by any act of acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor. See Federal Insurance Co. v. Banco Popular, 750 F.2d 1095, 1098 (1st Cir.1983); Ramírez de" }, { "docid": "15163292", "title": "", "text": "602, 608 n. 1, 1980 WL 138494 (1980). On the other hand, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has also stated that extrajudicial claims should be analyzed in [their] “totality and in a liberal fashion,” Pitts v. United States, 109 F.3d 832, 835 n. 4 (1st Cir.1997) (citing Zambrana Maldonado v. Commonwealth, 129 D.P.R. 740,1992 WL 755000 (P.R. Jan. 30, 1992)). Also, consistent with a more liberal approach to tolling, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has remarked that it favors conservation of rights as “the norm.” See Kery v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 931 F.Supp. 947, 952 (D.P.R.1995); Galib Frangie v. El Vocero de Puerto Rico, 138 D.P.R. 560, 1995 WL 905884 (P.R. June 6, 1995) (“The prescription of the right is the exception, being its exercise or conservation the norm, because of which the law propitiates the exercise and conservation of rights through the use of prescription’s interruptive mechanisms.”). Despite this potentially contradictory guidance, however, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has not departed from the principle that an extrajudicial letter in order to toll the statute of limitations with respect to subsequent claims must give fair notice of the claims that are subsequently raised. It has explained the term “extrajudicial claim” as follows: Our Civil Code has not given to the word “claim” any precise or technical meaning. But this does not exempt us from trying to find it. In principle, a claim stands for demand or notice. That is: it is an act for which the holder of a subjective right, addresses the passive subject of said right, demanding that he adopt the required conduct. The claim is, then, a pretension in a technical sense. Cintrón, 27 P.R. Offic. Trans, at 592, 1990 WL 658719. Likewise, we have recognized this important principle in our case law, stating that “[t]he identicality requirement prevents plaintiffs from circumventing the notice function of the statutes of limitations by asserting different claims in belated federal court complaints.” Municipality of Caguas, 354 F.3d at 97. 1. Identicality and Plaintiffs’ Supervisory Liability Claims We first consider whether plaintiffs’ extrajudicial claim letter is sufficiently identical to their subsequent" }, { "docid": "11462", "title": "", "text": "prescription of actions can be interrupted or “tolled”: “[ (1) ] [B]y their institution before the courts, [ (2) ] by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and [ (3) ] by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.” P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303; see also Tokyo Marine, 142 F.3d at 4. When a plaintiff tolls the statute of limitations by bringing an action before the courts, “the mere filing of the complaint has a tolling effect,” rather than service of the summons. See Duran Cepeda v. Morales Lebrón, 112 D.P.R. 623, 12 P.R. Offic. Trans. 776, 779, 1982 WL 210627 (P.R. April 14, 1982). Moreover, the filing of an action tolls the statute of limitations even if “plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss[ ] the action without prejudice before the defendants ha[ve] been summonsed.” Silva Wiscovich v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 19 P.R. Offic. Trans. 592, 604 (1987) (resolving question certified to it by this court); see also Silva-Wiscovich v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 835 F.2d 409, 410 (1st Cir.1987) (subsequent review after Puerto Rico Supreme Court addressed certification question). “Under Puerto Rico tolling rules, which are based on the Spanish civil law, the institution of an action in court is commonly held not only to interrupt the running of the applicable statute of limitations but, at least in the event of a voluntary or usual non-prejudicial dismissal of the original action, to cause the entire limitations period to run anew from the date the previous action came to a definite end.” López-González v. Mun. of Comerlo, 404 F.3d 548 (1st Cir.2005) (citing Silva-Wiscovich, 835 F.2d at 410). An action comes to a “definite end,” inter alia, on the date upon which such action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. See Rodríguez-García, 354 F.3d at 97 (quoting Silva-Wiscovich, 835 F.2d at 410). Applying these tolling principles to the facts before us, we can conclude that if Rodriguez had in fact interrupted the statute of limitations with respect to his products liability suit against Suzuki when he instituted the 2002 Action (see infra, Section II.D.), then this tolling effect persisted" }, { "docid": "8918766", "title": "", "text": "to stop the harassment; (6) the manipulation of the internal grievance procedures; and (7) a constructive discharge on March 24, 1998. See Docket Document No. 58. Plaintiff left work due to a physical injury on July 24, 1997. She filed suit over a year later, on August 4,1998. Since Plaintiffs suit is governed by a one-year statute of limitations, any alleged discriminatory act that occurred while she was still physically present at PREPA is necessarily time-barred. Although Plaintiff acknowledges that many of the purportedly discriminatory acts occurred outside of the statute of limitations period, she asserts that she was harassed and constructively discharged in the one-year period before she filed suit. Id. We evaluate infra when and if Plaintiffs claims of harassment and constructive discharge accrued. 4. Tolling of the Statute of Limitations: Extrajudicial Claims Article 1873 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. § 5303 (1991), governs the interruption of the one-year statute of limitations period in personal injury actions. Tokyo Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Perez & Cia., De Puerto Rico, 142 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1998). Section 5303 provides that the “[pjrescription of actions is interrupted by their institution before the courts, by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.” 31 L.P.R.A. § 5303. Plaintiff carries the burden of proving that the prescriptive period has been tolled. Tokyo Marine, 142 F.3d at 4. Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendants with the Puerto Rico Department of Labor on July 9, 1997, which alleged political discrimination and harassment. Docket Document No. 58, Exhs. I, XII. We need not decide whether this complaint constitutes an extrajudicial claim or whether it tolled the statute of limitations. Extrajudicial tolling under 31 L.P.R.A. § 5303 restarts the statute of limitations on the date of the extrajudicial claim. See Tokyo Marine, 142 F.3d at 4 (“[W]hen the prescriptive period is successfully interrupted, the full period begins to run again.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Diaz De Diana v. A.J.A.S. Ins. Co., 110 D.P.R. 471, 475, 110 P.R. Offic. Trans. 597, 606 (1980)" }, { "docid": "15163289", "title": "", "text": "claims. Rodríguez-García v. Municipality of Caguas, 354 F.3d 91, 96 (1st Cir.2004) (citing Wilson v. García, 471 U.S. 261, 277-80, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985)). The parties agree that Puerto Rico’s one-year prescriptive period governing tort actions is the statute of limitations applicable to plaintiffs’ claims. See id. (citing P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5298(2)). While we look to Puerto Rico law to determine the applicable prescriptive period, “federal law determines the date on which the claim accrued.” Id. at 96. The limitations period “begins to run when the plaintiff ‘knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis for his claim.’ ” Id. at 96-97 (quoting Rodríguez Narváez v. Nazario, 895 F.2d 38, 41 n. 5 (1st Cir.1990)). The “limitations period of actions is a substantive, not a procedural, matter” in Puerto Rico. Rodríguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 570 F.3d 402, 406 (1st Cir.2009) (citing García Pérez v. Corporación de Servicios para la Mujer y la Familia, etc., 2008 TSPR 114, 2008 WL 2717833, at *4 (P.R. June 30, 2008)). Thus, we apply Puerto Rico’s tolling rules. Puerto Rico’s tolling rules provide three ways that a plaintiff can interrupt the statute of limitations, which, as relevant here, include the sending of an “extrajudicial” letter. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303. “[A] letter sent by a tort plaintiff to the tortfeasor, complaining of the tortious conduct and demanding compensation, is an extrajudicial claim that, if timely, interrupts the prescription of the cause of action in tort.” Tokyo Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Pérez y Cía. De P.R., Inc., 142 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st. Cir.1998). We note, however, that an extrajudicial letter will not toll the limitations period “ ‘for all claims arising out of the same facts.’ ” Municipality of Caguas, 354 F.3d at 97 (quoting Fernandez v. Chardón, 681 F.2d 42, 49 (1st Cir.1982)). The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has limited the tolling effect of an extrajudicial letter to situations where the letter is “identical” to a subsequently filed complaint. Id. (citing Cintron v. Estado Libre Asociado de P.R.," }, { "docid": "3036746", "title": "", "text": "tolled due to her extrajudiciary claims filed with the Department of Labor and the EEOC. Pursuant to Article 1873 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, a plaintiff can interrupt the prescriptive period in one of three ways. “Prescription of actions is interrupted by their institution before the courts, by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.” 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5303 (Lexis Pub.1998); see also Tokyo Marine and Fire Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Pérez & Cia. De Puerto Rico, Inc., 142 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1998). It is settled that for an extrajudicial claim to toll the statute of limitations, it must contain identical causes of action as the claim asserted in court. See Matos Ortiz, 103 F.Supp.2d at 62; León-Nogueras v. Univ. Of Puerto Rico, 964 F.Supp. 585, 589 (D.Puerto Rico 1997). Defendants argue that the filing of a charge with the EEOC or the Anti-Discrimination Unit of the DOL cannot serve to toll the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim. Defendants additionally argue that Plaintiffs claims under Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code cannot be tolled by Plaintiffs extrajudicial claims. Plaintiff counters, without any jurisprudential support, that her claim filed with the Anti-Discrimination Unit of the Department of Labor tolls the prescriptive date on her Section 1983 and Article 1802 and 1803 claims. This Court has clearly held that “the EEOC has no jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to § 1983, and thus, a charge filed with the EEOC or Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Unit cannot serve to toll the limitations period for a § 1983 claim.” Sifre v. Department of Health, 38 F.Supp.2d 91, 96 (D.Puerto Rico 1999) (Pieras, J.); see also Matos Ortiz, 103 F.Supp.2d at 62, León-Nogueras, 964 F.Supp. at 589. However, the ease law is not so clear as to whether a claim filed with the DOL or the EEOC would toll the applicable statute of limitations for a plaintiffs claims brought under Articles 1802 or 1803. Case law clearly demonstrates that claims brought under Title VII or" }, { "docid": "15163291", "title": "", "text": "27 P.R. Offic. Trans. 582, 1990 WL 658719 (1990)). This identicality requirement has three components. First, the extrajudicial letter and subsequent complaint “must seek the same form of relief.” Id. at 98. Second, “[t]he causes of action asserted [in the complaint] must be based on the same substantive claims” as asserted in the extrajudicial letter. Id. Lastly, “provided that other Puerto Rico tolling statutes do not rescue the claims on other grounds, they must be asserted against the same defendants in the same capacities; new defendants should not be added.” Id. Before we proceed to our analysis as to whether the identicality requirement is met here, we note some tension in the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s approach to identicality and its tolling provisions. On the one hand, it has stated, and we have often repeated, that the “tolling provisions [are] interpreted restrictively against the party invoking their protection.” Nieves-Vega v. Ortiz-Quiñones, 443 F.3d 134, 137 (1st Cir.2006) (quoting Rodríguez Narváez, 895 F.2d at 43); see also Díaz de Diana v. A.J.A.S., 10 P.R. Offic. Trans. 602, 608 n. 1, 1980 WL 138494 (1980). On the other hand, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has also stated that extrajudicial claims should be analyzed in [their] “totality and in a liberal fashion,” Pitts v. United States, 109 F.3d 832, 835 n. 4 (1st Cir.1997) (citing Zambrana Maldonado v. Commonwealth, 129 D.P.R. 740,1992 WL 755000 (P.R. Jan. 30, 1992)). Also, consistent with a more liberal approach to tolling, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has remarked that it favors conservation of rights as “the norm.” See Kery v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 931 F.Supp. 947, 952 (D.P.R.1995); Galib Frangie v. El Vocero de Puerto Rico, 138 D.P.R. 560, 1995 WL 905884 (P.R. June 6, 1995) (“The prescription of the right is the exception, being its exercise or conservation the norm, because of which the law propitiates the exercise and conservation of rights through the use of prescription’s interruptive mechanisms.”). Despite this potentially contradictory guidance, however, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has not departed from the principle that an extrajudicial letter in order to toll the statute" }, { "docid": "11461", "title": "", "text": "proceeds as follows. He argues that by filing the 2002 Action against Rainbow and Panorama within one-year of the accident, on June 20, 2002, Rodriguez “tolled” the statute of limitations with respect to all parties jointly and severally liable with those companies, including Suzuki, even though Suzuki was never a party to the 2002 Action. Rodriguez further contends that when the 2002 Action was dismissed without prejudice on November 10, 2003, the one-year statute of limitations was reset and began to run anew, rendering his 2004 Action against Suzuki, filed six months later on May 10, 2004, timely as well. Finally, Rodriguez contends that when the 2004 Action was dismissed without prejudice on February 9, 2005, he again had one year from that date to file a subsequent action. Thus, Rodriguez takes the position that when he filed the instant action within 362 days from the dismissal of the 2004 action, on February 6, 2006, the action had not prescribed. We agree. Article 1873 of Puerto Rico’s Civil Code provides three mechanisms by which the prescription of actions can be interrupted or “tolled”: “[ (1) ] [B]y their institution before the courts, [ (2) ] by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and [ (3) ] by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.” P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303; see also Tokyo Marine, 142 F.3d at 4. When a plaintiff tolls the statute of limitations by bringing an action before the courts, “the mere filing of the complaint has a tolling effect,” rather than service of the summons. See Duran Cepeda v. Morales Lebrón, 112 D.P.R. 623, 12 P.R. Offic. Trans. 776, 779, 1982 WL 210627 (P.R. April 14, 1982). Moreover, the filing of an action tolls the statute of limitations even if “plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss[ ] the action without prejudice before the defendants ha[ve] been summonsed.” Silva Wiscovich v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 19 P.R. Offic. Trans. 592, 604 (1987) (resolving question certified to it by this court); see also Silva-Wiscovich v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 835 F.2d 409, 410 (1st Cir.1987) (subsequent review after" }, { "docid": "20997452", "title": "", "text": "ORDER DOMINGUEZ, District Judge. On June 24, 1996, the Court entered partial judgment dismissing as barred by the statute of limitations several of the plaintiff’s claims, including the claims against Dr. Janice Gordils under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Puerto Rico’s Law 17 (P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 155 (1995)), and Law 69 (P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 1321 (1995)). On July 1, 1996, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court should reconsider the dismissal of the claims against Dr. Gordils. Docket No. 57. The plaintiffs motion involves a question of tolling of statutes of limitation. “Civil rights actions are characterized by the fact that § 1983 does not contain a specific statute of limitations.... Consequently, courts have been encouraged to borrow the state statute of limitations which is most appropriate ... or most analogous, to the particular Section 1983 claim____ [T]he most analogous state limitations period will generally be the one reserved for personal torts.” Rodriguez-Narváez v. Nazario, 895 F.2d 38, 41-42 (1st Cir.1990) (citations omitted). In Puerto Rico, that statute is Civil Code Art. 1868, codified at P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5298(2) (1995), which provides a one-year period for personal tort actions. As for the tolling of such period, the Puerto Rico Civil Code, at Art. 1873, provides that: [The][p]rescription of actions is interrupted by their institution before the courts, by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303 (Official translation 1990). Whenever the running of a statute of limitations is tolled by any of these three methods, the period of limitations begins to run again from the beginning. Diaz-de-Diana v. A.J.A.S. Ins. Co., 110 P.R. Dec. 471 (1980). The third method, voluntary acknowledgment of debt, is not applicable to this case because the defendants have not admitted responsibility. The first method of tolling is likewise inapplicable. Although at first blush the filing of an administrative claim may seem akin to the filing of a complaint in the courts, the Supreme Court of Puerto" }, { "docid": "21084979", "title": "", "text": "Puerto Rico law, the one-year period would have been restarted at zero and would have begun to run anew. See Rodriguez Narvaez v. Nazario, 895 F.2d 38, 45 (1st Cir.1990). The problem -with appellants’ argument is that their August 18 letter — like the other letters they sent to the DEA — did not identify any legal claim against the individual officers, and therefore cannot be deemed to have tolled the statute of limitations as to the suit against the officers. Puerto Rico Supreme Court decisions applying the tolling provision of section 5303 indicate that one of the necessary requirements of an extrajudicial claim for the purposes of tolling is the requirement of “identity.” See Galib-Frangie v. El Vocero de Puerto Rico, 1995 WL 905884 (P.R.1995); see also Kery v. American Airlines, Inc., 931 F.Supp. 947, 951-53 (D.P.R.1995) (summarizing Puerto Rico Supreme Court interpretation of section 5303). The identity requirement means that the same right and the same relief affected by the statute of limitations must appear in the extrajudicial claim. See Nazario, 895 F.2d at 44; Kery, 931 F.Supp. at 954. To satisfy this requirement, the extrajudicial claim must be made against the same debtor or passive subject of the right in question, and not against a third party. Nazario, 895 F.2d at 44 (citing Velilla v. Pueblo Supermarkets, Inc., 111 P.R.R. 732, 734-35 (P.R.1981)). Appellants’ August 18 letter, addressed to the associate chief counsel of the DEA, states an intent to make a “claim against the United States government” and also requests an official “reprimand” of the officers involved. It does not assert any legal claims directly against the officers. The letter, therefore, fails to satisfy the requirement of identity for the purposes of the extrajudicial claim doctrine. Appellants, citing the Galib-Frangie decision, argue that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has recently ruled that the extrajudicial claim doctrine should be applied liberally. We are not persuaded by this argument, because nowhere in the Galib-Frangie opinion, or, to our knowledge, in any other recent decision of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, is there any support for a departure from" }, { "docid": "3036745", "title": "", "text": "actual period begins to run when the aggrieved person “knows, or has reason to know, of the injury on which the action is based.” Rivera-Muriente, 959 F.2d at 353; see also Muñiz-Cabrero, 23 F.3d at 610. Under this reasoning, “the one year period begins one day after the date of accrual.” Benítez-Pons v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 136 F.3d 54, 59 (1st Cir.1998); see also Carreras-Rosa, 127 F.3d at 174. Defendants argue that the statute of limitations should have begun to run in either 1997, or at least, on January 25, 1999. However, Plaintiff argues that the date should be later because of her retaliatory claims. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs retaliatory claims would have stemmed from retaliatory actions taken directly after her claims were filed. See Matos Ortiz, 103 F.Supp.2d at 62. Therefore, the latest possible moment to accrue Plaintiffs claim would be August 1999. Plaintiff filed the current case on March 12, 2001. At first blush, it would appear that Plaintiffs claims are indeed out of term. However, Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations was tolled due to her extrajudiciary claims filed with the Department of Labor and the EEOC. Pursuant to Article 1873 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, a plaintiff can interrupt the prescriptive period in one of three ways. “Prescription of actions is interrupted by their institution before the courts, by extrajudicial claim of the creditor, and by any act of acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.” 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5303 (Lexis Pub.1998); see also Tokyo Marine and Fire Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Pérez & Cia. De Puerto Rico, Inc., 142 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1998). It is settled that for an extrajudicial claim to toll the statute of limitations, it must contain identical causes of action as the claim asserted in court. See Matos Ortiz, 103 F.Supp.2d at 62; León-Nogueras v. Univ. Of Puerto Rico, 964 F.Supp. 585, 589 (D.Puerto Rico 1997). Defendants argue that the filing of a charge with the EEOC or the Anti-Discrimination Unit of the DOL cannot serve to toll the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim." } ]

[ { "docid": "5156236", "title": "", "text": "might have been able to replicate such an agreement if he lost the suppression motion — with victory on appeal on the horizon. Moreover, counsel in Premo made an informed decision not to move to suppress after consulting with his client. Here, counsel’s decision was not only wrong, but it was uninformed; counsel did not speak with Serrano about suppression, did not discuss the possibility of a Zudick plea, and most importantly, made no inquiries about the facts surrounding the confession which may have clarified to counsel that a suppression motion would have been meritorious and worthwhile. See Evid. Hr’g Tr. 23:4-7, 23:13-14 (confirming that Thompson did not inquire as to the circumstances of the interrogation). Counsel’s performance “cannot he accord[ed] the normal deference to strategic choices [where] it was uninformed.” Rolan v. Vaughn, 445 F.3d 671, 682 (3d Cir.2006) (citing United States v. Kauffman, 109 F.3d 186, 190 (3d Cir.1997)). Even if Serrano’s counsel had declined to move to suppress for strategic reasons, then, his uninformed strategic choice would not he afforded the normal deference given to strategic decisions made by trial counsel. B. Prejudice “With respect to prejudice, a challenger must demonstrate ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 787 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Where a petitioner has pled guilty to a charge, the petitioner must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Premo, 131 S.Ct. at 743 (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985)). A “reasonable probability is one ‘sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” United States v. Gray, 878 F.2d 702, 710 (3d Cir.1989) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052). See generally United States v. Kauffman, 109 F.3d 186, 191 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that a defendant was prejudiced where his counsel failed" } ]

[ { "docid": "23047608", "title": "", "text": "his client. For example, calling some witnesses and not others is “the epitome of a strategic decision.” [Waters, 46 F.3d] at 1512 (en banc); see also id. at 1518-19 (en banc); Felker v. Thomas, 52 F.3d 907, 912 (11th Cir.1995) (whether to pursue residual doubt or another defense is strategy left to counsel, which court must not second-guess); Stanley v. Zant, 697 F.2d 955, 964 (11th Cm. 1983) (stating that reliance on line of defense to exclusion of others is matter of strategy). Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1314 n. 14. The Strickland Court also has discussed trial strategy in the context of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and underscores the importance of counsel’s decision whether to conduct investigations as part of that strategy. As stated by the Court: strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91,104 S.Ct. at 2066. The Court also addressed the duty to adequately investigate mitigating evidence in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Strickland does not require counsel to investigate every conceivable line of mitigating evidence no matter how unlikely the effort would be to assist the defendant at sentencing. Nor does Strickland require defense counsel to present mitigating evidence at sentencing in every case .... [Strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable only to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. Id. at 533, 123 S.Ct. at 2541 (quotation marks and citation omitted). If the petitioner is successful in proving deficient performance by counsel, he must then establish prejudice before he is entitled to relief." }, { "docid": "21466398", "title": "", "text": "damage and cognitive impairment; therefore, we cannot conclude, based on her statement, that a psychological evaluation would have altered Smith’s sentence. See Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (finding that counsel provided ineffective assistance when evidence later showed that defendant actually suffered from organic brain damage, fetal alcohol syndrome, and mental retardation). Finally, similar to Smith’s good behavior evidence, a jury could mitigate his sentence based on the presumed diminished capacity of persons under the influence of illegal narcotics. The jury could also conclude that his addiction will never cease and would cause him to present an ongoing danger to society. Accordingly, Smith fails to make a “substantial showing of prejudice on this Strickland claim” because he did not establish that counsel’s failure to arrange a psychiatric evaluation “undermined confidence in the outcome.” Dowthitt, 230 F.3d at 747. c. Childhood Background Generally accepted standards of competence require that counsel conduct an investigation into petitioner’s background. Miniel, 339 F.3d at 344. Trial counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase is not per se ineffective assistance. Ransom v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 716, 723 (5th Cir.1997). Instead, “[strategic choices made after a less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Ronald Mock, Smith’s trial counsel, stated that he interviewed many of Smith’s family members and childhood acquaintances. In an affidavit submitted in state court, trial counsel provided a list of interviewees. Joyce Jones, Smith’s second trial counsel, contended that in preparation for Smith’s trial, they conducted an extensive investigation and “interviewed various witnesses including his family members, associates, sheriffs deputies, and his parole officer.” She also maintained that they interviewed Smith on numerous occasions about his social, educational, employment, criminal, and health history. According to Mock, Wilbert" }, { "docid": "6494752", "title": "", "text": "the client, the lawyer first must evaluate potential avenues and advise the client of those offering potential merit.” (quotation omitted)). Although failing to present mitigating evidence does not make counsel per se ineffective, before such a decision will be deemed strategic, counsel “must have chosen not to present mitigating evidence after having investigated the defendant’s background, and that choice must have been reasonable under the circumstances.” Brecheen v. Reynolds, 41 F.3d 1343, 1369 (10th Cir.1994) (quotation omitted); see also Hale, 227 F.3d at 1316 (concluding that trial counsel’s complete failure to investigate possible mitigation evidence caused his performance to be “well below the level of any competent attorney during the penalty phase”); Mayes, 210 F.3d at 1289-90 (concluding that counsel’s decision not to investigate possible mitigating evidence was unreasonable). Although strategic choices made after thorough investigation of the law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable, “strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1181 (10th Cir. 2001). In other words, “counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that- makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. When the state contends that a capital defendant waived the presentation of mitigating evidence, an appellate court must be especially watchful before crediting the allegation. We must ensure that defendant was informed that he has a right to present mitigating evidence; that defendant was apprised of the nature, role, and importance of mitigating evidence; and that counsel undertook an investigation to discover mitigating evidence, or else explained to the defendant why such investigation did not take place. See, e.g., Wallace v. Ward, 191 F.3d 1235, 1248 (10th Cir.1999) (concluding that petitioner’s trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to investigate or present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of a capital case because under “the unique facts of this case,” petitioner waived his right to present such evidence after" }, { "docid": "3084775", "title": "", "text": "serious omissions. Rudinski failed to investigate readily available key evidence in support of the defense’s chosen theory, i.e., that Showers’ husband committed suicide, or make a reasonable decision that investigation was unnecessary. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (“counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary”). See also Porter v. McCollum, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 447, 449, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) (penalty phase representation found deficient where counsel “told the jury that [defendant] ... was not mentally healthy” but failed to investigate or present readily available evidence which would have proven this very fact) (quotation omitted); Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 387, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (attorney has duty to investigate all avenues leading to facts relevant to the merits); Couch, 632 F.3d at 246 (state court unreasonably rejected habeas petitioner’s argument that counsel should have investigated causation defense where counsel ignored readily available evidence); Dugas v. Coplan, 428 F.3d 317, 329 (1st Cir.2005) (representation found deficient where counsel failed to investigate “not arson” defense and seek expert assistance or educate himself on techniques of defending arson). Although “[e]ven the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client- in the same way,” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, even the most minimally competent attorney here would have consulted at least one of the experts suggested to him by Dr. Doyle. Testimony by any of the available experts would have injected significant doubt regarding Showers’ guilt. Reliance on Wolfe was not objectively reasonable. This court and others have overturned a state court on habeas review based on deficient performance even where experts had been consulted but defense counsel failed to seek a second opinion when the facts so warranted. See, e.g., Hummel v. Rosemeyer, 564 F.3d 290, 302 (3d Cir.2009) (defense counsel’s failure to obtain additional psychiatric evaluation of defendant’s mental capacity to stand trial deficient because previous evaluations were equivocal and client’s behavior would have put competent counsel on notice); Richey v. Bradshaw, 498 F.3d 344, 362" }, { "docid": "23539244", "title": "", "text": "v. Ward, 179 F.3d 904, 913 (10th Cir.1999), citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To prove deficient performance, Mr. Turrentine “must overcome the presumption that counsel’s conduct was not constitutionally defective.” Wallace, 191 F.3d at 1247. “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance is highly deferential.” Id. Mr. Turrentine must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was not merely wrong, but fell below “an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. If Mr. Turrentine demonstrates that counsel’s performance was deficient, he still must show prejudice before a reviewing court may rule in his favor. In order to show prejudice, Mr. Turrentine must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. When a petitioner challenges conduct during the sentencing stage of the trial, he must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer ... would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” Stafford v. Saffle, 34 F.3d 1557, 1564 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052). When addressing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the reviewing court must make every effort to “eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. This is especially true when we examine counsel’s decision to investigate — or not to investigate — matters that materially affect a defendant’s case. As the Supreme Court has observed: [Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all" }, { "docid": "23054150", "title": "", "text": "deficient for the reasons elaborated above. Ultimately, then, we conclude that Buckwalter’s abandonment of the investigation into Silva’s background — including his family, criminal, substance abuse, and mental health history — was unreasonable in that it did not meet professional norms prevailing at the time of Silva’s trial, and that it therefore amounted to constitutionally deficient performance under the totality of the circumstances. “[C]ounsel must, at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling him to make informed decisions about how best to represent his client,” and “[a] lawyer has a duty to investigate what information ... potential eyewitnesses possessf ], even if he later decide[s] not to‘put them on the stand.” Sanders, 21 F.3d at 1456-57 (internal quo tation marks and citations omitted). Buckwalter could not make a reasoned tactical decision about the trial precisely because “[c]ounsel did not even know what evidence was available.” Deutscher, 884 F.2d at 1160. As we stated in Sanders, “[^Ineffectiveness is generally clear in the context of complete failure to investigate because counsel can hardly he said to have made a strategic choice when s/he [sic] has not yet obtained the facts on which such a decision could be made.” Sanders, 21 F.3d at 1457 (quoting United States v. Gray, 878 F.2d 702, 711 (3d Cir.1989)). Put another way, even if he could not call Silva’s parents as witnesses, Buckwal-ter still had a duty to determine what evidence was out there in mitigation in order to make an informed decision as to how to best represent his client. Indeed, if a client forecloses certain avenues of investigation, it arguably becomes even more incumbent upon trial counsel to seek out and find alternative sources of information and evidence, especially in the context of a capital murder trial. In addition, Buckwalter had a concomitant duty to try to educate or dissuade Silva about the consequences of his actions — neither of which he attempted to do. 2. Prejudice Having found Buckwalter’s performance deficient, we now analyze it for prejudice. As we stated in Deutscher: “Although we do not presume prejudice in a case such as this," }, { "docid": "23347757", "title": "", "text": "counsel must, at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling him to make informed decisions about how best to represent his client.” Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d at 1456 (internal citation and quotations omitted). “[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. This Court has found counsel to be ineffective where an attorney neither conducted a reasonable investigation nor demonstrated a strategic reason for failing to do so. See Sanders, 21 F.3d at 1456 and cases cited therein. In determining whether counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of professionally acceptable conduct, this Court will not view counsel’s actions through “the distorting lens of hindsight.” Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1159 (9th Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds, Angelone v. Deutscher, 500 U.S. 901, 111 S.Ct. 1678, 114 L.Ed.2d 73 (1991). Rather, under the rule of contemporary assessment, an attorney’s actions must be examined according to what was known and reasonable at the time the attorney made his choices. Id. To establish the prejudice prong of the Strickland standard, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. In the guilt phase, then, “the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt.” Id. at 695, 104 S.Ct. at 2068-69. Likewise, in the sentencing phase, “the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer ... would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” Id. III. COUNSEL’S PERFORMANCE IN THE GUILT PHASE A. Failure to Investigate Hendricks’ Background Hendricks argues that his attorney’s failure to investigate his background adequately, particularly his alleged history as a victim of sexual abuse and possible genetic predisposition to various psychiatric disorders," }, { "docid": "11500995", "title": "", "text": "his allegedly deteriorating mental condition during trial. The government also argues that petitioner failed to show that his understanding of the nature of the proceedings and the charges against him or his ability to assist or consult with his attorneys was compromised by his alleged incompetence. In order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show deficient performance, that is, “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and actual prejudice, that is, “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). “[A] court deciding an actual ineffective-ness claim must judge the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.” Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. “[T]he court should recognize that counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. “[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable....” Id. “[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. “The failure of trial counsel to request a competency hearing where there was evidence raising a substantial doubt about a petitioner’s competence to stand trial may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” Speedy v. Wyrick, 702 F.2d 723, 726 (8th Cir.1983). We agree with the district court that petitioner’s trial attorneys acted reasonably in not requesting a competency hearing. The trial attorneys made a reasonable investigation of petitioner’s mental condition under the circumstances. They discussed the November 1988 hospitalization with petitioner, obtained petitioner’s medical records, asked petitioner’s doctor about petitioner’s condition and his ability to return to work and to lead a normal life after hospitalization, and had a psychologist consult with petitioner in preparing for trial. They had worked extensively with petitioner during trial preparation and had observed his demeanor during" }, { "docid": "1460706", "title": "", "text": "abusive conduct toward petitioner, petitioner’s mother’s history of alcoholism, or petitioner’s family history of mental illness, (3) why, if they were aware of same, said trial counsel chose not to present such purportedly “mitigating” evidence to petitioner’s capital sentencing jury, or (4) why, if they were unaware of same, said trial counsel chose not to investigate petitioner’s background any further than they did. See Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2002) (recognizing in evaluating the performance of trial counsel against a claim counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, the relevant inquiry focuses on what counsel did to prepare for sentencing, what mitigating evidence counsel accumulated, what additional leads counsel had, and the results said counsel might reasonably have expected from those leads), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104, 123 S.Ct. 963, 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003). These are the essential inquiries necessary to support a claim a trial counsel’s alleged failure to adequately investigate, develop, and present mitigating evidence in a capital murder trial was “objectively unreasonable.” See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521-22, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2535, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. at 2066): [Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments. Assuming the existence of additional, potentially mitigating evidence was discerna-ble through the exercise of due diligence at the time of a petitioner’s state habeas corpus proceeding, any state habeas petitioner who has been furnished with an opportunity to interrogate his former trial counsel on these four subjects during an evidentiary hearing and who fails to do so fails to" }, { "docid": "1895327", "title": "", "text": "time of counsel’s conduct. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. In a case like this one where there is a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate possible defenses, the Strickland court stated that: [Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonably precise to the extent that reasonable professional judgment supports the limitations on the investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments. 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. The reasonableness of trial counsel’s actions may be affected by petitioner’s statements, actions and choices. United States v. Gray, 878 F.2d 702 (3d Cir.1989), citing, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. Counsel’s failure to pursue certain investigations cannot later be challenged as unreasonable when the defendant has given counsel reason to believe that a line of investigation should not be pursued. Id. Counsel’s conversations with petitioner may be critical in making a proper assessment of counsel’s investigative decisions. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. “Where the deficiencies in counsel’s performance are severe and cannot be characterized as the product of strategic judgment, ineffectiveness may be clear. Gray, 878 F.2d at 711. Thus, when counsel fails to conduct any pretrial investigation, courts of appeals generally find that this failure constitutes a clear instance of ineffectiveness. See Sullivan v. Fairman, 819 F.2d 1382 (7th Cir.1987) (counsel’s cursory attempts to locate witnesses ineffective); Code v. Montgomery, 799 F.2d 1481 (11th Cir.1986) (counsel interviewing only one witness was unreasonable); Crisp v. Duckworth, 743 F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1984) (since attorney must investigate case in order to provide minimally competent representation, it will be unusual case where complete lack of investigation is not unreasonable); Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304" }, { "docid": "23054149", "title": "", "text": "psychiatric disorders or substance abuse. His trial “strategy” was based entirely on an overbroad acquiescence in his client’s demand that he refrain from calling his parents as witnesses. As in Williams, where trial counsel attempted to characterize his failure to investigate as a tactical decision to focus on the defendant’s voluntary confession, Buckwalter’s decision to altogether abandon the investigation cannot be justified as a legitimate trial strategy. As we noted in United States v. Span, 75 F.3d 1383, 1389 (9th Cir.1996), an attorney’s performance is not immunized from Sixth Amendment challenges simply by attaching to it the label of “trial strategy.” Rather, “[c]ertain defense strategies may be so ill-chosen that they may render counsel’s overall representation constitutionally defective.” United States v. Tucker, 716 F.2d 576, 586 (9th Cir.1983). While it is true that, according to Strickland, “[t]he reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions,” and that “what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically on such information,” Buckwalter’s blanket decision to forego all investigation was patently deficient for the reasons elaborated above. Ultimately, then, we conclude that Buckwalter’s abandonment of the investigation into Silva’s background — including his family, criminal, substance abuse, and mental health history — was unreasonable in that it did not meet professional norms prevailing at the time of Silva’s trial, and that it therefore amounted to constitutionally deficient performance under the totality of the circumstances. “[C]ounsel must, at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling him to make informed decisions about how best to represent his client,” and “[a] lawyer has a duty to investigate what information ... potential eyewitnesses possessf ], even if he later decide[s] not to‘put them on the stand.” Sanders, 21 F.3d at 1456-57 (internal quo tation marks and citations omitted). Buckwalter could not make a reasoned tactical decision about the trial precisely because “[c]ounsel did not even know what evidence was available.” Deutscher, 884 F.2d at 1160. As we stated in Sanders, “[^Ineffectiveness is generally clear in the context of complete failure to investigate because counsel can hardly he said to have" }, { "docid": "21507188", "title": "", "text": "Duncan must rebut this presumption by showing that his performance was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and was not the product of sound strategy. Id. 688-89, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential,” and we must evaluate counsel’s conduct from his perspective at the time, without the benefit of hindsight. Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.” Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. However, decisions that are made before a complete investigation is conducted are reasonable only if the level of investigation was also reasonable. “[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness [under] all the circumstances....” Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521-22, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). The Supreme Court has “declined to articulate specific guidelines for appropriate attorney conduct and instead [has] emphasized that ‘[t]he proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.’ ” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052). However, we have established general principles that guide our determination of what constitutes objectively reasonable attorney performance, including the duty to investigate. See Summerlin, 427 F.3d at 629-30. This court has repeatedly held that “[a] lawyer who fails adequately to investigate and introduce ... [evidence] that demonstrate^] his client’s factual innocence, or that raise[s] sufficient doubt as to that question to undermine confidence in the verdict, renders deficient performance.” Hart v. Gomez, 174 F.3d 1067, 1070 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that counsel’s failure to review key documents corroborating defense witness’s testimony constituted deficient performance); see also Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911, 919 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that counsel’s failure to investigate evidence that defendant’s brother was the shooter constituted deficient performance); Lord v. Wood, 184 F.3d 1083, 1095-96 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that counsel’s failure" }, { "docid": "187102", "title": "", "text": "his sentencing retrial were constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate, develop, and present evidence of his brain damage due to lead exposure. As Matthews’ argument goes, had his counsel (Michael O’Connell and Michael Scardato) presented evidence of his brain damage due to lead exposure, the jury would have found this to be a mitigating factor, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. We disagree. With respect to investigating mitigating evidence, counsel’s performance is deficient if he fails to make a reasonable investigation for possible mitigating evidence. See Lambrix v. Singletary, 72 F.3d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir.1996). In the context of whether an attorney’s investigation into matters that might aid his client constitutes a deficient performance, the Supreme Court has said: [S]trategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness ease, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments. The reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions. Counsel’s actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically upon such information .... [W]hen a defendant has given counsel reason to believe that pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless or even' harmful, counsel’s failure to pursue those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. In this case, counsel for Matthews undertook substantial efforts to find mitigating evidence, enlisting the aid of two experts, a psychiatrist, Dr. John Outz, III, and a psychologist, Dr. Gordon Kimbrell, interviewing numerous family members, and reviewing all of Matthews’ school and social service records, and records of his earlier encounters with the law. Throughout the entire investigation into mitigating evidence, counsel" }, { "docid": "14256158", "title": "", "text": "nally, we directly respond to petitioner’s arguments, concluding, as did the state habeas and federal district courts, that Manning’s performance was reasonable. In evaluating the reasonableness of a defense attorney’s investigation, we weigh heavily the information provided by the defendant. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066 (1984) (“The reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions. Counsel’s actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically on such information.”). Indeed, “[b]ecause information about childhood abuse supplied by a defendant is ‘extremely important’ in determining reasonable performance, ‘[w]hen a petitioner ... does not mention a history of physical abuse, a lawyer is not ineffective for failing to discover or to offer evidence of abuse as mitigation.’” Stewart v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 476 F.3d 1193, 1211 (11th Cir.2007) (quoting Van Poyck v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 290 F.3d 1318, 1325 (11th Cir.2002)). As we stated in Williams v. Head, “[a]n attorney does not render ineffective assistance by failing to discover and develop evidence of childhood abuse that his client does not mention to him.” 185 F.3d 1223, 1237 (11th Cir.1999). Petitioner never contended, and nothing in the record as much as suggests, that he informed Manning about the abuse he suffered as a child. Petitioner never even provided Manning with the names of his family members. In fact, in testifying in his own defense during the penalty phase of his trial, he referred to his family only with this brief statement: “[M]y father had built a church, I was [sic] a very religious family when I was raising [sic] up.” We have also emphasized the importance of a mentally competent client’s instructions in our analysis of defense counsel’s investigative performance under the Sixth Amendment. Rutherford v. Crosby, 385 F.3d 1300, 1313 (11th Cir.2004) (recognizing that the “duty [to investigate] does not include a requirement to disregard a mentally competent client’s sincere and specific instructions about an area of" }, { "docid": "23511529", "title": "", "text": "first prong of the Strickland test requires us to determine whether “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Our “scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential” and avoid “the distorting effects of hindsight.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. We “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. If we determine that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, we proceed to the second prong of Strickland, the prejudice inquiry. In measuring prejudice, the relevant question is whether “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068; see also Brewer, 51 F.3d at 1523. “Failure to make the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the ineffectiveness claim.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700, 104 S.Ct. at 2071. The Court discussed the broad duty of counsel to investigate matters that materially affect a client’s case in Strickland: [Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments. Id. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. We examine the instant claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with these guiding principles in mind. A. Petitioner first contends he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because Mitchell failed to investigate either an ineompetency or insanity defense to the charges filed against Petitioner. Petitioner argues that although Mitchell reviewed two prior psychological evaluations, a reasonably effective attorney would have obtained a current" }, { "docid": "14067219", "title": "", "text": "excluding two of the three alibi witnesses but allowing one alibi witness to testify. An objectively reasonable attorney would have complied with Michigan law in providing the correct alibi notice. This is especially true because Petitioner’s entire defense rested upon alibi. See Clinkscale v. Carter, 375 F.3d 430, 443 (6th Cir.2004) (finding objectively deficient performance where counsel failed to timely submit the notice of alibi and where alibi was “a critical aspect of a defendant’s defense”). We next consider Petitioner’s claim that O’Connell’s failure to investigate Delshawn Williams as a potential witness constituted defective performance. Under Strickland, trial -counsel has a duty to investigate his case: Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are 'virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments. Id. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “This duty includes the obligation to investigate all witnesses who may have information concerning his or her client’s guilt or innocence.” Towns v. Smith, 395 F.3d 251, 258 (6th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). At Petitioner’s trial, Simpson testified that he was at a friend’s house on April 22, 1996. Simpson testified that he was visiting his friend Marvin, who is Marvin Williams, Delshawn Williams’ brother. Marvin Williams and Delshawn Williams live at the same house. He testified that Petitioner, shortly before the time of the shooting, entered the house, asked Simpson if Simpson knew where the victim was, threatened to kill the victim, and then left with Johnson and McBurroughs in a black Chevy Impala. At the evidentiary hearing, Petitioner testified that before trial, he read Simpson’s statement, and he contacted Williams through Petitioner’s brother. Petitioner asked O’Connell to subpoena Williams, so that Williams could testify that" }, { "docid": "1895326", "title": "", "text": "test. Id. (a) Deficiency of Performance The respondents argue that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that petitioner’s trial counsel’s performance was deficient because of a failure to investigate. After examining the respondents’ objections, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion. In assessing this prong of the Strickland test, the court must determine whether “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Judicial scrutiny of the reasonableness of counsel’s performance must be “highly deferential” and the court “must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged actions or omissions might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id. at 689,104 S.Ct. at 2065. The court must measure the reasonableness of counsel’s performance after viewing all the circumstances in light of the prevailing professional norms. Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. This measurement must be evaluated on the facts of the case at the time of counsel’s conduct. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. In a case like this one where there is a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate possible defenses, the Strickland court stated that: [Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonably precise to the extent that reasonable professional judgment supports the limitations on the investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments. 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. The reasonableness of trial counsel’s actions may be affected by petitioner’s statements, actions and choices. United States v. Gray, 878 F.2d 702 (3d Cir.1989), citing, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. Counsel’s failure" }, { "docid": "3675156", "title": "", "text": "is confinement for life. . We note this Court approved seven requests from the appellant for an enlargement of time in this case. Additionally, we approved the appellant's request for oral argument. ROAN, Judge, dissenting: Even affording trial defense counsel the “strong presumption that [their] conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, under the facts of this case, their failure to procure the services of an expert in sexual assault examinations amounted to ineffective assistance that prejudiced the appellant’s case. I therefore dissent from the majority opinion. In preparing a defense, “counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. See also United States v. Sales, 56 M.J. 255, 258 (C.A.A.F.2002); United States v. Hammer, 60 M.J. 810, 820 (f rev) (A.F.Ct.Crim.App. 2004) (“Defense counsel ... have an ethical obligation to properly investigate the charges against their client in formulating trial strategy.”); Richter v. Hickman, 578 F.3d 944, 946 (9th Cir.2009) (“At the heart of an effective defense is an adequate investigation. Without sufficient investigation, a defense attorney, no matter how intelligent or persuasive in court, renders deficient performance and jeopardizes his client’s defense.”); Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052) (“[Attorneys have considerable latitude to make strategic decisions about what investigations to conduct once they have gathered sufficient evidence upon which to base their tactical choices.”). A counsel’s failure to conduct sufficient investigation may violate the appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights. United States v. Scott, 24 M.J. 186, 192-93 (C.M.A.1987) (failure to investigate alibi defense and prepare for trial was ineffective); Holsomback v. White, 133 F.3d 1382, 1387-89 (11th Cir.1998) (holding that failure to conduct adequate investigation into medical evidence of sexual abuse was ineffective). Based on trial defense counsels’ deficient pretrial investigation, I disagree with my colleagues’ conclusion that the decision to withdraw the request for an expert in exchange for limiting TB’s testimony was a legitimate trial strategy based on" }, { "docid": "23666064", "title": "", "text": "(6th Cir.2000). Parrish argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in two related ways: first, by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into Michael Richard; and second, by failing to call Richard as a defense witness. In granting the petition, the district court relied upon the failure to investigate theory. It is well-established that “[c]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. The duty to investigate derives from counsel’s basic function, which is “ ‘to make the adversarial testing process work in the particular case.’ ” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052). This duty includes the obligation to investigate all witnesses who may have information concerning his or her client’s guilt or innocence. See Bryant v. Scott, 28 F.3d 1411, 1419 (5th Cir.1994) (citing Henderson v. Sargent, 926 F.2d 706, 711 (8th Cir.1991)). “In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “The relevant question is not whether counsel’s choices were strategic, but whether they were reasonable.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 481, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000); accord Clinkscale, 375 F.3d at 443. A purportedly strategic decision is not objectively reasonable “when the attorney has failed to investigate his options and make a reasonable choice between them.” Horton v. Zant, 941 F.2d 1449, 1462 (11th Cir.1991) (cited in Combs, 205 F.3d at 288). Courts have not hesitated to find ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment when counsel fails to conduct a reasonable investigation into one or more aspects of the case and when that failure prejudices his or her client. For example, in the recent case of Wiggins v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because his counsel had failed to conduct" }, { "docid": "22920474", "title": "", "text": "conduct a reasonable investigation enabling him to make informed decisions about how best to represent his client. Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066 (“[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.”). Thus, we have found counsel to be ineffective where he neither conducted a reasonable investigation nor made a showing of strategic reasons for failing to do so. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1109 (9th Cir.1992) (vacating the judgment of the district court where it is not possible to “determine if counsel’s decision was a strategic one, and, if so, whether the decision was a sufficiently informed one”); U.S. v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 918 (9th Cir.1989) (holding counsel’s conduct deficient where he failed to investigate a possibility of a mental illness defense and the “district court’s assumptions that the attorney must have considered an insanity defense and might have rejected it for strategic reasons appear not to have been based on the record”); Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that counsel did not make a strategic decision where the defense was based on petitioner’s psychiatric problems, yet counsel failed to “even consider investigating evidence which would have bolstered that defense”), vacated on other grounds, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 367, 121 L.Ed.2d 279 (1992); Evans v. Lewis, 855 F.2d 631, 637 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that a failure to investigate a possibility of mental impairment “cannot be construed as a trial tactic” where he did not even bother to view relevant documents that were available). Other Circuits agree that the failure to conduct a reasonable investigation constitutes deficient performance. The Third Circuit has held that “[i]neffectiveness is generally clear in the context of complete failure to investigate because counsel can hardly be said to have made a strategic choice when s/he [sic] has not yet obtained the facts on which such a decision could be made.” See U.S. v. Gray, 878 F.2d 702, 711 (3d Cir.1989). A lawyer has a duty to “investigate what information ... potential eye-witnesses possess[], even if he" } ]

[ { "docid": "17386662", "title": "", "text": "stating that EEOC consideration for suit will follow. Once the Commission determines not to bring suit on its own behalf, it now automatically issues a Notice of Right to Sue. Brief of EEOC as Amicus Curiae at 8, Lynn v. Western Gillette, Inc., No. 76-1256. . The Fifth Circuit has concluded that Civil Service Commission regulations analogous to 29 C.F.R. § 1601.25 but relating to Right to Sue letters to be issued with respect to complaints brought by federal employees, represent an impermissible attempt to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Eastland v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 553 F.2d 364, 367-69 (5th Cir. 1977). That court accepted the argument that the regulation “replaced” the notice specified by statute with another form of notice so as to delay the commencement of the ninety-day period in a way not contemplated by section 706. Id. at 369. We cannot agree with the Fifth Circuit’s rationale. The short answer to the extension of jurisdiction argument is that “[u]nless the aggrieved party demands a notice from the Commission, it may take as long as it likes before dispatching such a letter.” Garner v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 538 F.2d 611, 615 (4th Cir. 1976), citing, Tuft v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 517 F.2d 1301, 1308-10 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1052, 96 S.Ct. 782, 46 L.Ed.2d 641 (1976). See Cunningham v. Litton Industries, 413 F.2d 887 (9th Cir. 1969). A regulation which specifies the form of acceptable notice is not an attempt to expand jurisdiction, and here the regulation did not purport to extend the period during which the Commission could give the notice which would commence the complainant’s right to bring suit. . The statutory phrase providing that an action may be brought “within ninety days after the giving of such notice,” § 706(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (Supp. V 1975), requires actual notification. It is the receipt of a Right to Sue letter, not its dispatch, which sets the beginning of the ninety-day period. Plunkett v. Roadway Express, Inc., 504 F.2d 417, 418-19 (10th Cir. 1974); see Alexander" } ]

[ { "docid": "18592782", "title": "", "text": "1984, although the EEOC issued the notice on November 16, 1983. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The court did not deny the motion on the basis of procedural default, but rather on the ground that plaintiff received his right to sue notice in time to have filed suit within ninety days from issuance of that notice. Circumstances did not justify tolling the filing requirement in the opinion of the district judge, who reasoned that plaintiff’s failure to bring timely suit was not a factually similar one to others in which this court had previously sanctioned the use of the court’s equitable powers. We affirm the judgment of the district court. I. We must decide whether a claimant must actually receive the EEOC’s notice for the running of the ninety day period to begin. Other courts have indicated that the doctrine of “constructive receipt” will not toll the time period in section 2000e-5(f)(1). In Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev’d on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976), the EEOC mailed notice by certified mail to claimant’s mailing address. Claimant’s nine-year-old nephew received the EEOC’s letter and signed the postal receipt. The nephew lost the letter before giving it to claimant. Claimant knew his nephew had signed for something, but never saw or received the letter personally. Id. at 403. The court held that the claimant’s time period did not begin to run when the nephew received the letter, reasoning that the doctrine of constructive receipt would poorly serve the remedial purposes of Title VII. Id. at 404. The court limited its holding that receipt of the notice by a family member did not bar the right to sue after ninety days to circumstances in which a “claimant through no fault of his own has failed to receive the suit letter.” Id. at 405. In Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 585 F.2d 210 (7th Cir.1978), the claimant’s wife received the EEOC’s notice on July 28 but did not give the notice to claimant until August 6. Since claimant" }, { "docid": "22589756", "title": "", "text": "when the EEOC’s notice of the statutory period was clearly inadequate. See Irwin v. Veterans Admin., — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 453, 457-58, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). See also Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 1725-26, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (per curiam). Courts have been generally unforgiving, however, when a late filing is due to claimant’s failure “to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights.” Irwin, 111 S.Ct. at 458. We find this to be the case here. Ms. Scholar contends she learned of the letter some time between November 8 and November 15, 1988, a few days after her daughter signed for it. The only corroborating evidence presented was the statement by her psychiatrist as to when she told him about the letter. As the Eleventh Circuit cogently put it, “[t]here is no reason why a plaintiff should enjoy a manipulable open-ended time extension which could render the statutory limitation meaningless.” Lewis v. Conners Steel Co., 673 F.2d 1240, 1242 (11th Cir.1982). Even if we accept Ms. Scholar’s. statements as fact, she still had 76-83 days in which to preserve her legal rights; Ms. Scholar offers no explanation as to why this was not sufficient time in which to commence her action. Ms. Scholar has made no showing to justify invocation of the doctrine of equitable tolling. We find Ms. Scholar’s Title YII civil action was filed after the 90-day statute of limitations expired and is, therefore, barred. CONCLUSION We find Ms. Scholar’s cause of action is foreclosed because she did not file her Title YII civil action in a timely fashion in accordance with the statutory requirements. As a result, we do not reach the other issues presented by Ms. Scholar on appeal. Further, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims because the federal claims were dismissed before trial. The district court’s grant of summary judgment to Pacific Bell is hereby affirmed. AFFIRMED. . 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) provides in part: If a charge filed with the Commission pursuant to subsection (b) of this section is dis missed" }, { "docid": "23591370", "title": "", "text": "sent to them, but it is 92 days from the day Olsen received his copy of the letter from EEOC. The lawsuits were filed in district court on April 27, 1982. II. The primary issue in this appeal is whether receipt of the carbon copy right-to-sue letters by Olsen constituted constructive receipt of those letters by the plaintiffs themselves. The district court held that it did, relying on Minor v. Lakeview Hospital, 421 F.Supp. 485 (E.D.Wis.1976), and Gonzalez v. Stanford Applied Engineering, 597 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir.1979). Plaintiffs contend that this court’s decision in Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union, 585 F.2d 210 (7th Cir.1978), compels an opposite conclusion. In Archie, the claimant had filed a Title VII action 91 days after the right-to-sue letter was received at his home address by his wife; however, the action was commenced only 81 days after plaintiff personally received the letter from his wife. This court held that “the ninety-day period of limitation set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) begins to run on the date on which a claimant actually receives from the EEOC his notice of right-to-sue.” 585 F.2d at 216. The claimant in Archie was not represented by an attorney and the district court relied on that distinction in holding that Archie did not control the present case. The distinction is a valid one. As this court indicated in Archie, receipt of a right-to-sue letter by a third party, perhaps one unfamiliar with the situation or one who would not even read the letter, leads to the risk that a claimant could remain in ignorance of his rights until the time to sue had past. This danger is not present when the third party is the claimant’s attorney, the individual in charge of proceeding with the litigation and aware, perhaps more aware than the claimant, of the importance of such notice. Consequently, the rule enunciated in Archie must be expanded to include this permissible instance of constructive receipt. We hold that the 90-day period of limitation set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) begins to run" }, { "docid": "22589752", "title": "", "text": "Tahoe, 915 F.2d 1290, 1299 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2890, 115 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1991). Ms. Scholar’s failure to file her Title VII action within the prescribed statutory period was raised in Pacific Bell’s motion for summary judgment and presented to this court in the parties’ briefs; counsel also devoted substantial time to the topic in oral argument before this court. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to respondent on the grounds that Ms. Scholar’s failure to file her Title VII claim within the time limits prescribed by statute bars this action. When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) dismisses a claim, it is required to notify claimant and to inform claimant that she has 90 days to bring a civil action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (1988). The requirement for filing a Title VII civil action within 90 days from the date EEOC dismisses a claim constitutes a statute of limitations. Edwards v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 892 F.2d 1442, 1445 (9th Cir.1990). If claimant fails to file within 90-day period, the action is barred accordingly. Id. On October 26, 1988, EEOC sent Ms. Scholar a letter by certified mail informing her it had dismissed her claim and that she had 90 days from receipt of the letter to file a civil action. EEOC’s “right-to-sue” letter was received at Ms. Scholar’s house on November 1, 1988, and the return receipt was signed by her daughter. Ms. Scholar contends she did not personally see the letter until a few days later; the 90-day period did not begin to run until she personally received the letter; and, therefore, the civil action she filed February 2, 1989, was timely. For these reasons, Ms. Scholar argues we should return her case to the district court for a full trial. We reject this argument. This court has not specifically addressed the issue of timeliness in filing a Title VII civil action under the fact scenario at hand ; however, we agree with the reasoning of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits. See Harvey v. City of New Bern" }, { "docid": "23126099", "title": "", "text": "being subject to extension at will by any plaintiff willing to testify that he did not actually receive his suit letter until some time after the date indicated by the only objective evidence available, namely, the receipt for certified mail signed at the time of delivery. Such a construction of the statute is completely unwarranted. Rule 4(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides guidance for this situation. If the suit letter is left with and signed for by a person of suitable age and discretion who resides at plaintiff’s dwelling, then the 90-day period begins to run from the date of receipt by that person, unless plaintiff received actual notice at such a late date as to prejudice plaintiff in trying to timely file suit.” Rule 4(d)(1), however, provides expressly that a summons and complaint may be served on an individual (and the period for answering will thus begin to run) by leaving copies thereof with some person of suit able age and discretion at the individual’s usual place of abode. Section 2000e-5(f)(l), 42 U.S.C., contains no such provision. Thus, we must determine, in the absence of an explicit congressional directive, what was meant by the phrase “the giving of * * * notice * * * ” as used in that statute. It is clearly the rule that the “giving of * * * notice” language in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) refers not to the date on which the EEOC mails notice of right-to-sue to the complainant, but rather at a minimum to the date on which such notice is delivered to the address to which it is mailed. Harris v. National Tea Company, 454 F.2d 307 (7th Cir. 1971). Appellant cites a number of cases which he claims further support an interpretation of the “giving of * * * notice” language as referring to the date of actual rather than constructive receipt. With the exception of Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company, 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1974), rev’d on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976), none of the cases are" }, { "docid": "7877532", "title": "", "text": "includes, among other things, the sender’s name. On September 10, the Postal Service again unsuccessfully attempted to deliver the EEOC letter. The Postal Service agent left a second notice indicating that if Zil-lyette did not pick up the letter by September 20, it would be returned to sender. Sometime between September 10 and September 20, Zillyette picked up the letter, although it is not clear when during this time he did so. On December 12, Zillyette filed a pro se complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that Zillyette had not filed suit within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC letter because the 90-day period began to run when the Postal Service first tried to deliver the letter on September 5. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION It is settled law that, under the ADA, plaintiffs must comply with the same procedural requirements to sue as exist under Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Under Title VII, in cases where the EEOC does not file suit or obtain a conciliation agreement, the EEOC “shall so notify the person aggrieved and within 90 days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge ... by the person claiming to be aggrieved....” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Zillyette argues that the 90-day period did not begin to run until he picked up the EEOC letter at the post office. We first had occasion to consider the meaning of this provision of Title VII in Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev’d on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976). In Franks, we explained that “[t]he key word in the statute is ‘notify’; the limitations period begins to run upon notification of the aggrieved party. This Court has held that such notification takes place only when ‘notice of the failure to obtain voluntary compliance has been sent and received.’ ” Id. at 404 (quoting Miller v. International Paper Co., 408 F.2d 283, 287 (5th" }, { "docid": "7877533", "title": "", "text": "file suit or obtain a conciliation agreement, the EEOC “shall so notify the person aggrieved and within 90 days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge ... by the person claiming to be aggrieved....” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Zillyette argues that the 90-day period did not begin to run until he picked up the EEOC letter at the post office. We first had occasion to consider the meaning of this provision of Title VII in Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev’d on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976). In Franks, we explained that “[t]he key word in the statute is ‘notify’; the limitations period begins to run upon notification of the aggrieved party. This Court has held that such notification takes place only when ‘notice of the failure to obtain voluntary compliance has been sent and received.’ ” Id. at 404 (quoting Miller v. International Paper Co., 408 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir.1969)). We found that “statutory notification is complete only upon actual receipt of the suit letter,” observing that “Congress did not intend to condition a claimant’s right to sue under Title VII on fortuitous circumstances or events beyond his control which are not spelled out in the statute.” Id. Applying this principle, we reversed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs suit based on the fact that the EEOC’s notification letter was lost by plaintiffs nine-year old nephew. Id. at 405 (“Where ... it is shown that the claimant through no fault of his own has failed to receive the suit letter ..., as in this case, the delivery of the letter to the mailing address cannot be considered to constitute statutory notification.”). In Franks, although the letter was delivered, it was lost by the plaintiffs nephew “through no fault” of the plaintiff. Id. We found these circumstances to constitute an “event[] beyond [the plaintiffs] control,” and therefore concluded that the plaintiff could not be considered to have had statutory notice of his right to sue." }, { "docid": "23217110", "title": "", "text": "resulted from plaintiff’s own negligence in fulfilling that responsibility. Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. I. This court held in Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers Union, 585 F.2d 210 (7th Cir.1978), that the ninety-day limit of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) begins running on the date a claimant actually receives the notice of right-to-sue issued by the EEOC. St. Louis contends essentially that the first notice mailed by the EEOC here should be treated as a nullity since he never received it; under Archie, he argues, the filing deadline did not begin to run until plaintiff actually received the notice in March 1982. We disagree. Both Archie and the case it relied on heavily in arriving at the holding just stated, Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev’d on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976), involved the issue of constructive receipt. In Archie, the plaintiff’s wife received the notice of right-to-sue ten days before she gave it to him. In Franks, the notice was received and subsequently lost by plaintiff’s nine-year-old nephew. Both courts held that the doctrine of constructive receipt did not apply; the time period did not begin running until the plaintiff actually received the right-to-sue letter. The rationale for the holdings was that a plaintiff should not lose the right to sue because of fortuitous circumstances or events beyond his or her control which delay receipt of the EEOC’s notice. Archie, 585 F.2d at 215; Franks, 495 F.2d at 404. Plaintiff seeks to fit within these cases by asserting that the EEOC’s negligence (an event beyond his control) caused his delayed receipt of the notice of right-to-sue. Since 1977 people who have filed charges with the EEOC have been required to notify the Commission of any change of address. 42 Fed.Reg. 47,833 (Sept. 22, 1977). The regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1601.7(b) (1981), makes mandatory that which was dictated already by common sense. The regulation provides that a person who has filed a Title VII charge “has the responsibility to provide the Commission with notice of any change in" }, { "docid": "23591378", "title": "", "text": "be determined at such a hearing is when the claimant or someone authorized to act on his behalf first received actual notice that the right-to-sue letter had been issued by the EEOC. Applying this rule to the facts of the case before us, we find that none of the factors listed are in dispute. Attorney Olsen was actively representing the claimants in their Title VII actions and had informed the EEOC of that fact. He personally received the right-to-sue letters on January 25, 1983. The action was not commenced until April 27, 92 days later, and consequently it was untimely. IV. The 90-day period of limitations in Title VII actions may be equitably tolled when circumstances warrant. Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982). However, equitable tolling is to be restricted and reserved only for situations in which the claimant has made a good faith error (e.g., brought suit in the wrong court) or has been prevented in some extraordinary way from filing his complaint in time. Smith v. American President Lines, Ltd., 571 F.2d 102, 109 (2d Cir.1978). See also Wolfolk v. Rivera, 729 F.2d 1114 (7th Cir.1984). The reason for the delay in this case was characterized by the district court as “[t]he desire to wait until the last day possible” (see footnote 4), and the court ruled that such a reason “simply does not suffice.” We agree. For the reasons stated, the ruling of the district court is AFFIRMED. . Section 2000e — 5(f)(1) provides in part: If a charge filed with the Commission pursuant to subsection (b) of this section is dismissed by the Commission ... the Commission shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge (A) by the person claiming to be aggrieved .... . The notices from Olsen to the EEOC read as follows: This is to advise you that we have been retained to represent George Jones in the above-referenced matter. We ask" }, { "docid": "15333862", "title": "", "text": "charge is true, it shall dismiss the charge and ■ promptly notify the person claiming to be aggrieved and the respondent of its action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). Section 706(f)(1) reiterates this notification requirement and provides that the complainant may bring a private civil action within 90 days after receipt of such notice: If a charge filed with the Commission pursuant to subsection (b) of this section is dismissed by the Commission, or if within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge or the expiration of any period of reference under subsection (c) or (d) of this section, whichever is later, the Commission has not filed a civil action under this section or the Attorney General has not filed a civil action in a case involving a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision, or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission, or the Attorney General in a case involving a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision, shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge . 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). In Tuft v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 517 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1052, 96 S.Ct. 782, 46 L.Ed.2d 641 (1976) this Court dealt with the question of when under the above-quoted portion of Section 706(f)(1) the EEOC was required to issue notice triggering the running of the 90-day period after 180 days had passed from the filing of the charge without dismissal of the charge, successful conciliation, or filing of a civil action by the EEOC. We held that under such circumstances there was no requirement to issue statutory notice except on demand from the complainant, and that therefore an EEOC letter simply noting the failure of conciliation efforts and advising that a statutory notice might be requested did not trigger the 90-day period in the absence of a statement that administrative action was at an end. Id. at 1308-10." }, { "docid": "23074181", "title": "", "text": "RANDALL, Circuit Judge: Richard G. Espinoza appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his suit against his employer, Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., alleging racial discrimination in employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Espinoza did not file suit within ninety days after notice of his right to sue Missouri Pacific was given by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We affirm. The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), provides that, if the Commission dismisses a charge or if, within 180 days after a charge is filed, the Commission has not filed a civil action, “the Commission ... shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge.” (Emphasis added.) The facts about the right-to-sue letter in this case are established by affidavits of Espinoza, Espinoza’s wife and the district director and are not contested. The letter was issued by the EEOC on May 3, 1983, and mailed to Espinoza at the address that he provided to the EEOC — his home address. The notice was actually received at that address by Espinoza’s wife on May 4, 1983. Espinoza was out of town at that time and did not actually see the letter until he returned home on May 12, 1983. The suit was filed on August 3, 1983, ninety-two days after the letter was delivered to Espinoza’s home. The district court held that the ninety-day period within which suit must be filed was triggered by receipt of the notice at Espinoza’s residence and that Espinoza’s suit was therefore untimely. On appeal, Espinoza argues that the ninety-day period does not begin to run until the person aggrieved actually receives the right-to-sue letter because it is only then that the person becomes aware of his or her right to sue. As authority for that proposition, Espinoza cites the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 585 F.2d" }, { "docid": "23217109", "title": "", "text": "that address. St. Louis moved from Milwaukee to Texas in 1975 but did not inform the EEOC of his change of address. In March 1982, an attorney contacted the EEOC on behalf of the plaintiff and was informed that the right-to-sue letter had been issued the previous June. Copies of the determination letter and right-to-sue letter were sent to plaintiff in Texas and he filed a pro se complaint within ninety days of his receipt of those documents. St. Louis asserts that his failure to file this action for nearly a year after the right-to-sue letter was issued should be excused because he never received the EEOC’s first mailing. Plaintiff admits that he did not notify the EEOC formally that he had moved to Texas, but claims that the EEOC had this information anyway: the EEOC file contained two documents from the Wisconsin administrative proceedings which had plaintiffs Texas address. The district court held that St. Louis was responsible for informing the EEOC of his current address and that the delay in filing this action resulted from plaintiff’s own negligence in fulfilling that responsibility. Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. I. This court held in Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers Union, 585 F.2d 210 (7th Cir.1978), that the ninety-day limit of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) begins running on the date a claimant actually receives the notice of right-to-sue issued by the EEOC. St. Louis contends essentially that the first notice mailed by the EEOC here should be treated as a nullity since he never received it; under Archie, he argues, the filing deadline did not begin to run until plaintiff actually received the notice in March 1982. We disagree. Both Archie and the case it relied on heavily in arriving at the holding just stated, Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev’d on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976), involved the issue of constructive receipt. In Archie, the plaintiff’s wife received the notice of right-to-sue ten days before she gave it to him. In Franks, the notice was received and" }, { "docid": "23035280", "title": "", "text": "before filing suit. We hold that receipt of a right-to-sue letter is a condition precedent to a Title VII claim rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite, and that here receipt of the letters by appellants prior to dismissal of their Title VII claims cured their failure to initially satisfy the condition precedent. Accordingly, we reverse the district court. Before instituting a Title VII action in federal district court, a private plaintiff must file an EEOC complaint against the discriminating party within 180 days of the alleged discrimination and receive statutory notice of the right to sue the respondent named in the charge. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1019, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974); Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Mississippi, 621 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1980). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) states in pertinent part: If a charge filed with the Commission pursuant to subsection (b) of this section is dismissed by the Commission, or if within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge or the expiration of any period of reference under subsection (c) or (d) of this section, whichever is later, the Commission has not filed a civil action under this section or the Attorney General has not filed a civil action in a case involving a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision, or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission, or the Attorney General in a case involving a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision, shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge (A) by the person claiming to be aggrieved or (B) if such charge was filed by a member of the Commission, by any person whom the charge alleges was aggrieved by the alleged unlawful employment practice. (Emphasis added). This court has not explicitly addressed the question whether the receipt of a right-to-sue letter is a jurisdictional prerequisite, which if not" }, { "docid": "23074182", "title": "", "text": "not contested. The letter was issued by the EEOC on May 3, 1983, and mailed to Espinoza at the address that he provided to the EEOC — his home address. The notice was actually received at that address by Espinoza’s wife on May 4, 1983. Espinoza was out of town at that time and did not actually see the letter until he returned home on May 12, 1983. The suit was filed on August 3, 1983, ninety-two days after the letter was delivered to Espinoza’s home. The district court held that the ninety-day period within which suit must be filed was triggered by receipt of the notice at Espinoza’s residence and that Espinoza’s suit was therefore untimely. On appeal, Espinoza argues that the ninety-day period does not begin to run until the person aggrieved actually receives the right-to-sue letter because it is only then that the person becomes aware of his or her right to sue. As authority for that proposition, Espinoza cites the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 585 F.2d 210 (7th Cir.1978), and our decision in Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev’d on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976), on which the Seventh Circuit relied heavily in Archie. There is no question but that Archie squarely supports Espinoza’s position. The facts involved in Archie are, for all practical purposes, identical to the facts in this case, and the Seventh Circuit ruled that receipt by Archie’s wife at his residence did not trigger the ninety-day period, holding instead that “the ninety-day period of limitation set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) begins to run on the date on which a claimant actually receives from the EEOC his notice of right-to-sue.” Archie, 585 F.2d at 216. In Franks, the right-to-sue letter was received at Franks’ mailing address by Franks’ nine-year old nephew, who lost the letter before Franks saw or read it. Approximately a year later, Franks contacted the EEOC and learned that the right-to-sue letter had been issued and forwarded to his residence. A" }, { "docid": "13863119", "title": "", "text": "Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., upon the filing of a charge of discrimination, the EEOC shall serve notice of the charge on the employer and conduct an investigation. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). If the EEOC dismisses a charge of discrimination, the commission informs the aggrieved person of the dismissal and a civil action may be brought against the employer within ninety days of such notice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5(f)(1). The ninety day filing requirement is not jurisdictional. St. Louis v. Alverno College, 744 F.2d 1314, 1316, n. 2 (7th Cir.1984). Rather, the filing requirement acts as a statute of limitations, and is subject to the principles of waiver and equitable tolling. Id.; Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 1726, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984); Jones v. Madison Service Corp., 744 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir.1984). The Seventh Circuit employs an “actual receipt” standard in determining when the ninety day filing period begins to run. In other words, the claimant must actually receive the EEOC right-to-sue letter before the filing period starts to run. Jones, 744 F.2d at 1312; St. Louis, 744 F.2d at 1316; Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 585 F.2d 210, 216 (7th Cir.1978); Robinson v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 134, No. 86 C 6643, slip op. at 6, 1989 WL 32875 (N.D.Ill. April 5, 1989); Tyler v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 87 C 2311, slip op. at 3, 1987 WL 19553 (N.D.Ill. November 3, 1987). A three prong analysis is employed in determining when the ninety day period begins to run: 1) when the letter is received at the claimant’s address by someone other than the claimant, the ninety day period begins to run upon actual receipt of the letter by the claimant; 2) when the claimant is represented by counsel who receives the letter, the filing period begins to run from the day the attorney actually receives the letter; and 3) in other cases the court will adopt a “fault approach”, where the statutory period begins to run upon some type of fault on the" }, { "docid": "15579845", "title": "", "text": "simply too many oddities in the Decker-Petersen relationship and deviations from what is presumably standard EEOC procedures to hold Decker to the severe result of constructive receipt. As only the date of Decker’s actual receipt of the EEOC’s notice of right to sue will count for purposes of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff’s suit was timely filed. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. . See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l). Section 706(f)(1) provides in pertinent part: If a charge filed with the Commission ... is dismissed by the Commission, .. . the Commission ... shall notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge. . In order to express her feelings towards the EEOC, Petersen wrote a letter on February 12, 1976 to Duke Beasley, the Acting Regional Director of the EEOC, which in essence complains that the EEOC was disregarding her rights as Decker’s attorney and was bypassing her and dealing directly with Decker. The letter evidences Petersen’s ignorance of the EEOC’s decision to issue the right to sue letter. . Although the receipt on the certified letter states that the letter was received on February 12, 1976, there is a real question in the Court’s mind whether the date on that receipt is accurate. The EEOC mailed Decker’s notice in care of Petersen on February 11, 1976 but it bore the wrong address and had the wrong zip code for that address. See Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing at 146-47. Thus, it is debatable whether the letter arrived in Petersen’s office the next day after the mailing. . The defendant also cites several Fifth Circuit cases which in dicta state that receipt by an attorney of the plaintiffs notice of a right to sue could trigger the time period for Title VII. Franks v. Bowman Trans. Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 749, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 1257, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976); Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express, 555 F.2d 542 (5th" }, { "docid": "22589758", "title": "", "text": "by the Commission ... the Commission ... shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge (A) by the person claiming to be aggrieved. ... . Ms. Scholar contends this court indicated its interpretation of notice as it applies to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) when it stated in a footnote to Lynn v. Western Gillette, Inc., 564 F.2d 1282, 1286 n. 3 (9th Cir.1977), that \"actual notification\" of the 90-day period is required. In the footnote to Lynn the court was addressing the fact that the 90-day period begins to run when claimant receives the right-to-sue letter rather than when the letter is dispatched; the court’s comments were not made in the context of the facts before us. . Ms. Scholar relies upon Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev'd on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976), and Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union, 585 F.2d 210 (7th Cir.1978), inter alia, to support her position. The Fifth Circuit, however, distinguishes both Franks (one of its own cases) and Archie by pointing out that both cases were decided before it was determined that the 90-day requirement was a statute of limitation rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite. Espinoza v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 754 F.2d 1247, 1250 (5th Cir.1985). . \"When federal claims are dismissed before trial, ... pendent state claims also should be dismissed.\" Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 651 (9th Cir.1984) (citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966))." }, { "docid": "23074183", "title": "", "text": "210 (7th Cir.1978), and our decision in Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev’d on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976), on which the Seventh Circuit relied heavily in Archie. There is no question but that Archie squarely supports Espinoza’s position. The facts involved in Archie are, for all practical purposes, identical to the facts in this case, and the Seventh Circuit ruled that receipt by Archie’s wife at his residence did not trigger the ninety-day period, holding instead that “the ninety-day period of limitation set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) begins to run on the date on which a claimant actually receives from the EEOC his notice of right-to-sue.” Archie, 585 F.2d at 216. In Franks, the right-to-sue letter was received at Franks’ mailing address by Franks’ nine-year old nephew, who lost the letter before Franks saw or read it. Approximately a year later, Franks contacted the EEOC and learned that the right-to-sue letter had been issued and forwarded to his residence. A new letter was issued by the EEOC, and suit was filed by Franks shortly thereafter. The court held that, although receipt at Franks’ mailing address constituted prima facie evidence of notification, statutory notification, on these facts, took place only upon actual receipt by Franks. Construing the Act liberally, the court refused to apply the “constructive receipt” doctrine. The court expressed the view that “Congress did not intend to condition a claimant’s right to sue ... on fortuitous circumstances or events beyond his control.” 495 F.2d at 404. The court concluded that where “it is shown that the claimant through no fault of his own has failed to receive the suit letter ... the delivery of the letter to the mailing address cannot be considered to constitute statutory notification.” Id. at 405 (emphasis added). We disagree with Archie’s characterization of the issue involved in this case as one of constructive receipt or notice. The statute does not establish the beginning of the ninety-day period as the date when the plaintiff “receives” notice but starts the period" }, { "docid": "22999771", "title": "", "text": "he immediately took to his attorney. This lawsuit was filed four days later, more than ninety days after the court determined constructive or actual receipt to be in August, 1979. The EEOC file does not indicate that plaintiff was given a copy. The court took the view that plaintiff was permitted access to his EEOC file and removed the August letter return receipt from that file, which plaintiff denies. II. Consideration of the applicable law must begin with Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1974), rev’d on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976). After his discharge as an employee, and the failure of EEOC to conciliate the dispute, Franks, a Black, brought his Title VII action after the issuance of a second “right to sue” letter. The first letter had been delivered by certified mail to the correct address of Franks and receipted for by his nine year old nephew. The nephew lost the letter, and although Franks knew some letter had been received, he personally never saw or received that letter. His suit was timely only if the first letter upon its delivery did not trigger the running of the statutory period. The court held that the statutory notification took place only upon actual receipt by Franks. Construing the act liberally, the court held that the application of the “constructive receipt” doctrine would not serve the remedial purposes of the act. The court expressed the view that “Congress did not intend to condition a claimant’s right to sue ... on fortuitous circumstances or events beyond his control. . .. ” 495 F.2d at 404. The court concluded where “it is shown that the claimant through no fault of his own has failed to receive the suit letter ... the delivery of the letter to the mailing address cannot be considered to constitute statutory notification.” 495 F.2d at 405. The Seventh Circuit in Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 585 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1978), Wood, J., dissenting in part, followed the lead of Franks. In Archie the letter was received" }, { "docid": "22589757", "title": "", "text": "Ms. Scholar’s. statements as fact, she still had 76-83 days in which to preserve her legal rights; Ms. Scholar offers no explanation as to why this was not sufficient time in which to commence her action. Ms. Scholar has made no showing to justify invocation of the doctrine of equitable tolling. We find Ms. Scholar’s Title YII civil action was filed after the 90-day statute of limitations expired and is, therefore, barred. CONCLUSION We find Ms. Scholar’s cause of action is foreclosed because she did not file her Title YII civil action in a timely fashion in accordance with the statutory requirements. As a result, we do not reach the other issues presented by Ms. Scholar on appeal. Further, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims because the federal claims were dismissed before trial. The district court’s grant of summary judgment to Pacific Bell is hereby affirmed. AFFIRMED. . 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) provides in part: If a charge filed with the Commission pursuant to subsection (b) of this section is dis missed by the Commission ... the Commission ... shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge (A) by the person claiming to be aggrieved. ... . Ms. Scholar contends this court indicated its interpretation of notice as it applies to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) when it stated in a footnote to Lynn v. Western Gillette, Inc., 564 F.2d 1282, 1286 n. 3 (9th Cir.1977), that \"actual notification\" of the 90-day period is required. In the footnote to Lynn the court was addressing the fact that the 90-day period begins to run when claimant receives the right-to-sue letter rather than when the letter is dispatched; the court’s comments were not made in the context of the facts before us. . Ms. Scholar relies upon Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir.1974), rev'd on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976), and Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and" } ]

[ { "docid": "2482955", "title": "", "text": "addition to your individual military counsel being here, you have the right to have Captain CATHCART, your detailed defense counsel, here present also? ACC: Yes, sir. MJ: Have you excused Captain CATHCART from being present? ACC: Yes, sir. MJ: Are you ready to proceed now to trial represented only by Captain FRYE? ACC: Yes, sir. As is patently obvious from the foregoing dialogue, at no time did the military judge inform the appellant that he had a right to be represented by civilian counsel or ascertain the appellant’s understanding of his entitlement thereto. Notwithstanding this deficiency, and although expressly finding that the military judge had not complied with the Donohew ruling by giving this limited advice, the U.S. Navy Court of Military Review affirmed the appellant’s conviction by holding that the purpose of the Donohew inquiry was achieved “where the record shows appellant obviously knew he had a right to individual military counsel and it was exercised.” On the basis of our decision in United States v. Copes, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 578, 50 C.M.R. 843, 1 M.J. 182 (1975), we reverse. In United States v. Jordan, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 164, 46 C.M.R. 164 (1973), this Court, in accordance wjth the plain meaning of Article 38(b), held that a military accused, in addition to the right to be represented by a detailed military counsel, is also entitled to representation by a retained civilian counsel or individually selected military counsel but not both. In so holding, however, this Court presumed that any military accused would still make a knowing and informed election as to the type of representation he desired, with full understanding of his options thereto. To now reason, as did the court below and the Government now on appeal, that the appellant waived the requirement for advice as to his right to be represented by civilian counsel by choosing representation by individual military counsel is to put the cart before the horse. The purpose of the Donohew inquiry, as recently reiterated in United States v. Copes, supra, was to insure that a military accused not only was advised of, but also adequately" } ]

[ { "docid": "22431490", "title": "", "text": "Massey, 14 U.S.C.M.A. 486, 34 C.M.R. 266 (1964), and before United States v. Timberlake, supra, both of which applied the “good cause” rule to determine the legality of the termination of an existing attorney-client relationship. Andrews was represented by two military lawyers, one of whom was Captain Wayne. A question arose during trial as to accused’s mental competency. As a result, trial was twice continued to allow psychiatric evaluation of the accused. Between the second adjournment and the reconvening of the court, Captain Wayne was separated from the service. Both he and the accused wanted to continue their attorney-client relationship for the remainder of the trial. They agreed that accused would retain Wayne as individual civilian counsel at no cost except reimbursement of Wayne’s travel expenses between Boston, Massachusetts, and Fort Myer, Virginia, the place of trial. However, the agreement was frustrated by an erroneous ruling by the Chief of the Military Affairs Division of the Office of the Judge Advocate General that continuation of the relationship with Wayne as civilian counsel would violate federal law. The trial was completed, with the accused being represented only by the previously appointed military counsel. In this Court, Andrews challenged his conviction on the ground that what had transpired in regard to his relationship with Wayne was prejudicial error. He presented three contentions; two of these are directly relevant. They are: (1) That his established attorney-client relationship with Captain Wayne was improperly terminated. In support, he relied on United States v. Murray, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 61, 42 C.M.R. 253 (1970), in which this Court held that a “routine change of assignment” did not justify termination of an established attorney-client relationship between accused and appointed military counsel; and (2) That he “was denied [the] right to civilian counsel of his own choice as guaranteed by Article 38(b), Code,” supra. The Court held that Andrews had been “deprived ... of his statutory right to have the civilian counsel of his choice.” 21 U.S.C.M.A. at 168, 44 C.M.R. at 222 (emphasis supplied). The unarticulated assumption of the Court’s opinion is that the previously existing relationship with Captain" }, { "docid": "14117091", "title": "", "text": "selection if such counsel is reasonably available, or by counsel detailed by the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the command.” Article 32(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 832(b) (1976). Numerous decisions support the proposition that effective representation by counsel of one’s choice is a substantial pretrial right. See, e. g., United States v. Maness, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 41, 47, 48 C.M.R. 512, 518 (1974); United States v. Nichols, 8 U.S. C.M.A. 119,23 C.M.R. 343 (1957); cf. United States v. Worden, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 486, 38 C.M.R. 284 (1968). While Maness and Nichols dealt with the prevention of participation by civilian counsel already obtained, we see no reason why the same doctrine should not be applied when an accused has given reasonable notice of his intent to obtain civilian counsel. Cf. United States v. Donati, 14 U.S.C.M.A. 235, 34 C.M.R. 15 (1963) (counsel for taking deposition). Nor do we see anything in this record on which to base a determination that appellant was unreasonable or was pursuing an improper motive in wishing to replace the civilian counsel with whom he had disagreed. While his request for delay did not specify a time limit, neither is there any indication that a few days’ delay would have inconvenienced or prejudiced the interests of the Government. Accordingly, we conclude that the Article 32 investigating officer erred in denying appellant a reasonable opportunity to obtain civilian counsel for the remaining session of the investigation. IV The issue arose again at the trial, albeit not at the outset. The first trial session, convened pursuant to Article 39(a), was held on 25 October 1978. Captain Fletcher, on appellant’s behalf, requested a continuance because appellant desired to employ a civilian attorney for the trial and had an appointment with a Mr. Banner of the Dallas bar on 28 October. The military judge granted the continuance, advising appellant that his counsel must be prepared to try the case. The next Article 39(a) session occurred on 27 November. Mr. Banner had been unable to meet a trial date in November, but had set aside the “week of 4" }, { "docid": "12056505", "title": "", "text": "such assistants as he deems necessary or appropriate.” [Emphasis supplied.] Neither the statute nor the Manual provides any further criteria to be employed by a convening authority in making his decision concerning the assignment of assistant defense counsel. Were we therefore to conclude, as the government suggests, that a convening authority’s discretion in deciding whether to detail assistant defense counsel is unbridled, we would unhesitatingly agree with the government that appellant had no right to the services of Lieutenant Cherneff. But, we do not agree that a convening authority’s discretionary power is untrammeled as the government contends. Certainly the convening authority has broad power in determining whether to detail assistant defense counsel. The language of Article 27(a) does indicate, however, that Congress contemplated there would be occasion upon which a convening authority would deem it appropriate to detail assistant defense counsel. Indeed, in a particular case as paragraph 6a of the Manual states, the assignment of assistant defense counsel may not only be appropriate, but necessary in the interests of justice. Whether a convening authority should detail assistant defense counsel is therefore a matter for sound, but not unbridled, discretion, and will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. We are aware, as emphasized by the government, that the United States Court of Military Appeals has stated “[tjhere is no constitutional provision for, and no reason in logic or sound practice to justify, appointment of a third lawyer for the trial merely because an accused desires one. . ” United States v. Jordan, 22 U.S. C.M.A. 164, 167, 46 C.M.R. 164, 167 (1973). But, we believe that statement in Jordan is inapposite to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In Jordan the accused appeared in court without his detailed defense counsel whose services he did not desire. Although he was then represented by his white individual civilian defense lawyer he informed the trial judge that he also wanted the services of a black individual military lawyer. The judge advised him that he was not entitled, as a matter of right, to the services of individual" }, { "docid": "10693719", "title": "", "text": "but desired to be represented by appointed defense counsel. No mention was made of the pretrial application for a military lawyer; and no motion was presented for a continuance to obtain civilian counsel or individually chosen military counsel. Every accused before a special court-martial must have military counsel appointed to represent him. Article 27, Uniform Code, supra. See also United States v Culp, supra. In addition, the accused has the right to be represented “by civilian counsel if provided by him, or military counsel of his own selection if reasonably available.” Article 38(b), Uniform Code, supra, 10 USC § 838. These provisions of the Uniform Code are discussed in paragraph 48 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951. Por the purposes of this appeal we may assume that the accused’s generalized request for “counsel qualified in the sense of Article 27, UCMJ” was sufficient under Article 38 (b) to constitute the selection of a military lawyer of the accused’s own choice. See United States v Cutting, 14 USCMA 347, 350, 34 CMR 127. The accused’s right to military counsel of his own choice is not absolute. The authority to whom a request for individual military counsel is submitted has discretion to determine whether counsel is available for the assignment. Many circumstances have to be considered, including the fact that the assignment of the specially requested counsel should not “obstruct either other important operations of the service concerned or the orderly administration of military justice.” United States v Vanderpool, 4 USCMA 561, 566, 16 CMR 135. A determination of nonavailability is subject to review for abuse of discretion. United States v Cutting, supra, at page 351. See also United States v Davis, 1 USCMA 102, 104, 2 CMR 8. In reviewing the determination, the question essentially is whether it was based upon reasonable considerations. A discretionary decision cannot be reviewed meaningfully if the bases for the decision are not clearly set out. Only when the reasons for the conclusion are specified can the reviewing authority determine that the decision rests upon a sound base and applies correct rules of law." }, { "docid": "7142733", "title": "", "text": "CMR 32 (1952); United States v Howell, 11 USCMA 712, 29 CMR 528 (1960). The right is absolute if the accused elects to proceed without any counsel, United States v Bell, 11 USCMA 306, 29 CMR 122 (1960); it is qualified, if he desires to substitute another attorney for the one discharged, with the qualification being that the request for substitution of counsel cannot impede or unreasonably delay the proceedings. United States v Vanderpool, 4 USCMA 561, 16 CMR 135 (1954). In fact, appellate defense counsel concede that the trial judge can deny a request for a continuance, if the delay sought is unreasonable. United States v Kinard, 21 USCMA 300, 45 CMR 74 (1972). Cf. United States v Potter, 14 USCMA 118, 33 CMR 330 (1963). Consequently, an accused who decides to retain civilian counsel on the day of trial may properly be denied a continuance if the delay is unreasonable. In that event, it is not Article 38(b) that would require the accused to proceed without civilian counsel, but his own procrastination. A second major argument advanced against construing the right to personally selected counsel in the alternative is that the conventing authority could arbitrarily deny a request for individual military counsel if, at the time of the request, the accused was already represented by civilian counsel. The argument overlooks another aspect of the general right to counsel. As the judge pointed out at trial, an accused can request a named military lawyer in place of the appointed defense counsel. The burden of establishing good cause for such substitution is on the accused. See United States v Bell, supra. Absent a request for substitution of appointed defense counsel, and represented by both civilian counsel and at least one appointed military lawyer, the accused’s desire for another individual military counsel would indeed be a privilege. There is no constitutional provision for, and no reason in logic or sound practice to justify, appointment of a third lawyer for the trial merely because the accused desires one. Some cases may be so complex or involved as to be too much of" }, { "docid": "12094775", "title": "", "text": "intended to bestow on servicemembers a right to counsel unparalleled in civilian criminal trials. See United States v. Gnibus, 21 M.J. 1 (C.M.A.1985). Unlike his civilian counterpart, the military accused will be furnished counsel without any demonstration of indigency on his part and may ask that a specific military lawyer be appointed to represent him. Moreover, until the Uniform Code was amended in 1981, an accused even could obtain the services of both the requested counsel and the counsel who originally had been detailed to represent him. Id. at 6. To some extent, this broad right to counsel is grounded in history; but there may be additional reasons for the legislative generosity. Congress may have concluded that servicemembers, who risk their lives for their country, should be granted a right to counsel greater than that which would be minimally required by the Constitution. Moreover, because the convening authority who refers cases for trial promulgates the convening order under which defense counsel is detailed, it may have seemed that greater confidence would exist in the adequacy and independence of counsel if the accused had some choice as to who would represent him — a choice which could include lawyers from another command or even another service. Recognizing the significance of an accused’s right to request individual military counsel, who would serve at government expense, or to obtain'civilian counsel at the accused’s expense, this Court decided long ago that the trial judge should establish on the record that an accused understands these rights. United States v. Donohew, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 149, 39 C.M.R. 149 (1969). There we stated: We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 38(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder. 18 U.S.C.M.A. at 152, 39 C.M.R. at 152. On several occasions this requirement has been criticized by the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review. United States v. Frazier, unpublished (NMCM 84-3167-October 24, 1984). In the present case the court below — although granting relief to the" }, { "docid": "7142727", "title": "", "text": "black military attorneys at the place of trial, Frankfurt/Main, Federal Republic of Germany, he admitted that he knew there were “very few black lawyers available in Europe,” and that a continuance for the purpose of determining the availability of a black lawyer could extend his pretrial confinement. He also conceded that if a black lawyer was unavailable, he “might wind up right where . . . [he was] today.” Still, he persisted in his desire for a black attorney. The judge noted that only two qualified black military lawyers were in Europe and his experience in other cases indicated that they were “eminently unavailable” for appointment as defense counsel. Considering the possibility of appointment of a black lawyer as individual military counsel, the judge pointed out that, as the accused had civilian counsel of his own choice, he did not “have the right to an individual military counsel.” Mr. Hrones disputed the correctness of the judge’s observation. He maintained that the accused had a legal right to both civilian counsel and individual military counsel of his own choice, subject only to the latter’s availability for assignment. After a conference with the accused, he informed the judge that the accused had “chosen to fire” him because he wanted a black lawyer and “had no other alternatives to effectively pursue” his request for such a lawyer. The accused personally confirmed the “firing,” and Mr. Hrones left the courtroom. Thereupon, Chaney, a co-accused, represented that he, too, wanted a black military lawyer. The trial judge granted a continuance to June 14 to both accused to allow each to request a black lawyer as individual military counsel. Several lawyers selécted by the accused were deemed to be unavailable. On June 2, he requested Captain Thompson, who was then stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. Captain Thompson was available and was assigned as individual military counsel. On June 14, he appeared with the accused at the reconvened Article 39(a) session. Chaney appeared with another black military lawyer. The accused informed the trial judge that he wanted to be represented by Captain Thompson, without the assistance of" }, { "docid": "7142734", "title": "", "text": "second major argument advanced against construing the right to personally selected counsel in the alternative is that the conventing authority could arbitrarily deny a request for individual military counsel if, at the time of the request, the accused was already represented by civilian counsel. The argument overlooks another aspect of the general right to counsel. As the judge pointed out at trial, an accused can request a named military lawyer in place of the appointed defense counsel. The burden of establishing good cause for such substitution is on the accused. See United States v Bell, supra. Absent a request for substitution of appointed defense counsel, and represented by both civilian counsel and at least one appointed military lawyer, the accused’s desire for another individual military counsel would indeed be a privilege. There is no constitutional provision for, and no reason in logic or sound practice to justify, appointment of a third lawyer for the trial merely because the accused desires one. Some cases may be so complex or involved as to be too much of a burden for one lawyer. For such cases, the Manual for Courts-Martial suggests the appointment of an appropriate number of assistant counsel. MCM, 1969 (Rev ed), paragraph 6. We suppose defense counsel, military or civilian, and appointed or personally selected, can request the appointment of additional assistant counsel. A request for such assistance is not the same as a right to select military counsel by name. We have examined the subsidiary contentions of the defense, including the charge that an “appearance of evil” would pervade the military justice system if Article 38(b) is construed contrary to his view, and we remain unpersuaded that any of them justifies disregard of the plain language of Article 38(b). As we indicated earlier, military law gives greater scope and flexibility to the right to counsel than is accorded the right in constitutional terms in the civilian criminal justice system. We see no evil, and we fear no evil, in construing Article 38(b) according to its plain language. The decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed. Chiéf Judge" }, { "docid": "12056507", "title": "", "text": "military counsel in addition to the services of his individual civilian lawyer. The accused then discharged his civilian lawyer. An individual military lawyer who met Jordan’s racial criterion was subsequently made available to him. The trial went to completion with this military lawyer representing him to Jordan’s apparent satisfaction. On appeal to the United States Court of Military Appeals, Jordan contended that he had been improperly denied the services of his individual civilian lawyer in order to obtain the services of his individual military lawyer. In deciding against Jordan’s appellate position the United States Court of Military Appeals indicated that Article 38(b), UCMJ, entitled Jordan to but one individual defense counsel and that Jordan had been deprived of no right because he discharged his civilian lawyer in order to be represented by an individual military lawyer who met the criterion Jordan had established. It was with this background that the Court made the above quoted statement in Jordan that the appointment of a third lawyer was unnecessary for the trial merely because an accused desired one; however, we find an entirely different background of facts and circumstances in the instant ease. Lieutenant Cherneff had established a lawful attorney-client relationship with appellant pursuant to a requirement imposed by the staff judge advocate for military law, Commander Cowell. That relationship flourished for two and one-half months with Lieutenant Cherneff a member of appellant’s defense team. His contribution to the team effort had been substantial. Moreover, the evidence establishes that not only was he readily available to continue to act as a member of the defense team, cf. United States v. Quinones, 23 U.S. C.M.A. 457, 50 C.M.R. 476, 1 M.J. 64 (1975), but he desired to continue to represent his client and appellant desired that he do so. Therefore, unlike the accused in Jordan who discharged his civilian lawyer and then later complained before the United States Court of Military Appeals about being deprived of the services of that lawyer which resulted from Jordan’s own intentional act, in the instant case appellant was totally consistent in his desire for the professional services" }, { "docid": "7142730", "title": "", "text": "with civilian counsel. The unavoidable conclusion, therefore, is that the accused had exactly the kind of legal representation he wanted and that he received exactly the kind of disposition of the case he deemed obtainable and in his best interest. The Court of Military Review below so found. The importance of the question to military practice requires, however, that the issue not be decided on the basis of prejudice. Military law provides for automatic appointment of defense counsel for an accused subject to trial by general court-martial. Article 27, UCMJ, 10 USC § 827. In addition, an accused can select counsel of his choice. In this regard, the practice is different from that in the civilian courts where the accused’s right to appointed counsel depends upon his financial inability to retain counsel. An accused in the civilian community, therefore, has no choice between appointed counsel and personally selected counsel; for him, it is either one or the other, depending upon his financial resources. A military accused has a choice. Article 38(b) of the Uniform Code provides as.follows: “The accused has the right to be represented in his defense before a general or special court-martial by civilian counsel if provided by him, or by military counsel of his own selection if reasonably available or by the defense counsel detailed under section 827 of this title (article 27). Should the accused have counsel of his own selection, the defense counsel, and assistant defense counsel, if any, who were detailed, shall, if the accused so desires, act as his associate counsel; otherwise they shall be excused by the military judge or by the president of a court-taartial without a military judge.” Appellate defense counsel acknowledge that under the usual rules of statutory construction the word “or” is presumed to be used in the disjunctive sense, unless the legislative intent is clearly to the contrary. United States v Chilcote, 20 USCMA 283, 43 CMR 123 (1971). So construed, Article 38(b) confers two options upon the accused as to personal selection of available counsel. One option is to select civilian counsel at his own expense," }, { "docid": "1066694", "title": "", "text": "longer possessed the right which he sought to exercise by way of his “motion for a continuance.” See United States v. Watson, No. 770023 (N.C.M.R. 15 April 1977). Absent that right, appellant had no “reasonable cause” to delay the proceedings on 2 September 1976. Consequently, we fail to discern any “substantial rights” which denial of appellant’s motion compelled him to forego. In reaching this conclusion, we have had to address a heretofore unresolved issue of fundamental significance to a proper understanding of Article 38(b), UCMJ; to wit: whether or not an accused who has been furnished with individual military counsel of his own selection thereafter necessarily retains a right to be represented by any other reasonably available military counsel he may choose. In our view, Article 38(b), UCMJ, in general must be construed as affording an accused the right to be furnished only once with a reasonably available individual military counsel of his own selection; neither the ^convening authority nor any other cognizant official is obligated to consider or otherwise process in accordance with paragraph 48b of the Manual, supra, any application for the detail of a person requested as individual military counsel by an accused previously granted military counsel of his own selection. Indeed, the Court of Military Appeals held in United States v. Johnson, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 148, 150, 48 C.M.R. 764, 766 (1974) that even where a convening authority has erred in failing to fulfill his obligation under paragraph 48b of the Manual, supra, to ascertain the availability of individual military counsel requested by an accused, the minimum demands of Article 38(b), UCMJ, nevertheless have been met where the accused “has in fact been represented at trial by either civilian or individual military counsel.” The right to military counsel of one’s own selection is not an absolute right, but is subject to the exigencies and practicalities of whatever situation may obtain at the time. United States v. Vanderpool, supra. The right to choose counsel in the first instance may not be insisted on in such a manner as to obstruct any other important operations of the service concerned" }, { "docid": "12056506", "title": "", "text": "should detail assistant defense counsel is therefore a matter for sound, but not unbridled, discretion, and will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. We are aware, as emphasized by the government, that the United States Court of Military Appeals has stated “[tjhere is no constitutional provision for, and no reason in logic or sound practice to justify, appointment of a third lawyer for the trial merely because an accused desires one. . ” United States v. Jordan, 22 U.S. C.M.A. 164, 167, 46 C.M.R. 164, 167 (1973). But, we believe that statement in Jordan is inapposite to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In Jordan the accused appeared in court without his detailed defense counsel whose services he did not desire. Although he was then represented by his white individual civilian defense lawyer he informed the trial judge that he also wanted the services of a black individual military lawyer. The judge advised him that he was not entitled, as a matter of right, to the services of individual military counsel in addition to the services of his individual civilian lawyer. The accused then discharged his civilian lawyer. An individual military lawyer who met Jordan’s racial criterion was subsequently made available to him. The trial went to completion with this military lawyer representing him to Jordan’s apparent satisfaction. On appeal to the United States Court of Military Appeals, Jordan contended that he had been improperly denied the services of his individual civilian lawyer in order to obtain the services of his individual military lawyer. In deciding against Jordan’s appellate position the United States Court of Military Appeals indicated that Article 38(b), UCMJ, entitled Jordan to but one individual defense counsel and that Jordan had been deprived of no right because he discharged his civilian lawyer in order to be represented by an individual military lawyer who met the criterion Jordan had established. It was with this background that the Court made the above quoted statement in Jordan that the appointment of a third lawyer was unnecessary for the trial merely because an accused desired" }, { "docid": "10938856", "title": "", "text": "he cannot dismiss the charges without a trial because the accused had been denied military counsel of his choice. Cutting noted that the purpose of obtaining the record of accused’s request and the action thereon is to “preserve” the issue for “appellate scrutiny.” In United States v. Quinones, supra, the Court held that denial of accused’s request was error, but the Court did not dismiss the charges for that reason. A rehearing, the Supreme Court said in the Morrison case, is the “characteristically imposed” remedy for a denial of counsel. In United States v. Batts, supra, the accused contended he had been deprived of his right to individual civilian counsel, within the meaning of Article 38(b), because his Philippine lawyer was not also a member of an American bar. ■ The Court assumed that, under the Article, civilian counsel was disqualified from acting for the accused, but it held that the error was not “jurisdictional” and could be disregarded because it did not prejudice the accused as he was effectively represented by appointed defense counsel who had been retained by the accused as “associate counsel.” 3 M.J. at 441. In United States v. Morrison, supra, 101 S.Ct. at 668, the Supreme Court indicated that a claim of deprivation of counsel is “subject to the general rule that remedies should be tailored to the injury suffered ... and should not unnecessarily infringe on competing interests.” As Batts, Quinones, and Cutting demonstrate, a balance of competing interests is involved in a decision as to the availability of individual counsel. On the one hand is the need the military commanders perceive for the services of the requested counsel to accomplish the military mission; on the other is the accused’s desire for that particular lawyer. To throw into the balance on the side of the accused the prospect that charges will be dismissed in advance of trial if the commander mistakes his assessment of the needs of his command impresses us as being contrary to the limitation Congress imposed on the accused’s right to select a lawyer of his own choice. As the right" }, { "docid": "2458527", "title": "", "text": "defense counsel, but it steadfastly reiterated throughout the course of this inquiry the appellant’s desire to retain his assistance. An examination of the judge’s own comments in making his ruling, moreover, unequivocally reflects that he relieved Lieutenant Dunlap on his own initiative based upon the results of independent research. Because this disqualification ruling was made considerably prior to the point in the trial when argument on the speedy trial motion was even entertained, it is likewise patent that the judge did not rely upon any defense reference to that prior ruling, which the appellant was powerless to change. The only question left for resolution is the legal effect of the judge’s erroneous removal of Lieutenant Dunlap. As to this point, we believe that the Court of Military Review misapplied the decisions of this Court in concluding that the complete loss of such assistance was harmless error. The right of a military accused to be represented by counsel at trial by court-martial is somewhat broader in scope under the Uniform Code of Military Justice than that accorded to civilian defendants under the United States Constitution. Article 38(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 838(b), not only accords a military accused the right to the appointment of a qualified counsel, but it also accords him the right to have a military counsel of his own selection, if reasonably available. When an accused elects to be represented by selected military counsel and that counsel. is subsequently made available, Article 38(b) further grants the accused the right to retain his appointed defense counsel as “associate counsel.” United States v. Jordan, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 164, 166, 46 C.M.R. 164, 166 (1973). In previously expressing our view as to the importance of an accused’s right to the effective assistance of his appointed military defense counsel, we held: An accused’s right to be represented by defense counsel appointed in his behalf is a fundamental principle of military due process. . . . Once entered into, the relationship between the accused and his appointed military counsel may not be severed or materially altered for administrative convenience. The establishment of a viable" }, { "docid": "7142732", "title": "", "text": "and excuse or retain the appointed defense counsel as “associate counsel.” The other option is-to have individual military counsel free of charge, and excuse or retain appointed defense counsel as associate counsel. Appellate defense counsel also contend that “it is clear that Congress intended the word [“or”] to be read as the conjunctive ‘and.’” No legislative report or dicussion is cited to support the contention, but several alleged intolerable consequences of a contrary construction of Article 38(b) are advanced as evidence of the requisite legislative intent. It is asserted, first, that to construe the article as conferring an alternative right to personally selected counsel would permit the trial judge “to refuse to allow a civilian lawyer to . . . defend an accused who was already represented by an individual military counsel.” The contention misconceives the effect of accused’s representation by counsel at a particular stage of the court-martial proceedings. Establishment of an attorney-client relationship is not immutable or irrevocable. An accused can always discharge his lawyer. United States v Goodson, 1 USCMA 298, 3 CMR 32 (1952); United States v Howell, 11 USCMA 712, 29 CMR 528 (1960). The right is absolute if the accused elects to proceed without any counsel, United States v Bell, 11 USCMA 306, 29 CMR 122 (1960); it is qualified, if he desires to substitute another attorney for the one discharged, with the qualification being that the request for substitution of counsel cannot impede or unreasonably delay the proceedings. United States v Vanderpool, 4 USCMA 561, 16 CMR 135 (1954). In fact, appellate defense counsel concede that the trial judge can deny a request for a continuance, if the delay sought is unreasonable. United States v Kinard, 21 USCMA 300, 45 CMR 74 (1972). Cf. United States v Potter, 14 USCMA 118, 33 CMR 330 (1963). Consequently, an accused who decides to retain civilian counsel on the day of trial may properly be denied a continuance if the delay is unreasonable. In that event, it is not Article 38(b) that would require the accused to proceed without civilian counsel, but his own procrastination. A" }, { "docid": "7142731", "title": "", "text": "provides as.follows: “The accused has the right to be represented in his defense before a general or special court-martial by civilian counsel if provided by him, or by military counsel of his own selection if reasonably available or by the defense counsel detailed under section 827 of this title (article 27). Should the accused have counsel of his own selection, the defense counsel, and assistant defense counsel, if any, who were detailed, shall, if the accused so desires, act as his associate counsel; otherwise they shall be excused by the military judge or by the president of a court-taartial without a military judge.” Appellate defense counsel acknowledge that under the usual rules of statutory construction the word “or” is presumed to be used in the disjunctive sense, unless the legislative intent is clearly to the contrary. United States v Chilcote, 20 USCMA 283, 43 CMR 123 (1971). So construed, Article 38(b) confers two options upon the accused as to personal selection of available counsel. One option is to select civilian counsel at his own expense, and excuse or retain the appointed defense counsel as “associate counsel.” The other option is-to have individual military counsel free of charge, and excuse or retain appointed defense counsel as associate counsel. Appellate defense counsel also contend that “it is clear that Congress intended the word [“or”] to be read as the conjunctive ‘and.’” No legislative report or dicussion is cited to support the contention, but several alleged intolerable consequences of a contrary construction of Article 38(b) are advanced as evidence of the requisite legislative intent. It is asserted, first, that to construe the article as conferring an alternative right to personally selected counsel would permit the trial judge “to refuse to allow a civilian lawyer to . . . defend an accused who was already represented by an individual military counsel.” The contention misconceives the effect of accused’s representation by counsel at a particular stage of the court-martial proceedings. Establishment of an attorney-client relationship is not immutable or irrevocable. An accused can always discharge his lawyer. United States v Goodson, 1 USCMA 298, 3" }, { "docid": "10693718", "title": "", "text": "of Article 27 of the Uniform Code, supra, 10 USC § 827. See United States v Culp, 14 USCMA 199, 33 CMR 411. After the charges were served, appointed defense counsel filed with the convening authority accused’s request for “counsel qualified in the sense of Article 27, UCMJ.” The request was forwarded to the Commandant, Marine Corps Schools, as the general court-martial authority. It was denied by endorsement, as follows: “1. Returned, the request for counsel is denied. “2. The present general court-martial and Article 32 case load of counsel of this headquarters preclude assignment in Private Donnie GATEWOOD’S case. None are reasonably available. /s/ N. M. Bennett N. M. BENNETT By direction.” About three weeks later, the charges came on for trial. Before the accused’s arraignment, defense counsel was twice asked whether the accused had been advised of his right to be represented by civilian counsel or individual military counsel of his own selection, as provided in Article 38(b) of- the Uniform Code. Both times, defense counsel indicated the accused had had such advice, but desired to be represented by appointed defense counsel. No mention was made of the pretrial application for a military lawyer; and no motion was presented for a continuance to obtain civilian counsel or individually chosen military counsel. Every accused before a special court-martial must have military counsel appointed to represent him. Article 27, Uniform Code, supra. See also United States v Culp, supra. In addition, the accused has the right to be represented “by civilian counsel if provided by him, or military counsel of his own selection if reasonably available.” Article 38(b), Uniform Code, supra, 10 USC § 838. These provisions of the Uniform Code are discussed in paragraph 48 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951. Por the purposes of this appeal we may assume that the accused’s generalized request for “counsel qualified in the sense of Article 27, UCMJ” was sufficient under Article 38 (b) to constitute the selection of a military lawyer of the accused’s own choice. See United States v Cutting, 14 USCMA 347, 350, 34 CMR 127. The" }, { "docid": "12094779", "title": "", "text": "applied by this Court in an unduly strict and technical manner, cf. United States v. Turner, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 167, 43 C.M.R. 7 (1970), it does not impose an excessive burden on the military judge. Moreover, although in the case at bar, the requirement has indirectly created an appellate issue, we are sure that this cost is outweighed by benefits from the warning in other cases where it has forestalled post-trial claims that, if the accused had known of his right to do so, he would have asked for a different military lawyer or would have employed civilian counsel. B The most significant elements of Article 38 are that it provides an accused with three alternatives: (1) detailed counsel, (2) requested military counsel at government expense, or (3) civilian counsel at the accused’s own expense. United States v. Turner, supra. Even after Article 38 was amended in 1981, it appears that advice calling attention to these three options would satisfy Donohew and that there would be no need to mention excusing detailed counsel unless the accused indicated an interest in requesting individual military counsel. Even so, the advice which a military judge is required to give under the 1984 Manual goes into greater detail and includes informing the accused that, “if afforded individual military counsel, the accused may request retention of detailed counsel as associate counsel, which request may be granted or denied in the sole discretion of the authority who detailed the counsel.” Unfortunately, the military judge went beyond referring to the accused’s right to request military counsel but stopped short of this more complete explanation now called for under R.C.M. 901(d)(4). Appellate defense counsel contend that this incomplete advice had a “chilling effect” on Johnson’s exercise of his right to request individual military counsel because he would have erroneously believed that, under no circumstances could he request individual counsel and still retain the services of his detailed counsel, Lieutenant Utecht. The Government replies that probably the accused never was concerned about whether his detailed counsel would be excused if he requested individual counsel. Moreover, to a substantial extent, the" }, { "docid": "7142726", "title": "", "text": "Opinion of the Court Quinn, Judge: Despite a plea of guilty and a sentence less than that adjudged at.trial and provided in a pretrial agreement with the convening authority, the accused contends that his conviction for larceny and two specifications of robbery, in violation of Articles 121 and 122, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 921 and 922, respectively, should be reversed because he was deprived of “his right to be represented by civilian counsel provided at his own expense.” At an Article 39 (a) session held before convening of the court, the accused appeared before the trial judge accompanied by a white civilian attorney, Stephen B. Hrones, Esquire, who had represented him earlier at the Article 32 investigation. He indicated that he wanted to be represented by Mr. Hrones at the trial and that he. did not desire the appointed defense counsel as associate counsel. He further indicated that he wanted “a black military lawyer to go along with Mr. Hrones.” Responding to remarks by the judge as to the scarcity of black military attorneys at the place of trial, Frankfurt/Main, Federal Republic of Germany, he admitted that he knew there were “very few black lawyers available in Europe,” and that a continuance for the purpose of determining the availability of a black lawyer could extend his pretrial confinement. He also conceded that if a black lawyer was unavailable, he “might wind up right where . . . [he was] today.” Still, he persisted in his desire for a black attorney. The judge noted that only two qualified black military lawyers were in Europe and his experience in other cases indicated that they were “eminently unavailable” for appointment as defense counsel. Considering the possibility of appointment of a black lawyer as individual military counsel, the judge pointed out that, as the accused had civilian counsel of his own choice, he did not “have the right to an individual military counsel.” Mr. Hrones disputed the correctness of the judge’s observation. He maintained that the accused had a legal right to both civilian counsel and individual military counsel of" }, { "docid": "12094774", "title": "", "text": "other military lawyer other than Mr. Utecht? ACCUSED: No, sir. MJ: Are you satisfied with Mr. Utecht’s representation? ACCUSED: Yes, sir. MJ: All right. Be seated. (Emphasis added.) The accused successfully claimed in the Court of Military Review that the advice provided by the judge was inaccurate. His rationale was that, although the Uniform Code provides that an “accused is not entitled to be represented by more than one military counsel,” see Art. 38(b)(6), 10 U.S.C. § 838(b)(6), it does not completely preclude the possibility of representation by more than one military lawyer at government expense. Thus, contrary to the judge’s statement, the accused might successfully request individual military counsel and yet manage to retain the services of Lieutenant Utecht, who had been detailed as defense counsel by the special court-martial convening order. In that event, the stated consequence that Utecht would be “automatically excused” would not occur. II A In determining whether action should be taken to remedy the military judge’s failure to delineate the accused’s options completely, our starting premise is that Congress intended to bestow on servicemembers a right to counsel unparalleled in civilian criminal trials. See United States v. Gnibus, 21 M.J. 1 (C.M.A.1985). Unlike his civilian counterpart, the military accused will be furnished counsel without any demonstration of indigency on his part and may ask that a specific military lawyer be appointed to represent him. Moreover, until the Uniform Code was amended in 1981, an accused even could obtain the services of both the requested counsel and the counsel who originally had been detailed to represent him. Id. at 6. To some extent, this broad right to counsel is grounded in history; but there may be additional reasons for the legislative generosity. Congress may have concluded that servicemembers, who risk their lives for their country, should be granted a right to counsel greater than that which would be minimally required by the Constitution. Moreover, because the convening authority who refers cases for trial promulgates the convening order under which defense counsel is detailed, it may have seemed that greater confidence would exist in the adequacy" } ]

[ { "docid": "22964776", "title": "", "text": "assert this “general” jurisdiction must be “extensive and persuasive.” Id. at 890 (Gibbons, J., dissenting). If this latter theory applies to this case, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any continuous or substantial forum affiliation by the defendant. The only concrete evidence posited by the plaintiff of the defendant’s “purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting business in Pennsylvania” is an advertisement in Martindale Hubbell Law Directory which circulates in that state and a referral from a Philadelphia firm that resulted in this litigation. An advertisement seeking business in Missouri, even had it been in an exclusively Pennsylvania directory would not, by itself, constitute “continuous and substantial” business activity. Lebkuecher v. Loquasto, 255 Pa.Super. 608, 389 A.2d 143 (1978). Furthermore, the referral by which Reliance seeks to establish a significant business relationship between Pennsylvania and Watson was not only unsolicited by Watson, but was manifested in its initial contact by a telephone call from Reliance in Pennsylvania to Watson in Missouri, wherein Reliance sought to engage Watson to represent it in Missouri and Kansas. As Hanson v. Denkla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), taught, “The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state.” See also, Baron v. Bank of New Jersey, 497 F.Supp. 534, 535 (E.D.Pa.1980). This leads to the other contention of the plaintiff, that the cause of action arose as the result of Watson’s activities within the forum, and as such the court need only find that Watson availed itself of privileges within the forum in connection with its transaction with the plaintiff. Reliance bases this argument on the allegation that Watson negligently delivered legal advice into Pennsylvania by telephone and subsequently billed the client in Pennsylvania and that any willing representation of a Pennsylvania client makes the firm amenable to personal jurisdiction in that state. But to accept this theory we must totally disregard the operative facts that the plaintiff seeks to establish to win its case on the merits. Those facts concern the matter that brought the" } ]

[ { "docid": "22222180", "title": "", "text": "due process when “the cause of action between the parties did not arise from any acts of the defendants in Tthe forum state]”); Bryant v. Weintraub, Genshlea, Hardy, Erich & Brown, 844 F.Supp. 640, 642 (D.Or.1994) (where Oregon resident sued California law firm for failure to obtain service in California, the injury arose directly from alleged malpractice in California and had no connection to the firm’s other Oregon contacts), aff'd, 42 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir.1994). We therefore must consider the contacts between the defendants and the forum state viewed through the prism of plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim. Of the limited contacts between the defendants and New Hampshire during their legal representation, few are relevant to the Sawtelles’ claim of legal malpractice and thus few assist them in satisfying the relatedness element of the jurisdictional inquiry. For the Virginia defendants, Attorney Farrell and the Speiser firm, the relevant contact was the August 7, 1991 letter mailed to the plaintiffs in New Hampshire, in which Farrell stated that he believed it to be in the Sawtelles’ best interests to accept the $155,-000 settlement offer. For the Florida defendants, Attorney Olin and the Podhurst firm, the relevant contact with the forum, for purposes of the Sawtelles’ malpractice claim, was Olin’s telephone call to New Hampshire in which he concurred in the settlement recommendation. The transmission of information into New Hampshire by way of telephone or mail is unquestionably a contact for purposes of our analysis. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). It would, however, be illogical to conclude that those isolated recommendations constituted the negligent conduct that caused the Florida injury and thus were in-forum acts sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire. A review of all the allegedly negligent actions of the defendants preceding the injury indicates numerous non-forum decisions reached by the defendants in Virginia and Florida, but not in New Hampshire. It was the defendants’ investigation, in Florida and Virginia, which informed their judgment about the amount and propriety of the proposed settlement. In short, it" }, { "docid": "23632209", "title": "", "text": "471 U.S. at 478, 105 S.Ct. at 2185); Mellon Bank (East) v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 557 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Contracting with a resident of the forum state does not alone justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.”) (citing Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1222 (3d Cir.1992)). In determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, however, we consider not only the contract but also “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479,105 S.Ct. at 2185. III. A. The facts underlying the present case are not in dispute. Vetrotex solicited Conglas to obtain the 1991 Supply Agreement by telephone and by personal visits to Conglas headquarters in California. Conglas did not solicit the 1991 Supply Agreement, and no Conglas personnel ever visited Pennsylvania. Conglas signed the 1991 Supply Agreement in California and sent it to CertainTeed in Pennsylvania. Similarly, with respect to the 1992 Supply Agreement, officers of CertainTeed flew to California to negotiate that contract. The 1992 Supply Agreement was prepared by CertainTeed and sent to Conglas in California, where it was executed. No product was shipped from, through, or to Pennsylvania.' Instead, the chopped strand was manufactured in Texas and shipped directly from Vetrotex’s plant in Texas to Conglas’s facility in California. Vetrotex handled all of the transportation arrangements and paid the transportation costs. Vetrotex’s invoicing for product sold under the 1992 Supply Agreement was handled by Vetrotex’s California office. Conglas made all payments for goods to Vetrotex’s California office. The district court found, among other things that the following facts were not in dispute: Vetrotex solicited Conglas to obtain the 1991-92 contract by telephone and by personal visits to Conglas headquarters in California. The parties engaged in telephone communication prior to entering into the 1991-92 contract. Conglas signed the disputed contract in California and sent it to Vetrotex in Pennsylvania. Conglas made all payments for goods to Vetrotex CertainTeed’s California office. Under the disputed contract, Vetrotex did not deliver any goods" }, { "docid": "14709041", "title": "", "text": "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the appropriate starting point for jurisdictional analysis, as the rule authorizes personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the extent permissible under the law of the state where the district court sits. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, National Association v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1221 (3rd Cir.1992) citing Mesalic v. Fiberfloat Corp., 897 F.2d 696, 698 (3rd Cir.1990). Under Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(b), the courts are permitted to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the constitutional limits of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3rd Cir.1993); Farino, at 1221. The constitutional touchstone of the determination whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process remains whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in or purposely directed its activities toward residents of the forum state. Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 108, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987). The determination of whether minimum contacts exist requires an examination of “the relationship among the forum, the defendant and the litigation.” Vetrotex Certainteed Corporation v. Consolidated Fiber Glass Products Co., 75 F.3d 147, 150 (3rd Cir.1996), citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2580, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). Hence, there must first be “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” for personal jurisdiction to attach. Id., quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). Then, if sufficient “minimum contacts are shown, jurisdiction may be exercised where the court determines in its discretion that to do so would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id., quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Farino, 960 F.2d at 1222. Personal jurisdiction has been further categorized as either specific or general. If the plaintiffs cause of action arises" }, { "docid": "2560227", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM & ORDER KATZ, Senior District Judge. Plaintiff Molnlycke Health Care AB brings this patent infringement claim against defendant Dumex Medical Surgical Products Limited. Molnlycke is a Swedish corporation with its principal place of business in Sweden, but it has a wholly owned subsidiary in Eddystone, Pennsylvania. Dumex is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Canada. Plaintiff alleges that it owns a patent pertaining to wound care products and that defendant has infringed on that patent by advertising, selling, and distributing a similar product in the United States. Defendant’s present motion requests dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and/or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1. Personal Jurisdiction Defendant argues that it is not subject to general personal jurisdiction in this district because it has not conducted continuous and substantial business in Pennsylvania. Dumex also argues that there is no specific jurisdiction because it has no “minimum contacts” with this state. In support of these claims, Dumex explains that it does not have a regular place of business in Pennsylvania and that less than one percent of its sales occurred in Pennsylvania. Dumex also states that it has never sold the allegedly infringing product in Pennsylvania. See Def. Ex. A ¶¶ 2-4 (Aff. of Bill Goodwin). A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant to the extent permitted under state law, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e), and Pennsylvania authorizes long-arm jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the due process clause. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(b). Once jurisdiction has been challenged, the plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing either that the cause of action arose from the defendant’s forum-related activities (specific jurisdiction) or that the defendant has ‘continuous and systematic’ contacts with the forum state (general jurisdiction).” Mellon Bank (East) v. DiVeronica Bros., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3d Cir.1993) (citations omitted). The plaintiff may meet this burden and present a prima facie case for exercising personal jurisdiction by “establishing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state.” Mellon Bank (East) PSFS v. Farino, 960 F.2d" }, { "docid": "12813530", "title": "", "text": "not advertise or solicit business in South Dakota, and did not actively seek out Austad as a client. Id. In Mal-mo, we held that a Tennessee attorney did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri when his only contact with the forum was an initial letter of solicitation. Malmo, 939 F.2d at 537. Other circuits have come to similar conclusions. See Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (1st Cir.1995) (contacts insufficient to allow exercise of personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire when New Hampshire resident retained Virginia law firm to bring wrongful death action in Florida); Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir.1990) (personal jurisdiction was proper because the law firm’s compensation was secured by a deed of trust encumbering the plaintiffs home, but stated no personal jurisdiction if a client brought a malpractice action over a Florida law firm in connection with representation in Florida and only the normal incidents of representation were present); Mayes v. Leipziger, 674 F.2d 178 (2d Cir.1982) (no personal jurisdiction in New York over a California law firm representing a New York resident in California litigation); Kowalski v. Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, 787 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1986) (no personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire over a Massachusetts law firm representing a New Hampshire client in legal matters in Massachusetts). But see Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Myers & Assocs., 41 F.3d 229, 231 (5th Cir.1995) (personal jurisdiction proper in Texas over an Illinois law firm; representation of the Texas client in more than forty matters, including a court appearance in Texas, indicated purposeful availment of the privileges of doing business in Texas); Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC, 40 P.3d 1267 (Colo.2002) (en banc) (personal jurisdiction proper in Colorado over a New York law firm because lawyer “consciously entered into the agreement, with foreseeable consequences” to represent resident of Colorado). The plaintiffs also cannot establish a “substantial connection” between the defendants and the forum state based on the final three factors in the analysis. The alleged negligence of the defendants in failing to inform the plaintiffs of the change in Connecticut law is not sufficiently" }, { "docid": "23632208", "title": "", "text": "activities,” North Penn Gas Co. v. Corning Natural Gas Corp., 897 F.2d 687, 690 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 847, 111 S.Ct. 133, 112 L.Ed.2d 101 (1990); see Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872 n. 8, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984); Dollar Sav. Bank v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, N. A, 746 F.2d 208, 211 (3d Cir.1984), such that the defendant “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). Vetrotex does not allege general jurisdiction. As is evident from the complaint, this action concerns only Conglas’s alleged breach of the 1992 Supply Agreement. The 1992 Supply Agreement, standing alone, is an insufficient ground upon which to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Conglas. See Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 482 (3d Cir.1993) (“[A] contract alone does not ‘automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum.’”) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478, 105 S.Ct. at 2185); Mellon Bank (East) v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 557 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Contracting with a resident of the forum state does not alone justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.”) (citing Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1222 (3d Cir.1992)). In determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, however, we consider not only the contract but also “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479,105 S.Ct. at 2185. III. A. The facts underlying the present case are not in dispute. Vetrotex solicited Conglas to obtain the 1991 Supply Agreement by telephone and by personal visits to Conglas headquarters in California. Conglas did not solicit the 1991 Supply Agreement, and no Conglas personnel ever visited Pennsylvania. Conglas signed the 1991 Supply Agreement in California and sent it to CertainTeed in Pennsylvania. Similarly, with respect to the 1992 Supply Agreement, officers of CertainTeed" }, { "docid": "6196905", "title": "", "text": "amendment. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3rd Cir.1993); National Paintball Supply, Inc. v. Cossio, 996 F.Supp. 459, 461 (E.D.Pa.1998). The exercise of jurisdiction can satisfy Due Process on one of two distinct theories, a defendant’s general or claim-specific contacts with the forum. Remick and Ennc, both supra. A defendant is subject to general jurisdiction when it has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state and exists even if the plaintiffs cause of action arises from the defendant’s non-forum related activities. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984); Vetrotex Certainteed Corp. v. Consolidated Fiber Glass Products Co., 75 F.3d 147, 151 n. 3 (3d Cir.1996). Specific jurisdiction, in turn, is established when a non-resident defendant has “purposefully directed” his activities at a resident of the forum and the injury arises from or is related to those activities. General Electric Company v. Deutz Ag, 270 F.3d 144, 151 (3d Cir.2001). Questions of specific jurisdiction are properly tied to the particular claims asserted and thus specific jurisdiction frequently depends on physical contacts with the forum. Id. Thus, where the plaintiff has shown that the defendant has the requisite minimum contacts with the forum state and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, the constitutional due process standards underlying specific jurisdiction are satisfied. See, e.g., Lautman v. The Loewen Group, Inc., No. 99-75, 2000 WL 772818, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8241 (E.D.Pa. June 15, 2000). Here, Defendant argues that he had no contacts with Pennsylvania except in his corporate capacity and hence there is no basis upon which he personally can be subject to jurisdiction as an individual. As a general rule, individuals performing acts in a state in their corporate capacity are not subject to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of that state for those acts. National Precast Crypt Co. v. Dy-Core of Pennsylvania, Inc., 785 F.Supp. 1186, 1191 (W.D.Pa.1992). This principle is commonly referred to as the fiduciary shield doctrine. Id., citing," }, { "docid": "22568354", "title": "", "text": "75 F.3d at 152. We stated that “ ‘informational communications in furtherance of [a contract between a resident and a nonresident] does [sic] not establish the purposeful activity necessary for a valid assertion of personal jurisdiction over [the nonresident defendant].’ ” Id. (quoting Sunbelt Corp. v. Noble, Denton & Assoc., Inc., 5 F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir.1993)). Nevertheless, we expressly acknowledged that in many instances, personal jurisdiction can arise primarily from a nonresident defendant’s contract with a forum resident. In Vetrotex, we distinguished other cases where jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant has been premised largely on the defendant’s contract with a resident of the forum state. For instance, this is not a case where the defendant solicited the contract or initiated the business relationship leading up to the contract. Nor is this a ease where the defendant sent any payments to the plaintiff in the forum state, or where the defendant engaged in extensive post-sale contacts with the plaintiff in the forum state. Id. at 152-53 (citations omitted). Remick’s contract claim is comparable to those distinguished in Vetrotex. According to Remick’s affidavit, Manfredy sought Remick out by placing a telephone call to Remick’s associate Resnick at their office in Philadelphia. This solicitation eventually resulted in the fee agreement between Remick and Manfredy, which Remick signed in, and Manfredy signed and returned to, Pennsylvania. The agreement noted that its formality was required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, suggesting that Manfredy was receiving the benefit of Pennsylvania law under the agreement. In addition, at least one payment was sent by Manfredy to Remick at his Philadelphia office. Most of the services performed by Remick on behalf of Manfredy were conducted at Rem-ick’s Philadelphia office, and Manfredy certainly should have expected as much as he knew that Remick’s home office is in Philadelphia. Finally, there were repeated “informational communications” during the course of the contractual relationship between Manfredy and Remick with Remick at his Philadelphia office, including the final communication — Manfredy’s termination letter of March 2, 1998. See Grand Entm’t Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476," }, { "docid": "6196904", "title": "", "text": "154, 160, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). Indeed, Due Process requires that the defendant have “minimum contacts” within the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 255 (3d Cir.2001), quoting International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154. Thus, to satisfy the dictates of the due process clause, the defendant must have purposefully directed his conduct toward the forum state or must have purposefully availed himself of the protection of the laws of the forum state. See, Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174; IMO Industries v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 259 (3d Cir.1998). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e), a district court may assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent permissible under the law of the state where the district court sits. Id. Pursuant to Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(b), the courts are permitted to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the constitutional limits of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3rd Cir.1993); National Paintball Supply, Inc. v. Cossio, 996 F.Supp. 459, 461 (E.D.Pa.1998). The exercise of jurisdiction can satisfy Due Process on one of two distinct theories, a defendant’s general or claim-specific contacts with the forum. Remick and Ennc, both supra. A defendant is subject to general jurisdiction when it has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state and exists even if the plaintiffs cause of action arises from the defendant’s non-forum related activities. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984); Vetrotex Certainteed Corp. v. Consolidated Fiber Glass Products Co., 75 F.3d 147, 151 n. 3 (3d Cir.1996). Specific jurisdiction, in turn, is established when a non-resident defendant has “purposefully directed” his activities at a resident of the forum and the injury arises from or is related to those activities. General Electric Company v. Deutz Ag, 270 F.3d 144, 151 (3d Cir.2001). Questions of specific jurisdiction are properly tied to" }, { "docid": "22568355", "title": "", "text": "distinguished in Vetrotex. According to Remick’s affidavit, Manfredy sought Remick out by placing a telephone call to Remick’s associate Resnick at their office in Philadelphia. This solicitation eventually resulted in the fee agreement between Remick and Manfredy, which Remick signed in, and Manfredy signed and returned to, Pennsylvania. The agreement noted that its formality was required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, suggesting that Manfredy was receiving the benefit of Pennsylvania law under the agreement. In addition, at least one payment was sent by Manfredy to Remick at his Philadelphia office. Most of the services performed by Remick on behalf of Manfredy were conducted at Rem-ick’s Philadelphia office, and Manfredy certainly should have expected as much as he knew that Remick’s home office is in Philadelphia. Finally, there were repeated “informational communications” during the course of the contractual relationship between Manfredy and Remick with Remick at his Philadelphia office, including the final communication — Manfredy’s termination letter of March 2, 1998. See Grand Entm’t Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 482 (3d Cir.1993) (“Mail and telephone communications sent by the defendant into the forum may count toward the minimum contacts that support jurisdiction.”). These facts as a whole involved more entangling contacts than the mere “informational communications” at issue in Vetrotex. Decisions in two other cases also support finding personal jurisdiction here. In Farino, we upheld jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants who had approached a Pennsylvania bank seeking to borrow money. We quoted from the Supreme Court’s decision in Burger King, where the Court commented that jurisdiction is proper where parties “reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state.” Farino, 960 F.2d at 1222 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 473, 105 S.Ct. 2174). Analogizing to that situation, we stated in Farino that by approaching the bank, the defendants “establishfed] a business relationship with a Pennsylvania entity” and “knowingly created continuing obligations with a citizen of Pennsylvania.” Id. at 1223. We commented that “[w]hen a defendant has received the benefits and protections of the forum’s laws by engaging" }, { "docid": "23632212", "title": "", "text": "of communications between a resident and a nonresident in developing a contract is insufficient of itself to be characterized as purposeful activity invoking the benefits and protection of the forum state’s laws”)). Thus, in the present case, Conglas was merely a “passive buyer” of Vetrotex’s product. We hold that the undisputed circumstances attending Conglas’s 1991 and 1992 Supply Agreements with Vetrotex do not support the conclusion that Conglas “purposefully availed” itself of the privilege of doing business in Pennsylvania for purposes of the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Conglas. See Sunbelt Corp., 5 F.3d at 32 (holding that a Pennsylvania corporation’s contract with a Texas corporation and post-contract telephone and facsimile communications with the same were insufficient to show “purposeful availment” of the privilege of doing business in Texas, for purposes of the Texas long-arm statute, the latter of which is co-extensive with the reach of the federal constitution). The instant case is distinguishable from other cases where jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant has been premised largely on the defendant’s contract with a resident of the forum state. For instance, this is not a case where the defendant solicited the contract or initiated the business relationship leading up to the contract. Compare Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir.1992). Nor is this a case where the defendant sent any payments to the plaintiff in the forum state, compare North Penn Gas v. Corning Natural Gas, 897 F.2d 687, 690-91 (3d Cir.1990), or where the defendant engaged in extensive post-sale contacts with the plaintiff in the forum state. Compare Mesalic v. Fiberfloat Corp., 897 F.2d 696, 700 (3d Cir.1990) (after selling a boat to New Jersey buyer, defendant sent written correspondence to the buyer’s New Jersey residence, delivered the boat to New Jersey, and attempted to repair the boat in New Jersey). B. Vetrotex argues that the relationship that existed between Conglas and CertainTeed in the 1980s are also relevant as “prior negotiations” or “course of dealing” with respect to the 1992 Supply Contract under Burger King. Burger King’s reference to “prior negotiations,”" }, { "docid": "23632205", "title": "", "text": "on October 20, 1994, dismissing Vetrotex’s complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court found the relevant and dispositive facts, which we recite in text, infra, to be undisputed. Accordingly, the district court concluded that Conglas’s contacts with Pennsylvania were “marginal and were not directed at Pennsylvania to benefit from its laws” and held that to exercise jurisdiction over Conglas “would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. Vetrotex appealed. II. A. “Whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over an out-of-state defendant is a question of law, and this court’s review is therefore plenary.” Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, N.A. v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3d Cir.1993) (citing Mesalic v. Fiberfloat Corp., 897 F.2d 696, 698 (3d Cir. 1990)). We review any factual findings made by the district court for clear error. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1220 (3d Cir.1992). A district court sitting in diversity applies the law of the forum state in determining whether personal jurisdiction is proper. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e). Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute provides that its reach is coextensive with the limits placed on the states by the federal Constitution. 42 Pa.Cons. Stat.Ann. § 5322(b) (1981). We therefore look to federal constitutional doctrine to determine Conglas’s susceptibility to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment places limits on the power of a state to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877). The due process limit to the exercise of personal jurisdiction is defined by a two-prong test. First, the defendant must have made constitutionally sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (the “constitutional touchstone” of personal jurisdiction is “whether the defendant purposefully established ‘minimum contacts’ in the forum State”). The determination of whether minimum contacts exist requires an examination of “the relationship among the forum, the defendant and the litigation,” Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2580, 53" }, { "docid": "23632211", "title": "", "text": "to Conglas in Pennsylvania. (Memorandum and Order entered October 20, 1994 at 4). Understandably, Vetrotex agreed at oral argument that none of these findings of fact are clearly erroneous. See North Penn Gas v. Corning Natural Gas, 897 F.2d 687, 688 (3d.Cir.1990) (“A determination of minimum contacts is based upon findings of fact. As such, the district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.”). The district court also found that Vetrotex “has not shown solicitation, advertisement, or delivery by Conglas in Pennsylvania since 1989.” Id. at 3. The only contacts that Conglas had with Pennsylvania consisted of some telephone calls and letters written to Vetrotex in Pennsylvania. However, this Court has recognized that “informational communications in furtherance of [a contract between a resident and a nonresident] does not establish the purposeful activity necessary for a valid assertion of personal jurisdiction over [the nonresident defendant].” Sunbelt Corp. v. Noble, Denton & Assoc., Inc., 5 F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir.1993) (citing Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1193 (5th Cir.1985) (stating that “an exchange of communications between a resident and a nonresident in developing a contract is insufficient of itself to be characterized as purposeful activity invoking the benefits and protection of the forum state’s laws”)). Thus, in the present case, Conglas was merely a “passive buyer” of Vetrotex’s product. We hold that the undisputed circumstances attending Conglas’s 1991 and 1992 Supply Agreements with Vetrotex do not support the conclusion that Conglas “purposefully availed” itself of the privilege of doing business in Pennsylvania for purposes of the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Conglas. See Sunbelt Corp., 5 F.3d at 32 (holding that a Pennsylvania corporation’s contract with a Texas corporation and post-contract telephone and facsimile communications with the same were insufficient to show “purposeful availment” of the privilege of doing business in Texas, for purposes of the Texas long-arm statute, the latter of which is co-extensive with the reach of the federal constitution). The instant case is distinguishable from other cases where jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant has been premised largely on the defendant’s contract with a" }, { "docid": "22034126", "title": "", "text": "process, for the connection between C’s actions in an extra-forum jurisdiction and B’s home state is too attenuated to satisfy the relatedness requirement. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1873-74, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Nor do we think that the case for the application of such a novel rule is bolstered by the mere fact that A (acting, for aught that appears, on his own initiative) chooses to inform C of his communication with B by mailing her a copy of it. Although MSL does not assert in so many words that the Committee’s denial of accreditation at the Brooklyn meeting constitutes conduct directed into Massachusetts sufficient to bestow personal jurisdiction, it intimates as much. We therefore address this possibility. The transmission of facts or information into Massachusetts via telephone or mail would of course constitute evidence of a jurisdictional contact directed into the forum state, see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), but we must determine whether the Committee’s decision to deny accreditation — a decision that had effects in Massachusetts — qualifies as such a contact. We have wrestled before with this issue of whether the in-forum effects of extra-forum activities suffice to constitute minimum contacts and have found in the negative. For example, in Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (1st Cir.1995), we recounted Kowalski v. Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, 787 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1986), and noted that in Kow-alski “we rejected the plaintiffs contention that, because the ‘effects’ of the firm’s negligence were felt in New Hampshire, the law firm had caused an injury there by conduct directed at that forum.” Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1390. Just as the New Hampshire effects of Massachusetts negligence, without more, could not sustain an action in New Hampshire against the negligent actor, see Kowal-ski, 787 F.2d at 11, so too the Massachusetts effects of the Eight Individual Defendants’ New York actions, without more, fail to sustain an action in a Massachusetts court. Accord Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1394 (holding" }, { "docid": "22222183", "title": "", "text": "by conduct directed at that forum. See id. at 11. Instead, we observed that: [the client’s] injury occurred when the suit was dismissed by the Massachusetts court. The consequence of the dismissal is that plaintiffs are barred from bringing a wrongful death action in the Massachusetts courts. The injury, if any, occurred in Massachusetts. Id.; see also Cote v. Wadel, 796 F.2d 981, 984 (7th Cir.1986) (where the negligence of a Michigan law firm resulted in a Wisconsin plaintiff losing “a valuable property in Michigan consisting of a cause of action against a doctor, ... [t]he handful of letters and phone calls” that passed between the client and firm was not enough for personal jurisdiction over the firm in Wisconsin). The Sawtelles attempt to distinguish Kow-alski and Cote by pointing out that, unlike the instant action, those eases involved legal malpractice claims based upon the failure of attorneys to comply with procedural rules, thereby causing the loss of rights of their respective clients. In such cases, the Saw-telles contend, the exercise of personal jurisdiction would have been improper because the malpractice actions did not arise out of the contacts between the attorneys and the forum states. In contrast, the plaintiffs argue that their malpractice claim satisfies the relatedness requirement because the defendants directed negligent settlement advice into New Hampshire, thereby causing plaintiffs harm in New Hampshire as a result of their reliance upon such advice. We are not convinced that the plaintiffs have distinguished themselves from the plaintiff in Kowalski. It may be true that the defendants’ alleged malpractice was not consummated until they communicated their misconceived advice to plaintiffs in New Hampshire by telephone and mail and the plaintiffs’ relied on the advice to their detriment. Ultimately, however, the gravamen of the Sawtelles’ claim is that they suffered in New Hampshire the “effects” of the defendants’ negligence committed elsewhere. See Kowalski, 787 F.2d at 11. The communications sent into New Hampshire were ancillary to the allegedly negligent non-forum activities, and because those communications were the only relevant contacts with the forum for purposes of the Sawtelles’ malpractice claim, we" }, { "docid": "5919898", "title": "", "text": "statute. In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we take the allegations of the complaint as true. Narco Avionics, Inc. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc., 792 F.Supp. 398, 402 (E.D.Pa.1992). But once a defendant has raised a jurisdictional defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving by affidavits or other competent evidence that jurisdiction is proper. Id. (citing North Penn Gas Co. v. Corning Natural Gas Corp., 897 F.2d 687, 689 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 847, 111 S.Ct. 133, 112 L.Ed.2d 101 (1990)); see also Mellon Bank (East) v. Di-Veronica Bros., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3d Cir. 1993). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e), we will apply Pennsylvania law to the jurisdictional issue. Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents “to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States ... based on the most minimum contact with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States.” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5322(b) (1981). Section 5322(a) sets forth a variety of examples of sufficient contact, such as “[transacting any business in this Commonwealth.” Id. § 5322(a)(1) (Purdon’s Supp.1995). Section 5322(b) further expands the potential bases for jurisdiction. When personal jurisdiction is based solely on minimum contacts under the long-arm statute, it is limited to “a cause of action or other matter arising from acts” which confer jurisdiction. Id. § 5322(c). As the district court noted, “[sjpeeific jurisdiction arises when the plaintiffs claim is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Dayhoff, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., No. 93-1794, slip op. at 13 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 3, 1994) (quoting Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, N.A. v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1221 (3d Cir.1992)). A plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant purposefully has established “sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state that it ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ ” DiVeronica Bros., 983 F.2d at 554. Dayhoff argues that Heinz Italia has had a wide range of contacts in Pennsylvania that would support the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over it. The district court found, however, that" }, { "docid": "2560228", "title": "", "text": "regular place of business in Pennsylvania and that less than one percent of its sales occurred in Pennsylvania. Dumex also states that it has never sold the allegedly infringing product in Pennsylvania. See Def. Ex. A ¶¶ 2-4 (Aff. of Bill Goodwin). A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant to the extent permitted under state law, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e), and Pennsylvania authorizes long-arm jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the due process clause. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(b). Once jurisdiction has been challenged, the plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing either that the cause of action arose from the defendant’s forum-related activities (specific jurisdiction) or that the defendant has ‘continuous and systematic’ contacts with the forum state (general jurisdiction).” Mellon Bank (East) v. DiVeronica Bros., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3d Cir.1993) (citations omitted). The plaintiff may meet this burden and present a prima facie case for exercising personal jurisdiction by “establishing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state.” Mellon Bank (East) PSFS v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir.1992), quoting Provident Nat’l Bank v. California Fed. S & L Ass’n, 819 F.2d 434 (3d Cir.1987). Plaintiff does not argue that this court has specific jurisdiction and relies exclusively on a claim of general jurisdiction. Pennsylvania law permits the exercise of general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant when the corporation carries on “a continuous and systematic part of its general business within this Commonwealth.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301(a)(2)(iii). Unlike specific jurisdiction, general jurisdiction is premised on a defendant’s relationship with the forum rather than on particular contacts with the plaintiff. “General jurisdiction permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when ‘that party can be called to answer any claim against her, regardless of whether the subject matter of the cause of action has any connection to the forum.’” Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717, 723 (E.D.Pa.1999), quoting Farino, 960 F.2d at 1221. To exercise general jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that a defendant “has maintained ‘continuous and substantial’ forum affiliations.” Reliance Steel Prods. v. Watson, Ess," }, { "docid": "23632204", "title": "", "text": "California with the information that Vetrotex would not sell any more fiber glass chopped strand product to Conglas after March 31, 1994. Vetrotex ceased delivery of 44E strand, and Conglas withheld payment on outstanding invoices. On May 12, 1994, Vetrotex brought the present diversity action against Conglas in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking to recover $303,595.35 in withheld payments from Conglas. Shortly thereafter, Conglas sued Vetrotex in California state court, seeking damages for breach of the 1992 Supply Agreement. Vetrotex then removed the California action to the Central District of California, where it is currently stayed pending the resolution of this appeal. Vetrotex has not yet counterclaimed in the California action, but admitted at oral argument before us that there is no impediment to its filing a counterclaim in that action. On July 5, 1994, Conglas moved to dismiss Vetrotex’s Pennsylvania action for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for improper venue. On October 18, 1994, the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum and order, 1994 WL 583184, entered on October 20, 1994, dismissing Vetrotex’s complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court found the relevant and dispositive facts, which we recite in text, infra, to be undisputed. Accordingly, the district court concluded that Conglas’s contacts with Pennsylvania were “marginal and were not directed at Pennsylvania to benefit from its laws” and held that to exercise jurisdiction over Conglas “would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. Vetrotex appealed. II. A. “Whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over an out-of-state defendant is a question of law, and this court’s review is therefore plenary.” Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, N.A. v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3d Cir.1993) (citing Mesalic v. Fiberfloat Corp., 897 F.2d 696, 698 (3d Cir. 1990)). We review any factual findings made by the district court for clear error. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1220 (3d Cir.1992). A district court sitting in diversity applies the law of the forum state in determining whether personal jurisdiction is proper. Fed.R.Civ.P." }, { "docid": "22972447", "title": "", "text": "sales to persons in the United States are the two contacts orchestrated by Toys, and it appears that Step Two scarcely recognized that sales with U.S. residents had been consummated. At best, Toys has presented only inconclusive circumstantial evidence to suggest that Step Two targeted its web site to New Jersey residents, or that it purposefully availed itself of any effort to conduct activity in New Jersey. Many of the grounds for jurisdiction that Toys advanced below have been deemed insufficient by the courts. First, the two docu mented sales appear to be the kind of “fortuitous,” “random,” and “attenuated” contacts that the Supreme Court has held insufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction. See Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (citations omitted). As for the electronic newsletters and other email correspondence, “telephone communication or mail sent by a defendant [do] not trigger personal jurisdiction if they ‘do not show purposeful availment.’ ” Barrett, 44 F.Supp.2d at 729 (quoting Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, N.A. v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 556 (3d Cir.1993)). The court in Barrett found that the exchange of three emails between the plaintiff and defendant regarding the contents of the defendant’s web site, without more, did not “amount to the level of purposeful targeting required under the minimum contacts analysis.” Id. at 729; see also Machulsky v. Hall, 210 F.Supp.2d 531, 542 (D.N.J.2002) (minimal email correspondence, “by itself or even in conjunction with a single purchase, does not constitute sufficient minimum contacts.”). Non-Internet contacts, such as Mr. Tena’s visits to New York and the relationships with U.S. vendors, have not been explored sufficiently to determine whether they are related to Toys’ cause of action, or whether they reflect “purposeful availment.” Absent further evidence showing purposeful availment, Toys cannot establish specific jurisdiction over Step Two. However, any information regarding Step Two’s intent vis-a-vis its Internet business and regarding other related contacts is known by Step Two, and can be learned by Toys only through discovery. The District Court’s denial of jurisdictional discovery is thus a critical issue, insofar as it may have" }, { "docid": "11106487", "title": "", "text": "manner which was inconsistent with the standard practice and which was negligent which negligence was the proximate cause of the severe damage to “Distinctive Hat” resulting in substantial swelling an inability to move. 14. Despite substantial medical treatment and surgery[,] “Distinctive Hat” could not be cured. The red mercury blister was applied in a manner contrary to the standards of accepted procedures thereby causing permanent and irreparable damage to “Distinctive Hat” thereby ending his racing career and ultimately causing the horse to euthanized. Complaint, ¶¶ 13-14. Discussion A. Personal Jurisdiction A Federal court has jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent authorized by the law of the state in which the court sits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e); Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 108, 108 S.Ct. 404, 411, 98 L.Ed.2d 415 (1987); Vetrotex Certainteed Corp. v. Consolidated Fiber Glass Prods. Co., 75 F.3d 147, 150 (3d Cir.1996); Sunbelt Corp. v. Noble, Denton & Assocs., Inc., 5 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir.1993); Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 481 (3d Cir.1993); Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, N.A v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3d Cir.1993); North Penn Gas Co. v. Coming Nat. Gas Corp., 897 F.2d 687, 689 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 847, 111 S.Ct. 133, 112 L.Ed.2d 101 (1990); Provident Nat’l Bank v. California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 819 F.2d 434, 436 (3d Cir.1987); Telesis Mergers & Acquisitions, Inc. v. Atlis Federal SVCS, Inc., 918 F.Supp. 823, 829-30 (D.N.J.1996); Romero v. Argentinas, 834 F.Supp. 673, 678 (D.N.J.1993). Federal courts sitting in New Jersey may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident to the extent authorized by New Jersey law. Carteret Sav. Bank, FA v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141, 144-45 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 817, 113 S.Ct. 61, 121 L.Ed.2d 29 (1992); Dent v. Cunningham, 786 F.2d 173, 175 (3d Cir.1986); Telesis, 918 F.Supp. at 829-30; Romero, 834 F.Supp. at 679; Database America, Inc. v. BellSouth Advertising & Pub. Corp., 825 F.Supp. 1195, 1207 (D.N.J.1993); Apollo Technologies Corp. v. Centro- sphere Indus. Corp., 805 F.Supp." } ]

[ { "docid": "22674628", "title": "", "text": "charges in the Western District of Texas, DeFusco was sentenced to 60 months in prison, 40 months of which were to run consecutive to the Virginia sentence. In March of 1990, DeFusco filed a notice of appeal of his Virginia conviction and sentence to this Court. DeFusco also appealed his Texas conviction and sentence to the Fifth Circuit, raising many of the same issues which form the basis of this appeal. The Fifth Circuit rejected his appeal and declined to vacate his plea. United States v. DeFusco, 930 F.2d 413, reh’g denied, 933 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 239, 116 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991). DeFusco challenges his conviction on several grounds. First, he argues that the trial court inadequately complied with Rule 11 by failing to establish through colloquy that his plea was knowing and voluntary with regard to (1) the nature of the charges; (2) the possible penalties; and (3) whether the plea was coerced or truly voluntary. Second, DeFusco argues that the trial court erred in finding that an adequate factual basis for the plea existed. Third, DeFusco argues that his plea was not knowing or voluntary because of the ineffective assistance of counsel. We will address each issue in turn. II. Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charge(s) to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty and various rights. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1). In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11, this Court should accord deference to the trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated colloquy with the defendant. “The manner of ensuring that the defendant is properly informed is committed to the good judgment of the district court, to its calculation of the relative difficulty of comprehension of the charges and of the defendant’s sophistication and intelligence.” United States v. Reckmeyer, 786 F.2d 1216, 1221 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 850, 107 S.Ct. 177, 93 L.Ed.2d 113 (1986). Moreover," } ]

[ { "docid": "12388708", "title": "", "text": "points to the defendant’s criminal history score for committing the offenses of conviction while on supervised release following his incarceration for an earlier crime. See id. § 4Al.l(d). The district court resolved both disputed sentencing issues against the defendant. These rulings combined to elevate the defendant’s guideline sentencing range (GSR) to 135-168 months. The court sentenced the defendant to a bottom-of-the-range incarcerative term of 135 months. This timely appeal ensued. II. ANALYSIS The defendant’s counseled brief, filed by new appellate counsel, advances three principal claims of error. In addition, the defendant has filed a pro se brief. We consider the claims set forth in the defendant’s counseled brief one by one and then deal with the claims raised in his pro se brief. Finally, we tie up a loose end. A. The Guilty Plea. The defendant insists that his guilty plea should be vacated because it was not knowing and voluntary. In his view, the district court failed adequately to apprise him of the nature of the charges. Since the defendant did not challenge the integrity of his plea below, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Vann, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). To satisfy this exacting standard, the defendant must demonstrate “(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or obvious and which not only (3) affected [his] substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir.2001). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G) requires a district court, before accepting a guilty plea, to “inform the defendant of, and determine that [he] understands, ... the nature of each charge to which [he] is pleading.” This rule exists “to ensure that a defendant who pleads guilty does so with full comprehension of the specific attributes of the charge and the possible consequences of the plea.” United States v. Ramos-Mejia, 721 F.3d 12, 14 (1st Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The defendant identifies three ostensible shortcomings in the change-of-plea colloquy. He says that the court" }, { "docid": "23036054", "title": "", "text": "pleaded guilty to her charge roughly two hours after receiving the group advisement, the record is replete with evidence that she nevertheless entered her plea with full knowledge of its consequences. Indeed, Escamilla explicitly stated that she understood her rights, the charges against her, and the consequences of pleading guilty. These statements made “contemporaneously with [her] plea should be accorded great weight,” even if they alone are not enough to demonstrate her understanding. United States v. Anderson, 993 F.2d 1435, 1438 (9th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, Escamilla never indicated that she had any questions about the group advisement — either by standing during such advisement, or by so indicating in her individual colloquy with the magistrate judge. Indeed, Escamilla was informed of her rights and charges not only by the court, but also by her experienced defense counsel, who stated on the record that he had met with Escamilla and fully informed her of the proceedings. Escamilla’s counsel even expressly affirmed his belief that she had entered her plea knowingly and voluntarily. And, perhaps most importantly, Escamilla does not now allege that she would have pleaded differently if the magistrate judge had advised her individually rather than as part of a group. Ultimately, Rule 11 “exists to ensure that guilty pleas are knowing and voluntary.” United States v. Pena, 314 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the full record, we are satisfied that Escamilla’s guilty plea was so made and that her plea would not have changed if the magistrate judge had indeed conducted sixty-seven separate advisements of rights. Any Rule 11(b)(1) error was therefore harmless. B Escamilla argues also that the proceedings violated Rule 11(b)(2). Under such rule the court must “address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(2). Unquestionably, the court failed so to ask Escamilla whether her plea was voluntary. But Escamilla’s counsel did not raise an objection that such failure violated Rule 11(b)(2). We" }, { "docid": "4742507", "title": "", "text": "not necessarily envision a deferral of a decision on the plea itself. Despite these subtle distinctions, what matters ultimately is the language of the trial court and the context in which it is used. While we prefer linguistic precision, the record must be sufficiently clear to indicate the court is accepting the defendant’s guilt while withholding final acceptance of the plea package pending review of the pre-sentence report and sentencing recommendation. Rule 11 does not specify how a district court must signal its acceptance of a guilty plea; rather it provides an outline of three broad prerequisites. Before accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, the court must (1) advise the defendant of the rights he or she is waiving, the nature of the charge, and the associated penalties, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1); (2) ensure the plea is voluntary, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(2); and (3) determine the factual basis for the plea, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3). These requirements inform the mandatory Rule 11 plea colloquy. We agree with Battle that permitting a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea as a matter of right after a district court makes the requisite findings and conditionally accepts the plea would undermine the importance of the Rule 11 colloquy. At the conclusion of the colloquy, the defendant has admitted his guilt and the facts relating to his criminal conduct. He has also been advised by the court of the consequences of pleading guilty. After a such a colloquy, a defendant has no reason to believe he can freely withdraw his plea. Further, Rule 11 does not prescribe any specific language of acceptance, and imposing a requirement on the district court to utter some talismanic words to effect an acceptance is not supported by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or the case law. Notably, Rule 11 provides separate requirements for a district court’s acceptance of a plea agreement. To the extent the government assents in the plea agreement to dismiss or refrain from bringing other charges against the defendant, or agrees to a specific sentence or sentencing range, a court may “accept [the] agreement, reject it, or defer a" }, { "docid": "22720526", "title": "", "text": "and Lane to respond to their attorney’s respective motion, see Cir. R. 51(b), but only Lane replied. Thus, we confine our review of the record to the potential issues raised in each attorney’s facially-adequate brief and Lane’s Rule 51(b) response. ' United States v. Tabb, 125 F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam). 1. Nolen Nolen’s counsel first considers whether Nolen may argue that her guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, but concludes that such an argument would be frivolous because the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Nolen did not move to withdraw her guilty plea, so we would review her Rule 11 plea colloquy only for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, — U.S. -, -, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1046, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). Although we note one Rule 11 omission — the court failed to inform her of the effect of supervised release — it would not constitute plain error because Nolen’s 70-month prison term, when combined with her 3-year term of supervised release, is still within the statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment for her offense, 21 U.S.C. § 856(b), and Nolen knew of that maximum when she entered her plea. See United States v. Elkins, 176 F.3d 1016, 1021-22 (7th Cir.1999). In all other respects, the district court complied with Rule 11. First, after warning Nolen that she was under oath and that any false statement could be used against her in a prosecution for perjury, the district court questioned her regarding the nature of the charge, the maximum possible penalties, the rights she would waive by pleading guilty, and the applicability of the sentencing guidelines, including the court’s authority to depart from those guidelines. Further, Nolen testified that she was not forced to plead guilty and that the government’s factual basis for the plea was accurate. Therefore, we agree with counsel that an argument based on the validity of Nolen’s plea would be frivolous. Counsel next considers whether Nolen could challenge the district court’s assignment of two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(c) for her two convictions" }, { "docid": "23700799", "title": "", "text": "the plea colloquy? DEFENDANT: No. (D.E. 532 at 23:12-17). Simply put, there is no evidence or indication that Rodriguez was unable to consult with her attorney or understand the advice offered to her. As such, no error, plain or otherwise, was committed by the district judge in determining that Rodriguez was competent to enter a plea of guilty. ii Knowing and Voluntary Plea Of course, a finding that a defendant is competent to plead guilty is not all that is required. Because “a guilty plea involves the waiver of a number of a defendant’s constitutional rights,” the district court must also ensure that the guilty plea is made “knowingly and voluntarily to satisfy the requirements of due process.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019. In accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, the district court must specifically address the three “core principles” of Rule 11 by “ensuring that a defendant: (1) enters [her] guilty plea free from coercion; (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (3) understands the consequences of [her] plea.” Id. To ensure compliance with the third core concern, Rule 11(b)(1) provides a list of rights and other relevant matters about which the court must inform the defendant and assure itself that the defendant understands prior to accepting a guilty plea. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1). The district judge ensured that Rodriguez was not threatened or forced into pleading guilty, satisfying the first core concern. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(2). The district judge also satisfied the second core principle by detailing the charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and wire fraud against Rodriguez, explaining in detail the allegations and elements of each charge. Following the explanation, Rodriguez confirmed she understood the allegations and elements of the charges against her. Rodriguez quarrels with the manner in which the court addressed the third core principle, specifically the matters set forth in Rule 11(b)(1)(D), (G), and (K). However, the district judge explained Rodriguez’s rights to her in detail, including her right to plead not guilty, her right to counsel, and the consequences if she chose to plead guilty, specifically including the rights she would waive as a result." }, { "docid": "11629256", "title": "", "text": "Fard once again seeks to withdraw his guilty plea as unknowingly and involuntarily entered. He also challenges the district judge’s sentencing decisions regarding the obstruction of justice enhancement and the denial of an acceptance of responsibility reduction. II. ANALYSIS Fard argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. He asserts that his plea fell short of the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in two respects. First, his plea colloquy did not comply with Rule 11 because he never understood the nature of the charge against him, and second, the district judge did not ensure that the plea was not based upon any undisclosed promises. With respect to the first claim, Fard asserts that the district judge failed to make sure that Fard understood the nature of wire fraud and particularly that a wire fraud conviction required a specific intent to defraud. We review the district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chavers, 515 F.3d 722, 724 (7th Cir.2008). After a guilty plea is accepted, a defendant may withdraw it if he presents a “fair and just reason” for doing so. Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). In reviewing the decision of the district court, factual findings as to whether the defendant has presented a “fair and just reason” are reviewed for clear error. Chavers, 515 F.3d at 724. “By pleading guilty to a criminal charge, a defendant waives several fundamental constitutional guarantees. Because a defendant sacrifices these critical rights, both due process and Rule 11 require that a defendant’s guilty plea be made voluntarily and knowingly.” United States v. Fernandez, 205 F.3d 1020, 1024 (7th Cir.2000). Rule 11 sets up many requirements that are intended to assure that a defendant’s guilty plea is knowing and voluntary. One requirement is that “before the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere ... the court must address the defendant personally in open court ... [and] the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the nature of each charge to which the defendant" }, { "docid": "22859218", "title": "", "text": "KANNE, Circuit Judge. After an investigation into a Mount Vernon, Illinois drug-trafficking organization, Terrance E. Blalock was charged with conspiring to possess and distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, as well as three counts of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Blalock pleaded guilty to these charges without benefit of a plea agreement and, at 21 years of age, was sentenced to 480 months imprisonment. He now appeals, challenging the validity of his guilty plea and sentence. Blalock first argues that the district court, in accepting his guilty plea, committed plain error by failing to comply with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Second, he argues that the district court committed clear error in enhancing his sentence based on its conclusions with regard to relevant conduct, obstruction of justice, and the use of minors. Blalock did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, so to prevail on his first challenge, he must demonstrate that the court committed plain error — a rather exacting standard of review. United States v. Jeffries, 265 F.3d 556, 558 (7th Cir.2001); see also United States v. Anderson, 303 F.3d 847, 854 (7th Cir.2002) (characterizing an attempt to meet the plain error standard as an “uphill battle”). To ensure that guilty pleas are knowingly and intelligently made, Rule 11 requires that a district court accepting a guilty plea “address the defendant personally in open court,” informing the defendant of six categories of rights and ensuring that he or she understands them- — an exchange known as a Rule 11 colloquy, fed. R. CRIM. P. 11(c); Jeffries, 265 F.3d at 558. Those topics which the district court must address include the nature of the charge to which the defendant is pleading guilty; the maximum and mandatory minimum penalties authorized by statute; and the required use of the federal sentencing guidelines when determining an appropriate sentence, including the authority to depart from those guidelines when circumstances" }, { "docid": "23465263", "title": "", "text": "Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In accordance with Anders, counsel stated his opinion that Tannis’s appeal does not present any non-frivolous issues for review. However, as Anders requires, he went on to raise and discuss two possible questions. The first concerned the plea proceeding and the second concerned the sentencing process. After counsel filed the Anders brief in support of his motion for leave to withdraw, a motions panel of this Court granted Tannis an opportunity to file a pro se brief. When she failed to do so within the time set, she was granted an extension. Tannis did not file a pro se brief within the time set by the final extension, which expired on April 15, 1991. She has filed nothing in support of her argument to date. In accordance with Anders, we have independently considered the matters counsel raises in his Anders brief and also independently examined the record to determine whether it presents any non-frivolous issue that would justify our review. Having found none, we will affirm Tannis’s conviction and sentence. With respect to the plea proceeding, the Anders brief raises a question of whether the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 before accepting Tannis’s guilty plea. As interpreted by McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 464-67, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1169-71, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), a court must establish both that a defendant understands the charge to which she is pleading, which guarantees that the plea is voluntary and, that there is a factual basis for the plea. Here, the district court did make certain that Tannis had reviewed a copy of the indictment, that she understood it and that she had discussed it with counsel. App. at 7a. The district court then went on to review the rights that Tannis would be waiving by pleading guilty and the maximum penalties that could be imposed. App. at 21a-22a. The record concerning the Rule 11 plea colloquy demonstrates that Tannis had an adequate understanding of the charges to which she was pleading guilty. See" }, { "docid": "23465264", "title": "", "text": "none, we will affirm Tannis’s conviction and sentence. With respect to the plea proceeding, the Anders brief raises a question of whether the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 before accepting Tannis’s guilty plea. As interpreted by McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 464-67, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1169-71, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), a court must establish both that a defendant understands the charge to which she is pleading, which guarantees that the plea is voluntary and, that there is a factual basis for the plea. Here, the district court did make certain that Tannis had reviewed a copy of the indictment, that she understood it and that she had discussed it with counsel. App. at 7a. The district court then went on to review the rights that Tannis would be waiving by pleading guilty and the maximum penalties that could be imposed. App. at 21a-22a. The record concerning the Rule 11 plea colloquy demonstrates that Tannis had an adequate understanding of the charges to which she was pleading guilty. See United States v. Trott, 779 F.2d 912, 914 (3d Cir.1985). The district court also questioned Tannis as to her possession of the cocaine on the date charged in the indictment. This questioning and her answers adequately demonstrated a factual basis for her plea. See App. at 13a-16a; Trott, 779 F.2d at 914. No non-frivolous appellate issue can fairly be presented as to the adequacy of the Rule 11 colloquy. We likewise find no non-frivolous issue in connection with the sentence the district court imposed. The district court imposed the minimum sentence of ten years required by 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b) (West Supp.1991) for possession with intent to distribute 374 grams of a substance containing cocaine base. It had no authority under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (West 1985 & Supp.1991) to review the reasonableness of the mandatory minimum sentence the statute specifies. Section 3742 furthermore deprives the court of discretion with respect to probation. It provides that a court “shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this subparagraph.” 21" }, { "docid": "3370682", "title": "", "text": "five-year maximum because he pled guilty to an unspecified amount of marijuana. We agree. I. Double jeopardy claims are subject to de novo review. United States v. Scarano, 76 F.3d 1471, 1474 (9th Cir.1996). Whether the district court is required to enforce a plea agreement is a question of law subject to de novo review. United States v. Fagan, 996 F.2d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir.1993). The adequacy of a Rule 11 plea hearing is also reviewed de novo. United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456, 459 (9th Cir.2000). II. Rule 11 sets forth the procedures that the district court must follow in accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. The court must determine that the defendant understands his rights and the nature of the charge, that the plea is voluntary, and that there is a factual basis for the plea. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b). Rule 11(e) then describes the plea agreement procedure, setting forth three types of plea agreements. The defendant may agree to plead guilty in exchange for the government’s agreement to (A) not bring or move to dismiss other charges, (B) make particular sentencing recommendations to the court, or (C) agree upon a specific sentence or sentencing range. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(A)-(C). Under the first and third types, the court may accept or reject the agreement, or it may defer its decision until it has considered the PSR. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(A). The second type is not binding on the court, and the court must advise the defendant that he or she has no right to withdraw the plea if the court rejects the recommendation. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(B). If the court rejects the plea agreement, it must so inform the parties and must give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea, as well as advise the defendant that if the plea is not withdrawn, the court may “dispose of the case less favorably toward the defendant than the plea agreement contemplated.” Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(c)(5). The district court here conducted a very thorough Rule 11 colloquy. The court advised Patterson of his rights and the nature of the charge against him, and determined that" }, { "docid": "15364891", "title": "", "text": "failure to comply with Rule 11 calls into question the knowing and voluntary nature of a plea, and thus its validity. See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 73 n. 10, 122 S.Ct. 1043; United States v. Garcia, 587 F.3d 509, 520 (2d Cir.2009) (“A challenge to the factual basis of a plea is ... equivalent to a challenge to its voluntariness.”). Vonn and Dominguez Benitez establish that a plain error under Rule 11 may justify reversal of a conviction that was based on a guilty plea. Guilty pleas accepted after an imperfect Rule 11 colloquy, therefore, do not “waive” all errors under Rule 11. Having reviewed the matter anew, we see no good reason to treat alleged violations of Rule 11(b)(1)— concerning advise and questioning of the defendant — differently from alleged violations of Rule 11(b)(3) — concerning adequacy of a factual basis — when considering the availability of appellate review. If a district court accepts a guilty plea based on a set of facts that plainly and obviously does not constitute a federal offense, but nonetheless determines pursuant to Rule 11(b)(3) that the defendant’s conduct did violate federal law, then there has been a violation of the Rule 11 scheme designed to ensure a knowing and voluntary plea. We think that such an error, like those at issue in Vonn and Dominguez Benitez, may be reviewed on direct appeal, albeit under the narrow plain error standard when the defendant does not object. At oral argument in this case, the government indicated agreement with this view and invited a decision on the merits. Our conclusion also aligns with the circuit precedent of United States v. Marks, 38 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (8th Cir.1994), which reviewed on appeal the adequacy of a factual basis under Rule 11 despite an unconditional guilty plea. This court’s decision in United States v. Beck, 250 F.3d 1163 (8th Cir.2001), is in some tension with our conclusion, because it said that by pleading guilty, the defendant “waived his right to appeal” the district court’s finding that there was a factual basis for one element of the offense. Id." }, { "docid": "20655290", "title": "", "text": "386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because the analysis in counsel’s brief appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that counsel discusses as well as to the matters that Mr. Moody raises in his response opposing counsel’s motion. Mr. Moody asks that we set aside his guilty plea. He maintains that the lawyer representing him at his plea hearing coerced him into pleading guilty by telling him that he would spend the rest of his life in prison if he did not accept the deal offered by the Government. Noting that a plea is voluntary “when it is not induced by threats or misrepresentations and the defendant is made aware of the direct consequences of the plea,” and that there is a presumption that the defendant’s testimony in a plea colloquy is truthful, see United States v. Messino, 55 F.3d 1241, 1248 (7th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted), present counsel examines the plea colloquy required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Counsel notes that the district court complied with almost every requirement of Rule 11. The court explained the nature of the charge and some of the potential penalties that a conviction entailed, including the minimum prison term, the maximum term of supervised release as well as the maximum fíne and the special assessment. Having informed Mr. Moody of the possibility of a perjury prosecution if he did not tell the truth, the court found that the plea was knowing and voluntary and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The court also discussed the plea agreement with Mr. Moody. Counsel, nonetheless, acknowledges that there were several omissions from the court’s Rule 11 inquiry. The court neglected to inform Mr. Moody that, as an armed career criminal, he faced up to a life sentence under the statute. Rule 11(b)(1)(H) requires the disclosure of the maximum term permitted by statute. Counsel goes on to explain, however, that this omission could not constitute plain error because Mr. Moody received a sentence no higher than the statutory minimum and" }, { "docid": "23599624", "title": "", "text": "felon in possession of a firearm and making false statements to the ATF. Pursuant to an agreement with the government, he eventually pled guilty to being a felon in possession in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Prior to sentencing, Jones moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 32(e). The district court denied that motion, and Jones now appeals, alleging a faulty Rule 11 proceeding and requesting permission to plead anew. As required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the district court addressed the defendant in open court to ensure that Jones’s guilty plea was both knowing and voluntary. Rule 11(e)(1) states that the court must determine that the defendant understands “the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law.” As we have observed many times, theré are three core principles that must be addressed by a court accepting a guilty plea: “(1) the guilty plea must be free from coercion; (2) the defendant must understand the nature of the charges; and (3) the defendant must know and understand the consequences of his guilty plea.” United States v. Siegel, 102 F.3d 477, 481 (11th Cir.1996). Jones claims that at his Rule 11 colloquy, the court failed to address two of these concerns. First, he alleges that the court never went over the nature of the crime he was admitting to, being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Second, he notes that the district court failed to address the full consequences of a guilty plea. Jones faced a mandatory fifteen-year sentence as an armed career criminal because he had three prior convictions for burglary. The district court never informed him of this mandatory minimum sentence at his plea colloquy. First, the district court adequately assured itself that Jones understood the crime to which he was pleading guilty. There are no hard and fast rules limiting a district court’s conduct of a plea colloquy. Rule 11 simply requires that the defendant understand the nature of the" }, { "docid": "23648583", "title": "", "text": "v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questions whether the district court. complied with Rule 11 with respect to each defendant. Additionally, appellate counsel for Defendant Kristin Williams questions whether her sentence was reasonable. II. Before accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must ensure that the defendant understands the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty, and the various rights the defendant is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b). The court also must determine that the plea is voluntary and that there is a factual basis for the plea. Id. Generally, we review the acceptance of a guilty plea under the harmless error standard. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir.2002). But when, as here, a defendant fails to move in the district court to withdraw his or her guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed only for plain error. Id. at 525. Having reviewed the record, and especially the Rule 11 colloquy the court conducted, we conclude that the district court fully complied with Rule ll’s requirements before accepting Defendants’ guilty pleas. Accordingly, we reject this challenge. III. Counsel for Defendant Kristin Williams also questions whether her sentence was reasonable. However, not all sentences are subject to appellate review. We may review a defendant’s sentence only if (1) it “was imposed in violation of law,” (2) it “was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines,” (3) it “is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range,” or (4) it “was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). However, a defendant who is sentenced pursuant to a stipulated plea agreement “may not file a notice of appeal under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) unless the sentence imposed is greater than the sentence set forth in such agreement.” Id. § 3742(c). In this case, the sentence imposed was not “greater than" }, { "docid": "22674068", "title": "", "text": "his potential sentence; (2) that the court failed to properly inform him of the elements of the conspiracy charge; (3) that the court failed to inform him that, if it rejected the Government’s sentencing recommendation, he could not withdraw his guilty pleas; and (4) that the court did not determine the existence of a factual basis for his guilty pleas. We review each of these allegations in turn. 1. Martinez’s first contention, that the court incorrectly informed him of the permissible sentence for the conspiracy charge in Count One, is, in light of the post-plea decision of the Court in Apprendi, a meritorious one. Under Rule 11(c)(1), the district court is obliged to inform the defendant of any mandatory minimum penalty and the maximum possible penalty provided by law for the charged offense. For conspiring under § 846 to violate § 841(b)(1)(C), we now know, in light of the trilogy of Apprendi, Promise, and Cotton, that Martinez faced no mandatory minimum sentence and that he faced a maximum potential sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. Consistent with the plea agreement, however, the district court incorrectly informed Martinez, prior to Apprendi, that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and a maximum possible sentence of life. In these circumstances, this advice to Martinez on his potential sentence on Count One was incorrect. Therefore, error was committed in this respect. 2. Martinez’s second contention with respect to his Rule 11 plea proceeding, that he was not properly informed of the elements of the conspiracy charge, is without merit. Before accepting a guilty plea, “a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charge(s) to which the plea is offered.” United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.1991) (citing Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)). Although a judge has wide discretion in deciding how to ensure the defendant’s understanding, it is essential that the defendant “receive notice of the true nature of the charge rather than a rote recitation of the elements of the offense.” Id. at 117 (citing" }, { "docid": "22167520", "title": "", "text": "given Reyes false hope by telling him “[w]hen you get out ... if you go to jail ” when explaining supervised release, (emphasis added). In addition, Reyes’s advanced age, his reticence about pleading guilty to the charged offenses as evidenced by the FPD’s remarks to the court at the beginning of rearraignment, and his repeated assertion that he did not know there was marijuana in the truck, suggest that Reyes might have risked a trial rather than plead guilty had he been informed of the operation of the guidelines. For a 75-year-old man, there may be no significant difference between a sentence of over twelve and a half years on a guilty-plea and the risk of a twenty-year sentence on a jury conviction. Thus, we conclude that the district court’s error affected Reyes’s substantial rights. Accordingly, on this record, because the district court failed to comply with Rule 11, the rule meant to ensure that a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary, we vacate Reyes’s guilty plea and remand for further proceedings. CONCLUSION Reyes’s convictions and sentence are vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED and REMANDED. . The Government asserts in its brief on appeal that Reyes never sent the letter, and the record does not contradict that assertion. . Reyes also filed a pro se notice of appeal asserting that his sentence is excessive. The excessive-sentence issue is not briefed and is therefore not before the court. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993) (issues not briefed are abandoned); American States Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir.1998) (failure to provide legal or factual analysis of issue results in waiver). .Rule 11(c)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, . .. the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law, including the effect of any special parole or supervised release term, [and]" }, { "docid": "23648582", "title": "", "text": "WYNN, Circuit Judge: David James Williams, III and Kristin Deantanetta Williams (“Defendants”) were convicted and sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Both Defendants appeal from their convictions, but only Defendant Kristin Williams challenges her sentence. Regarding the convictions, we find no error below, and therefore affirm. But regarding the sentence imposed on Defendant Kristin Williams, we find that we lack jurisdiction to review her sentence because a sentence imposed pursuant to the terms of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement may only be reviewed if it is unlawful or expressly based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) — circumstances not present here. I. Defendants separately pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In their respective plea agreements, Defendants stipulated to a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment under Rule 11(c)(1)(C). The district court sentenced each defendant in accordance with those agreements. On appeal, Defendants’ appellate counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questions whether the district court. complied with Rule 11 with respect to each defendant. Additionally, appellate counsel for Defendant Kristin Williams questions whether her sentence was reasonable. II. Before accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must ensure that the defendant understands the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty, and the various rights the defendant is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b). The court also must determine that the plea is voluntary and that there is a factual basis for the plea. Id. Generally, we review the acceptance of a guilty plea under the harmless error standard. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir.2002). But when, as here, a defendant fails to move in the district court to withdraw his or her guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed only for plain error. Id. at 525. Having reviewed the" }, { "docid": "12804861", "title": "", "text": "on the basis of such intent. III. We first address the overlapping issues common to both defendants: whether there was a factual basis for the intent element of the carjacking charge and whether any errors in the plea colloquy prevented a knowing and voluntary plea. We then address Matos-Quiñones’s claim that the government violated its plea agreement with him. A. The Plea Colloquy 1. Standard of Review Neither defendant objected to the district court’s plea colloquy before taking this appeal. Indeed, while more than a year and a half passed between the guilty pleas and the sentencing hearings, neither defendant sought to withdraw his plea dur ing that period. Accordingly, “we review only for plain error.” United States v. Morrisette, 429 F.3d 318, 322 (1st Cir.2005). To earn relief, the defendants must show (1) that an error occurred, and that the error (2) was “clear or obvious,” (3) affected their “substantial rights,” and (4) “seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir.2001). To meet prong three, each defendant “is obliged to show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). 2. Basis in Fact for the Pleas The defendants contend that the district court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 by accepting their guilty pleas in the absence of a factual basis for the intent element of the carjacking charge. Their claim is that they did not have any intent to harm or kill the victim until after they had seized his car and learned while driving towards Rio Grande that he was a sailor. Hence, they argue, their intent to harm or kill did not meet the “at the moment” requirement of Holloway. As we indicated above, we will assume the validity of the defendants’ reading of Holloway. Rule 11 requires that “[b]efore entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3). We have" }, { "docid": "21261632", "title": "", "text": "knowingly and voluntarily, and that a factual basis existed for it. Accordingly, the court accepted the plea. The disposition hearing took place on August 81, 2006. The district court imposed a 20-year incarcerative term. This timely appeal followed. The appellant’s main arguments, neither of which was raised below, are cast in the raiment of Rule 11. Where, as here, a defendant fails to object below to particular aspects of a change-of-plea proceeding and asserts objections for the first time on appeal, appellate review is for plain error. See Mercedes Mercedes, 428 F.3d at 358. In order to establish plain error, the defendant must show “(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or obvious and which not only (3) affected the defendant’s substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir.2001). We apply that standard here. In order to pass constitutional muster, a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 618, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998); United States v. Delgado-Hernandez, 420 F.3d 16, 19 (1st Cir.2005). Accordingly, the trial court must ensure that a defendant understands the nature of the charges to which he purposes to plead and the penalties that may attach. See United States v. Gandia-Maysonet, 227 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.2000); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1). In this instance, the appellant contends that he was unaware of the mandatory minimum sentence and that, therefore, he could not have made a knowing and voluntary plea. We summarily reject this contention. The 20-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment was spelled out, bluntly and distinctly, in the Agreement. The appellant, represented by counsel and aided by an interpreter, signed the Agreement. Moreover, he indicated during the change-of-plea colloquy that he had read the Agreement and understood its contents. Last — but far from least — the district court, during that colloquy, informed the appellant of the mandatory minimum sentence with unmistakable clarity. It is thus apparent that the record conclusively reflects the appellant’s" }, { "docid": "22677621", "title": "", "text": "defendant’s plea? (2) Did the district court mislead Aguilar-Muniz to believe that he had not waived the right to appeal? The validity of a waiver of the right to appeal is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Petty, 80 F.3d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Robertson, 52 F.3d 789, 791 (9th Cir.1994). Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that before accepting a plea of guilty, the court must address the defendant personally in open court to inform the defendant of and determine that the defendant understands the nature of the charges, any mandatory minimum or maximum penalty, the availability of parole or supervised release, the applicability of Sentencing Guidelines, and the available departures therefrom. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e). In addition, the court must inform the defendant of the rights to plead not guilty, to be tried before a jury, to be represented by counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and against compelled self-incrimination. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3). The court must determine whether the plea is voluntary, and whether it is supported by a factual basis. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d), (f). In United States v. DeSantiago-Martinez, 38 F.3d 394 (9th Cir.1992), we held that “a Rule 11 colloquy on the waiver of the right to appeal is not a prerequisite to a finding that the waiver is valid; rather, a finding that the waiver is knowing and voluntary is sufficient.” Id. at 395. Any failure of the trial court to address waiver of appeal during the Rule 11 colloquy does not, by itself, invalidate the waiver. The adequacy of a Rule 11 plea hearing is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Alber, 56 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir.1995). Whether the trial court’s colloquy with the defendant satisfies the requirements of Rule 11 is also reviewed de novo. See United States v. Smith, 60 F.3d 595, 597 n. 1 (9th Cir.1995). Technical failure to comply with Rule 11 is not reversible error unless it affects the defendant’s substantial rights. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(h). The record demonstrates that the district" } ]

[ { "docid": "23081070", "title": "", "text": "cert. denied, 484 U.S. 840, 108 S.Ct. 128, 98 L.Ed.2d 85 (1987); United States v. Ceballos, 812 F.2d 42, 46-47 (2d Cir.1987) (holding that while the question of whether a reasonable person would believe his person was seized was “normally a question of law,” that the district court was still entitled to deference because its \"determination in this case is inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the witnesses”). Consistent with these cases, we hold that the broad question of whether one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in curti-lage is a matter of law, and one settled by Dunn, just as the question of whether one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields is a question of law, and one settled by Oliver. Conversely, the question of whether a particular person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular part of her or his land — here Reilly’s cottage and woods — so as to make that piece of land nart of that person’s curtilage, is the type of factual inquiry suited to primary resolution by a district court. . Of course, these courts are not saying that the fact that evidence from a prior illegal search is included in an affidavit for a search warrant, by itself, invalidates every warrant containing such evidence. \"The mere inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not, by itself, taint the warrant or the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.” Vasey, 834 F.2d at 788 (citations omitted). Rather, \"[a] reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.” Id. See also Reed, 15 F.3d at 933 (same). Thus, if police had an \"independent source” for discovery of the evidence, then the exclusionary rule would not apply. See, e.g., Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 805, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 3385, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984)." } ]

[ { "docid": "15387176", "title": "", "text": "FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE Defendant asserted below that the heroin discovered in the second search — the search of defendant’s luggage — should be suppressed as the “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415-17, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The district court, in sustaining defendant’s motion with respect to the second quantity of heroin seized, did not articulate its reasons for granting the motion. On appeal, however, the question we must examine is “ ‘whether, granting establishment of primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. at 417. To answer this question in the present context, we must determine whether the representations made by Agent Markonni in his affidavit for a search warrant support a finding of probable cause without any consideration given to those facts discovered as a result of the unlawful arrest and first unlawful search. In determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant it is necessary to determine whether the affiant, at the time of making the affidavit and the issuance of the warrant, had reasonable grounds to believe the offense charged was being or had been committed. United States v. Del Valle, 587 F.2d 699, 701 (5th Cir. 1979). Although proof of actual criminal activity is not required, United States v. Tasto, 586 F.2d 1068, 1069 (5th Cir. 1978), probable cause means something more than mere suspicion. United States v. Gordon, 580 F.2d 827, 832 (5th Cir. 1978). In the case sub judice the facts known to Agent Markonni at the time the affidavit was made give rise to nothing more than mere suspicion. Disregarding those facts flowing from defendant’s unlawful arrest and search incident thereto, the facts known to Agent Markonni and set forth in his affidavit, see note 7 supra, were: that Markonni previously had arrested defendant in Toledo, Ohio and found and seized 372.82 grams of" }, { "docid": "10292216", "title": "", "text": "be suppressed. 3. Thomas. Thomas made no statements to the law enforcement officials. THE SEARCH WARRANT Mearns has also moved to suppress the cocaine found in his VW. He argues that his statement to Glanz to the effect that there was cocaine in his vehicle was illegally obtained, that the use of that declaration in Glanz’s affidavit in support of the search warrant tainted the warrant, and that the evidence found in the search must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree”, under the doctrine of Wong Sun v. United States, supra. In Wong Sun, the defendant’s statements were excluded as fruits of an unlawful entry and unauthorized arrest. The Supreme Court also excluded certain narcotics seized as a result of the illegally obtained declarations where the prosecutor conceded that the drugs wouldn’t have been found without the illegal declaration. However, Wong Sun also pointed out that if there were an “independent source” from which the government learned of the evidence, the exclusionary rule would have no application. The inference from Wong Sun is that even if illegally obtained statements lead to the seizure of evidence, that evidence need not be suppressed if there is an independent source which would have led the police to that evidence anyway. The Third Circuit has applied this principle in the context of tainted affidavits submitted in support of a search warrant application. United States v. Sterling, 369 F.2d 799 (3rd Cir. 1966). When such an affidavit contains unlawfully obtained information, the validity of the warrant and the search depends upon whether the untainted information was sufficient to establish probable cause. As Judge Seitz said in Sterling, at 369 F.2d at 802: . the law is quite clear that the inclusion of illegally obtained evidence does not vitiate a search warrant which is otherwise validly issued upon probable cause reflected in the affidavit and based on proper sources. See also James v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 314, 418 F.2d 1150, 1151 (1969); United States v. Watts, 176 U.S.App.D.C. 314, 540 F.2d 1093, 1095, n. 2 (1976). Since all the information in the affidavit" }, { "docid": "23067823", "title": "", "text": "536 (9th Cir.1998). DISCUSSION I. The Affidavit Was Not So Lacking in Indicia of Probable Cause as to Render Reliance Objectively Unreasonable It is well settled that evidence seized during an unlawful search cannot constitute proof against the victim of the search. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). This “exclusionary rule” extends to both direct and indirect products of such unlawful searches. Id. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that “verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry ... is no less the ‘fruit’ of official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion.” Id. at 485, 83 S.Ct. 407. The Government has conceded that Defendants’ statements and the discovery of the .38 derringer derived from the search warrant and its execution. Thus, if the search was unlawful, the Government concedes that Defendants’ statements and the firearm should be suppressed. However, in United States v. Leon, the Supreme Court set out an exception to the exclusionary rule for a search conducted in good faith reliance upon an objectively reasonable search warrant. 468 U.S. 897, 925, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). Before embarking on the exercise of determining whether the affidavit supported probable cause, we may proceed directly to the issue of whether there was good faith reliance. See id. at 923-25, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (recognizing that courts have discretion in deciding whether to address the issue of probable cause before turning to the issue of good faith reliance). For the reasons below, we find the good faith reliance exception applicable and therefore need not address whether the affidavit demonstrated that Crews was anything but a casual social guest. For the good faith reliance exception to apply, the officers must have relied on the search warrant in an objectively reasonable manner. United States v. Clark, 31 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir.1994). The affidavit “must establish at least a color-able argument for probable cause” for the exception to apply. United States v. Luong, 470 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir.2006). Therefore, if there is a colorable" }, { "docid": "20620802", "title": "", "text": "mark omitted). And in any event, based on the record before us, we are unconvinced that Kurniawan was prejudiced by the purported duplicity. Cf. United States v. Margiotta, 646 F.2d 729, 733 (2d Cir.1981) (no unfairness to defendant anticipated where multiple mail fraud offenses in single scheme to defraud were included in a single count of an indictment). CONCLUSION , We have considered the defendant-appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the August 7,2014, judgment of the District Court. , The parties agree that the inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not by itself taint the warrant so long as the remaining, untainted evidence provided probable cause. See Def. Br. 27-28; Gov’t Br. 14; see also Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (\"While the mere inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not, by itself, taint the warrant or the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant, the court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)); Trzaska, 111 F.3d at 1026. . See United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir.2005) (\"A judge's probable-cause determination is not overly strict. Presented with a warrant application, the judge must simply make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted))." }, { "docid": "6427601", "title": "", "text": "the statement was not hearsay, and that therefore the government could not impeach him. See Fed.R.Evid. 806. Unlike most situations in which a court decides whether a statement is hearsay, here, the government did not object to Trzaska’s statement, and it was only later, when the government asserted that the statement was hearsay and sought to impeach Trzaska, that a question arose as to the purpose for which the statement was offered. This raises the issue — how should a court - determine the purpose for which a statement was offered in this situation? The rule could be that the statement was offered for all purposes to which it was relevant — if this were the rule, Trzaska could be impeached because the statement was clearly relevant to proving the truth of the matter asserted. On the other hand, the rule could be that the statement was offered only for the purpose which the proponent intended at the time it was offered — if this were the rule, Trzaska could not be impeached, as our review of the record indicates that Trzaska probably intended that his statement not come in for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather as a verbal act to show that he disclaimed an interest in the guns and thereby gave them to his son. Again, we leave this issue undecided. For the reasons discussed above, Trzaska’s conviction is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial. II. The Search Warrants A. The Illegal Search and Probable Cause Trzaska argues that the warrants issued to search his apartment and garage were not supported by probable cause, as the warrant affidavit contained evidence obtained in the illegal “plain view” search and seizure. Evidence seized during an illegal search should not be included in a warrant affidavit. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415-16, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d 782, 788 (9th Cir.1987). However, “‘[t]he mere inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not, by itself, taint the warrant or the evidence" }, { "docid": "23096174", "title": "", "text": "the valid warrant. While the record is not absolutely clear as to what happened to the contraband between the time of the original entry and the execution of the warrant, we believe that except for the gun the evidence observed during the first entry was seized during the second search. Furthermore, we will treat the district court’s order as suppressing all the evidence seized in both entries, as we are satisfied that this was the court’s intent. B. TAINTED WARRANTS: Although Herrold’s “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument has superficial appeal in view of the original wrongful entry, it is flawed for the reasons set forth in United States v. Johnson, 690 F.2d 60 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1214, 103 S.Ct. 1212, 75 L.Ed.2d 450 (1983). There, the government appealed from a district court order suppressing evidence discovered pursuant to a search warrant which had been issued partly on the basis of an affidavit which included information about evidence seized during an unlawful search. We held that, “even assuming that some factual averments in the affidavit are tainted, they do not vitiate a warrant which is otherwise validly issued upon probable cause reflected in the affidavit.” Id. at 63. We then determined that the affidavit contained other information establishing probable cause and therefore that the warrant had been properly issued. We are not alone in taking what we view as a sensible approach. See, e.g., United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d 782, 788 (9th Cir.1987) (“[t]he mere inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not, by itself, taint the warrant or the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.... A reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.”); United States v. Driver, 776 F.2d 807, 812 (9th Cir.1985) (“[A] warrant may be upheld even where it contains tainted and untainted facts as long as the untainted portions contain a sufficient showing of probable cause to render the warrant valid.”); United States v. Mankani, 738 F.2d 538, 545 (2d Cir.1984) (once" }, { "docid": "22931240", "title": "", "text": "in the affidavit for a search warrant. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The mere inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not, by itself, taint the warrant or the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. United States v. Driver, 776 F.2d 807 (9th Cir.1985). A reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant. Id. The district court found in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that once any reference to the $5,000 and the gold watch discovered in the warrantless search was excised from the affidavit, the remaining statements of fact in the affidavit would not establish probable cause to issue the warrant. Reviewing the affidavit de novo, we concur. The affidavit contained the following untainted facts: (1) As Officer Jensen approached the vehicle, he noticed Vasey stuffing his hand between the seats and handling something furtively on the right rear floorboard. Vasey contends he was reaching for his wallet and unfastening his seat-belt; (2) Vasey had an outstanding warrant for his arrest on a drug-related charge; (3) Vasey was carrying $1,128 in cash; (4) Officer Jensen noticed a sealed container of pills and a small, cassette-sized container holding three pills. The three pills were imprinted with the word “aspirin”, but it is unclear to what extent Officer Jensen saw this imprintation; and (5) Officer Jensen had several years of police experience. This evidence must be viewed in light of the district court’s finding that in his affidavit and in his testimony at the suppression hearing, Officer Jensen lied when he said he gave Vasey the option of not having his car impounded as he was required to do by local police procedures. The five factors set out above are insufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. There is little or no evidence indicating that Vasey’s car contained contraband. Although Officer Jensen was justified in his suspicion that Vasey was involved in narcotics-related activity, mere" }, { "docid": "23286264", "title": "", "text": "no defendants, other than those whose residences were the subject of a search or who have otherwise demonstrated a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched or a property interest in the objects seized, can demonstrate standing to join in the within motions of defendants to suppress evidence obtained during the searches. Validity of the Searches Having determined that Defendants McGuire, Wall, Cercena, Farese, Fer nandez, Tarantelli and Gallo do have standing under the above-enunciated standard, the Court will proceed to evaluate their claims. As grounds for the requested relief, these defendants contend that the probable cause for the search was based on the wiretap interceptions, which interceptions were themselves illegally obtained with invalid warrants (see supra discussion of the wiretap issues and standards for lawful search). Seeking application of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, defendants argue primarily that, if the information obtained from the wiretap interceptions is excluded from the supporting affidavit of Detective Magaletti, the warrants for the searches must be held to be facially invalid. See United States v. Butts, 729 F.2d 1514 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855, 105 S.Ct. 181, 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984), and — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2246, 90 L.Ed.2d 693 (1986). The Court need not address this argument to the extent that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is invoked, because of its ruling, supra, that the wiretap orders were in fact valid. Simply put, there is no “poisonous tree”, and hence no tainted “fruit” derived therefrom. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The remaining arguments of defendants raise essentially the same issues previously disposed of by this Court in its determination that the wiretap warrants were sufficiently supported by probable cause. Defendant Fernandez contends that the search warrant fails to establish probable cause on its face because the affidavit of Detective Magaletti was based upon stale information, and that the search was unlawful because of the failure to use other investigative measures. Defendant Farese further argues that Detective Magaletti deliberately withheld information as to the legitimate" }, { "docid": "6427602", "title": "", "text": "review of the record indicates that Trzaska probably intended that his statement not come in for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather as a verbal act to show that he disclaimed an interest in the guns and thereby gave them to his son. Again, we leave this issue undecided. For the reasons discussed above, Trzaska’s conviction is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial. II. The Search Warrants A. The Illegal Search and Probable Cause Trzaska argues that the warrants issued to search his apartment and garage were not supported by probable cause, as the warrant affidavit contained evidence obtained in the illegal “plain view” search and seizure. Evidence seized during an illegal search should not be included in a warrant affidavit. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415-16, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d 782, 788 (9th Cir.1987). However, “‘[t]he mere inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not, by itself, taint the warrant or the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.’ ” United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271, 1282 n. 2 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Vasey, 834 F.2d at 788). “ ‘[A] reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.’ ” Id. (quoting Vasey, 834 F.2d at 788). We have no problem concluding that the warrant affidavit, excised of the tainted evidence, provided probable cause to issue a warrant to search Trzaska’s apartment. The warrant affidavit accurately recounted that Trzaska had received shipments from eighteen weapon supply companies, and that several of the companies confirmed sending firearm and ammunition accessories to Trzaska’s apartment. Further, while probation officers O’Keefe and Kelly were legally conducting a home visit at Trzaska’s apartment, they observed ammunition openly visible within the apartment. Based on this evidence,' the warrant affidavit, excised of the illegally seized evidence, provided probable cause to search Trzaska’s apartment. Whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant to search Trzaska’s garage is a more" }, { "docid": "22536523", "title": "", "text": "object may be plainly viewed; (2) the officer has a lawful right of access to the object itself; and (3) the object’s incriminating character is immedi ately apparent.” (internal quotations omitted)). Apparently recognizing this fact, Bullard does not challenge the admissibility of this evidence. Bullard argues, however, that officers went beyond the scope of Parrish’s consent to evict unregistered guests by searching cabinets and closed luggage. And, he reasons, this illegal search tainted the evidence later recovered from his luggage and his person, which would include all of the crack he was charged with possessing. Opening luggage and cabinets under these circumstances appears to exceed the scope of a protective sweep, and the government at oral argument conceded as much. But such a search requires suppression only if the illegal search tainted the later recovery of the same evidence pursuant to a valid warrant. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536-37, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988). Bullard argues that the search here tainted the officers’ later recovery of cocaine from his luggage for two reasons: first, he asserts that it was improper for detectives to omit from their warrant application the fact that they had already searched Bullard’s luggage and found cocaine within it; and second, he contends that detectives would not have sought a search warrant for the room absent the evidence they discovered in Bullard’s luggage. Accordingly, Bullard believes that the evidence found within his luggage and the evidence found on his person incident to arrest should be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The government contends that the problematic search of Bullard’s luggage is saved by the independent source doctrine, which provides for the admissibility of evidence if it would have been obtained even absent an illegal search. See Murray, 487 U.S. at 542, 108 S.Ct. 2529. In Murray, the Supreme Court explained that to conclude that a later search conducted pursuant to a warrant was independent of an earlier, unlawful search, two findings must" }, { "docid": "22931239", "title": "", "text": "arrest, a continuing right was not established to enter the vehicle without a warrant. We do not hold that once an arrestee is handcuffed, all rights to search the vehicle vanish. Rather, the circumstances of the arrest dictate whether the search was proper and conducted contemporaneously with the arrest. At oral argument, the government argued that under Belton’s bright line rule, a search of a vehicle is proper as a search incident to arrest if the arrestee is still at the arrest site. We do not find such a rule in Belton. The Belton Court explicitly admonished that the search had to be conducted contemporaneously with the arrest. The government, in effect, asks us to transform the search incident to arrest exception into a search following arrest exception. This we decline to do. Since the warrantless search of Vasey’s vehicle was illegal, all evidence seized during this search must be suppressed. IV. VALIDITY OF THE WARRANT SEARCH All evidence Officer Jensen seized during the illegal warrantless search was tainted and should not have been included in the affidavit for a search warrant. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The mere inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not, by itself, taint the warrant or the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. United States v. Driver, 776 F.2d 807 (9th Cir.1985). A reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant. Id. The district court found in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that once any reference to the $5,000 and the gold watch discovered in the warrantless search was excised from the affidavit, the remaining statements of fact in the affidavit would not establish probable cause to issue the warrant. Reviewing the affidavit de novo, we concur. The affidavit contained the following untainted facts: (1) As Officer Jensen approached the vehicle, he noticed Vasey stuffing his hand between the seats and handling something furtively on the right rear floorboard. Vasey contends" }, { "docid": "20620797", "title": "", "text": "set forth below, we reject Kurniawan’s arguments as merit-less. A. First, Kurniawan argues that the warrantless search of his home following his March 8, 2012, arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He further argues that the District Court should have suppressed the fruits of that search, including evidence later obtained pursuant to a search warrant that was issued in part based on evidence observed during the warrantless search. “When examining a ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42, 71 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). We assume, as the District Court did, without deciding, that the March 8, 2012, protective sweep of Kurniawan’s home following his arrest was illegal, see United States v. Kurniawan, No. 12-cr-00376-RMB, 2013 WL 180412, at *1 & n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.17, 2013), and therefore that the evidence observed in plain view by agents during the sweep should not have been included in the subsequent search-warrant affidavit submitted by Agent Farache, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019, 1026 (2d Cir.1997). See generally A-165, 173-74 (detailing evidence observed in plain view during protective sweep). But we nonetheless agree with the District Court that, after excising from the Farache affidavit the evidence officers observed in plain view during the protective sweep, there was still probable cause to issue the search wax-rant. Indeed, the remaining, untainted information in the affidavit suggested that thex-e was a fair probability that evidence of the alleged counterfeit-wine scheme would be found at Kurniawan’s home. The affidavit and complaint attached thereto detailed, among other things, two alleged schemes by which Kurniawan used the mail and wires in an attempt to sell rare and .expensive counterfeit Burgundy ■wines at auction, one in April 2008 and one in February 2012. JA-41, 169-72. The affidavit cited evidence that Kurniawan had “collected the materials needed to make counterfeit bottles of wine over the course of several years,” including “empty authentic bottles" }, { "docid": "23096173", "title": "", "text": "tree.” This doctrine requires the exclusion of tangible evidence seized during an unlawful search, and derivative evidence, both tangible and testimonial, acquired as a result of the unlawful search. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415-16, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 3385, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984). The issues before us are narrowed, for the government assumes for purposes of this appeal, as it did in the district court, that the initial entry violated Herrold’s Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, if the validity of the search and seizure was dependent on the legality of that entry, the evidence would have to be suppressed. However, the government contends that the “inevitable discovery” doctrine applies and that there was a valid basis independent of the original entry for the search warrant. Therefore, in its view the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence discovered during either the original entry or the later search because the evidence inevitably would have been discovered under the valid warrant. While the record is not absolutely clear as to what happened to the contraband between the time of the original entry and the execution of the warrant, we believe that except for the gun the evidence observed during the first entry was seized during the second search. Furthermore, we will treat the district court’s order as suppressing all the evidence seized in both entries, as we are satisfied that this was the court’s intent. B. TAINTED WARRANTS: Although Herrold’s “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument has superficial appeal in view of the original wrongful entry, it is flawed for the reasons set forth in United States v. Johnson, 690 F.2d 60 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1214, 103 S.Ct. 1212, 75 L.Ed.2d 450 (1983). There, the government appealed from a district court order suppressing evidence discovered pursuant to a search warrant which had been issued partly on the basis of an affidavit which included information about evidence seized during an unlawful search. We held that, “even assuming that some factual averments" }, { "docid": "23096175", "title": "", "text": "in the affidavit are tainted, they do not vitiate a warrant which is otherwise validly issued upon probable cause reflected in the affidavit.” Id. at 63. We then determined that the affidavit contained other information establishing probable cause and therefore that the warrant had been properly issued. We are not alone in taking what we view as a sensible approach. See, e.g., United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d 782, 788 (9th Cir.1987) (“[t]he mere inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not, by itself, taint the warrant or the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.... A reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.”); United States v. Driver, 776 F.2d 807, 812 (9th Cir.1985) (“[A] warrant may be upheld even where it contains tainted and untainted facts as long as the untainted portions contain a sufficient showing of probable cause to render the warrant valid.”); United States v. Mankani, 738 F.2d 538, 545 (2d Cir.1984) (once it is established that material in the affidavit must be disregarded as a basis for the issuance of a warrant, the court must separate and set aside such material and determine if remaining facts demonstrate probable cause); United States v. Gigli, 573 F.Supp. 1408, 1413 (W.D.Pa.1983) (same). Indeed, in a slightly different context involving allegedly false statements in an application for a search warrant, the Supreme Court placed its imprimatur on this principle. Thus, in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684-85, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the Court stated, “if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause,” the warrant will be deemed to have been properly issued. These cases certainly appear to provide the appropriate framework within which to decide this appeal so that we need merely excise the references to the first entry and the fruits thereof in examining the affidavit upon which the" }, { "docid": "3614116", "title": "", "text": "unlawful protective sweep. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417-18, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). They rely on United States v. Allard, 634 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir.1980) (Allard II), and United States v. Lomas, 706 F.2d 886 (9th Cir.1983). We find Allard II and Lomas factually inapplicable. We conclude that United States v. Allard, 600 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir.1979) (Al-lard I), does apply and does not require suppression. Allard II and Lomas govern the determination of taint where an unlawful entry is followed by a continuing unlawful seizure. Allard II, 634 F.2d at 1187; Lomas, 706 F.2d at 894. Neither Allard II nor Lomas applies to the facts at bar because there is no evidence of any continuing unlawful seizure. The unlawful conduct in the present case was confined to the protective sweep for additional suspects, which lasted only two to three minutes. The agents seized nothing, left the house as soon as the sweep was completed, and reentered only with Spetz after he had elected to go inside the house to await arrival of the search warrant. To determine whether the illegal entry alone tainted the evidence obtained under the warrant, we turn to Allard I. There we concluded that such evidence is not tainted if the government learned of it from an independent source. 600 F.2d at 1305. We also observed that “[w]hile the ultimate burden of proof is on the Government to show the absence of taint, the defendant must first establish a factual nexus between the illegality and the challenged evidence. The mere establishment of an illegal search does not place upon the Government the burden of affirmatively proving that each and every piece of evidence is free of taint.” Id. at 1305 (quoting United States v. Choate, 576 F.2d 165, 186 (9th Cir.) (Hufstedler, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 953, 99 S.Ct. 350, 58 L.Ed.2d 344 (1978)). In the present case, the government relied on some of the observations made during the illegal entry in its affidavit for the search warrant. We conclude" }, { "docid": "3614115", "title": "", "text": "Gardner provides no basis for upholding the warrantless search made here. We acknowledge the desire of narcotics agents to ensure their security. However, as we stated in Flickinger, [w]e are not unsympathetic with the government’s premise that “anytime agents seek to effect an arrest or search of a residence, with or without a warrant, the possibility that persons inside might have access to weapons is very real and sometimes critical.” Followed to its logical conclusion, however, the government’s contention would obviate the necessity for a warrant in any arrest in a residence because every such arrest would involve the potential use of weapons. While we are critically mindful of the need for protection of arresting officers, we cannot accept the full thrust of the government’s argument. 573 F.2d at 1355. We hold that the protective sweep of the residence without a warrant was unlawful. B. Search Pursuant to Warrant Appellants next argue that the evidence seized during the subsequent search of the residence pursuant to warrant must be suppressed because it was tainted by the unlawful protective sweep. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417-18, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). They rely on United States v. Allard, 634 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir.1980) (Allard II), and United States v. Lomas, 706 F.2d 886 (9th Cir.1983). We find Allard II and Lomas factually inapplicable. We conclude that United States v. Allard, 600 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir.1979) (Al-lard I), does apply and does not require suppression. Allard II and Lomas govern the determination of taint where an unlawful entry is followed by a continuing unlawful seizure. Allard II, 634 F.2d at 1187; Lomas, 706 F.2d at 894. Neither Allard II nor Lomas applies to the facts at bar because there is no evidence of any continuing unlawful seizure. The unlawful conduct in the present case was confined to the protective sweep for additional suspects, which lasted only two to three minutes. The agents seized nothing, left the house as soon as the sweep was completed, and reentered only with Spetz after he had elected to go inside the" }, { "docid": "4414042", "title": "", "text": "disregard of constitutional requirements,” suppression is not automatic and “any marginal deterrence” from suppression is often insufficient. Id. at 702, 704. 1. The Independent-Source Doctrine. The exclusionary rule prohibits the introduction of evidence, both tangible and testimonial, that is seized or acquired during an unlawful search. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988). “Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the exclusionary rule bars the admission of physical evidence and live testimony obtained directly or indirectly through the exploitation of unconstitutional police conduct.” United States v. Hatfield, 333 F.3d 1189, 1193-94 (10th Cir.2003) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). If police “conduct[ ] unconstitutional searches that acquire! ] information used to obtain [a] search warrant,” then “evidence seized during the later search conducted pursuant to warrant would be inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.” Id. at 1194. When determining whether evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree, a court is to consider whether the evidence was “come at by exploitation of [the initial] illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804-805, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (internal quotations omitted)(alteration in original). Under the independent-source doctrine, evidence that is obtained based upon information unrelated to an unlawful search is not fruit of the poisonous tree. See Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. at 799, 104 S.Ct. 3380 (citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)). Evidence therefore need not be excluded under the fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine if there is an independent source for discovery of the challenged evidence. See id. at 805, 104 S.Ct. 3380. Two Supreme Court cases have considered the operation of the independent-source doctrine in situations where a search warrant is obtained subsequent to an unlawful search. In Segura v. United States, police unlawfully entered an apartment and spotted drug-trafficking paraphernalia in plain view. See 468 U.S. at 801, 104 S.Ct. 3380." }, { "docid": "23406676", "title": "", "text": "the statements identified by the district court were misleading, there is no basis to conclude that they were intentionally or recklessly so. 3. Materiality We also conclude that the material witness warrant was valid because Agent Plunkett’s affidavit, even with any necessary emendations, established probable cause to believe that Awadallah’s testimony was material to the grand jury investigation and that it might become impracticable to secure his presence by subpoena. Before proceeding with this materiality analysis, we must first consider an additional category of information that the district court could (and probably should) have excised from the affidavit. We have held that “[e]videnee seized during an illegal search should not be included in a [search] warrant affidavit.” Trzaska, 111 F.3d at 1026. While “[t]he mere inclusion of tainted evidence in an affidavit does not, by itself, taint the warrant or the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant,” the court “should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.” Id. (citations omitted). As further discussed in Part III below, the district court held that FBI agents subjected Awadallah to unreasonable searches and seizures on September 20 and 21, 2001, before obtaining the warrant for his arrest. The court ruled that, if the prosecution proceeds, statements and physical evidence obtained by the FBI during these searches and seizures must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. See Awadallah IV, 202 F.Supp.2d at 100-07. The government assumes for purposes of this appeal (or at least does not contest) that “Awadallah was illegally seized on September 20 and again on September 21, as Judge Scheindlin found,” focusing instead on the district court’s application of the exclusionary rule. (Appellant’s Br. at 122.) Based on this Fourth Amendment ruling, the district court probably should have excised the fruits of the improper searches and seizures from Agent Plunkett’s affidavit. First, the affidavit should not have referenced at all the three videotapes, the “box-cutter,” and the bin Laden photographs seized from Awadallah’s apartment and cars. Second, the affidavit should not have stated" }, { "docid": "12977958", "title": "", "text": "or destroy evidence, the agents broke down the side door and forcibly entered the premises. Once inside, they saw a man, later identified as defendant-appellant Ygoa Almonte-Báez, trying to remove a barricade and escape through the back door. They immediately took the appellant into custody. A protective sweep of the apartment followed. See United States v. Martins, 413 F.3d 139, 149-50 (1st Cir. 2005) (discussing nature and scope of permissible protective sweep). During that sweep, the agents observed in plain view heroin and paraphernalia associated with the heroin trade, including scales and packaging materials. They also observed notes and records pertaining to heroin sales. Relying partly on what they had seen in plain view, the agents obtained a search warrant later the same day. Returning to the apartment, they seized about 20 kilograms of heroin and an assortment of drug-processing tools. In March of 2014, a federal grand jury charged the appellant with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i); 21 U.S.C. § 846. During pretrial proceedings, the appellant moved to suppress the evidence gathered from the Cedar Street apartment. He maintained that, because the agents’ initial entry into the apartment was unlawful, both the protective sweep and the subsequently issued search warrant (which relied in material part on information gleaned during the initial entry) were invalid and any evidence seized as a result was inadmissible as the fruit of a poisonous tree. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The government opposed the motion, and the parties filed affidavits, documentary exhibits, and mem-oranda in support of their respective positions. After reviewing the parties’ submissions and hearing arguments of counsel, the district court concluded that, before undertaking the warrantless entry, the agents had probable cause to believe that the apartment contained evidence of drug-trafficking activity and that exigent circum stances justified their warrantless entry. See United States v. Almonte-Báez, No. 14-10089, 2014 WL 6751207, at *1 (D. Mass. Dec. 1, 2014). Accordingly, the court upheld" }, { "docid": "6427603", "title": "", "text": "seized pursuant to the warrant.’ ” United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271, 1282 n. 2 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Vasey, 834 F.2d at 788). “ ‘[A] reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.’ ” Id. (quoting Vasey, 834 F.2d at 788). We have no problem concluding that the warrant affidavit, excised of the tainted evidence, provided probable cause to issue a warrant to search Trzaska’s apartment. The warrant affidavit accurately recounted that Trzaska had received shipments from eighteen weapon supply companies, and that several of the companies confirmed sending firearm and ammunition accessories to Trzaska’s apartment. Further, while probation officers O’Keefe and Kelly were legally conducting a home visit at Trzaska’s apartment, they observed ammunition openly visible within the apartment. Based on this evidence,' the warrant affidavit, excised of the illegally seized evidence, provided probable cause to search Trzaska’s apartment. Whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant to search Trzaska’s garage is a more difficult question. The warrant to search Trzaska’s garage was issued because, shortly after the illegal “plain view” search, Trzaska allegedly was seen loading bags from his apartment into his car, driving his car to his nearby garage and unloading the bags into the garage. Trzaska contends that the illegal “plain view” search caused him to remove the guns from his apartment, and that therefore his movements were the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should also have been excluded from the warrant affidavit. Evidence obtained as a result of the defendant’s “intervening independent act of free will” serves to “purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.” Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 486, 83 S.Ct. at 416. The government contends that Trzaska’s movements were properly included in the warrant affidavit because they were a product of Trzaska’s free will. To determine whether a defendant’s actions are a product of free will, a court should consider how close in time the illegal search occurred to the defendant’s actions, the presence of intervening circumstances and the purpose" } ]

[ { "docid": "22664349", "title": "", "text": "appli cation of that rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” This “purposeful availment” requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S., at 774; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, at 299, or of the “unilateral activity of another party or a third person,” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, supra, at 417. Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a “substantial connection” with the forum State. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., supra, at 223; see also Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 94, n. 7. Thus where the defendant “deliberately” has engaged in significant activities within a State, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., supra, at 781, or has created “continuing obligations” between himself and residents of the forum, Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia, 339 U. S., at 648, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there, and because his activities are shielded by “the benefits and protections” of the forum’s laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well. Jurisdiction in these circumstances may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum State. Although territorial presence frequently will enhance a potential defendant’s affiliation with a State and reinforce the reasonable foreseeability of suit there, it is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines, thus obviating the need for physical presence within a State in which business is conducted. So long as a commercial actor’s efforts are “purposefully directed” toward residents of another State," } ]

[ { "docid": "23616977", "title": "", "text": "see also Conti v. Pneumatic Prods. Corp., 977 F.2d 978, 981 (6th Cir.1992) (noting that a distinction between general and specific jurisdiction exists for the purpose of due process analysis). A federal court has general jurisdiction when the defendant’s contacts with the forum state are “substantial” and “continuous and systematic,” so that the state may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant even if the action does not relate to the defendant’s contacts with the state. See, e.g., Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 448, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952); Bird, 289 F.3d at 872 (citing Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v. WEDGE Group, Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1089 (6th Cir.1989)). Specific jurisdiction exists when “a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Helicópteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Using the relevant Supreme Court precedents, in Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir.1968), this Court established a three-part test for determining whether, consistent with due process, a court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction: (1) “the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state;” (2) “the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there;” and (3) “the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable.” During 1992, the year in which New Track owned and operated Old Track’s business but had not yet moved it entirely to San Antonio, New Track had five significant contacts with Ohio. First, although New Track was formed under Nevada law, most of New Track’s tangible property was in Ohio. Second, New Track secured Ohio telephone service and registered with various Ohio agencies as an Ohio employer. Third, whatever the contractual relationship between the parties, Youn purchased hundreds of" }, { "docid": "23208587", "title": "", "text": "of TAC. Moreover, the IAAF could not reasonably anticipate being sued in Ohio because of its alleged business dealings with Reynolds. It did not regularly transact or solicit business in Ohio or engage “in any other persistent course of conduct” there. O.R.C. § 2307.-382(A)(4). The IAAF cannot foresee being required to defend, in every forum where one of its athletes is present. Reynolds’ Ohio residence is merely fortuitous and “unilateral activity of [the plaintiff] is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1873, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Instead, minimum contacts can only be formed by “an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.” Asahi Metal Industry, 480 U.S. at 112, 107 S.Ct. at 1032. The IAAF’s contact with Ohio through letters and phone calls was also insufficient to support jurisdiction. Reynolds asked the IAAF for information, but such unilateral action by a plaintiff' does not render the defendant amenable to suit in the plaintiffs home forum. Lak, 885 F.2d at 1301; American Greetings Corp. v. Cohn, 839 F.2d 1164, 1169 (6th Cir.1988). Moreover, “[t]he use of interstate facilities such as the telephone and mail is a ‘secondary or ancillary’ factor and ‘cannot alone provide the minimum contacts required by due process.’ ” Id. (quoting Scullin Steel Co. v. National Railway Utilization Corp., 676 F.2d 309, 314 (8th Cir.1982))(interior quotation marks omitted). Although various IAAF officials sent correspondence or made telephone calls to Ohio, these communications are insufficient to establish purposeful availment. See, e.g., Market/Media Research v. Union Tribune Pub., 951 F.2d 102, 105 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 70, 121 L.Ed.2d 43 (1992)(telephone calls and mail sent to Ohio insufficient for personal jurisdiction); Capital Dredge & Dock Corp. v. Midwest Dredging Co., 573 F.2d 377, 380 (6th Cir.1978)(same). It is the “quality” of such contacts, “not their number or their status as pre- or post-agreement communications” that determines whether they constitute purposeful availment. Lak," }, { "docid": "23563738", "title": "", "text": "agreement’s choice of law provision; Rowlette’s duties to monitor market conditions and report to Calphalon; Rowlette’s telephone and fax contacts with Calphalon; J. Rowlette’s visits to Calphalon offices in Ohio; and Rowlette’s letter threatening litigation. We think the district court correctly recognized that the mere existence of a contract between Rowlette and an Ohio citizen for seventeen months is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over Rowlette. See Nationwide, 91 F.3d at 795 (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174). In Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174, the Supreme Court stated that “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and parties’ actual course of dealing” must be considered to determine whether “the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum.” We interpret this statement to mean that the parties’ actions “in the negotiation and performance of the ... agreement” are more important factors to consider than the duration of the contract in determining whether this case “should be subject to suit in Ohio.” See Nationwide, 91 F.3d at 796. Moreover, in LAK, 885 F.2d at 1301, we noted that the quality rather than the quantity of the contacts is the proper subject of review. Similarly, we should focus here on the quality of the parties’ relationship, rather than the duration of the relationship. In examining the quality of the parties’ relationship, we find that the actual course of dealings between the parties demonstrates that Rowlette’s contacts with Ohio were purely “fortuitous” and “attenuated.” In Kerry Steel Inc. v. Paragon Industries, Inc., 106 F.3d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1997), we held that an out-of-state defendant-buyer did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws because, in part, no facts connected the subject matter or performance of the contract at issue to the forum state. Furthermore, we held that any negative economic effect on the in-state plaintiff-seller did not create a determinative impact on the state economy, as “ ‘the locus of such a monetary injury is immaterial, as long as the obligation did not arise" }, { "docid": "23563735", "title": "", "text": "to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists. See LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1298 (6th Cir.1989) (citing Southern Machine Co. v. Mo-hasco Indus., 401 F.2d 374, 376 n. 2 (6th Cir.1968)). The exercise of personal jurisdiction is valid only if it meets both the state long-arm statute and constitutional due process requirements. See Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tryg International Ins. Co., 91 F.3d 790, 793 (6th Cir.1993) (citing Reynolds v. International Amateur Athletic Fed’n, 23 F.3d 1110, 1115 (6th Cir.1994)). Although the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the Ohio long-arm statute does not extend to the constitutional limits of the Due Process Clause, our central inquiry is whether minimum contacts are satisfied so as not to offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” See Cole v. Mileti, 133 F.3d 433, 436 (6th Cir.1998) (citing Goldstein v. Christiansen, 70 Ohio St.3d 232, 638 N.E.2d 541, 545 n. 1 (Ohio 1994) (per curiam)). The parties here dispute whether the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over Rowlette under the three-part test established in Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 401 F.2d at 381: First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. The district court found that Rowlette did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of the laws of Ohio and that the declaratory judgment action did not arise from Rowlette’s activities in Ohio. The purposeful availment prong of the Southern Machine test is essential to a finding of personal jurisdiction, LAK, 885 F.2d at 1300: This ‘purposeful availment’ requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts. There is a difference between what World-Wide Volkswagen calls a mere “collateral relation" }, { "docid": "14879998", "title": "", "text": "Harmon have had any contact with one another except as opposing litigants. The only contract that has ever existed between Matrix and Harmon is the settlement agreement, which “arises not from Harmon[’s] ... desire to transact business in Ohio but rather from its desire to end litigation” initiated by someone else. (R & R at 8). In sum, courts determine whether an out-of-state defendant has transacted business in Ohio on a case-by-case basis, with only the bare language of Ohio’s long arm statute for guidance. U.S. Sprint, 68 Ohio St.3d at 185, 624 N.E.2d 1048. In this particular case, Matrix has not made the sort of showing that would convince this Court that Harmon has “transacted business” in Ohio within the meaning of Ohio’s long arm statute. Therefore, this Court concludes that Ohio’s long arm statute does not confer jurisdiction over Harmon in this case. B. Personal Jurisdiction Under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution Even if this Court did have jurisdiction over Harmon under the Ohio long arm statute, it must also consider whether personal jurisdiction is appropriate under the due process clause of the constitution. The Magistrate Judge recommended that exercising personal jurisdiction over Harmon did not comport with the requirements of due process. Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli analyzed the constitutional limits of jurisdiction as follows: Matrix fails to satisfy the requirements of the first prong of the Southern Machine test. The “purposeful availment” prong of the Southern Machine test dictates a defendant may be haled into a jurisdiction only if that defendant has “the kind of substantial relationship with the forum state that invokes, by design, ‘the benefits and protections of its laws.’ ” LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1300 (6th Cir.1989). “A mere collateral relation to the forum State” based on “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts will not establish purposeful availment on the defendant’s part. Id. Moreover, “with respect to interstate contractual obligations, ... ‘parties who reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state’ are subject to the regulation and sanctions in the other" }, { "docid": "23208577", "title": "", "text": "does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)(citations omitted). Depending on the type of minimum contacts in a case, personal jurisdiction can be either general or specific. Third Nat’l Bank v. Wedge Group Incorporated, 882 F.2d 1087, 1089 (6th Cir.1989). Reynolds relies on specific jurisdiction because he claims that jurisdiction arose out of the IAAF’s alleged wrongful acts in Ohio. Id. at 1089. The Sixth Circuit has established a three-part test for determining whether specific jurisdiction-may be exercised: First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. In-Flight Devices, 466 F.2d at 226; LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1299 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1056, 110 S.Ct. 1525, 108 L.Ed.2d 764 (1990). (a) Jurisdiction is proper under the purposeful availment requirement where “the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State.” Burger King Co. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Additionally, the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum must be of a character that he or she “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Id. at 474, 105 S.Ct. at 2183 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)). The district court found that the IAAF had created a “substantial connection” with Ohio - through its “contract” with Reynolds and because of letters, calls and other incidental contacts made by the IAAF in Ohio. The calls and letters from the IAAF consisted of a response to Reynolds’ request for information and a letter sent to Reynolds" }, { "docid": "13190078", "title": "", "text": "to plaintiffs in Ohio. Id. Therefore, as described by plaintiffs, defendants’ conduct comes within the sixth category of Ohio’s long-arm statute because it caused plaintiffs tortious injury in Ohio “when [defendants] might reasonably have expected that some person would be injured thereby in this state.” In conclusion, the “transacting business” prong of Ohio’s long-arm statute provides this Court with the statutory power over plaintiffs’ claims against defendants Hancock, Inca, and Modem Aero. Likewise, the sixth category of the long-arm statute, which addresses conduct “causing tortious injury in this state,” vests this Court with the statutory power to hear plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants. Therefore, the first requirement of in personam jurisdiction is satisfied. Constitutional Due Process: Minimum Contacts The due process clause of the Constitution requires that a defendant have “minimum contacts” with the forum state “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The Sixth Circuit, in determining whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over action arising from a single act, requires three considerations: First, the defendant must purposefully . avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there. Finally, the acts of defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. CompuServe, 89 F.3d at 1263. Reynolds, 23 F.3d at 1116; LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1299 (6th Cir.1989); In-Flight Devices, 466 F.2d at 226; Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir.1968). The first inquiry, whether the nonresident defendants have purposefully availed themselves to the privilege of “acting in” or “causing a consequence” in Ohio is the “baseline requirement” for personal jurisdiction. Highway Auto Sales, 943 F.Supp. at 830 (citing In-Flight Devices, 466 F.2d at 228; Mohasco Indus., 401 F.2d at 381-382)." }, { "docid": "23563736", "title": "", "text": "test established in Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 401 F.2d at 381: First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. The district court found that Rowlette did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of the laws of Ohio and that the declaratory judgment action did not arise from Rowlette’s activities in Ohio. The purposeful availment prong of the Southern Machine test is essential to a finding of personal jurisdiction, LAK, 885 F.2d at 1300: This ‘purposeful availment’ requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts. There is a difference between what World-Wide Volkswagen calls a mere “collateral relation to the forum State,” and the kind of substantial relationship with the forum state that invokes, by design, “the benefits and protections of its laws.” An understanding of this difference is important to the proper application of the “purposeful availment” test. The Supreme Court has emphasized, with respect to interstate contractual obligations, that “parties who ‘reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state’ are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other State for the consequence of their activities.” (Citing Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Worldr-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958).) Calphalon asserts that Rowlette purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the laws of Ohio through its association with Calphalon as a manufacturer’s representative. Calphalon presents the following facts to demonstrate purposeful availment: the 1997 agreement that is the subject of this declaratory judgment action; the" }, { "docid": "23563752", "title": "", "text": "Court held that such a continuing relationship was sufficient where it had been merely agreed to by the contracting parties. Here, the parties not only agreed to that kind of continuing relationship, they actively pursued it for seventeen years. Second, in the course of its discussion, the majority repeatedly observes that Rowlette did not sell products in Ohio to Ohio citizens, suggesting that to establish jurisdiction, the defendant must exploit the end market in the forum state. Such a suggestion makes no sense at all and, with all due respect, is patently absurd. In Burger King, the franchisee sold no hamburgers in Florida. The Supreme Court did not consider the identity of Rudzew-icz’s ultimate customers; it considered the identity and relationship with the relevant Florida resident — Burger King, Inc. In the instant case, Rowlette had extensive contacts and an ongoing relationship with the only Ohio citizen of relevance for purposes of the Burger King analysis-— Calphalon. Rowlette intentionally sought to enter into and maintain a relationship with an Ohio corporation over an extended period of time, which in turn led to numerous commercial transactions between them. See Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Ind., Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 382 (6th Cir.1968) (recognizing that although defendant had not solicited the original agreement, it unquestionably had purposefully availed itself of the license agreement at issue in the case). The relationship to Ohio is not rendered fortuitous simply because Calphalon originally chose where to establish its business. Third, the majority casually dismisses as unimportant the fact that the parties agreed that the manufacturer’s representative contract would be governed by Ohio law. The majority, of course, recognizes that multiple decisions have held that such choice-of-law provisions are relevant to a finding of personal jurisdiction. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 482, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (choice-of-law provision, while not sufficient standing alone to confer'jurisdiction, is relevant factor in determining whether party purposefully availed itself of the forum); Euroglas, 107 F.3d at 393 (emphasizing choice-of-law. provision as significant factor) (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 482, 105 S.Ct. 2174, and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444" }, { "docid": "21566858", "title": "", "text": "district court properly exercised specific jurisdiction on the grounds that the Center transacted business in Ohio, Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2307.382(A)(1) (Anderson 1988 & Supp.1989). The question thus becomes whether the broadcasts televised in Ohio constitute “transacting business” for purposes of the statute. Because it is a settled proposition of Ohio law that the portion of the long-arm statute cited above was intended to extend to the constitutional limits of due process, we must determine whether a decision that the Center and McGee transacted business in Ohio would violate due process. See In-Flight Devices Corp. v. Van Dusen Air, Inc., 466 F.2d 220, 224-25 (6th Cir.1972). To comport with due process, three criteria must be met: First, the defendant must purposely avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1299 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 1525, 108 L.Ed.2d 764 (1990) (citing Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir.1968)). McGee and the Center argue that none of the criteria applies to them because they were never present in the state of Ohio. However, the Supreme Court has held that parties that reach out beyond one state to create relationships with citizens of another are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other state for the consequences of their activities, regardless of whether they were actually present in that state. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2182-83, 85 L.Ed.2d 528. (1985). Advertising is among the activities that constitute “reaching out” to forum state residents. See LAK, 885 F.2d at 1300; see also Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 897 F.2d 377 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that cruise line that advertised, provided brochures to travel agents, and periodically held seminars for travel" }, { "docid": "23491042", "title": "", "text": "this portion of the statute does not reach to the limits of the Due Process Clause, see Goldstein v. Christiansen, 70 Ohio St.3d 232, 638 N.E.2d 541, 545 n. 1 (1994) (per curiam), our central inquiry is whether Mileti established certain minimum business contacts with Ohio so that the Magistrate’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him did not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The Sixth Circuit has established a three-part test to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists over a nonresident defendant like Mileti. First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state; second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there; and third, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make its exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant fundamentally fair. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tryg Int’l Ins. Co., 91 F.3d 790, 794 (6th Cir.1996); Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir.1968). If, as here, a nonresident defendant transacts business by negotiating and executing a contract via telephone calls and letters to an Ohio resident, then the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the forum by creating a continuing obligation in Ohio. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76, 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183-84, 2185-86, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); CompuServe, 89 F.3d at 1263-64; American Greetings Corp. v. Cohn, 839 F.2d 1164, 1170 (6th Cir.1988); In-Flight Devices Corp. v. Van Dusen Air, Inc., 466 F.2d 220, 228, 235 (6th Cir.1972). Furthermore, if the cause of action is for breach of that contract, as it is here, then the cause of action naturally arises from the defendant’s activities in Ohio. See CompuServe, 89 F.3d at 1267; In-Flight Devices, 466 F.2d at 229. Finally, when we find that a defendant like Mileti purposefully availed himself of the forum and that the cause of action arose" }, { "docid": "22935500", "title": "", "text": "“entering into a contract for services to be rendered or for materials to be furnished in this state.” TENN. Code § 20-2-214(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5). Section 20-2-214(c) also permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant when he undertakes any of the above actions through an “agent or personal representative.” tenn. Code § 20-2-214(e). Tennessee’s long-arm statute has been interpreted to be “coterminous with the limits on personal jurisdiction imposed” by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and thus, “the jurisdictional limits of Tennessee law and of federal constitutional law of due process are identical.” Payne v. Motorists’ Mut. Ins. Cos., 4 F.3d 452, 455 (6th Cir.1993). See also Aristech Chem. Int’l v. Acrylic Fabricators, 138 F.3d 624, 627 (6th Cir.1998) (“[Wjhen a state’s long-arm statute reaches as far as the limits of the Due Process Clause, the two inquiries merge and the court ‘need only determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction ... violates constitutional due process.’ ”) (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tryg Int’l Ins. Co., 91 F.3d 790, 793 (6th Cir.1996)). S. Purposeful Availment This Court views the purposeful availment prong of the Southern Machine test as “essential” to a finding of personal jurisdiction. Calphalon Corp., 228 F.3d at 722 (citing LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enters., 885 F.2d 1293, 1300 (6th Cir.1989)). The purposeful availment requirement serves to protect a defendant from being haled into a jurisdiction by virtue of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts. Id. (citations omitted). We have held previously that purposeful availment may exist when a defendant makes telephone calls and sends facsimiles into the forum state and such communications “form the bases for the action.” Neal, 270 F.3d at 332. In a similar vein, we have held that the “actual content” of the communications into the forum state that give rise to an intentional tort action may constitute purposeful availment. Id. Finally, because of Henderson’s and Englar’s status as corporate officers of Burlington Industries and Nano-Tex, it is essential to note that “where an out-of-state agent is actively and personally involved in the conduct giving rise" }, { "docid": "14879987", "title": "", "text": "which specific objection was made. In its objections to the R & R, Matrix argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that Harmon is not subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court. Specifically, Matrix argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that Harmon had not availed itself of the privilege of transacting business in the state of Ohio when it negotiated a settlement agreement with an Ohio corporation. Matrix also contends that the Magistrate Judge erred when she concluded that Harmon could not reasonably foresee litigation in Ohio arising out of the settlement agreement. Finally, Matrix argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to address the second and third prongs of the specific jurisdiction test laid out by the Sixth Circuit in Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir.1968). When a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is made, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. American Greetings Corp. v. Cohn, 839 F.2d 1164, 1168 (6th Cir.1988). The burden the plaintiff must meet depends on whether the district court will hold a preliminary evidentiary hearing before deciding the motion. Id. If the district court opts to decide the motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only set forth a prima facie case of jurisdiction. Id. at 1169 (quoting Welsh v. Gibbs, 631 F.2d 436, 438-9 (6th Cir.1980)). Because Harmon’s motion is being decided without an evidentiary hearing, Matrix need only establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction to overcome Harmon’s motion to dismiss. “In diversity cases, federal courts apply the law of the forum state to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists.” Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tryg International Insurance Co., Ltd., 91 F.3d 790, 793 (6th Cir.1996) (citing LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1298 (6th Cir.1989)). If jurisdiction is appropriate under the state’s long arm statute, a court must then turn its attention to the question of whether jurisdiction would comport with the requirements of due process. The Sixth Circuit has set forth a three-part test for determining" }, { "docid": "13190079", "title": "", "text": "determining whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over action arising from a single act, requires three considerations: First, the defendant must purposefully . avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there. Finally, the acts of defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. CompuServe, 89 F.3d at 1263. Reynolds, 23 F.3d at 1116; LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1299 (6th Cir.1989); In-Flight Devices, 466 F.2d at 226; Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir.1968). The first inquiry, whether the nonresident defendants have purposefully availed themselves to the privilege of “acting in” or “causing a consequence” in Ohio is the “baseline requirement” for personal jurisdiction. Highway Auto Sales, 943 F.Supp. at 830 (citing In-Flight Devices, 466 F.2d at 228; Mohasco Indus., 401 F.2d at 381-382). The purposeful availment requirement is satisfied if a defendant’s “contacts create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum state such that defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Highway Auto Sales, 943 F.Supp. at 830 (citing CompuServe, 89 F.3d at 1263 (citations omitted)). Furthermore, as explained by the Supreme Court: [W]here the defendant “deliberately” has engaged in significant activities within a state or has created “continuing obligations” between himself and residents of the forum, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there, and because his activities are shielded by “the benefits and protections” of the forum’s laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in the forum as well. Burger King Carp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (citations omitted); Stump & Co. v. Delta Metalforming Co., 793 F.Supp. 157, 159 (N.D.Ohio 1992). Thus the “purposeful availment” requirement for personal jurisdiction is satisfied if plaintiff demonstrates that either: (1) defendants’ connections with Ohio are" }, { "docid": "9080054", "title": "", "text": "jurisdiction over the FLSA claim of Ohio plaintiffs; it contends only that the Court does not have specific jurisdiction over that claim brought by non-Ohio plaintiffs. Specific jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over claims arising from or related to a defendant's contacts with the forum state. Intera Corp. v. Henderson , 428 F.3d 605, 615 (6th Cir. 2005). The Sixth Circuit has identified three criteria for specific jurisdiction: First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant's activities there. Finally, the acts of defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. Id. (quoting Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc. , 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968) ). Failure to meet any one of the three prongs means that personal jurisdiction may not be invoked. Alisoglu v. Central States Thermo King of Oklahoma, Inc. , No. 12 CV 10230, 2012 WL 1666426, at *5 (E.D. Mich. May 11, 2012) (citing LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enter. , 885 F.2d 1293, 1303 (6th Cir. 1989) ). In support of its position that the Court does not have specific jurisdiction over the FLSA claims of non-Ohio plaintiffs, Reliable cites Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 198 L.Ed.2d 395 (2017). In Bristol-Myers , out-of-state plaintiffs joined California plaintiffs in a California state court action alleging numerous product liability claims against Bristol-Myers, which is not a citizen of California. The California Supreme Court ultimately concluded that general jurisdiction was lacking, but that California courts had specific jurisdiction over the claims of the non-California plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the mere fact that non-California plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, or ingested Bristol-Myers' product in California did not allow California courts to assert specific jurisdiction over the product liability claims of non-California plaintiffs. Id. at 1781. The Court finds that Bristol-Myers applies to FLSA claims, in that it divests courts" }, { "docid": "14879999", "title": "", "text": "whether personal jurisdiction is appropriate under the due process clause of the constitution. The Magistrate Judge recommended that exercising personal jurisdiction over Harmon did not comport with the requirements of due process. Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli analyzed the constitutional limits of jurisdiction as follows: Matrix fails to satisfy the requirements of the first prong of the Southern Machine test. The “purposeful availment” prong of the Southern Machine test dictates a defendant may be haled into a jurisdiction only if that defendant has “the kind of substantial relationship with the forum state that invokes, by design, ‘the benefits and protections of its laws.’ ” LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1300 (6th Cir.1989). “A mere collateral relation to the forum State” based on “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts will not establish purposeful availment on the defendant’s part. Id. Moreover, “with respect to interstate contractual obligations, ... ‘parties who reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state’ are subject to the regulation and sanctions in the other State for the consequences of their activities.’ ” Id. (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). Matrix asserts that Hanson Stores purposefully availed itself of the privilege of transacting business in Ohio when it performed the following acts: (1) negotiated and entered into the settlement agreement with an Ohio corporation under which Hanson Stores agreed that it would not sell Matrix products; (2) engaged in negotiations, along with its counsel, which involved “extensive telephonic and written communications;” (3) transferred goods and money to and from Ohio; and (4) agreed to be subject to Ohio law with regard to the settlement agreement. The mere existence of a contract between Harmon Stores and Matrix, an Ohio corporation, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Harmon Stores. See Calaphone [sic] v. Rowlette, 228 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir.2000). The “quality” of the contacts, as opposed to them number, is essential to determining whether minimum contacts exist sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. See id. In Calaphalon [sic], the Sixth Circuit held that" }, { "docid": "23563739", "title": "", "text": "Nationwide, 91 F.3d at 796. Moreover, in LAK, 885 F.2d at 1301, we noted that the quality rather than the quantity of the contacts is the proper subject of review. Similarly, we should focus here on the quality of the parties’ relationship, rather than the duration of the relationship. In examining the quality of the parties’ relationship, we find that the actual course of dealings between the parties demonstrates that Rowlette’s contacts with Ohio were purely “fortuitous” and “attenuated.” In Kerry Steel Inc. v. Paragon Industries, Inc., 106 F.3d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1997), we held that an out-of-state defendant-buyer did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws because, in part, no facts connected the subject matter or performance of the contract at issue to the forum state. Furthermore, we held that any negative economic effect on the in-state plaintiff-seller did not create a determinative impact on the state economy, as “ ‘the locus of such a monetary injury is immaterial, as long as the obligation did not arise from a privilege the defendant exercised in the forum state.’ ” Id. (quoting LAK, 885 F.2d at 1303). Likewise, in International Technologies Consultants v. Euroglas, 107 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir.1997), we found it “purely fortuitous” that the foreign defendant-seller had any contact with Michigan. The defendant was not attempting to “exploit any market for its products” in the state of Michigan, but rather had contact with the state only because the plaintiff chose to reside there. See id. These contacts differ from the defendant’s efforts in Lanier v. American Board of Endodontics, 843 F.2d 901 (6th Cir.1988), which we held to demonstrate purposeful availment. In Lanier, 843 F.2d at 911, the foreign medical certification board sought to associate with the in-state plaintiff to further its business and create “continuous and substantial” consequences in the state. In this case, the agreement and previous association between Calphalon and Row-lette centered on Rowlette representing Calphalon in the states of Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska. Rowlette’s performance of the agreement was not focused on exploiting" }, { "docid": "22107224", "title": "", "text": "the notion that personal jurisdiction might turn on “mechanical” tests, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, [326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 159-160, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)].... Id. at 478-479, 105 S.Ct. at 2185 (emphasis in original). Likewise, in LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1300 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1525, 108 L.Ed.2d 764 (1990), this court found that a defendant did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of transacting business in the forum state, see Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir.1968), because “[t]he defendant in the case at bar, ... did not ‘reach out’ to [the forum state] for the purpose of creating ‘continuing relationships and obligations’ with any citizen of that state.” Based upon the record before us, we feel it a close question as to whether the defendants’ contacts to Michigan were sufficient “such that [they] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). B.Irreparable Injury As we stated earlier, the harm alleged should be evaluated in terms of its substantiality, the likelihood of its occurrence, and the proof provided by the mov-ant. Cuomo, 772 F.2d at 977. Furthermore, the harm alleged is considered in light of our earlier discussion concerning the defendants’ jurisdictional argument. Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze, 812 F.2d at 290 (a stay may be granted with a high probability of success and some injury). The harm identified by the defendants is that the low-level radioactive waste, once received, must be buried in perpetuity and defendants will be burdened therefore with the responsibility of ensuring perpetual care for the waste. The defendants point out that this harm is also certain to occur because the defendants do not possess adequate short-term storage facilities to store the waste generated by Michigan until the final resolution of their appeal. The amount of waste produced by the plaintiff’s members makes up a significant percentage of the waste currently being accepted by the sited states. Thus, we find" }, { "docid": "23208586", "title": "", "text": "party purposefully availed itself of a forum a court must evaluate “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing” Id. at 479, 105 S.Ct. at 2185. In the instant case, there were no negotiations between Reynolds and the IAAF prior to “execution” of the contract. The IAAF arguably had a minimal course of dealing with Rejmolds in Ohio, providing money to Reynolds in Ohio to travel to track events. However, there is no real evidence that a contract was negotiated in Ohio, created in Ohio, performed in Ohio, or breached in Ohio. See Lak, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises, 885 F.2d 1293, 1300 (6th Cir.1989)(place where contractual obligation is incurred is important factor for determining personal jurisdiction), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1056, 110 S.Ct. 1525, 108 L.Ed.2d 764 (1990). Without further evidence concerning the purported contract, we are unable to agree that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the IAAF on the contract claims, either based on its own activities or those of TAC. Moreover, the IAAF could not reasonably anticipate being sued in Ohio because of its alleged business dealings with Reynolds. It did not regularly transact or solicit business in Ohio or engage “in any other persistent course of conduct” there. O.R.C. § 2307.-382(A)(4). The IAAF cannot foresee being required to defend, in every forum where one of its athletes is present. Reynolds’ Ohio residence is merely fortuitous and “unilateral activity of [the plaintiff] is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1873, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Instead, minimum contacts can only be formed by “an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.” Asahi Metal Industry, 480 U.S. at 112, 107 S.Ct. at 1032. The IAAF’s contact with Ohio through letters and phone calls was also insufficient to support jurisdiction. Reynolds asked the IAAF for information, but such unilateral action by a plaintiff'" }, { "docid": "23468800", "title": "", "text": "F.3d 542, 547-48 (6th Cir.1999). B. Personal Jurisdiction The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution “permits the exercise of both general; and specific jurisdiction.” Aristech Chem. Int’l Ltd. v. Acrylic Fabricators, Ltd., 138 F.3d 624, 627 (6th Cir.1998). “General .jurisdiction exists when a defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state sufficient to justify the state’s exercise of judicial power with respect to any and all claims.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). Kaizaki lives today in Japan and at all relevant times lived and worked in Japan. The Retirement Fund does not argue that the district court could assert general jurisdiction over him. Rather, it argues that the district court should have exercised specific jurisdiction over him, which, in contrast, “subjects the defendant to ‘suit in the forum state only on claims that arise out of or relate to a defendant’s contacts with the forum.’ ” Id. at 627-28 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 & n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) (internal quotations in original omitted)). Whether specific jurisdiction exists over Kaizaki depends on three criteria. Id. at 628. First, he must have purposefully availed himself of the privilege of acting in the United States or have purposefully caused a consequence in the United States. Id. Second, the cause of action must arise from his actions in the United States. Id. Finally, the exercise of jurisdiction by a court within the United States over Kaizaki must be reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Id. The district court held that the Retirement Fund’s Complaint failed all three prongs. See App. at 997-1002. We must affirm the district court’s holding if we conclude that any 'one of the three prongs are not satisfied. See, e.g., LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enters., 885 F.2d 1293, 1303 (6th Cir.1989) (“[E]ach criterion represents an independent requirement, and failure to meet any of the three means that personal jurisdiction may not be invoked.”) (emphasis added). Upon review, we conclude, under the circumstances of this case, that the third, “reasonableness” prong tips -against exercising" } ]

[ { "docid": "5154228", "title": "", "text": "Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, contributions to the Welfare Fund received after the due date are assessed liquidated damages, which in the instant case amount to $7,064.81. In response to the Trustees’ motion for summary judgment, the affidavit of Frank P. Bauer declared that The audit reports are substantially correct, however, the amounts due to the plaintiff are solely the obligation of the defendant, FRANK P. BAUER CO., an Illinois corporation and not-of FRANK P. BAUER individually. Section 515 of ERISA provides that Every employer who is obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained agreement shall, to the extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in accordance with the terms and conditions of • such plan or such agreement. 29 U.S.C. § 1145. While Bauer Marble denied that there were no genuine issues of material fact in the instant case entitling plaintiffs to summary judgment, Frank P. Bauer’s affidavit conceded the correctness of the audit reports provided by plaintiffs; defendants offered no other evidence to oppose plaintiffs’ motion. It is thus apparent that there are no material issues of fact concerning Bauer Marble’s liability to plaintiffs. As a result, summary judgment against Bauer Marble is appropriate. Allen v. Civitello, 529 F.Supp. 46, 48 (N.D.Ill.1981); Huge v. Reid, 468 F.Supp. 1024, 1027-28 (N.D.Ala.1979), aff’d, 615 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.1980). Summary judgment as to Count II, in which plaintiffs sued Frank P. Bauer individually, raises other issues. Plaintiffs assert that Bauer was the alter ego of Bauer Marble, and that this Court should ignore the corporate entity of Bauer Marble and hold Bauer individually liable for failing to make proper contributions to the Welfare Fund. However, in support of their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs offered no support for the allegations concerning Bauer in their complaint. Defendants, in response, declare that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment fails to “set forth any. facts or evidence relating to the possible liability to the Plaintiffs, and he therefore moves that he be dismissed as a party defendant in" } ]

[ { "docid": "11076105", "title": "", "text": "U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), and section 515, 29 U.S.C. § 1145. See Solomon v. Klein, 770 F.2d 352 (3d Cir.1980). In the Solomon case, the Third Circuit held that an individual, who was the president, chief executive officer and holder of fifty percent of the stock of the defendant corporation, was not personally liable for delinquent contributions of the corporation to a retirement fund which the corporation had formed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 353-54. Absent a reason to pierce the corporate veil, the Solomon court found Congress, in enacting ERISA, did not intend to compromise the fundamental principle of corporate law that owners, officers and directors of a corporation have limited liability. Id. The Solomon court stated: we find nothing in the legislative history [of Title I] to indicate that Congress intended to impose a personal liability on a shareholder or a high-ranking officer of a corporation for ERISA contributions owed by the corporation. Id. at 354. The rule of the Solomon case has been followed in several circuits. See, e.g., Rockney v. Blohorn, 877 F.2d 637, 640-43 (8th Cir.1989); Scarbrough v. Perez, 870 F.2d 1079, 1083 (6th Cir.1989); Int’l Bhd. of Painters v. George A. Kracher, Inc., 856 F.2d 1546, 1550 (D.C.Cir.1988); see also Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir.1984) (sole owner of corporation not liable for delinquent contributions absent evidence allowing court to pierce corporate veil); Audit Serv. v. Rolfson, 641 F.2d 757, 764 (9th Cir.1981) (same). These courts have agreed that neither the language of the Title I definition of employer nor its legislative history suggests Congress intended a corporation’s liability for delinquent contributions be imputed to shareholders, officers or directors, absent some reason to pierce the corporate veil. Rockney, 877 F.2d at 641-422; Scarbrough, 870 F.2d at 1083; Int’l Bhd. of Painters, 856 F.2d at 1547-48. Departing from the reasoning of the Solomon decision, but reaching a similar conclusion, the First Circuit declined to impose personal liability for delinquent contributions on the sole shareholder and officer of a corporation. In Massachusetts Laborers’ Health & Welfare Fund v." }, { "docid": "18596761", "title": "", "text": "Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BUCKLEY. BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge: Appellants Donald Daugherty and Forrest Hall are the sole owners and officers of P & M Coal Company (“P & M”). The question before us is whether Daugherty and Hall, by virtue of their status as owner-officers, are “employers” within the meaning of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as amended (“ERISA”), and as such jointly responsible for the statutory liability incurred by P & M on its withdrawal from two multiemployer pension plans. Contrary to the district court, we conclude that ERISA does not impose such personal liability on owner-officers. Therefore, in the absence of any claim or showing of circumstances which, under traditional common law concepts, would justify “piercing the corporate veil,” we reverse the district court’s order holding Daugherty and Hall jointly liable for the amount owed by P & M to the pension plans. I. Background P & M Coal Company is a Kentucky corporation that was organized by Donald Daugherty and Forrest Hall for the purpose of mining coal from a property leased from another company. Under the terms of the lease, P & M was required to make contributions to the United Mine Workers of America Pension Plans of 1950 and 1974 (“the Plans”) on behalf of its covered employees. Daugherty serves as president of P & M and Hall as its vice president and secretary. Each owns fifty percent of the company, and together they operated and managed the business. Contributions were made to the Plans through 1981. In January 1982, the coal seam P & M was mining became depleted. As a result, P & M ceased operations, and payments to the Plans (which were made on its behalf by the lessor) were discontinued. P & M’s attempts to acquire another mining property proved fruitless. The following year, the Plans’ Trustees determined that P & M had completely withdrawn from the Plans within the meaning of ERISA as amended by the Multi-em-ployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“MPPAA”), Pub.L. No. 96-364, 94 Stat. 1208" }, { "docid": "2508897", "title": "", "text": "in nature and we do not consider it to be such a substantial affirmative step as to bar removal. Grubb v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 57, 59 (4th Cir.1991); Selvaggi v. Prudential Property & Cos. Ins. Co., 871 F.Supp. 815, 817 (E.D.Pa.1995). . See, e.g., Sasso v. Cervoni, 985 F.2d 49 (2nd Cir.1993) (sole officer, director, and shareholder not liable for employee trust fund contributions); Plumbers’ Pension Fund v. Niedrich, 891 F.2d 1297, 1299 (7th Cir.1989) (no liability for corporate officers under ERISA); Rockney v. Blohorn, 877 F.2d 637, 639-43 (8th Cir.1989) (corporate officers cannot be held personally liable under ERISA unless facts support piercing the corporate veil); Scarbrough v. Perez, 870 F.2d 1079, 1082-85 (6th Cir.1989) (owner-chief executive will not be held liable for corporation's delinquent contributions to pension fund unless facts warrant piercing the corporate veil); International Bhd. of Painters v. George A. Kracher, Inc., 856 F.2d 1546, 1547-50 (D.C.Cir.1988) (CEO and principal shareholder is not liable for corporation's delinquent contributions absent allegations that he personally was a parly to the plan or collective bargaining agreement or where there is evidence that corporation was his alter ego); Massachusetts Laborers’ Health & Welfare Fund v. Starrett Paving Corp., 845 F.2d 23, 24-26 (1st Cir.1988) (president and sole shareholder is not liable for corporation’s delinquent pension contributions unless facts show that he personally contracted to guarantee pension contributions); Operating Eng'rs Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir.1984) (owner of corporation not liable absent evidence of alter ego relationship). . We are unpersuaded by the Pennsylvania Superior Court's opinion in Adam v. Benjamin, 426 Pa.Super. 543, 627 A.2d 1186 (1993), holding that the Wage Law was not preempted. We note that the court did not address the Wage Law's effect on arbitration and was apparently misled by the employees’ contention that they had separate employment contracts when, in fact, they were covered by a collective bargaining agreement. . It is worth noting that 11 U.S.C. § 1113 provides that a collective bargaining agreement remains in full force and effect in a Chapter 11 proceeding until rejection" }, { "docid": "829619", "title": "", "text": "3(5) of Title I as “an appropriate definition for determining whether a business is liable under Title IV.” Opinion Letter by Henry Rose, General Counsel for PBGC (Dec. 27, 1984), cited in Sun-Up Coal Co., supra, 76-77 (emphasis supplied by the Sun-Up Coal Co. court). The court also noted that it found it “puzzling” that if Congress had intended individual liability for shareholders and officers it would have included provisions limiting an employer’s liability to a portion of its liquidation or dissolution value. Finally, the court noted that the provisions limiting the liability of “sole proprietors” and “partners” were inconsistent with broad individual liability for corporate officers. The court in Sun-Up Coal Co. ultimately found that although a limited definition of “employer” under Title IV was more appropriate, even under the precedent of courts applying the Title I definition to Title IV, e.g., Donovan, supra, the defendants in the case before it would not be liable. Other courts, however, have explicitly held that the definition of “employer” under Title I should not be applied to Title IV. In Solomon v. Klein, 770 F.2d 352 (3d Cir. 1985), the court was faced with a similar argument by plaintiffs that Donovan, supra, decided under the FLSA, should dictate a similarly broad definition of “em ployer” under Title IV ERISA. The court stated that: we find nothing in the legislative history to indicate that Congress intended to impose a personal liability on a shareholder or a high-ranking officer of a corporation for ERISA contributions owed by the corporation. 770 F.2d at 354. It also tersely discredited a case relied upon by plaintiffs in this action, Massachusetts State Carpenters Pension Fund, supra: We are not impressed by the Massachusetts district court’s analysis. It relied not on the interpretation of the ERISA statute but on the Fair Labor Standards Act and precedents of the First Circuit. Id. The court also quoted Combs v. Indyk, 554 F.Supp. 573 (W.D.Pa.1982), where that court faced the same argument as that advanced by plaintiffs in this case: Plaintiffs rely on ERISA’s inclusion within its definition of employer of “any" }, { "docid": "829617", "title": "", "text": "“employer” in Title I is the same as that found in section 3(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), it should by analogy apply under ERISA. They rely on Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir.1983) where the court used an “economic reality” test to impose personal liability for unpaid wages under the FLSA. Plaintiffs argue that defendant Coleman, as 50% stockholder and company director, exercised “final operational control” over B.M.C. and thus acted “directly [or] indirectly in the interest of an employer” and should be personally liable for withdrawal payments under ERISA. This Court has specifically recognized that language by Congress limiting certain other language to a particular title or subtitle of ERISA is significant. The Grand Union Company, supra, slip op. at 10. The same is true in this case, and the Court finds the analysis of Judge Greene in Combs v. Sun-Up Coal Co., 634 F.Supp. 13 (D.D.C.1985) persuasive. The court in Sun-Up Coal Co. examined the legislative history of ERISA and determined that the definition of “employer” in Title I of ERISA did not apply to Title IV. The court noted that different policy concerns and different statutory language apply to the two different titles in ERISA. It also quoted a 1982 opinion letter drafted by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), the corporation created under ERISA to administer Title IV. In that letter the PBGC stated that: ERISA has no special rules regarding shareholders or officer liability ... [Rather], this issue is usually determined by state law which generally provides that shareholders are not liable for the debts of a corporation. You should, however, be aware that the laws of every state contain exceptions to this general principle. PBGC Opinion Letter 82-038 (Dec. 14, 1982) cited in Sun-Up Coal Co., supra, at 76 (quoting Massachusetts State Carpenters Pension Fund v. Atlantic Diving Co., 635 F.Supp. 9, 14 (D.Mass.1984)). The Court specifically distinguished a later PBGC opinion letter supplied by plaintiffs in that, and this, action. In that letter, the PBGC stated that it viewed the definition contained in section" }, { "docid": "18596765", "title": "", "text": "both decisions. II. Discussion Withdrawal liability under ERISA is governed by subtitle E of Title IV, which was added to the Act by MPPAA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1461. Subtitle E imposes withdrawal liability on “an employer [who] withdraws from a multiemployer plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1381(a) (emphasis added). Therefore, it is of critical importance to determine the meaning of “employer” within the context of Title IV. This question has been considered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on at least three other occasions. In each case, the court has rejected the contention that owner-officers of a corporation are “employers” within the meaning of Title IV. Connors v. B.M.C. Coal Co., 634 F.Supp. 74, 76-77 (D.D.C.1986); Connors v. War-Eagle Coals, Inc., No. 85-2123 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 1985) (Order dismissing action against individual officer and shareholder) [Available on WESTLAW, DCTU database]; Combs v. Sun-Up Coal Co., 634 F.Supp. 13, 18-19 (D.D.C.1985). In the instant case, however, the district court concluded that significant ownership interest in the corporation and substantial control over corporate operations were in themselves sufficient to hold individual officers and shareholders jointly liable with the corporate employer under the withdrawal liability provisions of Title IV. February 6 Orders; see Memorandum Opinion at 7. We find nothing in either the language or purpose of MPPAA to justify so significant a compromise of the corporate principle of limited liability, nothing to suggest that Congress intended to subject owner-operators of a closely held corporation to personal liability merely because they actively participated in running the business. Acceptance of the district court’s “interest and control” test would not only subvert the major purpose of incorporation, but would discourage future participation in multiemployer pension plans — a result that is clearly contrary to one of MPPAA’s stated objectives. A. Meaning of “Employer” Under Title IV Title IV of ERISA begins with the following declaration: If an employer withdraws from a mul-tiemployer plan in a complete withdrawal or a partial withdrawal, then the employer is liable to the plan in the amount determined under this part to be withdrawal liability. 29" }, { "docid": "23559530", "title": "", "text": "alter ego basis our inquiry would be different. There, we would apply the following factors which we have deemed relevant in determining when to pierce the corporate veil: the failure to observe corporate for malities; non-payment of dividends; the insolvency of the debtor corporation at the time; siphoning of funds of the corporation from the dominant stockholder; nonfunctioning of other officers or directors; absence of corporate records; and the fact that the corporation is merely a facade for the operation of the dominant stockholder or stockholders. United States v. Pisani, 646 F.2d 83, 88 (3d Cir.1981); see also DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co., 540 F.2d 681 (4th Cir.1976). In the limited confines of this, case, therefore, which specifically does not involve an inquiry into alter ego, all that we are required to determine is whether under concepts of statutory construction of ERI-SA we should conclude that Congress intended that corporate officers or large stockholders could be held liable for a corporation’s violation of ERISA. Like the district court, we are impressed by the reasoning of Chief Judge Teitelbaum in Combs v. Indyk, 554 F.Supp. 573 (W.D.Pa.1982), in which trustees of union health and retirement funds brought an action under § 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), against officers of a corporate signatory to a collective bargaining agreement to recover delinquent contributions the corporation was obligated to make to the funds under the agreement. After holding that no § 301 claim was properly stated against the individual defendants, the court held that the analysis of the ERISA claim compelled a similar conclusion: Section 515 of ERISA, as added by section 306(a) of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. § 1145, mandates contributions by employers in accordance with their obligations under multiemployer plans or collectively bargained agreements. Section 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, authorizes a fiduciary to redress violations of ERISA. The findings made above with respect to the imposition of section 301 liability on these defendants are equally applicable to a consideration of the imposition of section 515" }, { "docid": "18596768", "title": "", "text": "Title I definitions were found to apply to Title IV, Daugherty and Hall do not fall within the definition of “employer” because neither “corporate officer” nor “shareholder” is to be found in the definition of “person.” Their position finds both general and specific support in judicial interpretations of ERISA and in an opinion letter by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (“PBGC”), the corporation created under ERISA to administer Title IV. For example, in Solomon v. Klein, 770 F.2d 352, 354 (3d Cir.1985), the court wrote: There is no indication that Congress intended to expose corporate officers to liability for their employers’ violations of ERISA; in fact, the exclusion of corporate officers from the extensive enumeration of persons [in Title I] points in the opposite direction. See also Combs v. Indyk, 554 F.Supp. 573, 575 (W.D.Pa.1982). In its opinion letter, the PBGC addressed the specific question of whether a corporation’s officers and shareholders can be held financially responsible for their company’s withdrawal liability as follows: ERISA has no special rules regarding shareholder or officer liability.... [Rather], this issue is usually determined by state law which generally provides that shareholders are not liable for the debts of a corporation. You should, however, be aware that the laws of every state contain exceptions to this general principle. PBGC Opinion Letters 82-038 (Dec. 14, 1982). The Trustees respond by arguing that “shareholder” and “officer” are subsumed in the word “individual” in the definition of “person,” and by citing other interpretations of ERISA (including another PBGC opinion) holding other Title I definitions to be applicable to Title IV. See, e.g., Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 592 F.2d 947, 952 (7th Cir.1979), aff'd, 446 U.S. 359, 100 S.Ct. 1723, 64 L.Ed.2d 354 (1980); PBGC Opinion L84-9 (Dec. 27, 1984). They also point to the interpretation, in Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir.1983), of an identical definition of “employer” in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, as embracing shareholders who have a significant ownership interest in, and operational control over, a corporation. Because the owner-officers in Donovan had “personally" }, { "docid": "23404526", "title": "", "text": "ERISA and does not modify the statutory definition of employee for all purposes.” Dodd v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 688 F.Supp. 564, 571 (E.D.Cal.1988). The cases on which Madonia relies simply fail to address the import of the introductory language to this regulation. See Kwatcher, 879 F.2d at 960-62; Peckham v. Board of Trustees of the Int’l Bhd. of Painters and Allied Trades Union, 653 F.2d 424, 427 (10th Cir.1981). Specifically, the regulation does not govern the issue of whether someone is a “participant” in an ERISA plan, once the existence of that plan has been established. This makes perfect sense: once a plan has been established, it would be anomalous to have those persons benefitting from it governed by two disparate sets of legal obligations. Our reading of the statute works no inequity. “[W]hen self-employed individuals elect to incorporate and the corporation employs others, there is simply no basis in ERISA for disregarding the corporate form.” Dodd, 688 F.Supp. at 571. Dr. Madonia chose to operate his neurological practice as a Virginia corporation. He has enjoyed the recognized benefits of the corporate form with regard to limited liability and corporate tax deductions. Indeed, if other MNA employees were to sue Dr. Madonia as an “employer” for ERISA liability, the corporate form would shield him. See, e.g., Scarbrough v. Perez, 870 F.2d 1079, 1082-84 (6th Cir.1989) (holding that the principal shareholder and CEO of a corporation is not an “employer” and, thus, cannot be subject to ERISA liability except in cases involving corporate veil piercing); Kracher, 856 F.2d at 1547-50 (same); Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir.1984) (same). As the district court stated, “Dr. Madonia has consistently benefitted from the corporate status of his business, and he should not be permitted to deny that status in order to avoid being subject to ERISA regulation.” By concluding that sole shareholders can be considered “participants” in their companies’ employee welfare benefit plans, we likewise avoid the situation in which two separate bodies of law would govern a corporation’s employee benefits claims. In this particular" }, { "docid": "829622", "title": "", "text": "23, 1984). Moreover, courts have found that where plaintiffs in an ERISA action for payment of withdrawal liability fail to allege that individual defendants should be personally liable under the traditional corporate law concepts of “alter ego” or “piercing the corporate veil,” the claim against those defendants should be dismissed. Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513 (9th Cir.1984); Audit Services, Inc. v. Rolfson, 641 F.2d 757, 764 (9th Cir.1981); Seymour v. Hull & Moreland Engineering, 605 F.2d 1105,1109-14 (9th Cir.1979); Moyers v. Frank P. Bauer Marble Co., 556 F.Supp. 192, 194 (N.D.Ill.1983); Here, plaintiffs have not alleged the fraudulent intent necessary to find individual liability either under Kentucky law or general federal rules. White v. Winchester Land Development Corp., 584 S.W.2d 56, 60-63 (Ky.App.1979); Operating Engineers Pension Trust, supra. In fact, plaintiffs implicitly concede that no such fraudulent intent exists by not alleging liability under corporate law concepts in the alternative. Because plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to find that defendant Coleman is an “employer” within the meaning of Title IV of ERISA, defendant Coleman is entitled to summary judgment in his favor. Accordingly, the accompanying Order will grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the withdrawal liability of the corporation and will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the personal liability of defendant Coleman. Both parties have claimed entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs for pursuing this action. The Court will reserve this issue pending further submissions by the parties justifying their entitlement to such fees and costs in light of this Memorandum. See Connors v. Peles Coal Co., 637 F.Supp. 321, 324 (D.D.C.1986). In Peles Coal Co., the Court declined to grant the individual defendant’s motion to dismiss wherein defendant argued that he was improperly named as an \"employer” under ERISA. The Court noted that “resolution of this issue must await fuller development of the factual record. While it seems likely that this issue ... may be resolved on motion for summary judgment, the allegations of the complaint suffice to withstand the motion to dismiss.” Id. (citing in footnote 3, Sun-Up" }, { "docid": "18596764", "title": "", "text": "on the ground that they were not “employers” within the meaning of section 4201 of ERISA and thus could not be held liable for withdrawal liability under the Act. In an order dated February 6, 1985, the district court denied their motion, stating that the question of their personal liability as statutory “employers” turned on whether it could be proven that they had “significant ownership interest and control over the operation of the corporation and ... were personally involved in matters pertaining to the Pension Plans and to the decision to withdraw.” Combs v. P & M Coal Co., No. 84-0560 (D.D.C. Feb. 6,1985) (Order denying motion to dismiss). Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled on May 31, 1985 that Daugherty and Hall met the criteria set forth in its February 6 Order and held each jointly and severally liable with the corporation for more than $300,-000. Sub nom., Connors v. P & M Coal Co., No. 84-0560, slip op. at 7 (D.D.C. May 31, 1985) (“Memorandum Opinion”). Daugherty and Hall appeal both decisions. II. Discussion Withdrawal liability under ERISA is governed by subtitle E of Title IV, which was added to the Act by MPPAA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1461. Subtitle E imposes withdrawal liability on “an employer [who] withdraws from a multiemployer plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1381(a) (emphasis added). Therefore, it is of critical importance to determine the meaning of “employer” within the context of Title IV. This question has been considered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on at least three other occasions. In each case, the court has rejected the contention that owner-officers of a corporation are “employers” within the meaning of Title IV. Connors v. B.M.C. Coal Co., 634 F.Supp. 74, 76-77 (D.D.C.1986); Connors v. War-Eagle Coals, Inc., No. 85-2123 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 1985) (Order dismissing action against individual officer and shareholder) [Available on WESTLAW, DCTU database]; Combs v. Sun-Up Coal Co., 634 F.Supp. 13, 18-19 (D.D.C.1985). In the instant case, however, the district court concluded that significant ownership interest in the corporation and substantial control over corporate" }, { "docid": "829620", "title": "", "text": "Title IV. In Solomon v. Klein, 770 F.2d 352 (3d Cir. 1985), the court was faced with a similar argument by plaintiffs that Donovan, supra, decided under the FLSA, should dictate a similarly broad definition of “em ployer” under Title IV ERISA. The court stated that: we find nothing in the legislative history to indicate that Congress intended to impose a personal liability on a shareholder or a high-ranking officer of a corporation for ERISA contributions owed by the corporation. 770 F.2d at 354. It also tersely discredited a case relied upon by plaintiffs in this action, Massachusetts State Carpenters Pension Fund, supra: We are not impressed by the Massachusetts district court’s analysis. It relied not on the interpretation of the ERISA statute but on the Fair Labor Standards Act and precedents of the First Circuit. Id. The court also quoted Combs v. Indyk, 554 F.Supp. 573 (W.D.Pa.1982), where that court faced the same argument as that advanced by plaintiffs in this case: Plaintiffs rely on ERISA’s inclusion within its definition of employer of “any person acting ... indirectly in the interest of an employer,” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5), as an additional basis for arguing that corporate officers are employers under ERISA. Defendants counter with ERISA’s omission of officer from its definition of person; ... Defendants’ position is well-taken. There is no indication that Congress intended to expose corporate officers to liability for their employers’ violations of ERISA; in fact, the exclusion of corporate officers from the extensive enumeration of persons points in the opposite direction. Id. at 354. Courts that have refused to apply the broad definition of “employer” in Title I to Title IV have found that the appropriate standard to determine if a corporate officer should be personally liable for ERISA withdrawal liability payments is whether the officer was acting as the “alter ego” of the corporation so as to justify “piercing the corporate veil.” Solomon, supra, 770 F.2d at 353-54; Indyk, supra, 554 F.Supp. at 574; United Paperworks International Union, Local No. 35 Pension Plan v. Arlington Sample Book Co., No. 83-2828, slip op. (E.D.Pa. May" }, { "docid": "14693369", "title": "", "text": "documents will be strictly enforced. Exactitude works both ways. Just as pension and welfare plans get no less than the agreements provide, so they get no more. The parent corporation of an employer under the act is an “employer” itself — may even have its own pension plan — but the parent would not be liable under § 515 for its subsidiary’s pension debts in the absence of a promise running from the parent. So it is with other investors and managers. Several plans obtained Richard Deprizio’s personal commitment, as co-maker of notes with Deprizio Co. Other plans had only Deprizio Co.’s commitment to pay. Section 515 requires us to honor the difference between these engagements. Massachusetts Laborers’ Health and Welfare Fund v. Starrett Paving Corp., 845 F.2d 23 (1st Cir.1988) (Breyer, J.). Second, the General Counsel of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which insures multi-employer pension funds and accordingly has a strong interest in seeing that they collect their due, has concluded that ERISA does not address “shareholder or officer liability”. Opinion Letter 82-38 (Dec. 14, 1982), states: “With regard to your question as to individual shareholder responsibility for withdrawal liability, we note that ERISA has no special rules regarding shareholder or officer liability. Accordingly, this issue is usually determined by State law, which generally provides that shareholders are not liable for the debts of a corporation.” Opinion Letter 82-38 does not go into detail, but even so we owe it some respect. Gerber Truck Service, 870 F.2d at 1153-54. The approach of this letter has been adopted widely. Courts routinely rebuff efforts to collect pension debts from managers and investors unless the officer or investor would be liable for the firm’s other debts under state law — in other words, unless courts would “pierce the corporate veil” in light of the structure and operation of the particular firm. Scarbrough v. Perez, 870 F.2d 1079 (6th Cir.1989); International Brotherhood of Painters v. George A. Kracher, Inc., 856 F.2d 1546 (D.C.Cir.1988); Solomon v. Klein, 770 F.2d 352 (3d Cir.1985); Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513 (9th Cir.1984)" }, { "docid": "18596774", "title": "", "text": "plans,” MPPAA § 3, 29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c)(2), we find it doubtful that Congress would have required controlling shareholders to surrender the limited liability protection afforded by corporate law as a condition for allowing their companies to participate in such plans. In view of all of the above, we conclude that it was error for the district court to hold that Daugherty and Hall are statutory employers within the meaning of Title IV and, as such, jointly liable with P & M for its withdrawal liability to the Plans. B. Piercing the Corporate Veil Our holding that the withdrawal liability provisions of Title IV may not be interpreted to extend the liability of a corporate employer to its owner-officers does not mean that individuals who abuse their positions of control or who attempt to misuse the corporate form are immune from responsibility for their acts. Courts that have refused to expand the meaning of “employer” to include officers and shareholders, in respect to both Titles I and IV, have noted that shareholders and officers may be held personally liable for their corporations’ obligations under ERISA if they have acted as the “alter egos” of their corporations or otherwise met the requirements that justify “piercing the corporate veil” under traditional common law principles. See, e.g., Sun-Up, 634 F.Supp. 13, 18-19; B.M.C. Coal, 634 F.Supp. 74, 77; Solomon, 770 F.2d at 353-54; Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir.1983); Combs v. Indyk, 554 F.Supp. at 574-75. At the same time, courts have noted that where plaintiffs in an ERISA action fail to allege that individual defendants should be held personally liable under such principles, or fail to introduce evidence that would support such a basis for liability, such claims must be dismissed. Operating Engineers Pension Trust, 726 F.2d at 515; Moyers v. Frank P. Bauer Marble Co., 556 F.Supp. 192, 194 (N.D.Ill.1983); Sun-Up, at 20; B.M.C. Coal, 634 F.Supp. 74, 77. In the instant case, the Trustees neither alleged such a basis for liability nor introduced any evidence that would support a summary judgment holding Daugherty and" }, { "docid": "11076106", "title": "", "text": "v. Blohorn, 877 F.2d 637, 640-43 (8th Cir.1989); Scarbrough v. Perez, 870 F.2d 1079, 1083 (6th Cir.1989); Int’l Bhd. of Painters v. George A. Kracher, Inc., 856 F.2d 1546, 1550 (D.C.Cir.1988); see also Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir.1984) (sole owner of corporation not liable for delinquent contributions absent evidence allowing court to pierce corporate veil); Audit Serv. v. Rolfson, 641 F.2d 757, 764 (9th Cir.1981) (same). These courts have agreed that neither the language of the Title I definition of employer nor its legislative history suggests Congress intended a corporation’s liability for delinquent contributions be imputed to shareholders, officers or directors, absent some reason to pierce the corporate veil. Rockney, 877 F.2d at 641-422; Scarbrough, 870 F.2d at 1083; Int’l Bhd. of Painters, 856 F.2d at 1547-48. Departing from the reasoning of the Solomon decision, but reaching a similar conclusion, the First Circuit declined to impose personal liability for delinquent contributions on the sole shareholder and officer of a corporation. In Massachusetts Laborers’ Health & Welfare Fund v. Starrett Paving Corp., 845 F.2d 23 (1st Cir.1988), the court stated, without ruling, the legislative history of ERISA supports the interpretation that a shareholder is an employer within the meaning of Title I. Id. at 24. However, the Massachusetts Laborers’ court went on to hold that ERISA imposed contribution liability only on employers “ ‘obligated to make contributions to an employee welfare plan.’ ” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1145). The court held “[although [the shareholder’s] corporation may have been ‘obligated’ to make contributions, [he] personally was not.” Id. at 25. It is clear the Massachusetts Laborers’ court upheld the principle of limited liability of corporate shareholders which the Solomon court found paramount. Responding to the argument that a literal interpretation of ERISA would limit corporate veil piercing, the Massachusetts Laborers’ court stated: When state law pierces the corporate veil, where the owner is the corporation’s alter ego, where state or other relevant federal law makes the owner liable, it is fairly easy to say that the owner is the corporation, and that the owner" }, { "docid": "18596763", "title": "", "text": "(1980), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (1976 and Supp.1981), and notified P & M of its “employer withdrawal liability,” namely, the amount P & M was required to pay to the Plans in order to meet its share of unfunded vested benefits as of the date of withdrawal. Id. at §§ 1381-1383. After P & M had failed to respond to letters advising it of the total amount of its liability and proposing a schedule of payments, the Trustees notified P & M that its entire withdrawal liability would become due without further demand on December 5, 1983 if all past due payments plus interest were not made by that date. P & M failed to make any of these payments. On February 23, 1984, the Trustees filed suit against P & M to collect the withdrawal payments, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Seven months later they amended the complaint to add Daugherty and Hall as individual defendants. On November 6, 1984, Daugherty and Hall filed motions to dismiss the complaint against them on the ground that they were not “employers” within the meaning of section 4201 of ERISA and thus could not be held liable for withdrawal liability under the Act. In an order dated February 6, 1985, the district court denied their motion, stating that the question of their personal liability as statutory “employers” turned on whether it could be proven that they had “significant ownership interest and control over the operation of the corporation and ... were personally involved in matters pertaining to the Pension Plans and to the decision to withdraw.” Combs v. P & M Coal Co., No. 84-0560 (D.D.C. Feb. 6,1985) (Order denying motion to dismiss). Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled on May 31, 1985 that Daugherty and Hall met the criteria set forth in its February 6 Order and held each jointly and severally liable with the corporation for more than $300,-000. Sub nom., Connors v. P & M Coal Co., No. 84-0560, slip op. at 7 (D.D.C. May 31, 1985) (“Memorandum Opinion”). Daugherty and Hall appeal" }, { "docid": "829621", "title": "", "text": "person acting ... indirectly in the interest of an employer,” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5), as an additional basis for arguing that corporate officers are employers under ERISA. Defendants counter with ERISA’s omission of officer from its definition of person; ... Defendants’ position is well-taken. There is no indication that Congress intended to expose corporate officers to liability for their employers’ violations of ERISA; in fact, the exclusion of corporate officers from the extensive enumeration of persons points in the opposite direction. Id. at 354. Courts that have refused to apply the broad definition of “employer” in Title I to Title IV have found that the appropriate standard to determine if a corporate officer should be personally liable for ERISA withdrawal liability payments is whether the officer was acting as the “alter ego” of the corporation so as to justify “piercing the corporate veil.” Solomon, supra, 770 F.2d at 353-54; Indyk, supra, 554 F.Supp. at 574; United Paperworks International Union, Local No. 35 Pension Plan v. Arlington Sample Book Co., No. 83-2828, slip op. (E.D.Pa. May 23, 1984). Moreover, courts have found that where plaintiffs in an ERISA action for payment of withdrawal liability fail to allege that individual defendants should be personally liable under the traditional corporate law concepts of “alter ego” or “piercing the corporate veil,” the claim against those defendants should be dismissed. Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513 (9th Cir.1984); Audit Services, Inc. v. Rolfson, 641 F.2d 757, 764 (9th Cir.1981); Seymour v. Hull & Moreland Engineering, 605 F.2d 1105,1109-14 (9th Cir.1979); Moyers v. Frank P. Bauer Marble Co., 556 F.Supp. 192, 194 (N.D.Ill.1983); Here, plaintiffs have not alleged the fraudulent intent necessary to find individual liability either under Kentucky law or general federal rules. White v. Winchester Land Development Corp., 584 S.W.2d 56, 60-63 (Ky.App.1979); Operating Engineers Pension Trust, supra. In fact, plaintiffs implicitly concede that no such fraudulent intent exists by not alleging liability under corporate law concepts in the alternative. Because plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to find that defendant Coleman is an “employer” within the meaning of Title IV" }, { "docid": "18596775", "title": "", "text": "be held personally liable for their corporations’ obligations under ERISA if they have acted as the “alter egos” of their corporations or otherwise met the requirements that justify “piercing the corporate veil” under traditional common law principles. See, e.g., Sun-Up, 634 F.Supp. 13, 18-19; B.M.C. Coal, 634 F.Supp. 74, 77; Solomon, 770 F.2d at 353-54; Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir.1983); Combs v. Indyk, 554 F.Supp. at 574-75. At the same time, courts have noted that where plaintiffs in an ERISA action fail to allege that individual defendants should be held personally liable under such principles, or fail to introduce evidence that would support such a basis for liability, such claims must be dismissed. Operating Engineers Pension Trust, 726 F.2d at 515; Moyers v. Frank P. Bauer Marble Co., 556 F.Supp. 192, 194 (N.D.Ill.1983); Sun-Up, at 20; B.M.C. Coal, 634 F.Supp. 74, 77. In the instant case, the Trustees neither alleged such a basis for liability nor introduced any evidence that would support a summary judgment holding Daugherty and Hall personally liable for corporate obligations under principles permitting a piercing of the corporate veil. Therefore, we cannot find them individually responsible for P & M’s withdrawal liability on this alternative basis. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the order denying summary judgment to Daugherty and Hall and the order granting summary judgment to the Trustees are Reversed." }, { "docid": "829616", "title": "", "text": "completely withdrawn from the Plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a). III. Defendants primarily contest plaintiffs’ attempt to hold defendant Mitchie Coleman personally liable for the withdrawal liability of B.M.C. Plaintiffs argue that Coleman fits the definition of “employer” set out in Title I of ERISA and thus should be personally liable in this action under Title IV. Title I provides that: [t]he term “employer” means any person acting directly as an employer, or indirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan ... 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5). But, the term “person” as defined in ERISA, does not include a corporate officer. The definition includes “an individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, mutual company, joint-stock company, trust, estate, unincorporated organization, association, or employee organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(9). Plaintiffs recognize this, and recognize that the definition of “employer” in Title I contains the preface “For purposes of this title.” They nevertheless argue that the definition of “employer” in Title I should apply under Title IV. They argue that because the definition of “employer” in Title I is the same as that found in section 3(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), it should by analogy apply under ERISA. They rely on Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir.1983) where the court used an “economic reality” test to impose personal liability for unpaid wages under the FLSA. Plaintiffs argue that defendant Coleman, as 50% stockholder and company director, exercised “final operational control” over B.M.C. and thus acted “directly [or] indirectly in the interest of an employer” and should be personally liable for withdrawal payments under ERISA. This Court has specifically recognized that language by Congress limiting certain other language to a particular title or subtitle of ERISA is significant. The Grand Union Company, supra, slip op. at 10. The same is true in this case, and the Court finds the analysis of Judge Greene in Combs v. Sun-Up Coal Co., 634 F.Supp. 13 (D.D.C.1985) persuasive. The court in Sun-Up Coal Co. examined the legislative history of ERISA and determined that the definition" }, { "docid": "1986609", "title": "", "text": "corporate officers to liability for the unpaid benefit-fund contributions owed by corporations unless, under traditional common law principles, the corporation and the officer are “alter egos,” thus justifying “piercing the corporate veil.” He argues that the proof at trial was not sufficient to prove that he and Standard were “alter egos,” and that he should therefore not be liable for Standard’s corporate obligations. We agree with Gedell that the District Court did not make sufficient findings for a conclusion to pierce the corporate veil under traditional common law principles, nor was there sufficient proof at trial that would support such a conclusion. But this does not absolve Gedell of liability. Section 515 of ERISA imposes an obligation to make contributions to employee benefit funds on “every employer who is obligated to make contributions ... under the terms of a collectively bargained agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 1145. The term “employer” is defined as “any person acting directly as an employer, or indirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002. This broad definition of “employer” appears to be modeled on nearly identical language in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA), see 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) (1982), which, like ERISA, is designed to protect employees. In FLSA cases, courts have consistently held that a corporate officer with operational control who is directly responsible for a failure to pay statutorily required wages is an “employer” along with the corporation, jointly and severally liable for the shortfall. See Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509, 1511 (1st Cir.1983) (citing cases); see also Donovan v. Sovereign Security, Ltd., 726 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir.1984). Despite the similarities between ERISA and FLSA, however, a number of courts have held that ERISA does not render corporate officers personally liable for a company’s unpaid benefit-fund contributions unless the officers and the company are “alter egos” under traditional common law principles. See, e.g., Massachusetts Laborers’ Health and Welfare Fund v. Starrett Paving Corp., 845 F.2d 23, 25 (1st Cir.1988); International Brotherhood of Painters v. George A. Kracher, Inc., 856 F.2d 1546" } ]

[ { "docid": "21640227", "title": "", "text": "reasoned that the State “hedged its bet on the trial’s outcome” and that “[s]uch conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system ... wastes judicial resources, burdens jurors and witnesses, and imposes substantial costs upon the litigants.” Id. We found no waiver of sovereign immunity, however, in Mitchell v. Franchise Tax Board. In that case, debtors filed a three-count amended adversary complaint against the State of California after a bankruptcy court had discharged the debtors’ pre-petition debts. The State answered the first claim by arguing that the debt was not dischargeable under the bankruptcy code. It answered the second and third claims by asserting sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Less than a month later, the State asserted its sovereign immunity with respect to the first claim and filed a motion to dismiss all claims based on 'a lack of jurisdiction. See 209 F.3d at 1114-15. We distinguished Hill by stating that in answering Count 1 the State did not give a “clear declaration” of its intent to waive sovereign immunity. Id. at 1118. We also noted that in Mitchell the “integrity of the judicial process” had not been undermined as it had been in Hill. Id. We must now decide whether there was waiver in this case where the State of Arizona did not participate as fully as the State of Maryland in Hill but did not assert sovereign immunity as promptly as the State of California in Mitchell. We hold that given its level of participation, the State of Arizona waived any sovereign immunity available to it in this instance. The State filed a limited response contending that a determination of dischargeability must be made in an adversary proceeding that is initiated by filing a complaint. Thereafter, it answered Bliemeister’s properly filed complaint. It did not raise an immunity defense at that time or when it first filed its motion for summary judgment. It attended the bankruptcy court’s oral hearing on May 31, 2000, and argued the merits of the case. It heard the court announce its preliminary leanings, which were initially unfavorable to the State, and request" } ]

[ { "docid": "21640229", "title": "", "text": "supplemental briefing on what constitutes a “transaction.” Still, Arizona never asserted its sovereign immunity until it filed a motion to dismiss at the same time it filed the requested supplemental briefing. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the State’s delay in asserting immunity “was clearly a tactical decision.” Finding waiver is appropriate here because the State benefitted from hearing the bankruptcy court’s leanings. To allow a state to assert sovereign immunity after listening to a court’s substantive comments on the merits of a case would give the state an unfair advantage when litigating suits. Our holding is consistent with the spirit of a recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. In Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, - U.S. -, -, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 1645, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002), the Court held that a state that removes a case to federal court waives its immunity defense because of concerns about letting states have unfair tactical advantages by invoking federal jurisdiction and then subsequently challenging that jurisdiction. Here, the State of Arizona made a tactical decision to argue the merits of the case. When it perceived it was losing the argument, it attempted to try a new approach and claim immunity from suit. While Arizona did not wait until the day of trial, as was the case in Hill, our reasoning in Hill still applies. Once again, we see that a state “hedged its bet on the ... outcome.” Hill, 179 F.3d at 756. Because “[s]ueh conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system!,]” we hold that the State of Arizona waived any sovereign immunity it had available to it. Id. III The merits of the case are easily resolved. Determining when a “transaction” pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(E)(ii) occurs for purposes of determining the dischargeability of an excise tax assessed against an employer who fails to carry workers compensation insurance was not clear at the time the bankruptcy court decided this case. It is now. We subsequently approved of the bankruptcy court’s holding in Deroche v. Arizona Industrial Commission (In re Deroche), 287 F.3d 751 (2002). We held" }, { "docid": "3862054", "title": "", "text": "and argued the merits; and heard the court announce its preliminary leanings, all without raising the sovereign immunity defense. Id. at 862. Like the defendants in Hill and Bliemeister, the District engaged in extensive proceedings in the district court without seeking dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds. Although it baldly asserted in its Answer that it was “immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the District litigated the suit on the merits, participated in discovery, and filed a motion to dismiss and a summary judgment motion without pressing a sovereign immunity defense. Although the District asserted its sovereign immunity in its opposition to the plaintiffs’ application to file an amended complaint to include a prayer for nominal damages, it did not assert a sovereign immunity defense in the summary judgment briefing filed after the plaintiffs amended their complaint. In circumstances like these, we deem the defendant to have made a tactical decision to delay asserting the sovereign immunity defense. See Bliemeister, 296 F.3d at 862. Such tactical delay “undermines the integrity of the judicial system[,] ... wastes judicial resources, burdens jurors and witnesses, and imposes substantial costs upon the litigants.” Hill, 179 F.3d at 756. Having chosen “to defend on the merits in federal court,” the District will “be held to that choice.” See id. at 758. We accordingly hold that the District has waived its sovereign immunity defense. C. Merits Having concluded that this appeal is not moot, and that the District has waived its sovereign immunity, we proceed to consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. 1. ERISA and NLRA Preemption Claims Whether federal law preempts a particular state action is fundamentally a question of congressional intent. See Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 498 F.3d 1031, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2007). Federal law will preempt state laws that “interfere with, or are contrary to, federal law” only if “that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Id. at 1039-40 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The so-called “market participant doctrine” offers us a presumption about Congress’s purposes." }, { "docid": "22936045", "title": "", "text": "was less than the jurisdictional minimum for diversity cases. BISM did not mention the Eleventh Amendment or sovereign immunity in either motion to dismiss and did not assert those defenses in its answer. BISM filed a written consent' to have a United States Magistrate Judge try the case and enter final orders and judgment. BISM conducted discovery, and moved to compel discovery and for sanctions. BISM participated in the pre-trial conference and filed trial materials including witness and exhibit lists, proposed jury instructions, and a trial memorandum. On the opening day of trial, BISM asserted for the first time that it is an arm of the state and thus the Eleventh Amendment bars this action. The motion was taken under advisement and trial proceeded. The jury returned a verdict for Hill on his breach of contract claim, but found for BISM on the fraud claim. The trial court subsequently denied the motion to dismiss. In a thorough opinion, the Magistrate Judge considered the five factors we identified in Durning v. Citibank, N.A., 950 F.2d 1419, 1423 (9th Cir.1991), and concluded that BISM is not an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. BISM appeals from that decision. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo questions of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Micomonaco v. Washington, 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir.1995). DISCUSSION I. Hill contends that BISM waived any Eleventh Amendment immunity it might possess by participating in extensive pre-trial activities and waiting until the first day of trial before objecting to the federal court’s jurisdiction on Eleventh Amendment grounds. We agree. By waiting until the first day of trial, BISM hedged its bet on the trial’s outcome. Rather than send jurors and witnesses home while the parties briefed and argued the merits of BISM’s Eleventh Amendment defense, the trial court properly took the motion under advisement and proceeded with trial. BISM thus had the best of both worlds. If BISM prevailed at trial, it could withdraw its motion and let the jury verdict stand. If BISM lost at trial, it could ask to have the verdict set aside on the" }, { "docid": "8188892", "title": "", "text": "the Board’s finding that Guttman posed an imminent danger to public safety, this alone does not decide the issue of accommodation, and it would not prevent Guttman from filing a Title II claim. In summary, we agree with the district court that New Mexico has failed to establish in its motion to dismiss that Guttman is precluded from raising his Title II claim. B. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity New Mexico asserted its sovereign immunity defense in its first motion to dismiss and in many subsequent pleadings. Nonetheless, Guttman contends New Mexico waived immunity by entering into a joint status report and provisional discovery plan. We see no waiver. Although a state may waive the sovereign immunity granted to it under the Eleventh Amendment, we require a showing of unequivocal intent to do so. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir.1999). Although it has acceded to the reality of some discovery in the early stages of litigation, New Mexico continues to preserve its sovereign immunity defense. See Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan at 3 (“Defendants contend that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, absolute judicial or quasi-judicial immunity, and that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”) (Guttman v. Khalsa, No. 03-cv-463-MCA-KBM (D.N.M. Jan. 1, 2007), Doc. No. 49.). We find New Mexico did not waive its sovereign immunity defense. II. Sovereign Immunity Analysis Having determined no threshold issue allows us to resolve this case without addressing the sovereign immunity question, we now turn to the merits of that claim. A. Eleventh Amendment Legal Framework and the ADA The principle of state sovereign immunity is traceable to the earliest days of the Republic. For example, in Federalist No. 81, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty [that a sovereign is] not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the" }, { "docid": "21640223", "title": "", "text": "in a letter dated October 7, 1998. Approximately three weeks later, Bliemeister petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief, listing ICA as a creditor. After the bankruptcy court ordered various debts discharged, Bliemeister sought to have the court determine the dischargeability of the ICA claim. The State responded by filing a limited response contending that determinations of dischargeability are made in adversary proceedings that must be initiated by a complaint. Bliemeister filed a proper complaint, which the State answered. Both the State and Bliemeister then filed motions for summary judgment. The State did not claim sovereign immunity in its motion for summary judgment but rather argued that the debt was not dis-chargeable. The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on May 31, 2000, orally announced its preliminary leanings, and requested supplemental briefing on what constitutes a “transaction” under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(E)(ii). Contemporaneously with its fifing of the supplemental briefing, the State filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for the first time and claimed sovereign immunity. The bankruptcy court held that “sovereign immunity is not assertable in a bankruptcy case governed by federal law. Congress did not need to adopt 11 U.S.C. § 106, because the states’ sovereignty had been abrogated in the original Constitution once the federal government elected to enact bankruptcy laws.” Bliemeister v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona (In re Bliemeister), 251 B.R. 383, 391-92 (Bankr.D.Ariz.2000). It also held that the State had waived its sovereign immunity in this case. See id. at 393. The court then held that the “transaction” under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(E)(ii) occurred on the date of Cole’s injury, and because that was more than three years before Bliemeister filed her Chapter 7 petition, the debt owed was dischargeable. See id. at 396. The court also granted Bliemeister’s cross-motion for summary judgment based on collateral es-toppel. The district court affirmed, finding that the State’s decision not to raise sovereign immunity immediately “was clearly a tactical decision.” Having found that the State waived sovereign immunity, the district court held the issue of whether it had “Eleventh Amendment immunity from a suit brought in bankruptcy court [to" }, { "docid": "7073534", "title": "", "text": "On June. 8, 1992, the Committee answered Drexel’s amended and supplemental complaint “in its representative capacity on behalf of defendants Galadari and Commodities only” without asserting the defense of foreign sovereign immunity, while again asserting affirmative defenses calling for deference to the Dubai proceedings. The Committee answered the Refco amended and supplemental complaint similarly, but added the affirmative defenses of, forum non conve-niens and absence of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. On August 24,1992, the Emirate moved to dismiss the amended and supplemental complaints on the basis of foreign sovereign immunity pursuant to the FSIA, lack of personal jurisdiction over the Emirate, the act of state doctrine, judicial immunity, and “the applicable statutes of limitation.” The Emirate also moved to quash discovery against the Emirate. The district court denied these motions, concluding that the Committee and the Emirate had implicitly waived foreign sovereign immunity “[b]eeause the Committee voluntarily intervened as the real party in interest in both federal and state proceedings and filed responsive pleading[s] without preserving its right to sovereign immunity,” and because the Emirate “appeared through its agent the Committee without preserving immunity.” Drexel VII, 810 F.Supp. at 1384-85; see 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1) (1988). The court ruled alternatively that the Committee and the Emirate were not entitled to FSIA immunity because the Committee and the Emirate had engaged in commercial activity in Dubai that directly affected Drexel and Refco in the United States. See Drexel VII, 810 F.Supp. at 1385-88; 28 U.S.G. § 1605(a)(2) (1988). The court also rejected proffered defenses of absence of personal jurisdiction, id. at 1388-90, the act' of state doctrine, id. at 1390-91, judicial immunity, id. at 1391-92, and the statute of limitations. Id. at 1392. The district court granted a motion by Drex-el and Refco that the Committee and the Emirate be required to provide Drexel and Refco with security covering costs and, in the case of Refco, attorney fees. Id. at 1392-93. Finally, in a January 22, 1993 bench ruling, the district court denied the Emirate’s motion to quash discovery. These appeals followed. In response to motions by the Committee and" }, { "docid": "23214462", "title": "", "text": "in Florida Dep’t of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 670, 102 S.Ct. 3304, 73 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1982) and ABEPP, supra. The State Waived Sovereign Immunity By Seeking Summary Judgment Even if sovereign immunity is assertable as a defense to the discharge of tax obligations, it has been waived by the State in this case. Here, the State did not merely answer the complaint but affirmatively sought summary judgement. It participated in the hearing on its motion for summary judgement, where it undoubtedly hoped to receive a ruling in its favor on the merits. Instead, however, the Court expressed serious doubts about its interpretation of what was the “transaction” being taxed, and requested supplemental briefing. It was only when the State filed its supplemental brief on July 7 that it for the first time asserted sovereign immunity. The Ninth Circuit has held that a state waives its sovereign immunity by not asserting it until the first day of trial. Hill v. Blind Indus. and Servs. of Maryland, 179 F.3d 754 (9th Cir.1999), overruling Mills Music, Inc. v. Arizona, 591 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir.1979). Here, the state delayed its assertion effectively further than in Hill, because here the state moved for judgment in its favor and participated in a hearing on its motion, without raising the defense of sovereign immunity until after the Court requested further briefing. The Ninth Circuit anticipated and condemned just such tactics in Hill: By waiting until the first day of trial, [the State] hedged its bet on the trial’s outcome.... If [the State] prevailed at trial, it could withdraw its motion and let the jury verdict stand. If [it] lost at trial, it could ask to have the verdict set aside on the ground that the action was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.... Such conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system. It also wastes judicial resources, burdens jurors and witnesses, and imposes substantial costs upon the litigants.... A party may gain an improper advantage through this tactic even without waiting until the first day of trial. The ruling on a motion for summary judgment," }, { "docid": "7073533", "title": "", "text": "stipulation dated March 18, 1992 by which the Committee’s counsel agreed to, accept service of the amended and supplemental complaints and related documents “on behalf of defendant The Committee of Receivers, qua Committee and as representative of [Galadari, Commodities and Holdings].” The stipulation, however, was without prejudice to and [did] not constitute a waiver of: (a) the merits of any jurisdictional or other defenses the Committee may have with respect to the claims set forth in the Amended and Supplemental complaints (b) any arguments or claims that Refco and/or Drexel may. have that the Committee, through its prior participation in the proceedings in this Court and in the New York state court prior to removal of the Refco action, assumed the status of a “party” and/or waived the defense, if any, of sovereign immunity; (c) the Committee’s contrary position with respect to paragraph [b] hereof;, and (d) any argument or claims that any party may have with respect to whether the Committee is a political subdivision, agency or instrumentality, and/or alter ego of the [Emirate]. On June. 8, 1992, the Committee answered Drexel’s amended and supplemental complaint “in its representative capacity on behalf of defendants Galadari and Commodities only” without asserting the defense of foreign sovereign immunity, while again asserting affirmative defenses calling for deference to the Dubai proceedings. The Committee answered the Refco amended and supplemental complaint similarly, but added the affirmative defenses of, forum non conve-niens and absence of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. On August 24,1992, the Emirate moved to dismiss the amended and supplemental complaints on the basis of foreign sovereign immunity pursuant to the FSIA, lack of personal jurisdiction over the Emirate, the act of state doctrine, judicial immunity, and “the applicable statutes of limitation.” The Emirate also moved to quash discovery against the Emirate. The district court denied these motions, concluding that the Committee and the Emirate had implicitly waived foreign sovereign immunity “[b]eeause the Committee voluntarily intervened as the real party in interest in both federal and state proceedings and filed responsive pleading[s] without preserving its right to sovereign immunity,” and because the" }, { "docid": "22936044", "title": "", "text": "PANNER, District Judge: Defendant Blind Industries & Services of Maryland (“BISM”) appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Jerry Hill (dba American Sewing & Bag Company) (“Hill”) on Hill’s breach of contract claim. We affirm. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly denied BISM’s motion to dismiss this action pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. We hold that BISM consented to jurisdiction in federal court by actively litigating this action on the merits, while waiting until trial to first assert Eleventh Amendment immunity. We therefore do not decide whether BISM is an “arm of the state” for Eleventh Amendment purposes. BACKGROUND BISM contracted to purchase a substantial portion of the assets of Hill’s business. When BISM failed to make payments allegedly due him, Hill brought this action in federal court for fraud and breach of contract. BISM moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in California. The motion was denied. BISM filed an answer, and then unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the amount in controversy was less than the jurisdictional minimum for diversity cases. BISM did not mention the Eleventh Amendment or sovereign immunity in either motion to dismiss and did not assert those defenses in its answer. BISM filed a written consent' to have a United States Magistrate Judge try the case and enter final orders and judgment. BISM conducted discovery, and moved to compel discovery and for sanctions. BISM participated in the pre-trial conference and filed trial materials including witness and exhibit lists, proposed jury instructions, and a trial memorandum. On the opening day of trial, BISM asserted for the first time that it is an arm of the state and thus the Eleventh Amendment bars this action. The motion was taken under advisement and trial proceeded. The jury returned a verdict for Hill on his breach of contract claim, but found for BISM on the fraud claim. The trial court subsequently denied the motion to dismiss. In a thorough opinion, the Magistrate Judge considered the five factors we identified in Durning v. Citibank, N.A., 950 F.2d 1419," }, { "docid": "16312226", "title": "", "text": "we are empowered to consider an Eleventh Amendment defense raised for the first time on appeal, we must consider whether Texas’s failure to raise the issue below effectively waived its claim to immunity. A state’s waiver of immunity must be unequivocal. It may evidence that waiver, however, through action other than an express renunciation. Courts have found waiver in two general varieties of cases: where the state asserted claims of its own or evidenced an intent to defend the suit against it on the merits. The common thread among these cases is that the state cannot simultaneously proceed past the motion and answer stage to the merits and hold back an immunity defense. For example, in Hill v. Blind Industries and Services of Maryland, the state entity waited until the first day of trial to assert its immunity. Disallowing the defense on appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that the wait allowed the state to have the best of both worlds; it could monitor how the suit was proceeding on the merits but have any adverse ruling set aside on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Here, Texas’s only filing was a motion to dismiss based on the Tax Injunction Act. Texas never filed an answer or participated in any proceedings indicating an intent to try the matter on the merits Because the district court granted Texas’s 12(b)(6) motion, Texas never had occasion to contest its presence in federal court on other grounds. Texas gained no benefit by federal court jurisdiction and did not lead Neinast to believe that it intended to try the case in federal court. Texas did not unequivocally waive its right to assert immunity from suit. Now to the merits of Texas’s Eleventh Amendment challenge. The Eleventh Amendment secures the states’ immunity from private suits for monetary damages filed in federal court. Congress has the power to abrogate that immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, but only within its remedial powers under § 5. Whether Congress is exercising its remedial power or impermissibly defining new rights is measured by the Supreme Court’s two-part “congruence and proportionality” test. First," }, { "docid": "21640231", "title": "", "text": "that a “ ‘transaction’ is the act of employing a worker without carrying the required insurance when the worker is injured. The date of the transaction is thus the date on which the worker is injured.” Id. at 757. Cole injured himself on his first day of employment, October 8, 1993. Bliemeister petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief on October 29, 1998. Because Cole’s injury occurred more than three years before Bliemeister petitioned for bankruptcy, the claim was properly discharged. See 11 U.S.C. § 607(a)(8)(E)®. IV The State of Arizona waived any immunity available to it. Bliemeister’s debt to the State, which was more than three years old at the time Bliemeister petitioned for bankruptcy protection, was properly discharged. AFFIRMED. . The district court wrote: \"This Court asked the State why it did not assert immunity earlier. The State replied that it knew it was entitled to sovereign immunity and did not assert it earlier because it was aware of cases which hold that it could raise the issue at any time. The State's failure to raise sovereign immunity until the bankruptcy court heard ■oral argument on its motion for summary judgment was not an oversight, it was clearly a tactical decision. It chose to defend on the merits by answering the complaint and filing á motion for summary judgment. Then 'anticipating defeat,' it raised sovereign immunity after the bankruptcy court expressed serious doubt's [sic] about the merits of its claims at oral argument.\" . Because we find the State of Arizona waived any immunity it might have had available to it in this particular instance, we decline the invitation of the parties to decide whether the states surrendered sovereign immunity in bankruptcy proceedings as part of the plan of the Constitutional Convention. See Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protec tive Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 445, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988) (“A fundamental and long-standing principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.”). . Given this holding, we need not address Bliemeister's collateral estoppel argument." }, { "docid": "23214463", "title": "", "text": "Music, Inc. v. Arizona, 591 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir.1979). Here, the state delayed its assertion effectively further than in Hill, because here the state moved for judgment in its favor and participated in a hearing on its motion, without raising the defense of sovereign immunity until after the Court requested further briefing. The Ninth Circuit anticipated and condemned just such tactics in Hill: By waiting until the first day of trial, [the State] hedged its bet on the trial’s outcome.... If [the State] prevailed at trial, it could withdraw its motion and let the jury verdict stand. If [it] lost at trial, it could ask to have the verdict set aside on the ground that the action was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.... Such conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system. It also wastes judicial resources, burdens jurors and witnesses, and imposes substantial costs upon the litigants.... A party may gain an improper advantage through this tactic even without waiting until the first day of trial. The ruling on a motion for summary judgment, or on pre-trial matters such as motions in limine, can signal the probable outcome of the case. The integrity of the judicial process is undermined if a party, unhappy with the trial court’s rulings or anticipating defeat, can unilaterally void the entire proceeding and begin anew in a different forum. 179 F.3d at 756-57. When the Court requested further briefing, it necessarily signaled that it was not convinced by the State’s arguments on the merits. By then it was too late for the State to raise sovereign immunity for the first time, without undermining the integrity of the judicial process. The State’s motion for summary judgment constituted a waiver of any sovereign immunity it might have asserted. Whether because sovereign immunity does not apply in bankruptcy cases, or in the in rem aspects of bankruptcy cases, or because the State waived it here by seeking summary judgment on the merits, the State’s motion to dismiss must be denied. The Transaction Was the Employment, Not the Award Turning then to the merits, the issue is what" }, { "docid": "15011506", "title": "", "text": "Act claim.”); but see Pugliese v. Arizona Dept. of Health and Human Services, 147 F.Supp.2d 985, 991 (D.Ariz.2001) (holding that Arizona did not waive its immunity under the Rehabilitation Act by accepting federal Rehabilitation Act funds). Accordingly, we hold that by accepting federal Rehabilitation Act funds, California has waived its sovereign immunity under the Rehabilitation Act. We adhere to our decision in Clark and conclude that the clear waiver language of the Re habilitation Act conditions the receipt of federal funds under the Rehabilitation Act upon a state’s agreement to forgo the Eleventh Amendment defense. We therefore conclude that Douglas’s Rehabilitation Act claim is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. C. After Garrett, it is clear that states are immune from suits for money damages under Title I of the ADA. Garrett, 121 S.Ct. at 968, 121 S.Ct. 955. The only remaining question concerning the viability of Douglas’s ADA claim is whether California waived its sovereign immunity in this case. Although a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity must be unambiguous, a state may implicitly waive its sovereign immunity “by conduct that is incompatible with an intent to preserve that immunity.” Hill v. Blind Indus, and Servs. of Maryland, 179 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir.1999), amended by 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2000); see also Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark County School District, No. 00-17157, 2001 WL 902125, *16 n. 7 (9th Cir. Aug.13, 2001) (holding, in a case similarly briefed before Garrett, but decided after Garrett, that “both parties waived any rights they may have had to invoke the Eleventh Amendment defense of sovereign immunity by their extensive participation in this litigation”). As noted above, CYA did not raise the Eleventh Amendment defense before the district court, nor did it raise the defense in its appellate brief to this court. Cf. Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir.2001) (finding that California preserved its immunity defense by raising the Eleventh Amendment in its answer before Garrett was decided). Douglas argues that CYA was aware of the sovereign immunity defense under the Eleventh Amendment, but elected not to" }, { "docid": "21640228", "title": "", "text": "also noted that in Mitchell the “integrity of the judicial process” had not been undermined as it had been in Hill. Id. We must now decide whether there was waiver in this case where the State of Arizona did not participate as fully as the State of Maryland in Hill but did not assert sovereign immunity as promptly as the State of California in Mitchell. We hold that given its level of participation, the State of Arizona waived any sovereign immunity available to it in this instance. The State filed a limited response contending that a determination of dischargeability must be made in an adversary proceeding that is initiated by filing a complaint. Thereafter, it answered Bliemeister’s properly filed complaint. It did not raise an immunity defense at that time or when it first filed its motion for summary judgment. It attended the bankruptcy court’s oral hearing on May 31, 2000, and argued the merits of the case. It heard the court announce its preliminary leanings, which were initially unfavorable to the State, and request supplemental briefing on what constitutes a “transaction.” Still, Arizona never asserted its sovereign immunity until it filed a motion to dismiss at the same time it filed the requested supplemental briefing. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the State’s delay in asserting immunity “was clearly a tactical decision.” Finding waiver is appropriate here because the State benefitted from hearing the bankruptcy court’s leanings. To allow a state to assert sovereign immunity after listening to a court’s substantive comments on the merits of a case would give the state an unfair advantage when litigating suits. Our holding is consistent with the spirit of a recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. In Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, - U.S. -, -, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 1645, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002), the Court held that a state that removes a case to federal court waives its immunity defense because of concerns about letting states have unfair tactical advantages by invoking federal jurisdiction and then subsequently challenging that jurisdiction. Here, the State of Arizona made a tactical" }, { "docid": "15011507", "title": "", "text": "its sovereign immunity “by conduct that is incompatible with an intent to preserve that immunity.” Hill v. Blind Indus, and Servs. of Maryland, 179 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir.1999), amended by 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2000); see also Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark County School District, No. 00-17157, 2001 WL 902125, *16 n. 7 (9th Cir. Aug.13, 2001) (holding, in a case similarly briefed before Garrett, but decided after Garrett, that “both parties waived any rights they may have had to invoke the Eleventh Amendment defense of sovereign immunity by their extensive participation in this litigation”). As noted above, CYA did not raise the Eleventh Amendment defense before the district court, nor did it raise the defense in its appellate brief to this court. Cf. Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir.2001) (finding that California preserved its immunity defense by raising the Eleventh Amendment in its answer before Garrett was decided). Douglas argues that CYA was aware of the sovereign immunity defense under the Eleventh Amendment, but elected not to raise it. Whether CYA waived the immunity defense below by its conduct in this ease turns on factual disputes. Because the issue was not raised before the district court, we do not have the benefit of a factual record. Rather than evaluate the waiver argument in the absence of a record, we remand the issue to the district court. Cf. Katz v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 229 F.3d 831, 834 (9th Cir.2000) (finding that California waived its immunity to suit by not raising the defense before the district court and submitting a declaration of counsel which purports to waive the State’s immunity). We note that on remand, CYA, as the “entity invoking the Eleventh Amendment immunity, bears the burden of asserting and proving those matters necessary to establish its defense.” In re Lazar, 237 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Hill, 201 F.3d at 1186). III. The district court granted summary judgment to CYA on the ground that both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were time barred. Douglas contends that both claims" }, { "docid": "3862052", "title": "", "text": "conduct again, the plaintiffs have the burden to show that they will be subject to the complained-of conduct in the future. See Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1342 (9th Cir.1985). The plaintiffs have not met that burden. They do not allege that they intend to go through another apprenticeship program for another craft, but only that they “may” do so. Because this alleged possibility does not demonstrate a “reasonable expectation” that they will be subject to a PSA as apprentices again, we conclude that the named apprentices’ ERISA preemption claim does not fall within the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness, and we accordingly dismiss that claim as to them. B. Sovereign Immunity The District contends that the Eleventh Amendment entitles it to sovereign immunity from the plaintiffs’ claims seeking nominal damages. We conclude that the District has waived its sovereign immunity and therefore reject its Eleventh Amendment defense. A state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity if it “unequivocally evidence[s its] intention to subject itself to the jurisdiction of the federal court.” Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Md., 179 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir.1999). A state may waive its sovereign immunity through “conduct that is incompatible with an intent to preserve that immunity.” Id. We have found that state defendants engaged in conduct “incompatible with” an intent to preserve sovereign immunity when they raised a sovereign immunity defense only belatedly, after extensive proceedings on the merits. For example, in Hill, we determined that the state waived sovereign immunity when the state did not raise the defense until the opening day of trial, after it had filed two motions to dismiss and an answer that did not assert the defense, consented to have a magistrate judge try the case, conducted discovery, moved to compel discovery and for sanctions, participated in a pre-trial conference, and filed trial materials. Id. at 756. Similarly, in In re Bliemeister, 296 F.3d 858 (9th Cir.2002), we found that the state waived immunity when it filed a limited response, an answer, and a motion for summary judgment; attended an oral hearing" }, { "docid": "21640225", "title": "", "text": "be] moot.” It affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the transaction occurred on the date of the injury so that the debt was dischargeable and declined to address the cross-motion raising collateral estoppel. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). II We review de novo the decision of a district court from an appeal of a bankruptcy court. See Neilson v. Chang (In re First T.D. & Inv.), 253 F.3d 520, 526 (9th Cir.2001). We also review de novo sovereign immunity assertions in bankruptcy proceedings. See Mitchell v. Franchise Tax Bd. (In re Mitchell), 209 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir.2000). Sovereign immunity is quasi-jur-isdietiona] in nature. It may be forfeited where the state fails to assert it and therefore may be viewed as an affirmative defense. See Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs., 179 F.3d 754, 760 (9th Cir.1999), amended by 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2000). The test employed to determine whether a state has waived immunity “is a stringent one.” Mitchell, 209 F.3d at 1117. A state generally waives its immunity when it “voluntarily invokes [federal] jurisdiction or ... makes a ‘clear declaration’ that it intends to submit itself to [federal] jurisdiction.” Schulman v. California (In re Lazar), 237 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir.2001). Express waiver is not required; a state “waive[s] its Eleventh Amendment immunity by conduct that is incompatible with an intent to preserve that immunity.” Hill, 179 F.3d at 758. In Hill v. Blind Industries & Services, we found that the State of Maryland waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it moved to dismiss for- lack of personal jurisdiction; answered a complaint; moved to dismiss by alleging the amount in controversy was not sufficient to grant jurisdiction in a diversity suit; filed a consent to have a magistrate try the case; conducted discovery; participated in a pretrial conference; and “filed trial materials including witness and exhibit lists, proposed jury instructions, and a trial memorandum.” Id. at 756. .In fact, Maryland waited until the opening day of trial to assert that the Eleventh Amendment barred the action. See id. In finding waiver, we" }, { "docid": "3862053", "title": "", "text": "court.” Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Md., 179 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir.1999). A state may waive its sovereign immunity through “conduct that is incompatible with an intent to preserve that immunity.” Id. We have found that state defendants engaged in conduct “incompatible with” an intent to preserve sovereign immunity when they raised a sovereign immunity defense only belatedly, after extensive proceedings on the merits. For example, in Hill, we determined that the state waived sovereign immunity when the state did not raise the defense until the opening day of trial, after it had filed two motions to dismiss and an answer that did not assert the defense, consented to have a magistrate judge try the case, conducted discovery, moved to compel discovery and for sanctions, participated in a pre-trial conference, and filed trial materials. Id. at 756. Similarly, in In re Bliemeister, 296 F.3d 858 (9th Cir.2002), we found that the state waived immunity when it filed a limited response, an answer, and a motion for summary judgment; attended an oral hearing and argued the merits; and heard the court announce its preliminary leanings, all without raising the sovereign immunity defense. Id. at 862. Like the defendants in Hill and Bliemeister, the District engaged in extensive proceedings in the district court without seeking dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds. Although it baldly asserted in its Answer that it was “immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the District litigated the suit on the merits, participated in discovery, and filed a motion to dismiss and a summary judgment motion without pressing a sovereign immunity defense. Although the District asserted its sovereign immunity in its opposition to the plaintiffs’ application to file an amended complaint to include a prayer for nominal damages, it did not assert a sovereign immunity defense in the summary judgment briefing filed after the plaintiffs amended their complaint. In circumstances like these, we deem the defendant to have made a tactical decision to delay asserting the sovereign immunity defense. See Bliemeister, 296 F.3d at 862. Such tactical" }, { "docid": "22230349", "title": "", "text": "the federal court’s jurisdiction or is otherwise incompatible with an assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity” will be construed as a waiver. Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Md., 179 F.3d 754, 759 (1999), amended by 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2000). This is so because Eleventh Amendment immunity has traditionally been characterized as a “personal privilege which [the state] may waive at [its] pleasure,” Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 447, 2 S.Ct. 878, 27 L.Ed. 780 (1883), and although in the nature of a jurisdictional bar, it does not actually “implicate a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction in any ordinary sense” and thus may be “forfeited by the State’s failure to assert it.” ITS I TV Prods., Inc. v. Agricultural Ass’ns., 3 F.3d 1289, 1291 (9th Cir.1993); see also Wise. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389, 118 S.Ct. 2047, 141 L.Ed.2d 364 (1998) (“The State can waive the defense. Nor need a court raise the defect on its own. Unless the State raises the matter, a court can ignore it.”). In Hill, we held that by actively litigating its case on the merits throughout the pre-trial period and waiting until the opening day of trial to assert a sovereign immunity defense, the state had waived that defense. 179 F.3d at 763. Here, the defendants engaged in litigation conduct far more extensive than that of the defendant in Hill. The defendants did not assert sovereign immunity as a defense to this lawsuit in either of their amended answers, in the joint pretrial statement, in any pre-trial motions, at trial, or in the briefs on appeal. Instead, they argued to the district court that their policies complied with the ADA, and on appeal that any violations of the ADA do not justify the relief granted. Indeed, even though the defendants did not mention a sovereign immunity defense in their briefs, this court twice asked them to submit a letter brief about the effect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Board of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d" }, { "docid": "18150813", "title": "", "text": "those considerations are not present here; there has already been one proceeding, in which the Debtors had no possible counterclaims against the State, and now there is a subsequent proceeding, involving newly arisen claims against the State. B. Active Participation Appellees argue that even if the district court erred by finding the “logical relationship” test was satisfied, this court could still affirm the holding based on the State’s active and extensive participation in the bankruptcy cases. Appellees rely on two Ninth Circuit cases, In re Bliemeister, 296 F.3d 858 (9th Cir.2002), and In re White, 139 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir.1998), in which this court found that a sovereign’s actions in the suit were incompatible with preserving immunity. White and Bliemeister, however, do not advance the Appellees’ position. White simply reaffirms the familiar concept that by making a claim, a sovereign waives immunity with respect to that claim, and holds that this waiver survives a conversion from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 proceeding. 139 F.3d at 1271-73. In Bliemeister, the state did not file a proof of claim, but did participate in an adversary proceeding regarding dischargeability, and then claimed sovereign immunity only after an oral argument in which the bankruptcy court announced its preliminary leanings. 296 F.3d at 860. The court found that the state was improperly trying to gain a tactical advantage by raising the defense only after it expected to lose on the merits. Id. at 862. Here, the State does not dispute that it has waived its immunity by filing a proof of claim. The question is whether that waiver extends to the current adversarial action. Neither White nor Bliemeister suggest that active participation with respect to a claim can waive immunity beyond the scope of that claim (or claims “logically related” to it). See Bliemeister, 296 F.3d at 862-63 (state waived immunity with respect to dischargeability of debt); White, 139 F.3d at 1273 (entity waived tribal immunity “with respect to adjudication of that claim,” and conversion of proceeding from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 did not alter or extend scope of the initial waiver)." } ]

[ { "docid": "4382133", "title": "", "text": "necessary factor for the trier of the facts to consider in determining the value of the condemned land. McCandless v. United States, 298 U.S. 342, 56 S.Ct. 764, 80 L.Ed. 1205. The uncontradicted nature of this testimony leads the landowner to his contention that the basic finding and conclusion of the Commissioners that the highest use of the subject acreage was zone “A” are clearly erroneous. We agree that the correct rule in such regard is stated by the Supreme Court of Kansas in Gibbs v. Central Surety and Ins. Corporation, 163 Kan. 252, 181 P.2d 498, as follows: “Ordinarily the trier of the fact is not required to believe the testimony of any witness merely because there is no direct testimony to con trovert it, but where plaintiff produces two witnesses who testify on every material element of plaintiff’s cause of action, and such testimony is not inherently improbable or uncandid, and the cross-examination does not develop any conflict, and the defendant produces no testimony in opposition, the trier of the fact is not justified in arbitrarily or capriciously disregarding such testimony.” We cannot say that the findings and conclusions of the commissioners are arbitrary or capricious as a matter of law for the record indicates that the first report of the commissioners was rejected by the trial judge as not “sufficiently comprehensive” and that the matter was resubmitted to the commissioners with correct and specific instructions to consider the force of the testimony relating to the possibility of rezoning and also the testimony relating to a comparable sale. The findings and conclusions now questioned show that such consideration was given to the landowner’s contentions but that the burden of persuasion was not met. The ultimate award, however, was greater than the amount asserted by government witnesses to be adequate compensation for “A” land and may reflect a view that rezoning, while not sufficiently imminent to substantially increase the pertinent market price of the land, was a remote consideration in the amount of compensation. Since the award was well within the range of credible testimony this court may not" } ]

[ { "docid": "14490734", "title": "", "text": "or decision, if reviewable, must be set aside. * 0 * See also Kelly v. Jackson, 6 Pet. (10 U.S.) 622 (1832). Appellee’s brief p. 12 ; appellee there discussed Confederated Tribe of the Warm Springs Reservation v. United States, 8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 557, 598 (1960) where the Commission discussed this type of evidence and concluded that “the most dependable accounts by Indians of their pre-reservation land-using entities and subsistence areas are those taken from Indians living as near the date in question as possible; that the possibility of error increases in ratio to the number of intervening generations.” This statement is undoubtedly true but only affects the weight given the testimony by the trier.and does not render the testimony “literally worthless.” (Where the testimony of Indians several generations removed is corroborated, its weight must be corresporidlingly increased. (And a demonstration of accuracyi of a part of such testimony imparts credence to the whole in the absence of controverting evidence, pf. Associated General Contractors v. Cardillo, 80 App. D.C. 303, 106; E. 2d 327 (1939) for a discussion of corroboration. cf. Rapid Transit Co. v. United States, 295 F. 2d 466 (CA 10, 1961), cert. denied 369 U.S. 819 (1962), where the 10th Circuit adopted the rule enunciated in Gibbs v. Central Surety and Ins. Corp. 163 Kan. 252, 181 P. 2d 498 (1947), as follows: * * * [Wjhere plaintiff produces two witnesses who testify on every material element of plaintiff’s cause of action, and such testimony is not inherently improbable or uncandid, and the cross-examination does not develop any conflict, and the defendant produces no testimony in opposi-ition, the trier of fact is not justified in arbitrary or capriciously disregarding such testimony. The grantees of the encroaching grants occupied their lands, but those tracts are not here involved. Def. Ex. 4. Def. Ex. 32; S. Rep. No. 549, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. (1949)." }, { "docid": "17040367", "title": "", "text": "production of units, one at a time, and their rapid flow on an assembly line. Cf. Natus Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 1, 11, 371 F. 2d 450, 457 (1967). The conclusion that mass production was possible did not foreclose plaintiff’s rights. The decisions on interference with large-scale production have not suggested such an unreasonable rule as would limit compensation for the damage flowing from defective drawings to cases of total breakdown in production or to total inability to mass produce. Centre Mfg. Co. v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 115, 121-22, 392 F. 2d 229, 232-33 (1968); L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. United States, supra, 186 Ct. Cl. at 505-08, 405 F. 2d at 1289-90. Performance may become unsatisfactory and costs may increase, in varying degrees, by reason of defects in the drawings which cause difficulties, interruptions, slowdowns and delays which interfere with mass production without making it impossible. The measure for determination of damages is therefore the degree of interference with satisfactory performance. Costs incurred by idleness are a compensable extra cost if the source of the idleness or delay is defective drawings. “The defendant cannot, by errors in the specifications, cause delay in plaintiff’s completion of the work and then compensate plaintiff merely by extending its performance time and by payment of any added direct cost occasioned by changes to correct those errors.” Laburnum Constr. Corp. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 339, 350, 325 F. 2d 451, 457-58 (1963). On the foregoing standard, the plaintiff’s proof of entitlement was sufficient. There is no doubt that faults in the drawings caused plaintiff difficulties in production. The Board so held, in approving the testimony of plaintiff’s expert witness that “It would be possible to mass produce this article, but with some difficulty, which I think could be avoided, had the drawings been more informative.” Difficulties in production usually cost money. If even one such difficulty was sufficiently proven, plaintiff should have an opportunity in a proceeding on the issue of quantum to prove its dollar damages. The Board characterized plaintiff’s proof of incurrence of" }, { "docid": "16331523", "title": "", "text": "Pee Cueiam: This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Roald A. Hogenson, with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 57(a). The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on February 29,1968, wherein such facts 'as are necessary to the opinion are set forth. Exceptions to the commissioner’s opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law were filed by plaintiff and the case has been submitted to the court on oral argument of counsel and the briefs of the parties. The commissioner’s views and recommendation are fully consistent with the principles announced in Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, 386 U.S. 503, 518-519 (1967) ; Nager Electric Co. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 234, 259-260, 368 F. 2d 847, 864 (1966), and Schlesinger v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 21, 28-29, 383 F. 2d 1004, 1008 (1967). Since the court agrees with the commissioner’s opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. Therefore, it is concluded that plaintiff’s assignment of errors of the Veterans Administration Contract Appeals Board should not be sustained; that the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence; that the Board’s decision was not fraudulent, capricious, arbitrary, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, but correct as a matter of law; that the ruling of the Board should be sustained that plaintiff failed timely to present to defendant’s contracting officer its claim under the Changes in Service article of its contract with defendant; and plaintiff’s petition is dismissed. OPINION OP COMMISSIONER Hogenson, Commissioner: Plaintiff seeks a ruling by this court that it timely presented its claim under the Changes in Service article of its contract to defendant’s contracting officer and that it is entitled to an administrative hearing on the merits pursuant to the Disputes article. Obviously, if plaintiff did not timely present its claim, the petition will have to be dismissed. If the court sustains plaintiff’s position, proceedings" }, { "docid": "22804860", "title": "", "text": "Energy Commission’s hearing examiner announced that the present claim was beyond the administrative jurisdiction and could not be considered. All we decide today is that the plaintiff’s claim in this court is not barred by limitations. The defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied and the case is returned to the trial commissioner for further proceedings. The other two causes of action are technically not before us at this time. In some parts of its post-argument brief, the defendant still seems to assert, perhaps alternatively, that the claim accrued in July and August 1958 when the termination notices were issued. United Contractors v. United States, ante, p. 151; United States Steel Corp. v. United States, ante, p. 26; Conn v. United States, post, p. 319. Since announcement of the instant opinion, the United States Supreme Court on April 10, 1967, reversed the Crown Coat Front decision, 386 U.S. 503. See, e.g., Sauer v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 642, 647, 354 F. 2d 302, 304 (1965) ; Oceanic S.S. v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 217, 218, 225 (1964) ; Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States, 156 Ct. Cl. 142, 144, 297 F. 2d 546, 547 (1962) ; Fattore v. United States, 160 Ct. Cl. 666, 670, 312 P. 2d 797, 800 (1963) ; Empire Inst, of Tailoring, Inc. v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 165, 167, 161 F. Supp. 409, 410 (1958) ; Ball v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 841, 843, 137 P. Supp. 740, 742 (1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 827; Group v. United States, 125 Ct. Cl. 135, 137 (1953) ; Reliance Motors, Inc. v. United States, 112 Ct. Cl. 324, 328, 81 F. Supp. 228, 230 (1948) ; Withers v. United States, 69 Ct. Cl. 584, 587 (1930). See Battelle v. United States, 7 Ct. Cl. 297, 300 (1871) ; Bulkley v. United States, 8 Ct. Cl. 517, 519 (1872) ; Harrison v. United States, 20 Ct. Cl. 175, 179-80 (1885) ; Ravesies v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 243, 247-48 (1886) ; Patterson v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 322, 323 (1886) ;" }, { "docid": "22804863", "title": "", "text": "does not have to be brought on each individual item as it occurs prior to final completion-and-acceptance. Myerle v. United States, 31 Ct. Cl. 105, 132-34 (1896) ; Joplin v. United States, 89 Ct. Cl. 345, 355-56, 363 (1939) ; Holton, Seelye & Co. v. United States, 106 Ct. Cl. 477, 499-500, 65 P. Supp. 903, 906-07 (1946). See several of the opinions cited in footnote 6, supra, plus Shimmins v. United States, 10 Ct. Cl. 465, 466 (1874) ; Withers v. United States, 69 Ct. Cl. 584, 587; C. L. Maguire Petroleum Co. v. United States, 68 Ct. Cl. 198 (1929) (right to petition the Secretary, or his representatives, optional with contractor) ; John P. Moriarty, Inc. v. United States, 97 Ct. Cl. 338, 339 (1942) ; and Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 1, 11-12, 310 F. 2d 381, 388 (1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 932 (1963) (and cases cited). See, Oceanic S.S. v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 217, 225 (1964) ; Kraemer Mills, Inc. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 367, 372, 319 F. 2d 535, 538 (1963); Steel Improvement & Forge Co. v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 24, 29, 355 F. 2d 627, 631 (1966) ; L. Balkin Builder, Inc. v. United States, 136 Ct. Cl. 155, 158, 142 F. Supp. 597, 599 (1956) ; Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corp. v. United States, 108 Ct. Cl. 236, 247-48, 70 F. Supp. 136, 140 (1947) ; Holton, Seelye & Co. v. United States, 106 Ct. Cl. 477, 499, 65 F. Supp. 903, 906 (1946) ; Austin Eng’r Co. v. United States, 88 Ct. Cl. 559, 562 (1939) ; Manufacturers Aircraft Ass’n v. United States, 77 Ct. Cl. 481, 522 (1933), cert. denied, 291 U.S. 667 (1934). Pink, Superintendent of Ins. v. United States, 85 Ct. Cl. 121, 1241 (1937), cert. denied, 303 U.S. 642 (1938) ; Joplin v. United States, 89 Ct. Cl. 345, 356, 362-63 (1939). B—W Constr. Co. v. United States, 100 Ct. Cl. 227, 235 (1943) ; John P. Moriarty, Inc. V. United States, 97 Ct. Cl. 338, 339 (1942) ;" }, { "docid": "23109019", "title": "", "text": "must fairly take into account whatever in the record detracts from its weight.” Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951). Exaggeration, inherent improbability, self-contradiction, omissions in a purportedly complete account, imprecision and errors may all breed disbelief and therefore the disregard of even uncontradicted nonopinion testimony. Quock Tig v. United States, 140 U.S. 417, 420-21 (1891); Duwamish et al. v. United States, 79 Ct. Cl. 530, 576 (1934). Such testimony, in Judge Hutcheson’s words, “carries its own death wound.” N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 161 F. 2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1947). Some of the defects and inconsistencies hi the testimony have already been recounted above. Others will appear below in the disposition of the several assignments of error by the B oard. Lastly, the evidence rej ected was the testimony of claimant’s expert witness and the decision appears to have been in part a judgment on credibility. This court normally defers to the judgment of the Boards of Contract Appeals on the credibility of witnesses who have testified before them, at least in the absence of contradictory uncontrovertible documentary evidence or physical fact, or studied arbitrary design, not here present. Williamsburg Drapery Co. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 776, 783, 369 F. 2d 729, 733 (1966) ; Carlo Bianchi & Company v. United States, 167 Ct. Cl. 364 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 841 (1965). See Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 605-10 (1965). Accordingly, no error has been shown in the Board’s rejection of the claimant’s evidence as showing “total costs” or in the variance of the amount of the award from the single total amount testified to by plaintiff’s expert witness. If the Board is not to be required to accept plaintiff’s evidence in toto, then plaintiff’s next charge is that it was denied a fair hearing because the Board member who heard the testimony did not write the Board’s opinion. Plaintiff attributes a rule of law that “The one who decides must hear.” to Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 481 (1936). The words quoted from Morgan are" }, { "docid": "15642372", "title": "", "text": "as to the quantity of acceptable material available at sources designated in the special provisions or otherwise designated. * * and (ii) that “If so directed by the engineer during construction, the contractor shall be required to use borrow deposits other than those shown in their general location on the plans.” It is also true that article 2.3 of the specifications provided that the submission of a bid should be considered prima facie evidence that the bidder had examined the site and the contract documents and was “satisfied as to the conditions to be encountered in performing the work as scheduled, or as at any time altered without resulting in increases or decreases of more than the percentage limits hereinafter stipulated. * * *“ But this court has frequently held in comparable circumstances that broad provisions of this kind — stating that the government does not guarantee the statements of fact contained in the specifications or drawings or requiring the bidder to investigate the site and satisfy himself of conditions, etc. — cannot be given their full literal reach and do not relieve the government from liability. United Contractors v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 151, 165-66, 368 F. 2d 585, 598 (1966) ; Fliffin Materials Co. v. United States, 160 Ct. Cl. 357, 365, 312 F. 2d 408, 413 (1963), and cases cited at note 8; Fehlhaber Corp. v. United States, 138 Ct. Cl. 571, 584, 151 F. Supp. 817, 825 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 877. See also e.g., Hirsch v. United States, 94 Ct. Cl. 602, 637 (1941); Ruff v. United States, 96 Ct. Cl. 148, 160, 162-164 (1942) ; Loftis v. United States, 110 Ct. Cl. 551, 627-629, 76 F. Supp. 816, 825-826 (1948) ; Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. United States, 109 Ct. Cl. 517, 520-523, 74 F. Supp. 165, 167-168 (1947); H. L. Yoh Co. v. United States, 153 Ct. Cl. 104, 288 F. 2d 493 (1961). The short of the matter is that the information contained in the drawings constituted positive representations upon which plaintiff was justified in relying. It follows that the" }, { "docid": "14490733", "title": "", "text": "subject of Spanish Land Grants that had been confirmed by the united States, and had hence never become part of the Public Domain, cf. Pueblo De Cochti v. United States, 7 Ind. Cl. Comm. 422 (1959); Pueblo de Isleta v. United States, 9 Ind. Cl. Comm. 619 (1959), aff’d 152 Ct. Cl. 866 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 822 (1961). 9 Stat. 922 (1848). cf. Rehm v. United States, 183 F. Supp. 157 (1960), for discussion of when a party is entitled to a directed verdict; see, generally, MeGormiclc, Evidence § 306. The court relied on George v. Capital Traction Co., 54 App. D.C. 144, 147, 295 Fed. 965, 968 (1924) for the proposition that: * * * where the testimony Is all one way, and is not immaterial, irrelevant, improbable, inconsistent, contradicted, or discredited, such testimony cannot be disregarded or ignored by judge or jury, and if one or the other makes a finding which is contrary to such evidence, or which is not supported by it, an error results, for which the verdict or decision, if reviewable, must be set aside. * 0 * See also Kelly v. Jackson, 6 Pet. (10 U.S.) 622 (1832). Appellee’s brief p. 12 ; appellee there discussed Confederated Tribe of the Warm Springs Reservation v. United States, 8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 557, 598 (1960) where the Commission discussed this type of evidence and concluded that “the most dependable accounts by Indians of their pre-reservation land-using entities and subsistence areas are those taken from Indians living as near the date in question as possible; that the possibility of error increases in ratio to the number of intervening generations.” This statement is undoubtedly true but only affects the weight given the testimony by the trier.and does not render the testimony “literally worthless.” (Where the testimony of Indians several generations removed is corroborated, its weight must be corresporidlingly increased. (And a demonstration of accuracyi of a part of such testimony imparts credence to the whole in the absence of controverting evidence, pf. Associated General Contractors v. Cardillo, 80 App. D.C. 303, 106; E. 2d 327" }, { "docid": "23131642", "title": "", "text": "feel justified in concluding from the cold record that plaintiff has borne its burden of showing that such a promise was made by Colonel Haskell. The oral testimony is in square conflict, and in the absence of a finding of credibility by the Commissioner we have no reason to prefer one version over another. The plaintiff’s internal memorandum cannot be controlling. Plaintiff aid not seek relief from the contracting officer or the Board of Contract Appeals, and there is no administrative record on the factual issues in the case. At the trial before our Commissioner, both parties introduced evidence ; neither objected to the use of de novo evidence, sought a stay so that disputed issues of fact could be determined administratively, or raised the point that administrative proceedings should have been had. After the Commissioner’s report had been submitted and the plaintiff had filed its brief and exceptions, defendant moved for the first time to suspend the proceedings so that the plaintiff could present any disputed questions of fact to the contracting officer and to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Plaintiff opposed oh the ground, among others, that this is an action for unliquidated damages for breach of contract,' to which United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U.S. 709 (1963), is wholly inapplicable. The motion was denied by a single judge. Considering the point as raised anew in the course of the presentation of the case on the merits, we deny it, again, on the ground that defendant waived any right it may have had to an administrative determination of the facts by failing to make the point until too late a stage in the proceedings. Commerce Int’l Co., Inc. v. United States, decided this day, ante, p. 529; Wingate Constr. Co. v. United States, 164 Ct. Cl. 181, 139 (1964); WPC Enterprises Inc. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 1, 8 (1963), 323 P. 2d 874-878; Stein Bros. Mfg. Co. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 802, 805-7, 337 F. 2d 861, 862-3 (1963). Plaintiff sees this general clause as a guarantee by the" }, { "docid": "8879424", "title": "", "text": "plaintiff is not the critical issue for decision here. Finally, plaintiff asserts that the Comptroller General’s decision in question does not state what oral notice would be sufficient to constitute official notice, and argues that the facts concerning the notice given to plaintiff here are such that the Comptroller’s decision is not applicable or controlling with respect to the instant case. This argument is rejected as not being supported by the evidence in the record. Defendant is correct in arguing that there is no requirement in law that a change of permanent assignment must be in writing. In my opinion, plaintiff’s action should fail on the grounds stated in the decision of the Comptroller General (30 Comp. Gen. 94-95 (1950), supra) — that despite the failure of plaintiff to receive a formal written communication notifying him that he had been permanently reassigned to Beading, he was given definite oral notice of such fact by proper authority, and this notice was sufficient to make his status permanent. Although this court on occasion has disagreed with decisions of the Comptroller General (see Hearne v. United States, 107 Ct. Cl. 335, 395, 68 F. Supp. 786, 788-789 (1946), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 858 (1947); Day v. United States, 123 Ct. Cl. 10, 22, 104 F. Supp. 1005, 1010 (1952)), this above cited opinion appears clearly right and should be controlling in this case. It is true, as plaintiff contends, that failure by an executive department to comply with its own regulations can invalidate its actions. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266-67 (1954); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 372 (1957); Smith v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 682, 687, (1961); Sofranoff v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 470, 476-477 (1964); Starzec v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 25, 29-30 (1959); Watson v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 749, 754, 162 F. Supp. 755, 757 (1958); Newman v. United States, 143 Ct. Cl. 784, 792-794 (1958); Daub v. United States, 154 Ct. Cl. 434, 437, 292 F. 2d 895, 897 (1961); Murray v. United States, 154 Ct. Cl. 185," }, { "docid": "15642373", "title": "", "text": "their full literal reach and do not relieve the government from liability. United Contractors v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 151, 165-66, 368 F. 2d 585, 598 (1966) ; Fliffin Materials Co. v. United States, 160 Ct. Cl. 357, 365, 312 F. 2d 408, 413 (1963), and cases cited at note 8; Fehlhaber Corp. v. United States, 138 Ct. Cl. 571, 584, 151 F. Supp. 817, 825 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 877. See also e.g., Hirsch v. United States, 94 Ct. Cl. 602, 637 (1941); Ruff v. United States, 96 Ct. Cl. 148, 160, 162-164 (1942) ; Loftis v. United States, 110 Ct. Cl. 551, 627-629, 76 F. Supp. 816, 825-826 (1948) ; Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. United States, 109 Ct. Cl. 517, 520-523, 74 F. Supp. 165, 167-168 (1947); H. L. Yoh Co. v. United States, 153 Ct. Cl. 104, 288 F. 2d 493 (1961). The short of the matter is that the information contained in the drawings constituted positive representations upon which plaintiff was justified in relying. It follows that the action taken by the commission in (i) designating substitute borrow pits to replace the pits originally designated in the drawings; (ii) ordering certain of the original borrow pits enlarged; and (iii) ordering plaintiff to perform borrow excavation and overhaul far in excess of the quantities shown on the contract drawings constituted compensable changes within the meaning of article 3 of the contract. This brings us to the question of whether an equitable adjustment for such changes — which the board found were due to field conditions not foreseen by the parties — is precluded by the specifications (particularly article 4.3) unless there were an overrun or underrun in excess of 25 percent of estimated bid quantities. We begin with, the established principles (i) that an interpretation which gives a reasonable -moaning to all parts of a contract will be preferred to one which leaves a portion of it inoperative or superfluous; and (ii) that contract provisions should not be construed as conflicting unless no other reasonable interpretation is possible. Hol-Gar Mfg. Corp. v. United States," }, { "docid": "23449920", "title": "", "text": "where no further evidence is likely to exist would increase. See Maxwell Dynamometer Co. v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 607, 386 F.2d 855 (1967). Therefore, we will rely on the standard of review set forth in Koppers Co. v. United States, supra: In limited circumstances the court will decide an issue of fact cpntrary to the finding made by the Board. Generally, we do not consider making such findings unless we first conclude that there is no substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings. If an administrative board has failed to make a relevant finding of fact and the evidence relating to this fact question is undisputed, we may make a supplementary finding without returning the case to the board. Analogously, where the evidence is disputed but the overwhelming weight of the evidence strongly points to one conclusion of fact, we may make a necessary contrary finding without returning the case to the board, to obviate what would otherwise become \"an empty ritual [which] has no place in a rational decision-making process”. (Maxwell Dynamometer Co. v. United States, supra, 181 Ct. Cl. at 631, 386 F.2d at 870.) Where, however, as in the case before us, after having heard oral argument, we remain unsure of the exact findings made and the legal standard used by the Board (and the evidence is not so overwhelming as to justify our making our own finding) * * * [we are left] no option other than to remand the case to the Board for clarification. [186 Ct. Cl. at 150, 405 F.2d at 559.] The present case is not like Gulf & Western Precision Engineering Co. v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 732 (1974). In Gulf & Western, plaintiff had attempted to introduce new exhibits into the record, but the board refused to reopen the case and reconsider the claim. This court held the action of the board \"arbitrary and capricious” and remanded, because it \"[did] not consider that Wunderlich Act standards permit us to make a final determination as to entitlement on the basis of evidence the board refused to receive into" }, { "docid": "1624530", "title": "", "text": "court held that the intermediary’s representatives at the meeting did not have real authority, as opposed to apparent authority, to bind the intermediary or the Government. The court characterized the agreement as merely an assurance by auditors that they would recommend their report to the intermediary. 214 Ct. Cl. at 69, 556 F.2d at 504. Since the representatives were without real authority, they could not bind the Government. Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947); Molony & Rubien Constr. Co. v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 809, 810 (1977); Dunphy v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 986, 989 (1975); Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 782, 524 F.2d 693, 701 (1975). Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Overlook on the grounds that in Overlook only subcontract auditors were involved whereas in the instant case Blue Cross’s \"senior reimbursement auditor” also attended the conference. Actually, the Overlook opinion reveals that the intermediary’s \"field representative” as well as its auditors attended the meeting. 214 Ct. Cl. at 63, 556 F.2d at 501. Moreover, the fact that a \"senior reimbursement auditor” attended the exit conference cannot serve to distinguish Overlook unless plaintiff can also show that the \"senior reimbursement auditor” had real authority to bind his principal. On plaintiffs administrative appeal, the Blue Cross hearing officer held that the Blue Cross representatives at the exit conference had no real authority to bind Blue Cross to audit findings, citing testimony about Blue Cross internal procedures to that effect. In its brief, plaintiff attacks this finding, pointing to a Blue Cross internal memo summarizing the exit conference which says that plaintiff was told that no change would be made in the audit report and that the appeal procedures were available to it. This is rather indirect evidence of real authority. It is not enough to show that the administrative decision was unsupported by substantial evidence or was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore that decision must stand on this issue. Overlook Nursing Home, Inc. v. United States, supra, 214 Ct. Cl. at 65, 556 F.2d at 502. At oral argument, plaintiffs counsel admitted that" }, { "docid": "9399451", "title": "", "text": "Finally, in Royal Indemnity, a case with facts similar to those above, the court adopted Trial Judge Wood’s opinion per curiam. His opinion was written after the case had been remanded by the court with directions to determine whether the Government had . . acted in good faith and primarily to promote the continuation of the contract work, and whether, in light of all the facts and circumstances, defendant’s actions were a reasonable exercise of its discretion or an arbitrary disregard of plaintiffs rights as surety and an abuse of such discretion.” 208 Ct. Cl. at 821-22, 529 F.2d at 1319. The Trial Judge, acting pursuant to the court’s order, found that the contracting officer had neither acted in bad faith nor abused his discretion in refusing to withhold the progress payment at issue in the case. 208 Ct. Cl. at 828, 529 F. 2d at 1323. He noted correctly that: The standard of proof to be applied in a case where an arbitrary and capricious disregard of the surety’s interests, and an abuse of discretion, are charged must be, and is, high. See Keco Indus., Inc. v United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 773, 428 F. 2d 1233 (1970). Where, as here, defendant is entitled to exercise its discretion, \"plaintiff has an unusually heavy burden of proof in showing that the determination made . . . was arbitrary and capricious.” Continental Bus. Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 627, 637, 452 F. 2d 1016, 1021 (1971). [208 Ct. Cl. 823, 529 F. 2d 1320.] As stated by these three cases, the law in this area has become settled that so long as there is no showing of bad faith or an abuse of discretion, the decision of a Government contracting officer that a progress payment to a financially strapped contractor should not be withheld will be accorded deference by this court, and the surety’s burden of proving to the contrary is high. This view has also been adopted by a District Court in the Tenth Circuit and by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. These courts" }, { "docid": "22089054", "title": "", "text": "the experts,” similar to J. A. Terteling & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 691, 390 F. 2d 926 (1968). In reviewing an administrative decision, the administrative tribunal has an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, while we look only at “cold records.” It follows that, generally, we should accept the administrative evaluation of credibility unless the testimony is inherently improbable or discredited by undisputed evidence or physical fact. Dittmore-Freimuth Corp. v. United States, supra; Chris Berg, Inc. v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 23, 389 F. 2d 401 (1968) and Ambrose-Augusterfer Corp. v. United States, 184 Ct. Cl. 18, 394 F. 2d 536 (1968). Our statement in National Concrete & Foundation Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 470 (1965) is equally pertinent to this case. “An examination of the record * * * reveals that, although there were differences between the testimony adduced by plaintiff and by defendant, there was substantial evidence upon which the Board’s decision was based. See River Construction Corporation v. United States, supra; also see, T. C. Bateson Construction Co. v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl. 514 (1960).” [170 Ct. Cl. at 478] It is within the Board’s province to evaluate and choose between conflicting expert testimony, subject to our review on whether its findings of fact on the basis of all of the testimony can be said to be premised on substantial evidence. United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966) ; United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., 384 U.S. 424 (1966) ; United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., Inc., 373 U.S. 709 (1963). Because we uphold the Board’s decision and find that plaintiff’s evidence is not overwhelming, we need not reach the question of assumption of risk decided by the trial commissioner. Bidders Rad been informed that the quantity of panels to be procured was subject to a limited fund of $60,000, and that the award would be made to the bidder who offered to furnish the largest number of panels within that fund limitation. Lamtex’s bid offered the greatest number," }, { "docid": "18196985", "title": "", "text": "Par. 6D-03d. reads: “Tanks shall be watertight and constructed of corrosion-resistant steel not less than No. 11 gage,” which supports plaintiff’s description of industry practice. [Emphasis supplied.] At oral argument on these cross-motions, it was explained by plaintiff's counsel that glassware washers, in contrast, use a different type of water and perform a more sophisticated type of cleaning, with the result that the custom In the trade is to provide corrosion-resistant (stainless) steel throughout. See Gholson, Byars & Holmes Constr. Co. v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 374, 395, 351 F. 2d 987, 999 (1965). Note 13 supra. The rule of contra preferentum. United States v. Seckinger, 397 U.S. 203, 216 (1970) ; Gorn Corp. v. United States, 191 Ct. Cl. 560, 567, 424 P. 2d 588, 592 (1970) ; Tecon Corp. v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 15, 411 F. 2d 1262 (1969) ; D & L Constr. Co. v. United States, 185 Ct. Cl. 736, 402 P. 2d 990 (1968) ; Sundstrand Turbo v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 31, 389 P. 2d 406 (1968) ; Southern Constr. Co. v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 1339, 1362, 364 F. 2d 439, 453 (1966) ; WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 1, 6, 323 F. 2d 874, 876-77 (1963) ; and Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. United States, 109 Ct. Cl. 390 (1947). Note 15 supra at 3, 5-6, 323 F. 2d at 875-77. See also on tills point, WPC Enterprises, Inc., 163 Ct. Cl. at 6, 323 F. 2d at 877: “* * * Although the potential contractor may have some duty to inquire about a major patent discrepancy, or obvious omission, or a drastic conflict In provisions (see Consolidated Eng’r. Co. v. United States, 98 Ct. Cl. 256, 280 (1943) ; Ring Constr. Corp. v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 731, 734, 162 F. Supp. 190, 192 (1958) ; Jefferson Constr. Co. v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 75, 89-91 (1960)), he Is not normally required (absent a clear warning In the contract) to seek clarification of any and all ambiguities, doubts, or possible" }, { "docid": "14490721", "title": "", "text": "introduced by appellants, the Commission held that “the evidence offered is so vague and indefinite that a finding of aboriginal title in the petitioners to any of the claimed area would have to be based on mere conjecture.” We must now determine whether the Commission was correct in this conclusion, for where there is “* * * positive testimony, uncontradicted, and not inherently improbable”, the trier of fact, whether judge or jury, is not “at liberty to disregard snob evidence.” Stone v. Stone, 136 F. 2d 761, 764 (CADC 1943). To best approach onr problem, we will discuss in turn each of the three major lines of'evidence introduced by ¡appellants below along with the Commission’s treatment of each. Appellants began the trial by calling a council member from each of the bands. These witnesses, leaders of their respective bands, offered testimony of their people’s usage of the land throughout their tribal histories. It might be mentioned here that the tribal histories consist of oral accounts handed down from father to son in continuity — from generation to generation from time immemorial. Traditionally, this has been the principal tribal record of the history of all Indian tribes. These three Indian leaders testified from knowledge so gained through this oral tradition that the tribes had used all of the claimed area for farming, hunting, mining, grazing livestock, and gathering of firewood. Portions of their testimony were verified by documentary evidence. For example, one witness, Toya, testified about the creation and use of a watering place known as Los Torriones. The fact of existence and usage of this same watering place by the Indians was corroborated through the introduction of a letter written on April 6,1878 by one Ben W. Thomas, Indian Agent, who said that “this location * * * is believed to be on the public domain.” Notwithstanding such specific documentary corroborations and the general dovetailing, and hence corroboration of historical and archaelogical evidence and testimony which we are about to discuss, the Commission saw fit to Virtually ignore the Indians’ testimony since: * * * all of these witnesses were" }, { "docid": "21341039", "title": "", "text": "Commission to have made the allocation it did. In our view, however, the evidence on which the Commission relied, taken as a whole, provides a substantial foundation for the conclusion reached. It starts with archaeological studies showing that the Fort Berthold tribes had inhabited this area for an extremely long time. Such evidence has previously been considered persuasive by this court. Pueblo de Zia v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 501, 506-07 (1964). The record also contains the observations of explorers, traders, missionaries and others, beginning with the first recorded white contact in 1738, and extending to the 1870-1883 period when the Indians were first confined on an Executive Order reservation and later dispersed to individual allotments. Added to these historical materials was the testimony of the Fort Berthold expert witnesses, which the Commission seems to have valued highly. This body of evidence supports Fort Berthold use and occupancy of the area ultimately awarded to them — directly, by indicating their presence in the area, and, inferentially, by showing that these Indians depended for their livelihood upon 'buffalo hunts ranging fifty miles from their permanent villages on the banks of the Missouri (these hunts would place them in the area ultimately awarded). The evidence presented by the Chippewa appellants is likewise entitled to weight, and the Commission did rely on it, in part, in making other findings. But this does not mean that the Commission was compelled to build on this evidence for all issues, particularly when it conflicted with persuasive evidence of use and occupancy by the other Indian group in the overlap area. In other words, both sides of this question are supported by creditable evidence, with neither side having an overwhelming preponderance of proof. This is, of course, the paradigmatic case for accepting the findings below — just as we would have accepted findings going the other way. See, e.g., Sac and Fox Tribe v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 189, 203, 315 F. 2d 896, 903-04, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 921 (1963). The findings to which the Commission comes are adequate both in form and substance." }, { "docid": "15323714", "title": "", "text": "and burdened with expert reports which classified materials differently, established a reasoned and fair method to try and determine whether excessive difficulty-causing rock was actually encountered by plaintiff. Plaintiff fails in its burden to establish error on the part of the Board in excluding “soft rock” from Dr. Brooks’ figures. Sundstrand Turbo v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 31, 60, 389 F. 2d 406, 422-23 (1968). It is not the court’s function to make an independent excursion into the administrative record to remedy this failure. See Jefferson Constr. Co. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 581, 589, 368 F. 2d 247, 252 (1966). Furthermore, even when the record is closely examined, one cannot say that the Board’s analysis and conclusion were arbitrary or not supported by substantial evidence. Once again, the conclusion reached by the Board relative to exclusion of “soft rock” as a claim factor is the product of judgment and expertise and without overriding evidence to the contrary the court is precluded from exercising its own independent judgment in order to reach a contrary conclusion. Carlo Bianchi & Co. v. United States, supra, 167 Ct. Cl. at 368. Plaintiff next argues that the Board completely disregards all testimonial evidence concerning the unusually high replacement of dredge cutting equipment as an indication of the occurrence of changed conditions. The truth is the Board did not disregard this evidence, but, in considering it, found such evidence to be of little or no probative value because there was a lack of evidence in the record as to the amount of wear and replacement normally to be expected when dredging materials undisputedly shown in the contract documents. The weight the Board gives the evidence is one of its prerogatives and unless clearly shown to be erroneous, the court will not disturb its conclusion drawn therefrom. Chaney & James Constr. Co. v. United States, supra, 190 Ct. Cl. at 724, 421 F. 2d at 742. Lacking evidence of what was normal replacement, the Board could hardly decide what was abnormal or excessive replacement. Moreover, plaintiff proffered no evidence as to the classification of" }, { "docid": "21373273", "title": "", "text": "testimony was favorable to his defense. “After careful review of the complete administrative record and a consideration of the briefs and argument of counsel for the parties, the court finds that the administrative decisions with respect to at least the first three of the charges against plaintiff are supported by substantial evidence; that plaintiff was removed in accordance with, applicable statutes and regulations, and that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the administrative action was arbitrary, capricious, malicious or taken in bad faith. Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiff may not recover. Boyle v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 27, 515 F. 2d 1397 (1975); Holman v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 1, 383 F. 2d 411 (1967); Finn v. United States, 152 Ct. Cl. 1 (1961). “The court also concludes as a matter of law that the failure of the administrative agencies to produce the Air Force officer as a witness at the hearings, as well as the defendant’s reliance on the witness’ affidavit and sworn answers to the interrogatories, was not legally erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. Reasonable efforts were made to procure the attendance of the witness at the hearings, but he failed to appear. Neither the Internal Revenue Service nor the Civil Service Commission had administrative control over the witness and neither had the authority to subpoena him to testify in person. See Peters v. United States, 187 Ct. Cl. 63, 408 F.2d 719 (1969). “it is therefore ordered that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied, and plaintiff’s petition is dismissed.”" } ]

[ { "docid": "22701273", "title": "", "text": "14. The Court of Appeals, in affirming, observed that because Bivens actions are a creation of the judiciary, the courts may impose reasonable conditions upon their filing. 914 F. 2d, at 1412. The exhaustion rule, the court reasoned, “is not keyed to the type of relief sought, but to the need for prelim inary fact-finding” to determine “whether there is a possible Bivens cause of action.” Ibid. Accordingly, “‘[although the administrative apparatus could not award money damages . . . , administrative consideration of the possibility of corrective action and a record would have aided a court in measuring liability and determining the extent of the damages.’” Ibid., quoting Goar v. Civiletti, 688 F. 2d 27, 29 (CA6 1982) (emphasis in original). Exhaustion of the general grievance procedure was required notwithstanding the fact that McCarthy’s request was solely for money damages. II The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is one among related doctrines — including abstention, finality, and ripeness — that govern the timing of federal-court deci-sionmaking. Of “paramount importance” to any exhaustion inquiry is congressional intent. Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U. S. 496, 501 (1982). Where Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required. Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC, 489 U. S. 561, 579 (1989); Patsy, 457 U. S., at 502, n. 4. But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs. McGee v. United States, 402 U. S. 479, 483, n. 6 (1971). See also Patsy, 457 U. S., at 518 (White, J., concurring in part) (“[Ejxhaustion is ‘a rule of judicial administration,’. .. and unless Congress directs otherwise, rightfully subject to crafting by judges”). Nevertheless, even in this field of judicial discretion, appropriate deference to Congress’ power to prescribe the basic procedural scheme under which a claim may be heard in a federal court requires fashioning of exhaustion principles in a manner consistent with congressional intent and any applicable statutory scheme. Id., at 501-502, and n. 4. A This Court long has acknowledged the general rule that parties exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts. See," } ]

[ { "docid": "1982350", "title": "", "text": "he be excepted from exhaustion on the basis of futility in the context of a statutorily mandated exhaustion requirement, our lone question would be whether Congress intended such an exception. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (instructing that courts should “not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise”); United States v. Roque-Espinoza, 338 F.3d 724, 728-29 (7th Cir.2003) (considering a request that the exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(1) be excused because appeal to the BIA would be futile and noting recent Supreme Court cases “construing the contemporaneous exhaustion requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act suggest strongly that futility excuses will not go far”). However, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not statutorily mandated in Mr. Gonzalez’s case. The INA mandates exhaustion in order to challenge “final order[s] of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). However, this provision does not cover challenges to preliminary custody or bond determinations, which are quite distinct from “final order[s] of removal.” See Gornicka v. INS, 681 F.2d 501, 505 (7th Cir.1982) (“[I]t is clear bond hearings are separate and apart from deportations hearings.... A bond determination is not a final order of deportation ... and does not effect [sic] the deportation proceeding.”). Also, Congress requires exhaustion for certain types of habeas petitions, but not for those petitions, such as Mr. Gonzalez’s, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See James v. Walsh, 308 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2002) (“Section 2254(b)(1) requires state prisoners to exhaust all available state court remedies before filing a Section 2254 petition, whereas Section 2241 contains no such exhaustion requirement.”). “[WJhere Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992). In exercising that discretion, we must balance the individual and institutional interests involved, taking into account “the nature of the claim presented and the characteristics of the particular administrative procedure provided.” Id. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081. We start with “the general rule that parties exhaust prescribed administrative" }, { "docid": "23534435", "title": "", "text": "did not have to exhaust administrative remedies. III. Our analysis begins with the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] court may review a final order of removal only if - the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right .... ” (emphasis supplied). Notwithstanding this provision, the District Court concluded, without analysis, that it had habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to entertain Duvall’s claim. In so doing, the District Court stated that “[ejxhaustion of administrative remedies is not required here and defendant has not raised it as a defense. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) (exhaustion is a matter of judicial discretion unless mandated by statute).” Duvall, 2002 WL 1870457, at *1 n. 1. It is settled that where Congress has “clearly required exhaustion,” McCarthy, 508 U.S. at 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, or where congressional intent is at least “fairly discernible,” Massieu v. Reno, 91 F.3d 416, 420 (3d Cir.1996) (citation omitted), exhaustion will be deemed statutorily mandated. The predecessor to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), which is the relevant statute here, was 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c). Section 1105a(e) was repealed in 1996 and replaced by the current § 1252(d). The predecessor statute, just as the current statute, denied review of orders of deportation or removal where an alien had not exhausted administrative remedies. Section 1252(d)(1) reads, in relevant part: “A court may review a final order of removal only if-(l) the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right....” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (emphasis supplied). Section 1105a(e) states the same requirements in essentially the same language: (c) Exhaustion of administrative remedies .... An order of deportation or of exclusion shall not be reviewed by any court if the alien has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him as of right.... Every petition for review or for habeas corpus shall state whether the validity of the order has been upheld .... 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (repealed 1996) (emphasis" }, { "docid": "2079002", "title": "", "text": "detainees. Ojo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 106 F.3d 680, 682 (5th Cir.1997). Thus, our previous decisions regarding federal prisoners and exhaustion of administrative remedies are not directly applicable in the present ease. The Supreme Court has offered guidance on the general purposes of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. In McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 1086, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) , the Court found that where Con gress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs. The Court stated, “in determining whether exhaustion is required, federal courts must balance the interests of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against the countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.” Id. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081. There are at least three broad sets of circumstances in which the interests weigh heavily against requiring administrative exhaustion: 1) requiring resort to administrative remedy may prejudice subsequent litigation, due to an unreasonable time frame or danger of the plaintiff suffering irreparable harm, 2) the administrative remedy may be inadequate because the agency is not empowered to grant the relief requested, and 3) the administrative remedy may be inadequate where the administrative body is shown to be biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue before it. Id. at 147-48, 112 S.Ct. 1081. In the present case, it is doubtful that the administrative remedy would be adequate because the agency is not empowered to grant Edwards monetary relief. There is no indication either from federal statutes or the applicable federal regulations that federal detention centers will provide monetary relief to detainees who have filed Bivens claims against federal officials. Therefore, FDC Oakdale and its administrative remedies were not capable of affording monetary relief to Edwards. Cf. Whitley, 158 F.3d at 887 (finding that plaintiff need not pursue federal remedies when seeking exclusively monetary relief because there are no prison remedies capable of affording such relief); McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 149, 112 S.Ct. 1081. The inadequacy of the administrative rem- ■ edy to provide the requested relief is sufficient to relieve the plaintiff of his responsibility to exhaust administrative remedies." }, { "docid": "23638303", "title": "", "text": "“parties exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 144-45, 112 S.Ct. 1081. Exhaustion, the Court stated, “protects] administrative agency authority and promotes] judicial efficiency.” Id. at 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081. However, because there was then no statutory exhaustion requirement for federal prisoners, whether exhaustion should be required was a matter of “sound judicial discretion.” Id. at 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081. In exercising that discretion, federal courts were directed to “balance the interest of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.” Id. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081. After balancing the interests in McCarthy, the Court concluded that exhaustion was not required because the BOP’s grievance procedure imposed “short, successive filing deadlines” and did “not authorize an award of monetary damages,” the only relief McCarthy requested. Id. at 152, 112 S.Ct. 1081. The Court noted that were injunctive relief also sought, the short filing deadlines would pose less difficulty because the limitations period would be triggered anew by ongoing conduct, and the grievance procedure probably would be capable of producing the type of corrective action desired. See id. at 153 n. 5,112 S.Ct. 1081. Less than a month after McCarthy was decided we reaffirmed the rule that prisoners with mixed claims were required to exhaust administrative remedies. See Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 356 n. 8 (3d Cir.1992), superseded by § 1997e(a) as stated in Nyhuis, 204 F.3d at 71 n. 7. This exhaustion requirement remained the law when Ghana filed his original complaint and, because he sought injunctive and declaratory as well as monetary relief, the District Court properly dismissed it under pre-PLRA law. D. Ghana’s Transfer to a State Facility Ghana also asserts that his requests for injunctive and declaratory relief have become moot because he was transferred from FCI Allenwood to state prison after filing this appeal. See, e.g., Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir.1999) (transfer of prisoner to another facility prior to trial mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief). Ghana argues that his only remaining" }, { "docid": "20736141", "title": "", "text": "328, 342 (2d Cir.2000); St. Cyr v. INS, 229 F.3d 406, 409-10 (2d Cir.2000); Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 122 (2d Cir.1998). The government argues, however, that the court lacks jurisdiction over the pending petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by presenting her equal protection challenge to the IJ and BIA. In response, the petitioner notes that an exception to an exhaustion requirement exists where an administrative appeal would be futile or where a petitioner raises a constitutional claim, as here, that cannot be decided by the administrative agency. The government in turn argues that such exceptions to the exhaustion requirement based on the IJ’s and BIA’s inability to pass on constitutional challenges to the INA do not apply when a statute conditions jurisdiction upon exhaustion. In support of its argument, the government notes that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) provides: A court may review a final order of removal only if— (1) the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right, and (2) another court has not decided the validity of the order, unless the reviewing court finds that the petition presents grounds that could not have been presented in the prior judicial proceeding or that the remedy provided by the prior proceeding was inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of the order. The government places heavy reliance on Bastek v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp., 145 F.3d 90, 94 & n. 4 (2d Cir.1998). In Bastek, the court stated that, “[i]f Congress has not explicitly required exhaustion, judicial exhaustion doctrine provides that courts may, in their discretion, waive administrative exhaustion under certain circumstances.” 145 F.3d at 94. The government argues that the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) creates a jurisdictional statutory exhaustion requirement which is applicable to this case. The government contends that it is therefore mandatory that the petitioner raise her equal protection claim before the IJ or BIA before bringing a habeas petition on the basis of this claim. At the same time, the government does not dispute that the IJ and BIA do not have" }, { "docid": "2079001", "title": "", "text": "FDC Oakdale in 1998. Therefore, any claims for injunctive relief to correct procedures and practices at, that facility are moot. See Hernandez v. W.L. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir.1990); Pembroke v. Wood County, Texas, 981 F.2d 225, 228 (5th Cir.1993). We therefore construe the remaining claims as a request for exclusively monetary relief. This court has not directly addressed the question of whether a pretrial detainee seeking monetary relief must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court for damages. This court’s previous rulings regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies have interpreted provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and that statute’s amendments as codified in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Pub.L. No. 104-103 § 803, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). See e.g., Arvie v. Stalder, 53 F.3d 702, 704-05 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that although § 1997e did not réquire it, federal prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies before challenging conditions of their confinement); Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882 (5th Cir.1998). However, we have held that the PLRA does not apply to alien detainees. Ojo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 106 F.3d 680, 682 (5th Cir.1997). Thus, our previous decisions regarding federal prisoners and exhaustion of administrative remedies are not directly applicable in the present ease. The Supreme Court has offered guidance on the general purposes of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. In McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 1086, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) , the Court found that where Con gress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs. The Court stated, “in determining whether exhaustion is required, federal courts must balance the interests of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against the countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.” Id. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081. There are at least three broad sets of circumstances in which the interests weigh heavily against requiring administrative exhaustion: 1) requiring resort to administrative remedy may prejudice subsequent litigation, due to an unreasonable time frame or danger of the plaintiff suffering irreparable harm, 2) the administrative remedy may be inadequate because the agency" }, { "docid": "23534434", "title": "", "text": "term of imprisonment of at least one year was imposed, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (A)(iii). The IJ terminated proceedings on June 6, 2001, granting Duvall’s motion to collaterally estop the Service from relitigating the alienage issue. On December 6, 2001, the BIA reversed the IJ’s collateral estop-pel ruling and remanded for proceedings to continue before the IJ. The BIA denied Duvall’s motion for rehearing on March 20, 2002. Subsequently, Duvall filed a habeas petition in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 6, 2002. The- District Court granted her petition on August 9. Duvall v. Elwood, No. CIV. A.02-2081, 2002 WL 1870457 (E.D.Pa. Aug.9, 2002) (unpublished). In granting her petition, the District Court focused wholly on the collateral estoppel issue and held that the Service was barred from relitigating the issue of alienage. Accordingly, the District Court entered an order which directed Duvall’s release from the Service. In granting Duvall’s petition, the District Court gave short shrift to the question of the court’s jurisdiction and indeed erred in holding that Duvall did not have to exhaust administrative remedies. III. Our analysis begins with the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] court may review a final order of removal only if - the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right .... ” (emphasis supplied). Notwithstanding this provision, the District Court concluded, without analysis, that it had habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to entertain Duvall’s claim. In so doing, the District Court stated that “[ejxhaustion of administrative remedies is not required here and defendant has not raised it as a defense. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) (exhaustion is a matter of judicial discretion unless mandated by statute).” Duvall, 2002 WL 1870457, at *1 n. 1. It is settled that where Congress has “clearly required exhaustion,” McCarthy, 508 U.S. at 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, or where congressional intent is at least “fairly discernible,” Massieu v. Reno, 91 F.3d 416, 420" }, { "docid": "14178602", "title": "", "text": "that he pay a $1,500 bond. The INS, however, served Petitioner with notice of its intent to appeal the custody determination, which automatically stayed the Immigration Judge’s decision under 8 C.F.R. § 3.19(i)(2). The INS then filed its notice of appeal, thereby denying Petitioner’s opportunity to post bond. Petitioner is now in this Court making the same arguments he made before the Immigration Judge and seeking relief from being illegally detained. Analysis A. Jurisdiction The INS first argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the merits of Petitioner’s claim. The INS contends that Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies and that the statutory language of § 236(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1226(e), deprives this Court of jurisdiction. 1. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The Immigration Judge’s decision allowing Petitioner to be released from custody upon posting bond is currently on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Because the BIA has yet to issue a final decision, Respondent argues that Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies, and therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. An alien must generally exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking review of a final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). In this case, however, Petitioner is not seeking review of a removal order, instead he seeks review of the INS’s decision to keep him in custody while he awaits a determination as to whether or not he will be removed from the United States. This distinction is significant, for there is no federal statute that imposes an exhaustion requirement on aliens taken into custody pending their removal. See Montero v. Cobb, 937 F.Supp. 88, 91 (D.Mass.1996). Because exhaustion is not required by statute, sound judicial discretion must govern this Court’s decision of whether to exercise jurisdiction absent exhaustion. See McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992). The Supreme Court has instructed that oné circumstance in which district courts need not require exhaustion is when the administrative body has predetermined the issue before it. See id, at 148, 112 S.Ct. 1081. Petitioner" }, { "docid": "1982351", "title": "", "text": "See Gornicka v. INS, 681 F.2d 501, 505 (7th Cir.1982) (“[I]t is clear bond hearings are separate and apart from deportations hearings.... A bond determination is not a final order of deportation ... and does not effect [sic] the deportation proceeding.”). Also, Congress requires exhaustion for certain types of habeas petitions, but not for those petitions, such as Mr. Gonzalez’s, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See James v. Walsh, 308 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2002) (“Section 2254(b)(1) requires state prisoners to exhaust all available state court remedies before filing a Section 2254 petition, whereas Section 2241 contains no such exhaustion requirement.”). “[WJhere Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992). In exercising that discretion, we must balance the individual and institutional interests involved, taking into account “the nature of the claim presented and the characteristics of the particular administrative procedure provided.” Id. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081. We start with “the general rule that parties exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts.” Id. at 144-45, 112 S.Ct. 1081; see also Sanchez v. Miller, 792 F.2d 694, 697 (7th Cir.1986) (accord). This rule, however, is not absolute. We have held that individual interests demand that exhaustion be excused when (1) requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies causes prejudice, due to unreasonable delay or an indefinite timeframe for administrative action; (2) the agency lacks the ability or competence to resolve the issue or grant the relief requested; (3) appealing through the administrative process would be futile because the agency is biased or has predetermined the issue; or (4) where substantial constitutional questions are raised. Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492, 498 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Mr. Gonzalez does not suggest that an “unreasonable delay” would have resulted from an appeal to the BIA. Rather, consistent with the district court, he relies on a combination of the latter three exceptions. Specifically, he argues that an appeal to the BIA would have been “futile,” and thus unnecessary, because the BIA" }, { "docid": "23638302", "title": "", "text": "in this circuit and others that federal prisoners pursuing “mixed claims” — those seeking both damages and injunctive relief — had to exhaust administrative remedies. See, e.g., Veteto v. Miller, 794 F.2d 98, 100 (3d Cir.1986); Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 348-49 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam); Arvie v. Stalder, 53 F.3d 702, 705-06 (5th Cir.1995) (approving Irwin in a § 1983 suit governed by § 1997e). However, in some circuits, including this one, federal prisoners seeking only money damages were not required to exhaust, see Muhammad v. Carlson, 739 F.2d 122, 125 (3d Cir.1984), although other circuits disagreed, see Hessbrook v. Lennon, 777 F.2d 999, 1001 (5th Cir.1985). In McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992), the Supreme Court resolved the dispute and held that federal prisoners seeking only monetary damages need not exhaust administrative remedies. In reaching this holding (which, we emphasize, is no longer applicable to prisoners bringing claims governed by the PLRA, see Nyhuis, 204 F.3d at 67), the Court emphasized the general requirement that “parties exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 144-45, 112 S.Ct. 1081. Exhaustion, the Court stated, “protects] administrative agency authority and promotes] judicial efficiency.” Id. at 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081. However, because there was then no statutory exhaustion requirement for federal prisoners, whether exhaustion should be required was a matter of “sound judicial discretion.” Id. at 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081. In exercising that discretion, federal courts were directed to “balance the interest of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.” Id. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081. After balancing the interests in McCarthy, the Court concluded that exhaustion was not required because the BOP’s grievance procedure imposed “short, successive filing deadlines” and did “not authorize an award of monetary damages,” the only relief McCarthy requested. Id. at 152, 112 S.Ct. 1081. The Court noted that were injunctive relief also sought, the short filing deadlines would pose less difficulty because the limitations period would be triggered anew by ongoing" }, { "docid": "22882485", "title": "", "text": "determine whether a district court has abused its discretion, we consider two questions: “ ‘(1) whether requiring exhaustion in this case would further the policies underlying the doctrine, and (2) whether any exceptions to the doctrine are applicable.’” Id. (citation omitted). In McCarthy, the Supreme Court held that a federal prisoner who initiates a Bivens claim solely for money damages need not exhaust the grievance procedure before seeking judicial review of his claim. 503 U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1088. McCarthy reaffirmed “the general rule that parties exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts.” Id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1086. Our court has identified the following policies underlying the exhaustion doctrine: (1) to avoid premature interruption of the administrative process; (2) to let the agency develop the necessary factual background upon which decisions should be based; (3) to permit the agency to exercise its discretion or apply its expertise; (4) to improve the efficiency of the administrative process; (5) to conserve scarce judicial resources ...; (6) to give the agency a chance to discover and correct its own errors; and (7) to avoid the possibility that “frequent and deliberate flouting of the administrative processes could weaken the effectiveness of an agency by encouraging people to ignore its procedures.” Kobleur, 954 F.2d at 711-12 (citations omitted). When Congress clearly prescribes an administrative remedy, application of the exhaustion requirement is not a matter of judicial discretion. McCarthy, 503 U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1086. In determining whether exhaustion is required, the Court held that “federal courts must balance the interest of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.” Id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1087. Applying this standard, the Court found that [t]he general grievance procedure [of the Bureau of Prisons] heavily burdens the individual interests of the petitioning inmate in two ways. First, the procedure imposes short, successive filing deadlines that create a high risk of forfeiture of a claim for failure to comply. Second, the administrative “remedy” does not authorize an award of" }, { "docid": "22272477", "title": "", "text": "denied his habeas petition; and (3) his notice of appeal is technically defective. In order to avoid manifest injustice, we excuse these procedural defects' to reach the substance of Pichardo’s claim. Further, the district court erred in dismissing Pichardo’s motion for reconsideration in light of Dalton. Thus, we vacate the district court’s order denying Pichardo’s motion for reconsideration, and remand to the district court with directions to grant Pichardo’s habeas petition and to vacate the order of removal. I. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT It is undisputed that Pichardo never appealed the IJ’s deportation order to the BIA. Generally, the exhaustion doctrine requires a party to pursue all possible administrative relief within the deciding agency before seeking federal judicial review of an unfavorable decision. “This Court considers an alien’s waiver of the right to appeal to the BIA as a failure to exhaust administrative remedies for jurisdictional purposes.” Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir.2003). The requirement of administrative exhaustion can be either statutorily or judicially imposed. “The distinction between the two exhaustion requirements can be ‘pivotal,’ because statutory exhaustion requirements are mandatory, while the judicial (common-law) exhaustion doctrine is discretionary and includes a number of exceptions.” Id. at 56-57 (internal citations omitted); see also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (courts “will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise”); McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) (judicially imposed exhaustion requirements are prudential and statutory ones are jurisdictional). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) requires a habeas petitioner to exhaust all available agency remedies before appealing the IJ’s decision to federal court. See Theodoropoulos II, 358 F.3d at 169. This provision provides, in pertinent part, that federal courts “may review a final order of removal only if ... the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” This Circuit recently held that section 1252(d)(1) is a statutory exhaustion requirement and, accordingly, common law “exceptions — including futility — [are] simply not available[.]”" }, { "docid": "7318711", "title": "", "text": "by the Supreme Court, “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is one among related doctrine — including abstention, finality, and ripeness — that govern the timing of federal court decisionmaking.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 144, 112 S.Ct. at 1085. The general rule concerning exhaustion is “ ‘that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.’” McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969) (quoting Myers, 303 U.S. at 50-51, 58 S.Ct. at 463); see also McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 144-45, 112 S.Ct. at 1085-86 (“This Court long has acknowledged the general rule that parties exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts.”) (citing Myers, 303 U.S. at 50-51 and n. 9, 58 S.Ct. at 463 and n. 9). “Exhaustion is required because it serves the twin purposes of protecting administrative agency authority and promoting judicial efficiency.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 145, 112 S.Ct. at 1086. A significant inquiry in determining the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine is congressional intent and, “[w]here Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required.” Id. at 144, 112 S.Ct. at 1085. To decide an exhaustion issue “federal courts must balance the interest of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.” Id. at 146, 112 S.Ct. at 1087. “Application of this balancing principal is ‘intensely practical’ because attention is directed to both the nature of the claim presented and the characteristics of the particular administrative procedure provided.” Id. (quotation omitted). Thus, a court may decline “to require exhaustion in some circumstances even where administrative and judicial interests would counsel otherwise.” Id.; see also id. at 144, 112 S.Ct. at 1085 (“where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs”) (citations omitted); Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561, 579, 109 S.Ct. 1361, 1371, 103 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989) (“Where a statutory requirement of exhaustion is not explicit, ‘courts are guided by congressional intent in determining" }, { "docid": "4136554", "title": "", "text": "Congress sought to eliminate habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. I therefore hold that § 236(e) has not removed or modified this Court’s jurisdiction to hear Grant’s habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Where Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992); Massieu v. Reno, 91 F.3d 416, 419-20 (3d Cir.1996). However, absent a statutory requirement, this Court has discretion whether to require exhaustion. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081,117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992). The respondent concedes that the statute does not require exhaustion. As a general rule, parties should exhaust- prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from .the federal courts. Id. at 144-45, 112 S.Ct. 1081. Exhaustion serves the twin purposes of protecting administrative agency authority and promoting judicial efficiency. However, “[n]otwithstanding these substantial institutional interests, federal courts are vested with a ‘virtually unflagging obligation’ to exercise the jurisdiction given to them.” Id. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081 (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817-818, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976)). “In determining whether exhaustion is required, federal courts must balance the interests of the individual retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.” Id. Here, the individual interests outweigh the countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion. Id. First, the precise issue before the Court — whether 236(c) applies retroactively to petitioner who was released from custody prior to the enactment of the IIRIRA amendments to the INA- — does not implicate agency expertise. Sandoval, 166 F.3d at 239-40 (issue concerning statute’s effective date is pure question of statutory construction for courts to decide and does not implicate agency expertise). Second, requiring Grant to remain in detention while the government appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge to grant bail will cause undue prejudice. See id. at 146-47 (“a particular plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration of his claim”). Third, exhaustion is not required where, as here, administrative" }, { "docid": "1903150", "title": "", "text": "has held that section 1252(g) does not apply to agency in terpretations of statutes. Bowrin, 194 F.3d at 488. Therefore, a District Court may review both statutory and constitutional questions under a habeas petition. See id. at 490. Review of factual or discretionary issues, however, is prohibited. See id. II. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies According to the Defendants, the BIA, as the administrative agency charged with administering the INA, should have the primary responsibility for administering that statute. Under the immigration laws, exhaustion of remedies is statutorily required only for appeals to final orders of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Galvez v. Lewis, 56 F.Supp.2d 637, 644 (E.D.Va.1999); Aguilar v. Lewis, 50 F.Supp.2d 539, 541 (E.D.Va.1999). Here, Welch is not challenging the order of removal but, instead, challenges his continued detention. Therefore, the statute does not mandate administrative review. See Phan v. Reno, 56 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1153 (W.D.Wash.1999) Defendants maintain, however, that “[njotwithstanding the fact that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not statutorily required, it is well established that such a requirement may be imposed within the exercise of. judicial discretion.” Resps. Opp’n, p. 8. “[WJhere Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 1086, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992). Some of the reasons for requiring exhaustion apply to Welch’s statutory arguments. First, “agencies, not the courts, ought to have primary responsibility for the programs that Congress has charged them to administer.” Id. at 1086. Moreover, “[ejxhaustion concerns apply with particular force when the action under review involves exercise of the agency’s discretionary power or when the agency proceedings in question allow the agency to apply its special expertise.” Id. Here, Welch’s statutory argument involves whether section 236(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), applies to his situation. Such a determination falls under the expertise of the BIA. Finally, the exhaustion doctrine gives the administrative agency the opportunity to correct its own mistakes before being haled into court. Id. This promotes judicial efficiency in two ways: (1) it avoids piecemeal appeals, and (2) when the controversy survives administrative review, a record" }, { "docid": "5017309", "title": "", "text": "113 L.Ed.2d 250 (1991). When Congress adopted § 106 of the INA, its stated intention was to remove from the district courts “the growing frequency of judicial actions being instituted by undesirable aliens whose cases ... are brought solely for the purpose of preventing or delaying indefinitely their deportation from this country.” H.R. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1961 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2950, 2967. Notwithstanding this express congressional intent and the exclusive language of §§ 106(a) and (c), however, courts have excused exhaustion under the INA for certain constitutional challenges. See McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 111 S.Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991) (holding that district court had jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenge to INS procedures that was collateral to individual determinations); Sewak v. INS, 900 F.2d 667, 670 (3d Cir.1990) (“the exhaustion of administrative remedies [under § 106(c) ] is not always required when petitioner advances a due process claim”); Rafeedie v. INS, 880 F.2d 506 (D.C.Cir.1989) (R. Ginsberg, J., concurring) (recognizing jurisdiction of district court to hear alien’s due process challenge to § 235(c) of INA). “In determining whether exhaustion is required, federal courts must balance the interest of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion. ‘Administrative remedies need not be pursued if the litigant’s interests in immediate judicial review outweigh the government’s interest in the efficiency or administrative autonomy that the exhaustion doctrine is designed to further.’ ” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 146, 112 S.Ct. at 1087. Thus, to determine whether exhaustion may be excused in the case at bar, this court must balance the purposes underlying the exhaustion requirement against the potential injury to the plaintiff if he is forced to exhaust his administrative remedies. See McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992); Rafeedie, 880 F.2d at 513 (opinion of the court). A review of the objectives underlying the exhaustion requirement reveals that none of those objectives is served here. The exhaustion requirement “serves the twin purposes of protecting administrative" }, { "docid": "23271586", "title": "", "text": "district court should have dismissed Leonardo’s claims, without prejudice, for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We held in Casas-Castrillon that aliens who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. See Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 951. If they are dissatisfied with the IJ’s bond determination, they may file an administrative appeal so that “the necessity of detention can be reviewed by ... the BIA.” Prieto-Romero, 534 F.3d at 1059. If they remain dissatisfied, they may file a petition for habeas corpus in the district court. See V. Singh, 638 F.3d at 1200-03. They may then appeal to this court. Here, Leonardo pursued habeas review of the IJ’s adverse bond determination before appealing to the BIA. This short cut was improper. Leonardo should have exhausted administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s decision. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir.2003) (a petitioner “must exhaust administrative remedies before raising ... constitutional claims in a habeas petition when those claims are reviewable by the BIA on appeal”). Once the BIA rendered its decision, Leonardo could have properly pursued habeas relief in the district court and the district court’s decision would have been subject to review in this court. When a petitioner does not exhaust administrative remedies, a district court ordinarily should either dismiss the petition without prejudice or stay the proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted remedies, unless exhaustion is excused. See Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. CHG Int'l, Inc., 811 F.2d 1209, 1223 (9th Cir.1987) (when confronted by an unexcused failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a district court “may dismiss the action pending exhaustion of administrative remedies, or it may stay its own proceedings pending administrative review”); see also McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 146-49, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) (recognizing “at least three broad sets of circumstances in which the interests of the individual weigh heavily against requiring administrative exhaustion”), superseded by statute on" }, { "docid": "12409407", "title": "", "text": "is reviewed de novo. See Tillman v. RTC, 37 F.3d 1032, 1034 (4th Cir.1994). We now address the district court’s decision requiring Volvo GM to exhaust its administrative remedies. A. Exhaustion A wealth of Supreme Court guidance exists within the area of exhaustion of administrative remedies. In McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992), the Supreme Court discussed the fundamentals of the exhaustion doctrine and the interplay between Congressional intent and the federal judiciary. The Court stated: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is one among related doctrines—including abstention, finality, and ripeness—that govern the timing of federal court decisionmaking. Of “paramount importance” to any exhaustion inquiry is congressional intent. Where Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required. But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.... Nevertheless even in this field of judicial discretion, appropriate deference to Congress’ power to prescribe the basic procedural scheme under which a claim may be heard in federal court requires fashioning of exhaustion principles in a manner consistent with congressional intent and any applicable statutory scheme. This Court has long acknowledged the general rule that par ties exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts. Exhaustion is required because it serves the twin purposes of protecting administrative agency authority and promoting judicial efficiency. Id. at 144-45, 112 S.Ct. at 1086 (internal citations omitted). The exhaustion requirement provides an agency with an opportunity to “correct its own mistakes with respect to programs it administers before it is haled into federal court.” Id. at 145, 112 S.Ct. at 1086; see also McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 195, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969) (“frequent and deliberate flouting of administrative processes could weaken” an agency’s effectiveness “by encouraging” disregard of “its procedures.”). Moreover, the exhaustion requirement serves to prevent “piecemeal appeals.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 145, 112 S.Ct. at 1086. “In determining whether exhaustion is required, federal courts must balance the interest of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.” McCarthy," }, { "docid": "16298465", "title": "", "text": "1081, at least in terms of clearly requiring a claimant to await a decision from Interior before filing suit. “Where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion,” the Supreme Court has said, “sound judicial discretion governs.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081; see also Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“It is well settled that when Congress has not clearly mandated the exhaustion of particular administrative remedies, the exhaustion doctrine is not jurisdictional, but is a matter for the exercise of ‘sound judicial discretion.’ ”). Exhaustion has been imposed as a matter of judicial discretion where viewed as allowing an agency to apply its expertise, develop the facts underlying a claim, and thereby avoid unnecessary lawsuits. See Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 484, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986); McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 194-95, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has “declined to require exhaustion in some circumstances even where administrative and judicial interest would counsel otherwise.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081. In such circumstances, the Court has “balancefd] the interest of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.” Id. This approach is “ ‘intensely practical,’ ” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 484,106 S.Ct. 2022 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 331 n. 11, 96 S.Ct. 898, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)), requiring consideration of “both the nature of the claim presented and the characteristics of the particular administrative procedure provided.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081. In McCarthy, the Supreme Court identified “at least three broad sets of eircum-stances” that mitigate against imposing exhaustion judicially. McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 146, 112 S.Ct. 1081. The first is where “requiring resort to the administrative remedy may occasion undue prejudice to subsequent assertion of a court action.” Id. at 146-47, 112 S.Ct. 1081 “Such prejudice may result,” the Court indicated, “from an unreasonable or indefinite timeframe for administrative action.” Id. at 147, 112 S.Ct. 1081 (citing Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564," }, { "docid": "8097537", "title": "", "text": "not violate either substantive or procedural due process. See Parra, 172 F.3d at 958. The Third Circuit and the Ninth Circuit have held that § 236(c) does violate substantive due process. See Patel v. Zemski, 275 F.3d 299 (3rd Cir.2001); Kim v. Ziglar, 276 F.3d 523 (9th Cir.2002). IV. As a preliminary issue, the government argues that the district court’s decisions in Hoang’s and Nguyen’s cases should be reversed and the habeas petitions in those cases dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The government contends that comprehensive administrative procedures are available under Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations for aliens to dispute that § 236(c) applies to them and to seek bond. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.19 and 236.1. Therefore, according to the government, Hoang and Nguyen should follow those procedures before being allowed to file habeas actions. With regard to immigration laws, exhaustion of remedies is statutorily required only for appeals of final orders of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). The government does not contend that exhaustion is statutorily mandated, but instead argues that exhaustion should be required to protect administrative authority and promote judicial efficiency, citing McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992). We disagree. While McCarthy provides that courts may, in their discretion, require exhaustion of administrative remedies, there are “at least three broad sets of circumstances in which the interests of the individual weigh heavily against requiring administrative exhaustion”: 1) where requiring resort to an administrative remedy may cause undue prejudice to the assertion of a subsequent court action, as where the time period required for administrative action is unreasonable or indefinite; 2) where the administrative remedy is inadequate because of doubt as to whether the agency is empowered to grant relief; and 3) where the administrative remedy is inadequate because the administrative body is biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue before it. 503 U.S. at 146-149, 112 S.Ct. 1081. All three of these categories apply here. First, a petitioner’s detention during the period required for the exhaustion of remedies may infringe upon his" } ]

[ { "docid": "9838815", "title": "", "text": "Fasciano’s requirement that she not wear red is evidence of a hostile work environment. She has failed, however, to establish that this requirement was related to her gender. In addition, the isolated comment “no skirts in the kitchen” and Fasciano’s use of the term “girlie” to refer to Lowe, although regrettable, do not demonstrate that the work environment at Angelo’s was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. at 370 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In addition to these incidents, Lowe relies heavily on the deposition testimony of a former Angelo’s employee, Ronald Sagely, to support her hostile work environment claim. Sagely left Angelo’s in 1987, five years before Lowe started working there. He testified that the Fascianos occasionally called waitresses “fucking slow bitches” and blacks “niggers” or “melanzanes,” a derogatory Italian term for blacks. He also testified that the Fascianos abused “pretty much everybody.” Past discrimination may properly be considered evidence of current discriminatory intent in a disparate treatment case. Pitre v. Western Elec. Co., 843 F.2d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir.1988). This court, however, has yet to address the issue of whether past discrimination may be considered evidence of a current hostile work environment. Assum ing that Sagely’s testimony can properly be considered, Lowe has nevertheless failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment based on her gender. Viewed in its entirety, Sagely’s deposition establishes only that Angelo’s was a highly volatile and frequently unpleasant place to work for both men and women. Similarly, the Fascianos use of racist epithets, although appalling, does not establish that Lowe suffered gender discrimination. In her last argument under Title VII, Lowe challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment on her claim that she was discharged in retaliation for advocating the hiring of African Americans. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, an employee must show that: (1) she engaged in protected opposition to statutorily prohibited discrimination; (2) the employer took adverse action contemporaneously or subsequent to the employee’s protected activity; and (3) a causal connection exists between the" } ]

[ { "docid": "23534281", "title": "", "text": "her own admission, Hall was on notice of the alleged discriminatory conduct well in advance of the limitations period. As early as 1994, she regularly complained to supervisors that she was not receiving advanced training. Hall argues, however, that her awareness of the alleged discrimination is irrelevant because Bodine, like the employer in Freeman, promised to eventually train her, and, therefore, she should not be penalized for relying on such promises. We find this argument unpersuasive. There is simply nothing in the record to support Hall’s contention that she was justified in waiting until June 1999 to complain about Bodine’s alleged refusal to train her. Whatever claim she may have had against Bodine, she lost it by failing to file a complaint within the time allowed by Title VII. See, e.g., EEOC v. North Gibson School Corp., 266 F.3d 607, 617 (7th Cir.2001) (“the continuing violation doctrine does not apply when a time-barred incident cannot be linked with an incident that occurred within the statutory period or when the time-barred incident alone should have triggered the plaintiffs awareness that [her] rights had been violated.”) (citation omitted). Without the time-barred conduct, the only evidence left to support Hall’s claim is an affidavit where she asserts that “Muring the entire time that I worked for Bodine I was subjected to discriminatory treatment due to my gender, female, on a continuing basis.” It is well settled that conclusory allegations and self-serving affidavits, without support in the record, do not create a triable issue of fact. See, e.g., Patterson v. Chicago Ass’n for Retarded Citizens, 160 F.3d 719, 724 (7th Cir.1998). We, therefore, conclude that the district court’s decision to grant Bodine’s motion for summary judgment of this claim was proper. B. Hall’s Claim of Sexual Harassment Hall also alleges that Bodine violated Title VII by subjecting her to a hostile work environment. In order to establish a prima facie case of hostile environment sexual harassment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment in the form of sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical" }, { "docid": "3378959", "title": "", "text": "County breached an implied contract of employment when it terminated her employment. • Discriminatory and/or Retaliatory Discharge In the pretrial order, plaintiff asserts that defendants terminated her employment based on her race and/or gender and/or in retaliation for plaintiffs complaints of discrimination and harassment. As plaintiff concedes that she has no direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation, the court analyzes her claims under the burden-shifting approach established by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See English v. Colorado Dep’t of Corrections, 248 F.3d 1002, 1007 (10th Cir.2001); McGarry v. Board of County Comm’rs, 175 F.3d 1193, 1201 (10th Cir.1999). To survive summary judgment, then, plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. See English, 248 F.3d at 1008. If plaintiff establishes her prima facie case, the burden shifts to defendants to articulate' some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the decision to terminate plaintiffs employment. Id. If defendants successfully meet their burden of production, then plaintiff can avoid summary judgment only if she is able to put forth evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that defendants’ reasons are pretextual. Id. In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants urge that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge because she cannot establish that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently than plaintiff. This argument, however, ignores Tenth Circuit precedent establishing that a plaintiff does not have to show differential treatment of similarly situated persons outside the protected class to meet the initial prima facie burden under McDonnell Douglas. See id. (citing Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1228-29 (10th Cir.2000)). Rather, to meet her prima facie burden, plaintiff need only show that she belongs to a protected class; she was qualified for her job; despite her qualifications, she was discharged; and her job was not eliminated after her discharge. See id. Thus, in the absence of any other arguments concerning plaintiffs prima facie case, defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect" }, { "docid": "16399193", "title": "", "text": "F.3d 157, 159 (7th Cir.1996) (\"That one's replacement is of another race, sex, or age may help raise an inference of discrimination, but it is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition.”); Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 996 (2nd Cir.1985) (requiring the plaintiff- to demonstrate that she was replaced by someone outside of her protected class \"is inappropriate and at odds with the policies underlying Title VII.”); Pivirotto v. Innovative Systems, Inc., 191 F.3d 344, 354 (3rd Cir.1999) (\"The fact that a female plaintiff claiming gender discrimination was replaced by another woman ... does not, as a matter of law or logic, foreclose the plaintiff from proving that the employer was motivated by gender.\"); Nieto v. L & H Packing Co., 108 F.3d 621, 624 n. 7 (5th Cir.1997) (\"While the fact that one's replacement is of another national origin 'may help to raise an inference of discrimination, [...] it is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition.'”) (quoting Carson); Jackson v. Richards Med. Co., 961 F.2d 575, 587 n. 12 (6th Cir.1992) (\"[T]he fact that an employer replaces a Title VII plaintiff with a person from within the same protected class as the plaintiff is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for dismissing a Title VII claim.\"); Walker v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 881 F.2d 554, 558 (8th Cir.1989) (\"[I]t is entirely conceivable that a woman discharged and eventually replaced by another woman may be able to establish that she was the object of impermissible discrimination related to her gender.”); Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1138 (10th Cir.1999) (\"A non-white employee who claims to have been discharged as a result of racial discrimination can establish the fourth element of her prima facie case without proving that her job was filled by a person who does not possess her protected attribute); Howard v. Roadway Express, Inc., 726 F.2d 1529, 1534 (11th Cir.1984) (“[Pjroof that the employer replaced the fired minority employee with a non-minority employee is not the only way to create” an inference of improper discrimination). But see, Brown v. McLean, 159 F.3d 898, 905 (4th Cir.1998) (\"In" }, { "docid": "19899094", "title": "", "text": "releases from physicians stating they could return to work. Nothing in the record suggests that Union Pacific’s alleged mischaracterization of Norman’s illness eliminated the requirement. Because Norman received long-term disability benefits until February 2006, Union Pacific policy mandated that she submit a release. Norman did not do so. The district court correctly concluded that the company’s termination decision was not based on her perceived mental disability. Because Norman fails to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, this court need not address her claim of pretext. This court also rejects Norman’s assertion that she was entitled to reasonable accommodations. Because she alleges that Union Pacific discriminated against her based on a perceived mental disability, this court cannot consider a claim for reasonable accommodations. See Finan, 565 F.3d at 1080 (holding that an employee who is regarded as disabled is not entitled to reasonable accommodations), citing Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.3d 907, 917 (8th Cir.1999). C. Norman believes that her gender and race were motivating factors in Union Pacific’s decision to terminate her. This court applies the McDonnell Douglas framework because she presents no direct evidence of discrimination. See Jackson v. United Parcel Serv., 548 F.3d 1137, 1140 (8th Cir.2008). Under McDonnell Douglas, Norman must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, Norman must show that she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for her job; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) alleged facts that give rise to an inference of gender discrimination. McGinnis v. Union Pac. R.R., 496 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir.2007). To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Norman must show that she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was meeting her employer’s legitimate job expectations; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) was treated differently than similarly-situated employees who were not members of her protected class. Shanklin v. Fitzgerald, 397 F.3d 596, 602 (8th Cir.2005). The parties focus on the fourth element on appeal. Norman asserts that she is similarly situated" }, { "docid": "23417107", "title": "", "text": "has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether restraining inmates is an essential function or as to whether she could perform the essential functions of the deputy one position with reasonable accommodation, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. B. Title VII Claim Hoskins also asserts a gender discrimination claim based on these same facts. She alleges that the defendants accommodated several similarly situated male deputies by allowing them to work light-duty jobs when disabled by injury. In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), the Supreme Court set forth the framework for analyzing cases alleging workplace discrimination based on indirect evidence. Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case by demonstrating: “(1) membership in the protected class; (2) that she suffered an adverse action; (3) that she was qualified for the position; and (4) that she was replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated differently from similarly situated members of the unprotected class.” Warfield v. Lebanon Correctional Inst., 181 F.3d 723, 728-29 (6th Cir.1999). If the plaintiff establishes her prima facie case, then an inference of discrimination arises. At that point the burden of production shifts to the employer, who must set forth a legitimate, nondiseriminatory reason for the plaintiffs discharge. See id. at 729. The plaintiff then has the opportunity to demonstrate that the employer’s proffered reason for taking the adverse action was pretextual. See id. To so demonstrate, the plaintiff must prove “that the [employer’s] asserted reasons have no basis in fact, that the reasons did not in fact motivate the discharge, or, if they were factors in the [employer’s] decision, that they were jointly insufficient to motivate the discharge.” Id. (quotation omitted) (alterations in original). The district court found that Hoskins failed to make out a prima facie case of employment discrimination. It explained that Hoskins’s inability to perform the essential function of restraining inmates rendered her unqualified for the" }, { "docid": "16450891", "title": "", "text": "Archer placed her hands on male employees’ shoulders, arms, and backs. These allegations are insufficient to show sexual harassment. “Sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing are the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, and as such, they do not amount to actionable harassment.” Breeding, 164 F.3d at 1159 (internal quotations omitted). We find that these behaviors, in the moderate amounts that Er-enberg alleges they occurred, do not show that hers was a workplace “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367 (internal quotations omitted). IV. Erenberg claims that she suffered age discrimination when her schedule was changed and when she was terminated. Erenberg’s claims of age discrimination are also analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. See O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 309-10, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996). In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, the Plaintiff must show that she “(1) is a member of the protected class; (2) was qualified for the position from which [s]he was demoted or discharged; and (3) was replaced by another person.” Rothmeier v. Inv. Advisers, Inc., 932 F.Supp. 1156, 1159 (D.Minn.1996) (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817). Erenberg did not prove a prima facie ease of age discrimination, because she failed to show that she was qualified for the position from which she was discharged. It is undisputed that Methodist identified deficiencies in Erenberg’s work performance, and that Methodist communicated its findings to Erenberg on a regular basis. Erenberg was aware that she was not performing her duties in a way that met Methodist’s legitimate expectations. The district court properly granted summary judgment for Methodist on the claims of age discrimination. V. Retaliation claims are also analyzed under the three-part burden-shifting framework. To establish a prima facie case for retaliation, the Plaintiff must show that (1) she filed a charge of harassment or engaged in other protected activity;" }, { "docid": "23216702", "title": "", "text": "evidence that her pending return to her job prompted the defendants to restructure the IT business; that is, that the restructuring was merely a pretext for not restoring her to her former position. As to the claim of gender discrimination, the plaintiff simply alleges she was replaced “by a male that [sic] was less qualified.” JA 949-50. This fact goes to her ability to make a prima facie gender discrimination claim, but it does not help her overcome her burden of showing that “discriminatory animus” motivated the defendants decision to replace her with a male employee. Unlike the FMLA claim, where Grace need only demonstrate that her prior position — or equivalent — still existed at the time she returned from unpaid leave, the Title VII claim requires her to make some showing that gender informed the decision to hire a male to replace her. Grace is unable to do so. She does not allege, for example, that USCAR specifically requested a male employee or that either USCAR or Bartech had a policy of replacing female employees with male employees. Rather, the facts suggest that USCAR merely requested a replacement employee, regardless of gender. Because Grace does not offer any evidence that gender played a role in US-CAR and Bartech’s decision to replace her with a male employee, her claim cannot survive either defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the merits of her gender discrimination claim. (B) Hostile work environment claim Grace also alleges a hostile work environment claim under Title VII. To survive a motion for summary judgment, Grace must establish that (1) she is a member of a protected class (female), (2) she was subjected to harassment, either through words or actions, based on sex, (3) the harassment had the effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and creating an objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (4) there exists some basis for liability on the part of the employer. See Fleenor v. Hewitt Soap Co., 81 F.3d 48, 49 (6th Cir.1996). The harassment must meet both an objective and a subjective test, “in other words," }, { "docid": "23536820", "title": "", "text": "Moston and Mr. Orton discriminated against her based on gender and retaliated against her because of her prior lawsuit against the CDOT. In addition, Plaintiff requested and received further medical leave based on work-related stress. Before starting her leave on July 1, 1996, she told Mr. Moston that she would return to work when appropriate engineering assignments became available. When Plaintiff exhausted her accrued leave time on September 27, 1996, Mr. Moston terminated her effective September 30, 1996. Before doing so, he did not ask Plaintiff to return to work, even though project engineering work had become available by the time of her termination. Mr. Moston claimed that he had no choice but to terminate Plaintiff because he had never received notice that she was able to return to work. II. Title VII Retaliation Claim Plaintiff claims that the CDOT, through the conduct of Mr. Moston and Mr. Orton, discriminated against her in retaliation for actions she took in opposition to unlawful employment practices. This claim is based on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), which states: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter. We consider these retaliation claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Under that framework, Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing “that: (l)[she] engaged in protected opposition to discrimination; (2)[she] suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” O’Neal v. Ferguson Constr. Co., 237 F.3d 1248, 1252 (10th Cir.2001). “Once [Plaintiff] makes a prima facie showing, [the CDOT] must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. [Plaintiff] must [then] respond by demonstrating [that the CDOT’s] asserted reasons for the adverse action are pretextual.”" }, { "docid": "22128274", "title": "", "text": "for the plaintiffs rejection.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253-54, 101 S.Ct. 1089. An inference of discrimination is raised when an employer rejects an otherwise qualified minority employment candidate and thereafter does not eliminate the position for which the candidate was rejected. Evidence of the seeking or hiring of a replacement to fill the position vacated by a discharged plaintiff who is a member of a group which has historically suffered discriminatory treatment is, by itself, sufficient to satisfy the fourth element of the plaintiffs McDonnell Douglas prima facie case of racial discrimination. Supreme Court precedent fully supports this court’s conclusion that the termination of a qualified minority employee raises the rebuttable inference of discrimination in every case in which the position is not eliminated. The test adopted herein requires a plaintiff to show more than the fact she was terminated to satisfy her pri-ma facie burden; she must also show that she is a member of a protected class that has traditionally suffered workplace discrimination, she was qualified, and the job from which she was terminated was not eliminated. That employee, however, is not therefore entitled to go to trial. The employer has the opportunity to dispel the inference by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the employee. In meritless cases, the plaintiff will be unable to show that the employer’s articulated reason is pretextual, and summary judgment will then be entered for the defendant. Thus, the approach taken by this court clarifies the issues for the parties and the lower courts and will not result in meritless claims making it past the summary judgment stage. Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred as a matter of law when it held that Perry failed to make out her prima facie case of racial discrimination under section 1981 because she was replaced by an Hispanic woman. Defendants do not dispute Perry’s assertions that she is Hispanic and a protected person, was qualified to perform her job, and was terminated. Further, it is undisputed that after her termination, a replacement was hired to fill Perry’s position. Accord ingly, we hold" }, { "docid": "14285090", "title": "", "text": "She was terminated on August 10, 1976 when she failed to appear for work as ordered. On the basis of these facts, the court finds that it need not address the issue of whether plaintiff had been the subject of discrimination prior to leaving for vacation in July, 1976. Plaintiff had already received training in cultures throughout the month of June so that she was prepared to work as a regular cultures technologist when she returned from vacation. Plaintiff’s Deposition at 250, lines 19-21. Had she been present at work on August 2, 1976, all of her previous complaints regarding the job rotation would have become moot because on that date she would have begun working as one of the regular technologists in the requested rotation. She cannot be heard to complain now about discrimination and lack of training after she has been a precipitating factor in her failure to receive the job training that she desired. Moreover, for that same reason, she cannot recover any damages allegedly suffered because of defendant’s failure to permit her to rotate through the various job assignments and her corresponding lack of training. B. EDUCATIONAL LEAVE Plaintiff also maintains that in retaliation for her complaints, defendant discriminatorily refused to permit her to take the educational leave to which she was entitled, and that as a further act of retaliation, she was terminated when she exercised her legal right. The court does not agree. In order to make out a prima facie retaliatory discharge case under Title VII, plaintiff must show: (1) that she engaged in protected activity, i.e., that she opposed unlawful employment practices or participated in Title VII proceedings, (2) that her employer was aware of the protected activities, (3) that she was subsequently discharged, and (absent other evidence tending to establish a retaliatory motivation) (4) that her discharge followed her protected activities within such a period of time that the court can infer retaliatory moti vation. Once the prima facie case has been demonstrated, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge. If a reasonable" }, { "docid": "20964624", "title": "", "text": "July 22, 2009) (“Although [plaintiff] is indisputably Hispanic, he cannot simply join this fact to the defendants’ denial of a job and leverage these two circumstances into a triable case of discrimination based on his Hispanic heritage.”); Martin v. MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 610 F.Supp.2d 238, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[A] plaintiff must do more than state that she is a member of a protected class who suffered an adverse employment action.”). Even liberally construed, the Complaint asserts only conclusions and labels with respect to defendant’s alleged sex discrimination and provides no further factual matter that would render plaintiffs Title VII claim plausible. Indeed, it appears that plaintiff merely checked the box for gender discrimination on her pro se form Complaint and made conclusory allegations in her EEOC charge that she suffered “gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment discrimination.” (Compl. at 11, 15.) Thus, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts allowing the court to plausibly infer that any employment actions, adverse or otherwise, were motivated by her gender. Accordingly, plaintiffs claim for Title VII discrimination on the basis of sex is dis missed for failure to state a plausible claim for which relief may be granted. 3. ADA Disability Discrimination Claim Title I of the ADA provides that “no covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such-individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other .terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). A prima -facie case of discrimination pursuant .to the ADA requires a showing that: (1) her employer is subject to the ADA; (2) she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential'functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) she suffered an adverse employment-action because of her disability. Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127, 134 (2d Cir.2008); Vale v. Great Neck Water Pollution Control Dist., 80 F.Supp.3d 426, 433-34, 2015 WL 248603, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.2015)." }, { "docid": "10710970", "title": "", "text": "as well as by the principle that the prima facie case was never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic, particularly in an age discrimination case. Accordingly, we conclude that a plaintiff may make out a prima facie case of discrimination in a discharge case by credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired, or by her own testimony that her work was satisfactory, even when disputed by her employer, or by evidence that she had held her position for a significant period of time. 941 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.1991)(internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff presented evidence that she had held this or similar positions for more than eight years before the unfavorable reviews. She described her work as satisfactory. Thus she has met her burden of showing satisfactory job performance to establish a prima facie case. See id. Yet, as the Tenth Circuit has explained, ... a plaintiff who succeeds in establishing a prima facie case does not automatically survive a motion for summary judgment. The court must still make a judgment as to whether the evidence, interpreted favorably to the plaintiff, could persuade a reasonable jury that the employer had discriminated against the plaintiff. Id. Because plaintiff set forth evidence of a prima facie case, the burden shifts to defendant to articulate a facially nondiscriminatory reason for termination. Randle, 69 F.3d 441, 451 (10th Cir.1995). KUMC explains that it terminated plaintiff because of unsatisfactory work performance. Discharging an employee for failure to adequately perform job duties is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. See Duart v. FMC Wyoming Corp., 72 F.3d 117, 120 (10th Cir.1995). Thus the burden shifts back to plaintiff to show that age was a determining factor in the employment decision. Plaintiff can meet this burden either by demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the proferred reason is pretextual (unworthy of belief), Ingels v. Thiokol Corp., 42 F.3d 616, 622 (10th Cir.1994), or by offering direct evidence that age was a determining factor. Plaintiff in this case has done neither. Plaintiff has offered no" }, { "docid": "16399194", "title": "", "text": "fact that an employer replaces a Title VII plaintiff with a person from within the same protected class as the plaintiff is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for dismissing a Title VII claim.\"); Walker v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 881 F.2d 554, 558 (8th Cir.1989) (\"[I]t is entirely conceivable that a woman discharged and eventually replaced by another woman may be able to establish that she was the object of impermissible discrimination related to her gender.”); Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1138 (10th Cir.1999) (\"A non-white employee who claims to have been discharged as a result of racial discrimination can establish the fourth element of her prima facie case without proving that her job was filled by a person who does not possess her protected attribute); Howard v. Roadway Express, Inc., 726 F.2d 1529, 1534 (11th Cir.1984) (“[Pjroof that the employer replaced the fired minority employee with a non-minority employee is not the only way to create” an inference of improper discrimination). But see, Brown v. McLean, 159 F.3d 898, 905 (4th Cir.1998) (\"In order to make out a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, a plaintiff must ordinarily show that the position ultimately was filled by someone not a member of the protected class.”)." }, { "docid": "5675897", "title": "", "text": "is able to introduce such evidence, [he or] she has satisfied [the] prima facie burden of demonstrating that [he or] she does not suffer from an ‘absolute or relative lack of qualifications.’ ” E.E.O.C. v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d at 1193-94 (citation omitted). “Thus, a plaintiff has satisfied her prima facie burden of showing she is qualified by presenting some credible evidence that she possesses the objective qualifications necessary to perform the job at issue.” E.E.O.C. v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d at 1194 (citation omitted). Although Clayton’s 2007 Performance Evaluation — dated December 31, 2007, a few months before Clayton’s termination— stated that Clayton still needed to work on her relationship with RMS, it listed her overall rating as meets requirements. The 2006 Performance Evaluation also listed Clayton’s overall rating as meets requirements. Because Clayton met the requirements for her position in the years leading up to her termination, there is some credible evidence that Clayton possessed the objective professional qualifications for the job. See MacDonald v. E. Wyo. Mental Health Ctr., 941 F.2d at 1121 (“Both [plaintiffs] ... possess the objective professional qualifications they held when they were hired.... Both plaintiffs had held their positions for four years and both presented evidence that they had never been disciplined or received unfavorable performance reviews until recently. Both described the satisfactory nature of them work performance.”). Despite these objective qualifications, Clayton was discharged from her position. Following her discharge, her job was not eliminated — instead a younger male was hired to replace her. Because Clayton has established each of the four elements of a prima-faeie case, the Court finds that Clayton has established a primafaeie case of gender discrimination. II. CLAYTON HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA-FACIE CASE OF AGE DISCRIMINATION. Vanguard alleges that Clayton cannot establish a prima-faeie ease of age discrimination, because she cannot show that she was qualified for the position at issue. See Motion at 28. Vanguard alleges that, at the time of her termination, she was not meeting Vanguard’s legitimate expectations, because of her failure to remedy acute communication problems, and because of her signature" }, { "docid": "11900912", "title": "", "text": "in this case is not persuasive. First, Hancock did not base any of her five EEO complaints (starting in August 1999) on an allegation that this March 1998 grievance was prior EEO activity for which she was retaliated against. Second, and consistent with this view, her district court complaint also only refers to prior EEO activity in 1999. There is no mention of EEO activity that occurred in 1998. Third, and most significantly, Hancock filed this grievance because her supervisor was “disrespectful towards her.” There was no evidence, or even an allegation, that this disrespect was fueled by a discriminatory animus. In the alternative, Hancock tries to establish her claim of retaliation by utilizing the burden-shifting approach articulated above. She was required to show “that (1) after lodging a complaint about discrimination, (2) only [she], and not otherwise similarly situated employees who did not complain, was (3) subjected to an adverse employment action even though (4)[she] was performing [her] job in a satisfactory manner.” Id. at 642. Like her gender and disability discrimination claims, Hancock’s attempt to make out a prima facie case falls short because she has not identified a similarly situated non-complaining employee, much less presented convincing evidence that such an employee was treated more favorably. As a part of her hostile work environment claim, Hancock had to demonstrate that the conduct complained of was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Ezell v. Potter, 400 F.3d 1041, 1047 (7th Cir.2005). In Hancock’s case, she had to show that she was subjected to unwelcome harassment based upon either her gender or disability. Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., 411 F.3d 854, 863 (7th Cir.2005). We decline to reach the substance of Hancock’s hostile work environment claim because she never alleged such a claim in her district court complaint. It was raised for the first time in her opposition to the Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment, and so it is not properly before this Court. See Shanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir.1996). We" }, { "docid": "23235068", "title": "", "text": "was never intended to be rigid, mechanized or ritualistic.”) (citations and quotations omitted). The essential purpose served by the prima facie case, however, remains the same and “serves an important function in the litigation: it eliminates the most \"common nondiscriminatory reasons for the plaintiffs [adverse employment action].” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253-54, 101 S.Ct. 1089. The most common nondiscriminatory reasons for discharge in a termination case are (l)“lack of qualification” or (2) “elimination of the job.” Kendrick, 220 F.3d at 1229. Neither of these reasons were proffered by the Army as the legitimate business reason for Dr. Plotke’s ter mination. • Rather, the Army admits Dr. Plotke was highly and uniquely qualified for the position she held and claims the nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to terminate her was unsatisfactory conduct. While we have held that one way a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case is to include evidence that her job was not eliminated after her discharge, we have also noted that “[t]he elimination of the position ... does not necessarily eviscerate a plaintiffs claim that her discharge was ... motivated [by discrimination].’’ Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1140 n. 10 (10th Cir.1999). “The critical prima facie inquiry in all cases is whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the adverse employment action occurred ‘under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.’ ” Kendrick, 220 F.3d at 1227 (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089). There must simply be a logical connection between each element of the prima facie case and the inference of discrimination. Id. (citing O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 311-12, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996)). Thus, contrary to the district court’s implicit holding that the elimination of Dr. Plotke’s position was per se fatal to her case, the fourth element of a prima facie case is a flexible one that can be satisfied differently in varying scenarios. See Hysten v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., 296 F.3d 1177, 1181 (10th Cir.2002) (while “McDonnell Douglas defines the prima facie elements for the archetypal" }, { "docid": "22095168", "title": "", "text": "turned aside. At a deposition in January 1993 relating to her worker’s compensation claim, plaintiff first learned of the March 6,1992 termination letter. C. The District Court’s Decision As a result, she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which issued a notice of right to sue on July 19, 1993. Plaintiff initiated the instant action on October 12, 1993. On August 16, 1994 Quirk wrote a letter to plaintiff stating she was terminated as of August 12,1994, based upon the fact that her request for long-term disability benefits had been denied, that she did not intend to return, and that she had taken another job. In its motion for summary judgment, defendant contended that no conduct of May’s evidenced gender bias against plaintiff. It noted that May promoted two female managers — Teresa Quirk and Lucille Davis — and maintained that Chertkova’s performance deficiencies were well-documented. Although she disagreed with the alleged performance deficiencies, defendant notes that she admitted she was difficult to work with, had contempt for management, and told others within the company that her managers were incompetent. Granting summary judgment for defendant, the trial court ruled that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. It held that plaintiff was not discharged from her employment, reasoning that her working conditions were not so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to leave. It characterized plaintiffs case as being one that relied on unfair performance evaluations, cold treatment by management, management’s failure to give her a performance award, and her belief that she was overworked. None of these circumstances sufficed, in the district court’s view, to show a constructive discharge. It also ruled that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not demonstrate “that her position remained open and that the defendant continued to seek applicants.” Assuming that a prima facie case existed, the district court further stated that defendant had articulated a legitimate reason for terminating Chertkova — deficient performance — and that because plaintiff relied on conclusory allegations of discrimination, no" }, { "docid": "21419540", "title": "", "text": "conclude that a reasonable jury could not infer discrimination from Vickers’ allegations. Vickers’ prima facie case is relatively weak because it is not clear that there exists a causal connection between her EEO activities and Holland’s decision to fire her. She has also failed to rebut the FDIC’s legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for her firing with any evidence to support her allegations of unlawful discrimination. Vickers never argued that the various discriminatory acts alleged in her hostile work environment claim discussed below were further evidence of pretext. The district court therefore correctly determined that Vickers “failed to meet her burden of providing sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that she was terminated due to retaliation.” Vickers, 2005 WL 3207775, at *29. 2. Discrimination Claim Vickers' discrimination claim is based on alleged “repeated harassment and criticism of [her] conduct,” up to and including her removal, “that was not based on a fair appraisal of her performance and conduct, but rather was the result of unlawful discrimination based upon her race and sex.” Am. Compl. ¶ 19(b). In making out her prima facie case of discrimination, Vickers has alleged that she was the victim of two adverse employment actions: unfair performance appraisals and termination. But Vickers has shown no evidence that she received a low performance appraisal. In fact, the only record evidence shows that Vickers received the second highest performance evaluation in the office in October 2000 and received a $1,500 performance award for her performance in 1999-2000. Vickers, 2005 WL 3207775, at *10 (citing Def.’s Stmt, of Mat. Facts ¶ 5; Pl.’s Response to Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 5). A reasonable jury could not conclude that her performance appraisal was tainted by discrimination. As to her firing, even if we assume arguendo that Vickers has established a prima facie case of discrimination, her claim fails for the same reason her retaliation claim failed. As we set forth above, she has established a weak prima facie case at best and provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the FDIC’s proffered justification for her removal was pretext for discrimination. 3. Hostile Workplace Claim" }, { "docid": "22128275", "title": "", "text": "terminated was not eliminated. That employee, however, is not therefore entitled to go to trial. The employer has the opportunity to dispel the inference by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the employee. In meritless cases, the plaintiff will be unable to show that the employer’s articulated reason is pretextual, and summary judgment will then be entered for the defendant. Thus, the approach taken by this court clarifies the issues for the parties and the lower courts and will not result in meritless claims making it past the summary judgment stage. Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred as a matter of law when it held that Perry failed to make out her prima facie case of racial discrimination under section 1981 because she was replaced by an Hispanic woman. Defendants do not dispute Perry’s assertions that she is Hispanic and a protected person, was qualified to perform her job, and was terminated. Further, it is undisputed that after her termination, a replacement was hired to fill Perry’s position. Accord ingly, we hold that Perry, a member of a minority group which has historically suffered discriminatory treatment in the workplace, has made out the fourth element of her prima facie case by her introduction of evidence that the position from which she was terminated was filled after her termination. Consequently, the district court erred when it dismissed on this ground Perry’s racial discrimination claim arising under section 1981. 3. Section 1981 Retaliation Claim Perry argues that the district court erred in dismissing her section 1981 retaliation claim because the prima facie case for such a claim differs significantly from the prima facie case for racial discrimination and does not require her to demonstrate that her position was filled by someone who does not possess her protected attribute. Perry argues that she has met her prima facie burden with respect to her retaliation claim and the district court erred when it held otherwise. Contrary to Perry’s understanding of the district court’s memorandum order, that order is devoid of any reference to her section 1981 retaliation claim. Although the district" }, { "docid": "5675894", "title": "", "text": "contract, because they are not sufficiently specific; therefore, there is no contract with which to impose on Vanguard a duty to act in good faith. I. CLAYTON HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA-FACIE CASE OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION Vanguard alleges that Clayton cannot establish a prima-facie case of gender discrimination, because she cannot show that she was qualified for her position. See Motion at 28. Vanguard alleges that, at the time of her termination, she was not meeting Vanguard’s legitimate expectations, because of her failure to remedy acute communication problems, and because of her signature on a union-like petition, which was contrary to express Vanguard policy. See Motion at 28. Clayton asserts that she has presented enough evidence to establish a prima-facie case of gender discrimination, because she has presented evidence that she met the qualifications of a general manager and was replaced by someone with less experience. See Response at 5. The Tenth Circuit “has stated that a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of wrongful termination by showing that:” (i) “she belongs to a protected class;” (ii) “she was qualified for her job;” (iii) “despite her qualifications, she was discharged;” and (iv) “the job was not elimi nated after her discharge.” Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d at 1138 (citation omitted). Clayton belongs to a protected class as a female. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to ... discriminate against any individual ..., because of such individual’s ... sex....”). The Tenth Circuit has indicated that courts should not conclude that a plaintiff was not qualified for a position based on the defendant’s proffered reasons for terminating the plaintiff. In MacDonald v. Eastern Wyoming Mental Health Center, 941 F.2d 1115, 1119 (10th Cir.1991), overruled on other grounds by Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441 (10th Cir.1995), the Tenth Circuit stated Moreover, concluding that the [plaintiffs] did not establish a prima facie case based on the reasons for their discharge raises serious problems under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, which mandates a full and fair opportunity for a plaintiff to demonstrate pretext." } ]

[ { "docid": "8974245", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM OPINION SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. Plaintiffs James Pascuiti, Joseph Reilly, Walter Rynasko, and Theresa Murphy and plaintiff-intervenor United States of America (collectively the “plaintiffs”) have filed suit against New York City and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (the “City”), as well as the New York Yankees (the “Yankees”), alleging that the City and the Yankees have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., New York State Executive Law § 296(2), and New York Human Rights Law § 8-107(4) by failing to make Yankee Stadium (the “Stadium”) accessible to individuals with disabilities. On December 2, 1999, this Court made oral rulings in response to several issues raised by the parties. Those rulings are withdrawn and replaced by this amended opinion, which clarifies those rulings and provides additional guidance to the parties. I. Issues Relating to Title II The anti-discrimination provision of Title II of the ADA states: Subject to the provisions of this sub-chapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Tifie II defines “public entity” to include state and local governments, such as the City. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A). The regulations implementing Title II explain the responsibilities of public entities in greater detail: A public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a). The regulations contain several limitations, one of which provides that § 35.150(a) does not: [rjequire a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a)(3). a) Burden of proof Both the plaintiffs and the City agree that the burden of proof scheme laid out in" } ]

[ { "docid": "1780639", "title": "", "text": "reasoned Report, Scott has not met her burden in this regard. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DOC’s motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety, and Seabrook defendants’ motion for the same is granted with respect to Scott’s retaliation claims but otherwise denied. SO ORDERED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Collette Scott (“Scott”) brings this action against defendants Norman Seabrook (“Seabrook”) and the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. (“COBA”) (collectively “the Seabrook defendants”), and the City of New York Department of Correction (“DOC”) alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and the New York City Administrative Code, N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-107. Scott alleges that she was sexually harassed by the Seabrook defendants; that she was sexually harassed in her workplace; and that both the Seabrook defendants and the DOC retaliated against her for exercising her rights under Title VII. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History 1. Charges Filed On February 14, 1997, Scott filed a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights. See Verified Complaint, No. M-E-0S-97-1003744-E (annexed as Ex. B to Declaration of Michael K. Blauschild (“Blauschild Decl.”) (annexed to Notice of Motion, filed Sept. 22, 2006 (Docket # 46) (“DOC Mot.”))) (“NYCCHR Compl.”). The Commission found “No Probable Cause” to believe that Scott had been sexually harassed. See Letter from Luis R. Burgos, Jr., Deputy Commissioner for Equal Employment Opportunity, to Office of the Managing Attorney (Aug. 5, 1997) (annexed as Ex. 1 to Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment, filed Sept. 15, 2006 (Docket # 43) (“Seabrook Mem.”)), at 4. On November 16, 2004, the Commission dismissed the case because Scott intended to pursue her claim in another forum. See Notice of Administrative Closure, No. ME-0S-97-1003744-E (annexed to Complaint, filed Dec. 8, 2004 (Docket # 1) (“Compl.”)). Scott also filed a charge with the United States Equal Employment" }, { "docid": "15340287", "title": "", "text": "is readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv); Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.2002). Plaintiff avers that defendants discriminated against her when they failed to remove certain architectural barriers at Twin Oaks. In order to make a prima facie case under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that (1) she has a disability, (2) defendants’ facility is a place of public accommodation, (3) and she was denied full and equal treatment because of her disability. To succeed on a ADA claim of discrimination on account of an architectural barrier, the plaintiff must also prove that (1) the existing facility at the defendants’ place of business presents an architectural barrier prohibited under the ADA, and (2) the removal of the barrier is readily achievable. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv); see also Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8186(SAS), 1999 WL 1102748, at * 5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999) (plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that barrier removal is readily achievable). If plaintiff satisfies her burdens, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that removal of the barriers is not readily achievable. It is undisputed that Twin Oaks is a place of public accommodation. Further, plaintiff is disabled because she is a paraplegic who must use a wheelchair to travel in public. SUF ¶ 2. Plaintiff thus meets the first two elements of an ADA prima facie case. The issue in dispute, then, is whether she was discriminated against on account of her disability based on an architectural barrier. A. ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS Plaintiff avers that defendants violated the ADA by failing to abide by the Department of Justice’s regulations implementing the ADA’s public accommodation provisions and the corresponding ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). These regulations are divided into three categories. The first category of regulations require that newly constructed public accommodations must comply with specific accessibility requirements set forth in the ADAAG. See 28 CFR § 36.401, 28 CFR § 36.406. The second category of regulations concerns the accessibility requirements imposed on public accommodations altered after January 26, 1992. See id. The" }, { "docid": "7094472", "title": "", "text": "— had actually slayed opposing pitchers. In Fortson’s context, as with the Yankee legends, the term “murder” was obviously applied hyperbolically; and it was understood by the reasonable reader in that manner. VI. CONCLUSION As in Johnston, Colangelo and Vecsey invoked “phrases of some vividness, used them in a figurative, not literal, sense, [and they] used a form of hyperbole typical in sports parlance.” 448 F.2d at 384. To foreclose the use of hyperbole, under the threat of civil liability, “would condemn [sports commentary] to an arid, desiccated recital of bare facts.” Id. Such a result would ill-serve the interests of the First Amendment in “assur[ing][the] unfettered interchange of ideas” among the American people. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957). For the foregoing reasons, the Motion and Supporting Memorandum of Law of Defendant NYP Holdings, Inc. for Summary Judgment (DE 27) and Defendant, Jerry Colangelo’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (DE 45) are GRANTED. Simultaneously herewith, the Court will enter a Judgment in favor of all Defendants. . Defendant NYP Holdings, Inc. was incorrectly sued herein as “The New York Post.” . Peter Vecsey was never served with the Complaint during the approximately 18 months that the case has been pending. Met-calf Decl. ¶ 7 (DE 32). However, because the Post’s alleged liability derives solely from its publication of Vecsey's Column, the evidence and arguments presented as to the Post libel claim are the same as would be presented as to the Vecsey libel claim. The bases for entering summary judgment as to the Post claim would therefore be the same as to the Vecsey claim. See Artistic Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Warner Robins, 331 F.3d 1196, 1201-02 (11th Cir.2003) (\"[W]here a legal issue has been fully developed, and the evidentiary record is complete, summary judgment is entire ly appropriate even if no formal notice has been provided.\"). . In the interest of brevity, the Court herein cites only to a particular deposition, deposition exhibit, or declaration, without referencing the document to which it is attached" }, { "docid": "5438087", "title": "", "text": "that removal of an architectural barrier is, or is not, readily achievable. See Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8186(SAS), 1999 WL 1102748, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999) (unpublished). Plaintiff argues that subsection (iv), when read in conjunction with subsection (v), places the burden on Defendant to prove the proposed architectural barrier removal is not readily achievable. Subsection (v) states that discrimination includes, “ivhere an entity can demonstrate that the removal of a harrier under clause (iv) is not readily achievable, a failure to make such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations available through alternative methods if such methods are readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(v) (emphasis added). Subsection (v) clearly contemplates that the entity, rather than the plaintiff, bears the burden to demonstrate that barrier removal under subsection (iv) is not readily achievable. Read together, subsections (iv) and (v) provide an affirmative defense for an entity. Accordingly, we conclude Plaintiff must initially present evidence tending to show that the suggested method of barrier removal is readily achievable under the particular circumstances. If Plaintiff does so, Defendant then bears the ultimate burden of persuasion that barrier removal is not readily achievable under subsection (iv). Placing the burden of persuasion on Defendant to prove the affirmative defense that barrier removal is not readily achievable is consistent with the remaining subsections of Title III. Section 12182(b)(2)(A)(i) provides that discrimination includes the imposition of eligibility criteria that “screen out” or “tend to screen out” individuals with disabilities unless the eligibility criteria can be shown to be necessary. Several district courts have placed the burden of showing that the eligibility criteria are necessary on the proponent of such criteria. See Hahn ex rel. Barta v. Linn County, Iowa, 130 F.Supp.2d 1036, 1055 (N.D.Iowa 2001) (“Eligibility criteria that ‘screen out’ or ‘tend to screen out’ disabled individuals violate the ADA unless the proponent of the eligibility criteria can show that the eligibility requirements are necessary.”); Bowers v. NCAA, 118 F.Supp.2d 494, 518 (D.N.J.2000) (same), opinion amended on reargument, 130 F.Supp.2d 610 (D.N.J. 2001); Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 974 F.Supp. 106, 134 (D.Mass.1997)" }, { "docid": "5438109", "title": "", "text": "First Circuit’s conclusion that the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting approach does not apply to ADA discrimination claims based on § 12182(b)(2)(A). Reed v. LePage Bakeries, Inc., 244 F.3d 254, 259 n. 3 (1st Cir.2001). As the court explained, The burden-shifting model was introduced into employment law in order to allow indirect proof of the often elusive ’'intent” to discriminate. Thus, burden shifting allows a plaintiff to make a small showing of discrimination, whereupon the employer must articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, and if that reason proves to be untrue, then an inference of discrimination may be warranted. By contrast, whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or whether it imposes an undue hardship are questions typically proved through direct, objective evidence. Accordingly, we have already held that the McDonnell Douglas model does not apply to ADA discrimination claims based on failure to reasonably accommodate. Id. (citations omitted). This reasoning applies equally to discrimination claims based on failure to remove architectural barriers. . In his response brief, Plaintiff claims that the record contains no evidence that any additional step or height existed at the Crawford Building at the time of the litigation. Plaintiffs exhibit 3, however, clearly shows an additional step at the doorway beyond the initial step. Winter, nevertheless, appeared unaware of this additional rise. LUCERO, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting. I concur in the majority’s Section I analysis concerning the burden of proof in cases brought to remove architectural barriers under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). In particular, I agree that the approach outlined in Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8186, 1999 WL 1102748 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999), and adopted by the majority is well-reasoned. However, I dissent from the resolution of this case in Section II of the majority opinion. In my judgment, the majority demands too much of ADA Title III plaintiffs. Moreover, in simply premising its holding on a negative — that Williams presented too little evidence showing his proposal was readily achievable — the majority provides inadequate guidance to trial courts in this undeveloped area of ADA law. I The majority opinion does" }, { "docid": "5851109", "title": "", "text": "become increasingly aggressive, and focused on the H & H name. Like the West Side store, defendant now advertises a toll-free number, almost identical to the West Side store’s number. Like plaintiff, defendant also began to use a mail order catalog, also featuring the H & H name. Like plaintiff, defendant also obtained kosher certification, but of a certifying agency enjoying a lesser reputation, reflecting lesser standards, “Tablet-K,” rather than “Kof-K.” see Rodriguez Dec. ¶ 6. Defendant’s broadened and more aggressive use of its tradename “H & H Bagels East” has created actual instances of confusion. The Zagat’s Guide to Restaurants in New York City for 1997, listed both the West and East Side location under “H & H Bagels.” Flaum Decl. Ex. Y. An incident in 1996 or 1997 concerning an unfortunate spate of publicity regarding the appearance of a rat at the West Side store incorrectly prompted customers to complain to the East Side location. Alex-iou Dep. at 99-100, Weinstein Reply Decl. Ex. D. Summary Judgment Plaintiff and defendant have both moved for summary judgment, each claiming exclusive right to the H & H name, each asserting on the basis of the pleadings and the discovery that there is no issue of fact to be tried. The standards applicable to summary judgment motions apply, generally, to cross-motions as well. Aviall, Inc. v. Ryder System, Inc., 913 F.Supp. 826, 828 (S.D.N.Y.1996) aff'd, 110 F.3d 892 (2d Cir.1997); MG Refining & Mktg., Inc. v. Knight Enterps., Inc., 25 F.Supp.2d 175, 180 (S.D.N.Y.1998). Although the parties “have implicitly agreed that no material issues of fact exist,” the court must still decide that issue for itself. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). I may grant summary judgment only if the pleadings'and written discovery together with the affidavits show that there is no issue of fact to be tried, that judgment may be granted as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (1999); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323," }, { "docid": "12510586", "title": "", "text": "provide calculations using both a two-year and a three-year statute of limitations, judgment may be entered after willfulness is determined at trial. . See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 22-31. . See id. ¶¶ 32-35. . See Scott v. City of New York, 340 F.Supp.2d 371 (S.D.N.Y.2004). . See Scott v. City of New York, No. 02 Civ. 9530, 2004 WL 2980135 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2004). . See Scott v. City of New York (“Scott III”), No. 02 Civ. 9530, 592 F.Supp.2d 386, 2008 WL 4104020 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2008). . See id. at 408-10, at *11—*12. . See 9/29/08 Declaration of Murray Simpson, plaintiffs’ damages expert (“Simpson Decl.”), ¶ 8. . See id. ¶ 10. . See Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Concerning Damages on Counts III & IV (\"Def. Mem.”) at 4. . See Simpson Decl. ¶ 5. . See 10/2/08 Deposition of Murray S. Simpson (\"Simpson Dep.”), plaintiffs’ damages expert, at 155-56, Ex. C to 10/7/08 Declaration of Damon W. Taaffe, plaintiffs’ attorney. . See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Concerning Damages on Counts III and IV (\"Pi. Mem.”) at 15. . Simpson Dep. at 95-96, Ex. B to 10/3/08 Declaration of Lorie E. Almon, defendants’ attorney. . See Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute (\"Pi. 56.1”) ¶¶ 1-2. . Id. (quoting 12/18/95 Patrolmen's Benevolent Association 1995-2000 Agreement (\"PBA 1995 CBA”), art. IX, Ex. A to 8/27/08 Declaration of John E. Kanganis, Lieutenant, NYPD (\"Kanganis Decl.”); 5/7/07 Detectives’ En dowment Association 2004-2008 Agreement (“DEA 2004 CBA”), art. IX, Ex. H to Kangan-is Decl.). . See Department of Citywide Administrative Services, Personnel Services Bulletin No. 440-2 (1997), available at http://www.nyc.gov/ htm]/dcas/html/resources/440_2r.shtml. Defendants' suggestion that \"each officer will work at least 11 holidays a year,” Def. Mem. at 2, requires a classification of days not considered holidays for any other city employee as holidays for the NYPD. . See PI. 56.1 V 3; Defendants' Counterstatement Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 ¶ 3. See also Def. Mem. at 3 (explaining the system). . PBA 1995 CBA, art. Ill," }, { "docid": "7806000", "title": "", "text": "of its contention that there are no triable issues with regard to the Government’s Fifth Cause of Action, the Court declines to consider that evidence because it was submitted only on reply as opposed to with East River’s original motion papers. When East River filed the instant motion on July 1, 2014, it submitted a seven-page Statement of Material Facts, Doc. 30, and a fifteen-page Certification by its counsel, Bradley Silver- bush. Doc. 31. Both contained assertions based solely on the allegations in the Amended Complaint and the court opinions from the parties’ cases in New York State Housing Court and Supreme Court. However, on September 15, 2014, East River filed its Reply Memorandum of Law (Doc. 47), accompanied by a Declaration by Silverbush and a lengthy exhibit consisting of East River’s Second Supplemental Objections and Responses to the Government’s First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests. Doe. 46, Ex. A. In these submissions, East River argues for the first time on reply that documents produced during discovery “reveal that excluding the complainants at issue here, there is not a single instance of East River denying a shareholder a reasonable accommodation.” Def.’s Reply Supp. Mot. to Dismiss and/or for Summ. J. at 2 (Doc. 47). The Government urges, and the Court agrees, that the Declaration and Exhibit submitted in conjunction with East River’s reply should not be considered because they improperly raise new issues. See Gov’t’s Reply Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss and/or for Summ. J. at 4 (Doc. 58); Rowley v. City of New York, No. 00 Civ. 1793(DAB), 2005 WL 2429514, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2005) (“This Circuit has made clear it disfavors new issues being raised in reply papers.”) (citations omitted); United States v. Letscher, 83 F.Supp.2d 367, 377 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (an argument raised on reply was “not a basis for denying summary judgment ... because arguments raised in reply papers are not properly a basis for granting relief’); Domino Media, Inc. v. Kranis, 9 F.Supp.2d 374, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) aff'd, 173 F.3d 843 (2d Cir.1999) (“New arguments first raised in reply" }, { "docid": "17068812", "title": "", "text": "(1) he has a disability; (2) defendant’s restaurant is a place of public accommodation; (3) and he was denied full and equal treatment because of his disability. Mayberry v. Von Valtier, 843 F.Supp. 1160, 1166 (E.D.Mich.1994). Plaintiff must additionally show that he was denied access under circumstances which give rise to the inference that such denial was based solely on his disability. Id. To succeed on a ADA claim of discrimination on account of one’s disability due to an .architectural barrier, the plaintiff must also prove .that: (1) the existing facility at the defendant’s place of business presents an architectural barrier prohibited under the ADA, and (2) the removal of the barrier is readily achievable. Gilbert v. Eckerd Drugs, No. CIV. A. 97-3118, 1998 WL 388567, at *2 (E.D.La. July 8, 1998); see 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv); see also Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8186(SAS), 1999 WL 1102748, at * 5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999) (plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that barrier removal is readily achievable). If Plaintiff satisfies his burdens, he has made out a prima facie case of discrimination, upon which the burden shifts to Defendant to present sufficient evidence to rebut such a showing. See Pascuiti, 1999 WL 1102748, at * 5 (applying “preponderance of the evidence” burden of rebutting prima facie showing of “readily achievable” barrier removal). 2. Applicable Title III Provisions The general rule of Title III of the ADA provides that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Discrimination includes the “failure to remove architectural barriers ... that are structural in nature, in existing facilities ... where such removal is readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). When an entity can demonstrate that the removal of a barrier is not readily achievable, discrimination includes the “failure to make such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" }, { "docid": "20855619", "title": "", "text": "F.R.D. 114, 117 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (partially converting a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment, on the limited issue of the statute of limitations). Defendant submitted, in support of its Motion to Dismiss, a declaration from Robert Serritella extending beyond the scope of the pleadings (Dkt. #19), and requested that, should the Court find it appropriate, the Court convert the relevant portion of the motion to one for summary judgment (Def. Br. n.5). Plaintiff then submitted evidence beyond the scope of the pleadings in response to Defendant’s motion, presumably to counter the extrinsic evidence proffered by Defendant. (Dkt. #22); See Garcha v. City of Beacon, 351 F.Supp.2d 213, 216 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (“Where both parties submit extrinsic evidence in support of their positions, a district court may fairly convert a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”); Carruthers v. Flaum, '388 F.Supp.2d 360, 378-79 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (converting a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment where both sides submitted documents outside the pleadings). Defendant then submitted a second — one-page—declaration from Serritella in conjunction with its reply memorandum. (Dkt. #25). As the Court stated in an Order dated December 15, 2015, [w]ere Serritella’s first declaration the only extrinsic evidence to be considered upon converting Defendant’s motion to one for summary judgment, the Court would be inclined to find that Plaintiff had a sufficient opportunity to ‘meet the facts outside the pleadings.’ The submission of Serritella’s second declaration with Defendant’s Reply, however, tips the balance against such a finding. (Dkt. #33) (quoting Gurary v. Winehouse, 190 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir.1999)). The Court thus notified Plaintiff that before converting Defendant’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment in regards to the limited issues implicated by Serri-tella’s declarations, Plaintiff would have the opportunity to meet the supplemental extrinsic evidence presented by Defendant through submission of its own deposition testimony and surreply. (See id.). Because Plaintiff received notice and an opportunity to respond to the extrinsic factual matter presented by Defendant, the Court exercises its discretion to convert Defendant’s motion in regards to Plaintiffs claims" }, { "docid": "18974579", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM OPINION LAMBERTH, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on the motion for summary judgment of defendants United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of the Air Force, Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), and plaintiffs response thereto. Plaintiff Harry C. Piper’s cross-motion for summary judgment, defendants’ response, and plaintiffs reply is also before the Court. Upon consideration of the briefing, the law, and the record in this case, the Government’s motion for summary judgment will be granted, except that the Court orders document 206 and a memorandum referenced in document 309 released to plaintiff. The Court further orders defendant to locate and release to plaintiff documents 129,130, 131,132, 172, 312, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 339, and 340. Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment is hereby granted with respect to the aforementioned documents, and denied with respect to all other asserted claims. I. BACKGROUND This case arises before the Court under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. § 552. On December 22, 1997, plaintiff filed a FOIA request for all records pertaining to the 1972 kidnapping of his mother, Virginia Lewis Piper. Plaintiff plans to write a book about his mother’s kidnapping and the resulting FBI investigation and DOJ prosecution of the suspected kidnappers. (Piper Decl. at 1.) Plaintiffs request was submitted to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and the FBI. There have been numerous communications between the parties since that date. Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 8, 1998. Defendant DOJ filed its first partial summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs FOIA request to EOUSA on December 15, 1998. The Court denied this motion on April 22, 1999. The last few years have brought exchanges of protective orders and partial summary judgment motions. Several issues have since been resolved, and this case enters its final stage. The FBI has released approximately 80,000 pages of documents to plaintiff in response to his request. An agreement between the parties was reached culminating in plaintiff sampling 357 pages from the" }, { "docid": "15340286", "title": "", "text": "violation to obtain relief under the statute, not that they must first obtain relief under the federal statute. State law requires a liberal interpretation of the Unruh Act. Isbister v. Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz, 40 Cal.3d 72, 75-76, 219 Cal.Rptr. 150, 707 P.2d 212 (1985). Because § 51(f) employs broad language, without any indication of an intent to limit recovery, it seems clear that the legislature intended to provide a remedy for individuals who suffered a violation of the ADA but who could not recover under that Act because the conditions justifying injunctive relief no longer obtain. I conclude that plaintiff may recover under the Unruh Act, even absent relief under the ADA itself. IV. THE ADA Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of disabilities in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Title III defines “discrimination” as, among other things, a failure to remove “barriers ... where such removal is readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv); Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.2002). Plaintiff avers that defendants discriminated against her when they failed to remove certain architectural barriers at Twin Oaks. In order to make a prima facie case under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that (1) she has a disability, (2) defendants’ facility is a place of public accommodation, (3) and she was denied full and equal treatment because of her disability. To succeed on a ADA claim of discrimination on account of an architectural barrier, the plaintiff must also prove that (1) the existing facility at the defendants’ place of business presents an architectural barrier prohibited under the ADA, and (2) the removal of the barrier is readily achievable. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv); see also Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8186(SAS), 1999 WL 1102748, at * 5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999) (plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that barrier removal is readily achievable). If plaintiff satisfies her burdens, the" }, { "docid": "5438110", "title": "", "text": "that any additional step or height existed at the Crawford Building at the time of the litigation. Plaintiffs exhibit 3, however, clearly shows an additional step at the doorway beyond the initial step. Winter, nevertheless, appeared unaware of this additional rise. LUCERO, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting. I concur in the majority’s Section I analysis concerning the burden of proof in cases brought to remove architectural barriers under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). In particular, I agree that the approach outlined in Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8186, 1999 WL 1102748 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999), and adopted by the majority is well-reasoned. However, I dissent from the resolution of this case in Section II of the majority opinion. In my judgment, the majority demands too much of ADA Title III plaintiffs. Moreover, in simply premising its holding on a negative — that Williams presented too little evidence showing his proposal was readily achievable — the majority provides inadequate guidance to trial courts in this undeveloped area of ADA law. I The majority opinion does not clarify the type and quantum of evidence a plaintiff must present to show that removal of an architectural barrier is “readily achiev able” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). As to the type of evidence, an obvious starting place is the language of the ADA itself, which defines “readily achievable” as “easily accomplish-able and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9). A clear reading of that definition is that it requires a plaintiff to show two things related to the removal of an architectural barrier: (1) that it can be done with ease and (2) that it can be done inexpensively. See Pascuiti, 1999 WL 1102748, at *4 (holding that plaintiffs must “proffer evidence ... as to the ease and inexpensiveness of their proposed method of barrier removal” to make out a prima facie case). The first requirement addresses non-monetary qualitative issues such as feasibility, engineeringfetructural concerns, historic preservation, and so forth. These concerns will vary with the design of the building, the character of the neighborhood," }, { "docid": "15516379", "title": "", "text": "also Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Restaurant, 96 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1085 (D.Haw.2000). Because his claim alleges discrimination due to. an architectural barrier, Plaintiff must further show that the existing facility presents an architectural barrier that is prohibited under the ADA, the removal of which is readily achievable. Colorado Cross Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family L.P., 264 F.3d 999 (10th Cir.2001); Parr, 96 F.Supp.2d at 1085. If Plaintiff makes this initial showing, Defendants have the opportunity to rebut Plaintiffs case by showing that removal of the disputed barrier could not be accomplished without much difficulty or expense. Parr, 96 F.Supp.2d at 1085; Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8189(SAS), 1999 WL 1102748, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999). The analytical framework set forth in Johnson v. Gambrinus Co./Spoetzl Brewery, 116 F.3d 1052 (5th Cir.1997), has been adopted by this District, and provides: The plaintiff has the burden of proving that a modification was requested and that the requested modification is reasonable. The plaintiff meets this burden by introducing evidence that the requested modification is reasonable in the general sense, that is, reasonable in the run of cases. While the defendant may introduce evidence indicating that the plaintiffs requested modification, is not reasonable in the run of cases, thé plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof on the issue. If plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant must make the requested modification unless the defendant pleads and meets its burden of proving that the requested modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the public accommodation. Id. at 1059 (quoted in Concorde, 158 F.Supp.2d at 1363). Courts addressing the issue generally agree that subsection (v) provides an affirmative defense,, on which defendants bear the burden of persuading the court that plaintiffs requested modification is not readily achievable. See, e.g., Colorado Cross, 264 F.3d at -, 2001 WL 987475 (adopting Johnson’s burden allocation analysis). Having determined the parties’ relative legal burdens, the Court must address Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs’ lack standing to bring these claims. Defendants aver that Mr. Resnick suffered no injury based on the violations alleged in the Complaint; that he" }, { "docid": "5438086", "title": "", "text": "Id. § 12181(9). The ADA further sets out several factors to be considered in determining whether removal of architectural barriers is readily achievable: (1) nature and cost of the action; (2) overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved; (3) number of persons employed at such facility; (4) effect on expenses and resources; (5) impact of such action upon the operation of the facility; (6) overall financial resources of the covered entity; (7) overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; (8) the number, type, and location of its facilities; (9) type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; and (10) geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities, in question to the covered entity. Id. § 12181(9)(A)-(D); see also First Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. FDIC, 79 F.3d 362, 370 n. 8 (3d Cir.1996). Title III of the ADA, however, remains silent as to who bears the burden of proving that removal of an architectural barrier is, or is not, readily achievable. See Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8186(SAS), 1999 WL 1102748, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999) (unpublished). Plaintiff argues that subsection (iv), when read in conjunction with subsection (v), places the burden on Defendant to prove the proposed architectural barrier removal is not readily achievable. Subsection (v) states that discrimination includes, “ivhere an entity can demonstrate that the removal of a harrier under clause (iv) is not readily achievable, a failure to make such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations available through alternative methods if such methods are readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(v) (emphasis added). Subsection (v) clearly contemplates that the entity, rather than the plaintiff, bears the burden to demonstrate that barrier removal under subsection (iv) is not readily achievable. Read together, subsections (iv) and (v) provide an affirmative defense for an entity. Accordingly, we conclude Plaintiff must initially present evidence tending to show that the suggested method of barrier removal is readily achievable under the particular circumstances." }, { "docid": "1780640", "title": "", "text": "her for exercising her rights under Title VII. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History 1. Charges Filed On February 14, 1997, Scott filed a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights. See Verified Complaint, No. M-E-0S-97-1003744-E (annexed as Ex. B to Declaration of Michael K. Blauschild (“Blauschild Decl.”) (annexed to Notice of Motion, filed Sept. 22, 2006 (Docket # 46) (“DOC Mot.”))) (“NYCCHR Compl.”). The Commission found “No Probable Cause” to believe that Scott had been sexually harassed. See Letter from Luis R. Burgos, Jr., Deputy Commissioner for Equal Employment Opportunity, to Office of the Managing Attorney (Aug. 5, 1997) (annexed as Ex. 1 to Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment, filed Sept. 15, 2006 (Docket # 43) (“Seabrook Mem.”)), at 4. On November 16, 2004, the Commission dismissed the case because Scott intended to pursue her claim in another forum. See Notice of Administrative Closure, No. ME-0S-97-1003744-E (annexed to Complaint, filed Dec. 8, 2004 (Docket # 1) (“Compl.”)). Scott also filed a charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and received a right to sue letter dated October 8, 2004. See Notice of Right to Sue, No. 160200401320 (annexed to Compl.). 2. Proceedings in this Court Scott filed this action pro se on December 8, 2004, but she was eventually represented by counsel. Following discovery, including the deposition of the plaintiff, both the DOC and the Seabrook defendants moved for summary judgment. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs original counsel was replaced by new counsel. See Scott v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Corr., 2007 WL 4178405, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2007) (“Scott I”). Scott’s new counsel moved to amend the complaint and that motion was denied. See id.; Order, filed Mar. 3, 2008 (Docket # 91). Although the discovery deadline had passed, the Court permitted Scott to engage in additional discovery. See Scott I, 2007 WL 4178405, at *8. After Scott’s additional discovery was concluded, Scott filed a memorandum of law and an affidavit opposing the summary judgment motion. The defendants filed reply papers. B. Facts As an initial matter, we note that" }, { "docid": "14472150", "title": "", "text": "for Bridgewater. At the preliminary injunction stage, it refused to produce its Rule 30(b)(6) witness from Springfield for deposition in Boston, claiming that the location was inconvenient. The cities lie less than 100 miles apart. On Bridgewater’s motion to compel, Magistrate Judge Neiman ruled that Boston was not an inconvenient location for a Springfield witness — not a surprising outcome, since the Magistrate Judge had authored the only precedent directly on point: that Boston is not per se inconvenient for a Springfield witness. See Littman v. Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc., No. Civ. A. 96-30018-MAP, 1998 WL 812399 (D.Mass., Nov.6, 1998). Later, Bridgewater sought to depose Yankee’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the tor-tious interference and ch. 93A claims. Yankee refused to appear, claiming that because the witness had been deposed once at the preliminary injunction stage, he did not have to be deposed again. However, the preliminary injunction deposition had been limited by agreement of the parties to preliminary injunction issues, which did not include the tortious interference claim. Bridgewater was forced to bring a motion to compel for this obviously necessary deposition, which Magistrate Judge Neiman allowed. This repeated insistence on motion practice over minor issues tends to show a motivation by Yankee to inflict economic harm on Bridgewater by employing egregiously aggressive litigation tactics. The failure seriously to consider settlement, either before or after the case was filed, is another factor contributing to an inference of improper motivation. Despite the weakness of its claims, Yankee consistently refused to accept mediation with someone having intellectual property expertise. Although refusal to negotiate or mediate obviously does not always merit fee-shifting, in the context of this case, combined with other factors, it serves as evidence of Yankee’s motivation. Instead of considering settlement, Yankee proceeded to summary judgment where it burdened the court with unnecessarily prolix and repetitive briefs. For example, Yankee filed a 100-page Memorandum of Law in Opposition (Docket No. 139) and a 114-page “response” to Bridge-water’s 10-page statement of undisputed facts (Docket No. 140). Filing such enormous (and often unenlightening) documents unduly burdened both defendant and this court. Taken as" }, { "docid": "21595625", "title": "", "text": "Counts I, III and V, respectively, and the same three claims, in violation of the DCHRA, in Counts II, TV and VI, respectively. 'Amtrak’s Motion to Dismiss for improper venue, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), was granted and the case was subsequently transferred to this Court, See Order Granting in Part Mot. Dismiss (“Mot. Dismiss Order”), ECF No. 19. Following extended discovery for over six months, see Minute Orders, dated December 20, 2013, and May 13, 2014 (allowing discovery, with extensions, from December 20, 2013 until July 30, 2014), Amtrak filed the pending motion for summary judgment. The - plaintiff s inir tial response to this motion consisted of two brief handwritten paragraphs requesting a jury trial, see Pl.’s Opp’n at 1 — 2, without addressing any arguments set out in Amtrak’s moving papers, and accompanied by over 300 pages of various documents. The plaintiff was afforded an additional opportunity to submit a substantive opposition, see Order, dated November 26, 2014, ECF No. 38, which she did by filing a document styled “Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” ECF No. 39, that consists of 103 pages, including a number of exhibits already provided by Amtrak with its motion, compare, e.g., PL’s Suppl. Opp’n Exs. E, G, J, K, and L, with Def.’s Mot. Exs. Y, K, Broadus Decl. Ex. 1, Def.’s Mot. Exs. Q, and V. Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment is now ripe for consideration. II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is properly granted against a party who, “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, ... fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element' essential to that party’s case, and on which, that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d" }, { "docid": "15516378", "title": "", "text": "alterations to existing facilities. Failure to abide by the Guidelines in new construction evidences intentional discrimination against disabled persons. See Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Concorde Gaming Corp., 158 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1362 n. 5 (S.D.Fla.2001). The Act imposes a less rigorous standard of compliance on “existing facilities,” constructed before its enactment on January 26, 1993. Concorde, 158 F.Supp.2d at 1362. “The compromise Title III makes is to require only reasonable modifications and readily achievable barrier removals or alternative methods, when the disabled are subjected to de facto discrimination in places of public accommodation.” Concorde, 158 F.Supp.2d at 1362. The parties agree that because the Stadi- urn predates the ADA, its obligation to comply with the ADA is governed by the “readily achievable” standard. Plaintiffs’ prima facie case depends on Resnick’s ability to show the following: 1) that he is disabled; 2) that the Stadium is a place of public accommodation; and 3) that he was denied full and equal treatment because of his disability. See Tugg v. Towey, 864 F.Supp. 1201, 1205 (S.D.Fla.1994); see also Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Restaurant, 96 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1085 (D.Haw.2000). Because his claim alleges discrimination due to. an architectural barrier, Plaintiff must further show that the existing facility presents an architectural barrier that is prohibited under the ADA, the removal of which is readily achievable. Colorado Cross Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family L.P., 264 F.3d 999 (10th Cir.2001); Parr, 96 F.Supp.2d at 1085. If Plaintiff makes this initial showing, Defendants have the opportunity to rebut Plaintiffs case by showing that removal of the disputed barrier could not be accomplished without much difficulty or expense. Parr, 96 F.Supp.2d at 1085; Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8189(SAS), 1999 WL 1102748, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999). The analytical framework set forth in Johnson v. Gambrinus Co./Spoetzl Brewery, 116 F.3d 1052 (5th Cir.1997), has been adopted by this District, and provides: The plaintiff has the burden of proving that a modification was requested and that the requested modification is reasonable. The plaintiff meets this burden by introducing evidence that the requested modification is" }, { "docid": "17068811", "title": "", "text": "F.3d 225, 228 (9th Cir.1995). Third, because Defendant is not subject to monetary damages, if barriers are found, Plaintiff is only entitled to injunc-tive relief for the removal of said barriers. Such relief is limited to removal that is “readily achievable,” or easily accomplisha-ble and able to be. carried out without much difficulty or expense. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Unlike an action for civil damages, the detrimental effect of Defendant’s alleged reliance is substantially less significant. Fourth, Mr. Flores’ aforementioned lack of credibility negates any possible basis' for equitable relief. This Court frankly does not believe that any efforts or assertions made by Mr. Flores were in “good faith.” Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that Defendant’s alleged good faith efforts to comply with the ADA, or reliance in the findings of its retained ADA consultant or in any other representations cannot shield Defendant from liability. D. Burden of Proof 1. Prima Fade Case In order to set forth a prima facie case under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) he has a disability; (2) defendant’s restaurant is a place of public accommodation; (3) and he was denied full and equal treatment because of his disability. Mayberry v. Von Valtier, 843 F.Supp. 1160, 1166 (E.D.Mich.1994). Plaintiff must additionally show that he was denied access under circumstances which give rise to the inference that such denial was based solely on his disability. Id. To succeed on a ADA claim of discrimination on account of one’s disability due to an .architectural barrier, the plaintiff must also prove .that: (1) the existing facility at the defendant’s place of business presents an architectural barrier prohibited under the ADA, and (2) the removal of the barrier is readily achievable. Gilbert v. Eckerd Drugs, No. CIV. A. 97-3118, 1998 WL 388567, at *2 (E.D.La. July 8, 1998); see 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv); see also Pascuiti v. New York Yankees, No. 98 CIV. 8186(SAS), 1999 WL 1102748, at * 5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.6, 1999) (plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that barrier removal is readily achievable). If Plaintiff satisfies his burdens," } ]

[ { "docid": "23353137", "title": "", "text": "is used for purposes which subject the vehicle to forfeiture. In this case the question of law, as succinctly stated by the Assistant United States Attorney, is whether, on the facts alleged in the complaint, the Datsun was used to “facilitate the illegal sale of a controlled substance in violation of Title 21, U.S.C. § 881.” Complaint, Par. II. The determination of this issue depends on the construction given to the statute. A number of courts have had the opportunity to construe the scope of this forfeiture statute and others similar to it. It is clear that any intentional transportation or concealment of contraband in a conveyance, no matter how small the amount, will subject the conveyance to forfeiture. United States v. One 1971 Porsche Coupe Auto, 364 F.Supp. 745, 748-749 (E.D.Pa.1973); see Associates Investment Co. v. United States, 220 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1955); United States v. Oldsmobile Coupe Auto, 67 F.Supp. 686 (S.D.Cal.1946); cf. United States v. One 1965 Cadillac 2-Door Coupe, 260 F.Supp. 761 (W.D.Pa.1966). In addition, use of a vehicle as a place for conducting negotiations for or transacting any portion of a sale is sufficient to subject the vehicle to forfeiture. United States v. One 1950 Buick Sedan, 231 F.2d 219 (3d Cir. 1956); United States v. One 1950 Chevrolet 4-Door Sedan, 215 F.2d 482 (10th Cir. 1954); United States v. One 1951 Oldsmobile Sedan, 129 F.Supp. 321 (E.D. Pa.1955); United States v. One 1951 Oldsmobile Sedan Model 98, 126 F.Supp. 515 (D.Conn.1954); United States v. Ford Coupe Automobile, 83 F.Supp. 866 (S.D.Cal.1949). Use as a look-out or decoy vehicle in a convoy will also render the vehicle subject to forfeiture. United States v. One 1952 Lincoln Sedan, 213 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1954); United States v. One Dodge Sedan, 28 F.2d 44 (D.Cal. 1928). Courts have been reluctant to expand the notion of “facilitation” beyond the above cases, in which the Gov- eminent has been able to establish a concrete, direct, and instrumental use of the vehicle in some aspect of the underlying criminal activity. Where drugs have not been present in the vehicle" } ]

[ { "docid": "9867617", "title": "", "text": "transported the illegal substance (or the purchase money) or to have served as the location for the transaction. See United States v. One 1977 Cadillac Coupe DeVilie, 644 F.2d 500, 503 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit B); United States v. One 1979 Mercury Cougar XR-7, 666 F.2d at 230; United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421, 427 (2d Cir.1977). The subject vehicle in this case was used to transport the “pivotal figure in the transaction” several hundred miles to the precise location at which the attempted purchase took place. See United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d at 427 (forfeiture appropriate where vehicle transported defendant to meeting where purchase negotiated; not dispositive transaction not consummated until three days later). In particular, this case is governed by United States v. One 1977 Cadillac Coupe DeVilie, supra. In that case, a panel of the former Fifth Circuit upheld the forfeiture of an automobile whose sole connection with the crime was its use in transporting a narcotics supplier “to the actual scene of the transaction.” 644 F.2d at 503. As in this case, the subject automobile had transported neither contraband nor money. We thus hold that the Porsche had a sufficient nexus to the attempted drug purchase to support the forfeiture. McDowell also argues that his conduct, viewed objectively, does not legally constitute the crime of “attempt.” He contends that because the subject of the transaction was not actually cocaine, and because the absence of money indicates he did not seriously intend to negotiate a drug transaction, objective acts corroborating his intent are totally lacking. See United States v. Korn, 557 F.2d 1089, 1091 (5th Cir.1977). In addition, he argues that he renounced any criminal purpose when he rejected the sham cocaine. These contentions, however, have all been decided adversely to McDowell in his direct appeal from his conviction. United States v. McDowell, 705 F.2d 426, 428-29 (11th Cir.1983). Accordingly, these arguments are without merit. III. USE OF EVIDENCE FROM UNLAWFUL SEARCH During McDowell’s trial on the criminal charge, the court excluded from evidence a Tupperware container containing" }, { "docid": "23552514", "title": "", "text": "of involvement required. Compare United States v. One 1976 Ford F-150 Pick-Up, 769 F.2d 525, 527 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (truck not proved to have facilitated possession of marijuana under § 881(a)(4) where claimant only once observed using it to inspect marijuana crop, no marijuana found in it, and therefore it was not shown to be \"integral part\" of drug operation); United States v. One 1972 Chevrolet Corvette, 625 F.2d 1026, 1028-30 (1st Cir.1980) (use of car to transport owner to prearranged meeting to collect money due from others’ prior drug deals did not constitute \"facilitation\" of sale within meaning of § 881(a)(4), because car bore no antecedent relationship to sale and therefore could not have facilitated it); and United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado, 575 F.2d 344, 345 (2d Cir.1978) (per curiam) (insufficient nexus between car and drug deal to warrant forfeiture under § 881(a)(4) where evidence showed dealer had possession of heroin before car arrived on scene), with United States v. 1966 Beechcraft Aircraft Model King Air A90, 777 F.2d 947, 953 (4th Cir.1985) (use of vehicle to transport conspirators to scene of drug sale subjects it to forfeiture under § 881(a)(4)); United States v. One 1979 Porsche Coupe, 709 F.2d 1424, 1427 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (\"substantial connection” existed between vehicle and criminal activity, and forfeiture proper under § 881(a)(4), where used to transport \"pivotal figure” in drug deal several hundred miles to precise location where attempted deal occurred); United States v. 1964 Beechcraft Baron Aircraft, 691 F.2d 725, 727-28 (per curiam) (5th Cir.1982) (airplane forfeitable under § 881(a)(4) where used to transport raw materials for manufacture of amphetamine; stricter \"substantial connection” test proper under § 881(a)(6) not applicable to § 881(a)(4)), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914, 103 S.Ct. 1893, 77 L.Ed.2d 283 (1983); and United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421, 426-27 (2d Cir.1977) (use of car to transport drug peddler or confederates to scene of sale or to meeting where sale proposed constitutes \"facilitation” within meaning of § 881(a)(4)). See generally Annot., 59 A.L.R. Fed. 765 (1982). Cf. Platt v." }, { "docid": "3145951", "title": "", "text": "automobile, which he parked across the street from the load car. Following his arrest in the Chevrolet, Howard was arrested and searched; the keys to the Buick were taken from him; and, upon search of the Buick, a quantity of heroin was discovered. The case in the Ninth Circuit turned upon whether the search of the Buick was legal. The Court held that it was illegal, rejeeting the Government’s contention that the search of the Buick was incident to a seizure of the automobile under the forfeiture statutes. The seizure was valid, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, only if the seizing officers had probable cause to believe that the Buick had been used to “facilitate” the transportation of drugs in the Chevrolet. The Court answered that question in the negative, citing Platt, and observing that “the seized car was merely the means of locomotion by which the person suspected of participating in illegal drug traffic reached the site of that activity.” 423 F.2d at p. 1103. The facilitation question was considered extensively in United States v. One 1972 Datsun, 378 F.Supp. 1200 (D.N.H.1974). In that case, the seller of illegal drugs twice used the vehicle to lead a DEA agent to the seller’s apartment, where the sale took place. The Court held that such use was insufficient to subject the vehicle to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4). The law requires, the Court held, “a substantially significant connection with criminal activity before an ordinary automobile may be seized and forfeited to the Government.” The Court stressed that the drugs in question were never carried or transported in the vehicle; that no negotiations for the purchase were carried on in the vehicle; and that no part of the sale was transacted in the vehicle. The Court concluded: “The car was merely used to transport the claimant from one location to another, and the fact that allegedly criminal activity occurred at the latter location is without significance for the purpose of the Government’s petition for forfeiture in this case,” 378 F.Supp. at 1206. In United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado, 407 F.Supp." }, { "docid": "18701866", "title": "", "text": "a sufficient nexus between the automobile and the illegal activity. In support of its position, Defendant-Claimant relies on United States v. One 1972 Datsun, 378 F.Supp. 1200 (D.N.H.1974). In Datsun the court denied forfeiture where no drugs were actually transported in the car, nor were negotiations for the sale or purchase of illegal drugs proven conducted in the car. The automobile was only used to lead agents to the place where sales of illegal drugs were eventually made. This, the court held, was not “facilitation” within the meaning of the forfeiture statute. The Datsun decision has, however, been criticized in subsequent cases. In United States v. One 1974 Cadillac ElDorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421 (2d Cir.1977), the court noted: However, when the Congress enacted Section 881 as part of the 1970 Act it provided for the forfeiture of vehicles used or intended to be used “in any manner to facilitate the transportation ... or sale” of a controlled substance. Although we have found no legislative history to explain the language which we have underscored, its' employment in a statute specifically addressed to the problem of drug abuse patently indicates a congressional intent to broaden the applicability of the forfeiture remedy provided. Hence the rule proclaimed by Datsun, based upon other statutes as well as Section 781 is perforce suspect. Id. at 425. In One 1974 Cadillac ElDorado Sedan, the court ultimately held that the transportation of a trafficker to the site of the drug sale, or, to a prearranged meeting with a prospective customer where the sale is proposed to be consummated would constitute grounds for forfeiture under the statute. The court noted “where contraband is not in the vehicle, what constitutes facilitation is a question of degree which is in turn a question of fact not readily susceptible to generalization.” Id. at 427. The courts within the Sixth Circuit similarly have rejected the narrow construction applied in Datsun. See United States v. One 1980 Cadillac ElDorado, 705 F.2d 862 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. One 1979 Lincoln Continental, 574 F.Supp. 156 (N.D.Ohio 1983). The uncontroverted factual evidence in this" }, { "docid": "265746", "title": "", "text": "pocket, removed several tinfoil packets and placed them in the trunk of the Lincoln. The tinfoil packets resembled the one just sold to Mr. Blue which contained heroin. Two months later, on September 6, 1979, the Easton Police Department arrested about 25 people involved in narcotics transactions, including Mr. Johnson. At the time of his arrest, Johnson turned over the keys to the Lincoln and told the police where it was parked. The car was seized without a warrant the same day from the Williams Car Care Center. On December 6, 1979, the United States filed its complaint in forfeiture. After a. trial without a jury, the district judge ordered forfeiture of the automobile. Under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a), a vehicle is subject to forfeiture if it is used or intended for use “to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment” of controlled substances. The burden of proof in a forfeiture proceeding is on the claimant once the government has shown probable cause that the vehicle has been used in contravention of the statute. 19 U.S.C. § 1615. The district court concluded that the government had shown more than probable cause. Since probable cause is an “ultimate fact” to be reasonably derived from the basic facts, this court is not bound by the “clearly erroneous” standard of review of Fed.R. Civ.P. 52(a). We can make an independent determination by examining the basic facts found by the district court. United States v. One 1950 Buick Sedan, 231 F.2d 219, 223 (3d Cir. 1956). On the basis of this independent examination we reach the same conclusion as the district judge, namely that the government demonstrated probable cause. The appellant argues that there is no evidence that the car was used to transport or conceal a controlled substance. The packets containing heroin were removed from Johnson’s pocket when he was standing 4 feet from the car. Additionally, the appellant argues that there is no evidence that the packets which Johnson later placed in the trunk of the car contained heroin. The appellant mistakes the nature of" }, { "docid": "19864714", "title": "", "text": "That case is vastly different in “distance, time, [and] circumstance” from this one. Buick Riviera, supra at 280. In United States v. One 1972 Datsun, 378 F.Supp. 1200 (D.N.H.1974), the court denied a forfeiture where a seller of illegal drugs used a car on two occasions to lead a DEA agent to the place of sale. In this Circuit, however, it is established that use of a vehicle to “transport the peddler or his confederates to the scene of the sale or to a meeting where the sale is proposed is sufficient [to warrant forfeiture of the vehicle].” United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421, 426 (2d Cir. 1977) (emphasis added). In this case, the Government has made a showing that the 1977 Lincoln Mark V, registered to Rudy Ford, had a substantial connection with the sale of heroin. Claimant’s contention that an inference of his participation in the drug sale “by virtue of [his] presence . . . on a street corner in New York, and the fact that he was given money, the exact amount of which is unknown, by the seller of narcotics . is too speculative to support forfeiture of a vehicle,” is not a contention which can be supported by a realistic view of the credible evidence presented here. The Government has proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it had probable cause to believe that Rudy Ford’s Lincoln was used to facilitate the sale of heroin, and therefore, the Government had probable cause to institute the forfeiture proceeding. 21 U.S.C. § 881(d); 19 U.S.C. § 1615. The claimant has failed to establish that the vehicle is not subject to forfeiture. The 1977 Lincoln Mark V, Serial No. 7Y89A832686, is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4)." }, { "docid": "4199574", "title": "", "text": "14, 1982 Hudson was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The conviction was affirmed on September 28, 1983. See United States v. Hudson, 717 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir.1983). In December, 1982 the United States filed its complaint for forfeiture. At a hearing, the government established that the shed was near the marijuana fields, that the items mentioned above were found in or near the shed, and that the truck was used to carry materials to be used for roofing the shed. The district court concluded that the truck was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4), because it facilitated the possession of the drugs by providing Hudson with transportation to the fields. Hudson attacks the district court’s finding that use of the truck to transport roofing to the shed, and himself to the fields, “facilitated” the marijuana possession. In United States v. Thirteen Thousand Dollars in United States Currency, 733 F.2d 581 (8th Cir.1984), we noted that under 19 U.S.C. § 1615, “the government has the initial burden of showing probable cause for the institution of the forfeiture suit. Once probable cause for believing that the property was involved in criminal wrongdoing is established, the burden shifts to the claimant to show that the property was not used in violation of the law.” Id. at 584. The government’s initial burden, although heavy, may be satisfied by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Certain Real Property Situated at Route 3, 568 F.Supp. 434, 436 (W.D.Ark.1983). Some courts have taken an extremely broad view of section 881, upholding forfeitures of vehicles where they were used to transport drug dealers to locations of drug sales and/or negotiations, even though there was no evidence that contraband was actually transported in the vehicle, that the negotiations were conducted in the vehicle, or that the vehicle was used as a decoy or look-out. See, e.g., United States v. One 1979 Porsche Coupe, 709 F.2d 1424, 1427 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); United States v. One 1977 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, 644 F.2d 500, 503-04 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981); United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan," }, { "docid": "9867616", "title": "", "text": "v. Bazemore, 617 F.2d 136, 138 (5th Cir.1980). In our view, the government has made the necessary showing and the claimant has failed to rebut that showing. McDowell used the automobile to drive from Knoxville to Atlanta the evening prior to negotiations. Once in Atlanta, he again used the vehicle to drive to the hotel where the negotiations took place. Although McDowell had offered $58,000' for the cocaine, there was no evidence that the vehicle was used to transport any money, as no money was in fact found. Compare United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984-85 (5th Cir.1980) (forfeited vehicle used to transport ingredients for making drugs); United States v. One 1979 Mercury Cougar XR-7, 666 F.2d 228, 230 (5th Cir.1982) (conspirators used forfeited vehicle to locate airstrip, find storage building for marijuana, rent motor home in which to live while selling marijuana, and rent U-Haul truck in which to transport marijuana). Nonetheless, the cases establish that under § 881 it is not necessary for the subject vehicle either to have transported the illegal substance (or the purchase money) or to have served as the location for the transaction. See United States v. One 1977 Cadillac Coupe DeVilie, 644 F.2d 500, 503 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit B); United States v. One 1979 Mercury Cougar XR-7, 666 F.2d at 230; United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421, 427 (2d Cir.1977). The subject vehicle in this case was used to transport the “pivotal figure in the transaction” several hundred miles to the precise location at which the attempted purchase took place. See United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d at 427 (forfeiture appropriate where vehicle transported defendant to meeting where purchase negotiated; not dispositive transaction not consummated until three days later). In particular, this case is governed by United States v. One 1977 Cadillac Coupe DeVilie, supra. In that case, a panel of the former Fifth Circuit upheld the forfeiture of an automobile whose sole connection with the crime was its use in transporting a narcotics supplier “to the actual scene of" }, { "docid": "9867615", "title": "", "text": "to have nearby when negotiating the transaction. After McDowell’s conviction for attempting to purchase cocaine, the government instituted this proceeding for the forfeiture of the Porsche in which McDowell drove to Atlanta. After a non-jury trial, the trial court concluded that the vehicle had been used to facilitate the attempted purchase and therefore ordered the vehicle forfeited. II. FORFEITURE To support a forfeiture under § 881, the government must demonstrate probable cause for the belief that a substantial connection exists between the vehicle to be forfeited and the relevant criminal activity. Probable cause in this context, is defined as a reasonable ground for a belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion. Unit ed States v. $364,960 in U.S. Currency, 661 F.2d 319, 323 (5th Cir.1981). After the government has made the necessary showing, the burden of proof shifts to the claimant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the vehicle was not used to facilitate a narcotics transaction. Id. at 325; see E.A. Shipping Co. v. Bazemore, 617 F.2d 136, 138 (5th Cir.1980). In our view, the government has made the necessary showing and the claimant has failed to rebut that showing. McDowell used the automobile to drive from Knoxville to Atlanta the evening prior to negotiations. Once in Atlanta, he again used the vehicle to drive to the hotel where the negotiations took place. Although McDowell had offered $58,000' for the cocaine, there was no evidence that the vehicle was used to transport any money, as no money was in fact found. Compare United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984-85 (5th Cir.1980) (forfeited vehicle used to transport ingredients for making drugs); United States v. One 1979 Mercury Cougar XR-7, 666 F.2d 228, 230 (5th Cir.1982) (conspirators used forfeited vehicle to locate airstrip, find storage building for marijuana, rent motor home in which to live while selling marijuana, and rent U-Haul truck in which to transport marijuana). Nonetheless, the cases establish that under § 881 it is not necessary for the subject vehicle either to have" }, { "docid": "23552513", "title": "", "text": "pending); United States v. Certain Real Estate Property Located at 4880 S.E. Dixie Highway, 612 F.Supp. 1492, 1498 (S.D.Fla.1985) (seizures with a warrant; see § 881(b)). See also United States v. One 1978 Mercedes Benz, 711 F.2d 1297, 1300-02 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Bush, 647 F.2d 357, 367-70 (3d Cir.1981); United States v. 1979 Mercury Cougar, 545 F.Supp. 1087, 1090 (D.Colo.1982) (seizures without a warrant; see § 881(b)(4)). We express no opinion on these constitutional issues. . See United States v. Certain Real Property Situated at Route 3, Box 247E, Mountain Home, AR., 568 F.Supp. 434, 436 (W.D.Ark.1983) (evidence that claimant had no income source but drug deals supports inference that property constituted illegal proceeds); United States v. $131,602.00 in U.S. Currency, 563 F.Supp. 921, 923 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (although Government established probable cause that claimants’ funds traceable to drug trafficking, claimants proved source of funds not traceable to such deals). . Not every involvement of a vehicle with a drug transaction triggers forfeiture under § 881(a)(4), and courts apparently disagree on the type and amount of involvement required. Compare United States v. One 1976 Ford F-150 Pick-Up, 769 F.2d 525, 527 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (truck not proved to have facilitated possession of marijuana under § 881(a)(4) where claimant only once observed using it to inspect marijuana crop, no marijuana found in it, and therefore it was not shown to be \"integral part\" of drug operation); United States v. One 1972 Chevrolet Corvette, 625 F.2d 1026, 1028-30 (1st Cir.1980) (use of car to transport owner to prearranged meeting to collect money due from others’ prior drug deals did not constitute \"facilitation\" of sale within meaning of § 881(a)(4), because car bore no antecedent relationship to sale and therefore could not have facilitated it); and United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado, 575 F.2d 344, 345 (2d Cir.1978) (per curiam) (insufficient nexus between car and drug deal to warrant forfeiture under § 881(a)(4) where evidence showed dealer had possession of heroin before car arrived on scene), with United States v. 1966 Beechcraft Aircraft Model King Air A90, 777 F.2d 947, 953" }, { "docid": "18265130", "title": "", "text": "the attempted forfeiture.” The claimants do not question the validity of the criminal conviction. II. ELEMENTS OF FORFEITURE For an order of forfeiture to issue, the Government need only make a showing of probable cause to believe that the vehicle was used in violation of the forfeiture statutes. The standard of “probable cause” applied in forfeiture proceedings is the same as that familiarly employed to test searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280S, 590 F.2d 196, 199 (6th Cir. 1978). It is “a reasonable ground for belief of guilt supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1975 Ford Pickup Truck, 558 F.2d 755, 756 (5th Cir. 1977). If the Government succeeds in this showing, the burden of proof shifts to those claiming the property to demonstrate either that the facts are otherwise, or that the forfeiture law does not apply to the activity. A district court may properly make these determinations upon motion for summary judgment, should that be appropriate. United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280S, 590 F.2d at 199. A vehicle may be forfeited under the statutes that the Government invokes if, inter alia, it has been used “to facilitate,” 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4), or “in any manner to facilitate,” 49 U.S.C. § 781(a), the transportation or sale of marihuana. Intentional transportation or concealment of the substance in a vehicle, no matter how small the amount, will subject the conveyance to forfeiture. Contraband need not be physically present within the vehicle, however; if the conveyance is used as a place for negotiating or conducting a sale, or as a lookout or decoy vehicle in a convoy, it will still be forfeited. United States v. One 1972 Datsun, 378 F.Supp. 1200, 1202 (D.N.H.1974) (collecting cases). III. PROPRIETY OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL The Government seeks to substantiate its allegation that the Chevrolet Blazer “was used to faciliate the transportation, concealment, receipt, possession, purchase, sale, barter or exchange of marihuana” by relying on the adjudicated facts contained in Judge Miles’ Opinion and Verdict in United States" }, { "docid": "19864713", "title": "", "text": "manner of that sale within the meaning of § 881(a)(4)? See, 1974 Cadillac Eldorado, supra at 423. Such a nexus is present in this case, and the question is answered in the affirmative. Cases cited by claimant in which forfeiture of an automobile was denied are all factually distinguishable. In United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado, 575 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1978), the evidence compelled the conclusion that claimant possessed heroin before the pink Cadillac ever entered the picture. There was no basis for a conclusion that the heroin had ever been transported in the pink Cadillac. The driver of the Cadillac apparently did not act as look out, or as a transporter of the sale proceeds. In this case, no sale was consummated until Rudy Ford and the Lincoln arrived at the scene. In United States v. One Buick Riviera, 374 F.Supp. 277 (D.Minn.1973), claimant owner drove another person to an airport in Minnesota and, at the airport, gave that individual money to buy heroin in Mexico. The purchase was made in Mexico. That case is vastly different in “distance, time, [and] circumstance” from this one. Buick Riviera, supra at 280. In United States v. One 1972 Datsun, 378 F.Supp. 1200 (D.N.H.1974), the court denied a forfeiture where a seller of illegal drugs used a car on two occasions to lead a DEA agent to the place of sale. In this Circuit, however, it is established that use of a vehicle to “transport the peddler or his confederates to the scene of the sale or to a meeting where the sale is proposed is sufficient [to warrant forfeiture of the vehicle].” United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421, 426 (2d Cir. 1977) (emphasis added). In this case, the Government has made a showing that the 1977 Lincoln Mark V, registered to Rudy Ford, had a substantial connection with the sale of heroin. Claimant’s contention that an inference of his participation in the drug sale “by virtue of [his] presence . . . on a street corner in New York, and the fact that he" }, { "docid": "18701865", "title": "", "text": "by the Court is whether the facts attendant to this case sufficiently establish that the vehicle was used in the facilitation of the transportation of narcotics. Defendant argues that at no time while the vehicle was located in the United States did it facilitate the transportation of narcotics within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4). The government also relies upon two other forfeiture statutes, 49 U.S.C. § 781 and 19 U.S.C. § 1595a. Each contains similar language. Title 19, United States Code, Section 1595a provides: Except as specified in the provisio to section 1594 this title [19 U.S.C. 1594] every ... vehicle ... used in, to aid in, or to facilitate, by obtaining information or in any other way, the importation, bringing in, unlading, landing, removal, concealing, harboring, or subsequent transportation of any article which is being or has been introduced, or attempted to be introduced, into the United States contrary to law, whether upon such ... vehicle ... or otherwise, shall be seized and forfeited____ (Emphasis supplied.) At issue is whether there is a sufficient nexus between the automobile and the illegal activity. In support of its position, Defendant-Claimant relies on United States v. One 1972 Datsun, 378 F.Supp. 1200 (D.N.H.1974). In Datsun the court denied forfeiture where no drugs were actually transported in the car, nor were negotiations for the sale or purchase of illegal drugs proven conducted in the car. The automobile was only used to lead agents to the place where sales of illegal drugs were eventually made. This, the court held, was not “facilitation” within the meaning of the forfeiture statute. The Datsun decision has, however, been criticized in subsequent cases. In United States v. One 1974 Cadillac ElDorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421 (2d Cir.1977), the court noted: However, when the Congress enacted Section 881 as part of the 1970 Act it provided for the forfeiture of vehicles used or intended to be used “in any manner to facilitate the transportation ... or sale” of a controlled substance. Although we have found no legislative history to explain the language which we have underscored, its'" }, { "docid": "18265131", "title": "", "text": "appropriate. United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280S, 590 F.2d at 199. A vehicle may be forfeited under the statutes that the Government invokes if, inter alia, it has been used “to facilitate,” 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4), or “in any manner to facilitate,” 49 U.S.C. § 781(a), the transportation or sale of marihuana. Intentional transportation or concealment of the substance in a vehicle, no matter how small the amount, will subject the conveyance to forfeiture. Contraband need not be physically present within the vehicle, however; if the conveyance is used as a place for negotiating or conducting a sale, or as a lookout or decoy vehicle in a convoy, it will still be forfeited. United States v. One 1972 Datsun, 378 F.Supp. 1200, 1202 (D.N.H.1974) (collecting cases). III. PROPRIETY OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL The Government seeks to substantiate its allegation that the Chevrolet Blazer “was used to faciliate the transportation, concealment, receipt, possession, purchase, sale, barter or exchange of marihuana” by relying on the adjudicated facts contained in Judge Miles’ Opinion and Verdict in United States v. Junghans, entered 7 December 1977. The Government makes no attempt to justify its implicit reliance on the doctrine of collateral estoppel in this case. The claimants, for their part, tacitly assume-that the doctrine is applicable, and question only whether its elements are present. They do not present their own version of the events leading up to seizure of the Chevrolet Blazer; they merely argue that the guilty verdict in United States v. Junghans did not finally and necessarily determine the facts relied upon by the Government. The Court is of the opinion that the Government may, in proper circumstances, rely upon the facts adjudicated in a prior criminal trial to establish the probable cause required for forfeiture. The doctrine of collateral estoppel postulates that an issue of ultimate fact which has been determined by a valid and final judgment on the merits should not and cannot be relitigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit. Restatement of Judgments § 1 (1942). It simultaneously serves the public interest in judicial economy, and the parties’" }, { "docid": "4199575", "title": "", "text": "the institution of the forfeiture suit. Once probable cause for believing that the property was involved in criminal wrongdoing is established, the burden shifts to the claimant to show that the property was not used in violation of the law.” Id. at 584. The government’s initial burden, although heavy, may be satisfied by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Certain Real Property Situated at Route 3, 568 F.Supp. 434, 436 (W.D.Ark.1983). Some courts have taken an extremely broad view of section 881, upholding forfeitures of vehicles where they were used to transport drug dealers to locations of drug sales and/or negotiations, even though there was no evidence that contraband was actually transported in the vehicle, that the negotiations were conducted in the vehicle, or that the vehicle was used as a decoy or look-out. See, e.g., United States v. One 1979 Porsche Coupe, 709 F.2d 1424, 1427 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); United States v. One 1977 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, 644 F.2d 500, 503-04 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981); United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421, 427 (2d Cir.1977); cf. United States v. One 1972 Chevrolet Corvette, 625 F.2d 1026, 1029 (1st Cir.1980) (transportation of drug dealer to receive “front money” insufficient to support forfeiture); United States v. One 1970 Pontiac GTO, 529 F.2d 65 (9th Cir.1976) (per curiam) (upholding forfeiture where vehicle was “used to help the sale of the contraband; it was not used merely to commute to the scene of criminal activity); Weinstein v. Mueller, 563 F.Supp. 923, 929 (N.D.Cal.1982) (noting that mere use of vehicle to commute to scene of illegal activity is insufficient); United States v. McMichael, 541 F.Supp. 956, 959 n. 6 (D.Md.1982) (same); United States v. One 1970 Buick Riviera, 374 F.Supp. 277 (D.Minn.1973) (use of vehicle to transport drug dealer to airport to embark on drug buying trip insufficient). We note that this circuit has not had occasion to extend section 881 so far, for in most of the cases there was evidence that the vehicle was actually used to transport the drugs. See, e.g., United States v. Milham, 590" }, { "docid": "3031110", "title": "", "text": "intended for illegal use. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(2). In determining whether Simard’s intent to use the Corvette to transport his share of the proceeds subjected the vehicle to forfeiture under the statute, we note that not every involvement of an automobile with a drug transaction triggers forfeiture. Subsection 881(a)(4), by its terms, lays down a per se forfeiture rule only for transportation of certain items of contraband. In adding subsection 881(a)(6) in 1978, which subjects monies substantially involved in illicit drug transactions to forfeiture, Congress neither included a provision for forfeiture of vehicles transporting such monies nor amended subsection 881(a)(4) to explicitly include such transportation within that provision. Since intent to use a vehicle to transport proceeds of an illicit sale does not, per se, subject the vehicle to forfeiture, the key question is whether Simard intended to use his car “to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment” of the LSD. On two occasions, the Second Circuit has dealt with the facilitation clause of section 881(a)(4). In United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1977) (hereinafter Cadillac I), two persons drove in the forfeited auto to a meeting to discuss a drug transaction. In upholding the government’s right to the car, the court stated: [W]e are loathe to make forfeiture depend upon the accident of whether dope is physically present in the vehicle. Its use to transport the peddler or his confederates to the scene of the sale or to a meeting where the sale is proposed is sufficient. Id. at 426. The court found that the meeting to which the car had transported one of the defendants was “an integral part” of the drug conspiracy. Id. at 423. Thus, the court concluded the district court had erred in finding that the vehicle “had no direct or indirect relationship to the subsequent sales.” Id. In the other Second Circuit case, United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado, 575 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (hereinafter Cadillac II), the court applied the test of Cadillac I and found an insufficient nex us" }, { "docid": "19864711", "title": "", "text": "estoppel, arising out of Rudy Ford’s acquittal in the prior narcotics trial is not available in this subsequent civil proceeding because the standards, and also the burdens of proof, are different. At Ford’s criminal trial, proof of all elements of the crime[s] charged beyond a reasonable doubt was required, and the burden to do so was on the Government. In this forfeiture proceeding, however, the Government need only establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that there was probable cause to seize the vehicle, and, therefore, to institute the forfeiture suit. 21 U.S.C. § 881(d); 19 U.S.C. § 1615; United States v. One 1975 Mercury Monarch, Serial No. 5E35L539729, 423 F.Supp. 1026, 1028 (S.D. N.Y.1976). Knowing, intentional participation by Ford and the participation of his Lincoln Mark V in a heroin sale were each established by a preponderance of the credible evidence in this civil trial. As soon as the Government has met its burden of establishing probable cause, the burden of going forward shifts to require the claimant to establish that his vehicle is not subject to forfeiture. Mercury Monarch, supra, at 1028. See also, 21 U.S.C. § 885(a), which provides that the person claiming the benefit of any exception or exemption from the control and enforcement provisions, §§ 801— 904, of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 has the burden of going forward with evidence establishing the basis for any such exception or exemption. This claimant has not done so. Defendant does not assert that the vehicle was in the unlawful possession of a person other than the owner. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4). He merely denies that the Government’s evidence shows that the vehicle was used to facilitate a heroin transaction. The case of United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1977), defines the issue: Was there a “sufficient nexus” between the use of the Lincoln to transport Mr. Ford to the August 26th sale with the heroin, and from the sale carrying the proceeds of that sale, so as to amount to a facilitation in any" }, { "docid": "18701869", "title": "", "text": "back to Ottawa. These facts, plus what this Court believes to be Congressional policy toward a broad interpretation of the forfeiture statutes, as previously outlined in One Cadillac ElDorado Sedan, provide a sufficient basis for the forfeiture of the defendant vehicle in this case. Numerous cases have held that drugs need not actually be found within the forfeited vehicle. In United States v. One 1979 Lincoln Continental, the court upheld the seizure and forfeiture of an automobile where the owner possessed $36,000 in cash with the apparent purpose of acquiring more cash and completing a cocaine transaction. The forfeiture of an automobile used to transport two narcotics sellers to a meeting for the negotiation of a sale was upheld in One 1974 Cadillac ElDorado Sedan. In United States v. One Cadillac Coupe DeVille, 644 F.2d 500 (5th Cir.1981), the court found sufficient cause for forfeiture where the defendant vehicle was used to transport coconspirators to an apartment to negotiate the sale of cocaine. In the instant case, the totality of the circumstances supports the Court’s finding that probable cause did exist to support the forfeiture and that there was a sufficient nexus between the vehicle and the illegal activity — the drug transaction. The claimant has failed to meet its burden for the Court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant vehicle was not used in the illegal drug transaction. United States v. Twenty-two Thousand, Two Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars in U.S. Currency, 709 F.2d 442 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. Eighty-Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Dollars in U.S. Currency, 682 F.2d 573 (6th Cir.1982). II. The claimant next contends that he was an innocent owner of the subject vehicle without knowledge of his wife’s illegal use of the automobile. This defense was first submitted to the Attorney General in the form of a Petition for Remission which was denied. A companion petition for lienholder General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) was granted by the Attorney General. The Attorney General’s disposition of the Petition for Remission is not reviewable by the District Court. United States v. One 1961" }, { "docid": "19864712", "title": "", "text": "is not subject to forfeiture. Mercury Monarch, supra, at 1028. See also, 21 U.S.C. § 885(a), which provides that the person claiming the benefit of any exception or exemption from the control and enforcement provisions, §§ 801— 904, of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 has the burden of going forward with evidence establishing the basis for any such exception or exemption. This claimant has not done so. Defendant does not assert that the vehicle was in the unlawful possession of a person other than the owner. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4). He merely denies that the Government’s evidence shows that the vehicle was used to facilitate a heroin transaction. The case of United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1977), defines the issue: Was there a “sufficient nexus” between the use of the Lincoln to transport Mr. Ford to the August 26th sale with the heroin, and from the sale carrying the proceeds of that sale, so as to amount to a facilitation in any manner of that sale within the meaning of § 881(a)(4)? See, 1974 Cadillac Eldorado, supra at 423. Such a nexus is present in this case, and the question is answered in the affirmative. Cases cited by claimant in which forfeiture of an automobile was denied are all factually distinguishable. In United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado, 575 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1978), the evidence compelled the conclusion that claimant possessed heroin before the pink Cadillac ever entered the picture. There was no basis for a conclusion that the heroin had ever been transported in the pink Cadillac. The driver of the Cadillac apparently did not act as look out, or as a transporter of the sale proceeds. In this case, no sale was consummated until Rudy Ford and the Lincoln arrived at the scene. In United States v. One Buick Riviera, 374 F.Supp. 277 (D.Minn.1973), claimant owner drove another person to an airport in Minnesota and, at the airport, gave that individual money to buy heroin in Mexico. The purchase was made in Mexico." }, { "docid": "4199576", "title": "", "text": "548 F.2d 421, 427 (2d Cir.1977); cf. United States v. One 1972 Chevrolet Corvette, 625 F.2d 1026, 1029 (1st Cir.1980) (transportation of drug dealer to receive “front money” insufficient to support forfeiture); United States v. One 1970 Pontiac GTO, 529 F.2d 65 (9th Cir.1976) (per curiam) (upholding forfeiture where vehicle was “used to help the sale of the contraband; it was not used merely to commute to the scene of criminal activity); Weinstein v. Mueller, 563 F.Supp. 923, 929 (N.D.Cal.1982) (noting that mere use of vehicle to commute to scene of illegal activity is insufficient); United States v. McMichael, 541 F.Supp. 956, 959 n. 6 (D.Md.1982) (same); United States v. One 1970 Buick Riviera, 374 F.Supp. 277 (D.Minn.1973) (use of vehicle to transport drug dealer to airport to embark on drug buying trip insufficient). We note that this circuit has not had occasion to extend section 881 so far, for in most of the cases there was evidence that the vehicle was actually used to transport the drugs. See, e.g., United States v. Milham, 590 F.2d 717 (8th Cir.1979); United States v. One 1976 Lincoln Continental Mark IV, 584 F.2d 266 (8th Cir.1978) (per curiam); United States v. One 1972 Toyota Mark II, 505 F.2d 1162 (8th Cir.1974). Assuming that mere transportation of a person involved with illicit activity would be enough to support forfeiture of a vehicle in appropriate circumstances, we decline to extend this rationale to the forfeiture of the pick-up truck here. There was no evidence that Hudson regularly used the truck to visit and inspect the marijuana crop. The truck was only observed being used for this purpose on the one occasion. Thus, there was little showing, apart from a singular episode of transportation, that use of the truck was an “integral part” of Hudson’s marijuana operation. Cf United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d at 423 (vehicle used to transport dealers to meeting which was “integral part” of drug conspiracy). In any event, we do not believe that the forfeiture statute was meant to support divestiture of private property based on an" } ]

[ { "docid": "23227005", "title": "", "text": "the course of the investigation cannot be considered a separate unrelated contract. The record indicates that any alleged “assurances of confidentiality” were derived from Bylaw 4 of 1983, one of the rules promulgated pursuant to the Lloyd’s Act of 1982 which the General Undertaking incorporates by its terms. There is no other evidence within the record of “assurances of confidentiality” other than the bylaws themselves. Finally, plaintiffs argue that their claim for tortious interference with a business relationship is a tort claim not covered by the forum selection clause. Regardless .of .the- duty sought to be enforced in a particular cause of action, if the duty arises from the contract, the forum selection clause governs the action. As the Third Circuit has held, “where the' relationship between the parties is contractual, the pleading of alternative non-contractual theories of liability should not prevent enforcement of such a bargain [as to the appropriate forum for litigation].” Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator, Ltd., 709 F.2d 190, 203 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 938, 104 S.Ct. 349, 78 L.Ed.2d 315 (1983). We hold that all of the plaintiffs’ claims arise from the contractual relationship and are therefore within the scope of the forum selection clause. In choosing to become a Member of Lloyd’s, Hugel signed the General Undertaking in which he promised to be bound by Lloyd’s membership regulations. He cannot avoid this agreement by arguing that the forum selection clause should apply to nothing more than disputes concerning his membership duties relating exclusively to insurance underwriting. II. GCM and OMI assert that only Hugel is bound by the forum selection clause because GCM and OMI are not and never have been parties to the General Undertaking. In order to bind a non-party to a forum selection clause, the party must be “closely related” to the dispute such that it becomes .“foreseeable” that-it-win _be_hnnnd. Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 514 n. 5 (9th Cir.1988); Coastal Steel, 709 F.2d at 203. Hugel is President and Chairman of the Board of both GCM and OMI. In addition, Hugel owns 99%" } ]

[ { "docid": "22819239", "title": "", "text": "equation. Consequently, MCC believes that the abuse of discretion standard, which applies to the district court’s overall balancing of various factors, also applies to the court’s specific treatment of the forum selection clause. In Sun World Lines v. March Shipping Corp., 801 F.2d 1066, 1068 n. 3 (8th Cir.1986), this court, following the Ninth Cir cuit’s approach, reviewed for an abuse of discretion a district court’s “enforcement” of a forum selection clause. The dispute in Sun World, however, concerned the validity of the forum selection clause. Id. at 1067. In the case at hand, neither party challenges the validity of the forum selection clause; rather, they contest the specific meaning of the language used in the forum selection clause, which was not an issue in Sun World. The Ninth Circuit itself has refined its approach and has explained that it employs de novo review when a district court is required to interpret the language of a forum selection clause. Northern Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1036 n. 3 (9th Cir.1995). Here, interpreting the language of the forum selection clause is necessary to the section 1404(a) transfer analysis. Before a district court can even consider a forum selection clause in its transfer analysis, it first must decide whether the clause applies to the type of claims asserted in the lawsuit. Following the Ninth Circuit’s approach, as well as our own standard of review in cases of contract interpretation, see United States v. Brekke, 97 F.3d 1043, 1049 (8th Cir.1996) (applying de novo review to district court’s construction of a contract), we conclude that de novo review is the appropriate standard for reviewing a district court’s interpretation of the specific terms contained in a forum selection clause. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 880-81; Hugel v. Corporation of Lloyd’s, 999 F.2d 206, 207 (7th Cir.1993); Milk ‘N’ More, Inc. v. Beavert, 963 F.2d 1342, 1345 (10th Cir.1992). A. Terra claims that the forum selection clause in the license agreement does not apply to its tort claims and therefore should not receive any consideration in the" }, { "docid": "22819242", "title": "", "text": "“hereunder” directly after the word “parties” could reasonably suggest that it modifies “parties,” which would give the clause a very broad scope covering any disputes arising between the parties. We also find Terra’s interpretation reasonable, because we are persuaded that, at least in this contractual context, “hereunder” typically signifies “under the agreement,” while “hereto” most often refers to the parties to the agreement. Thus, we find that the clause is ambiguous. See Wilson v. Prudential Ins. Co. Am., 97 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir.1996); Service Unlimited, Inc. v. Elder, 542 N.W.2d 855, 857 (Iowa.Ct.App.1995); Texaco, Inc. v. Kennedy, 271 So.2d 450, 452 (Miss.1973). Terra urges us to construe the ambiguous clause against its drafter' — MCC. We decline to apply the doctrine of contra proferentem to this case due to the relatively equal bargaining strengths of both parties and the fact that Terra was represented by sophisticated legal counsel during the formation of the license agreement. See Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1166 n. 33 (1st Cir.1994). We are convinced, however, that Terra’s more narrow interpretation of the forum selection clause (i.e., “hereunder” modifies “arising” not “parties”) is more compelling. First, construing the license agreement as a whole, see, e.g., Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662, 664 (8th Cir.1995); Lange v. Lange, 520 N.W.2d 113, 119 (Iowa 1994); Brown v. Hartford Ins. Co., 606 So.2d 122, 126 (Miss.1992), the parties uniformly use the word “hereunder” in several other portions of the license agreement to mean “under this Agreement,” while they use the word “hereto” to refer to the parties to the Agreement. Second, the forum selection clauses contained in MCC’s license agreements with other parties indicate that MCC knew how to draft an explicitly broad clause when it wanted to but did not do so here. One such clause reads, “Should any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever arise between MCC and [redacted party] in connection with or arising out of this Agreement____” (Appellant’s App. at A264.) Moreover, these other clauses were drafted many years before this litigation arose which indicates that MCC" }, { "docid": "13646210", "title": "", "text": "of words, such as “only” or “exclusively,” which would indicate that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi is the exclusive forum for actions between the parties. Terra’s arguments cannot stand, however, in the face of a number of decisions distinguishing between “mandatory” and “permissive” forum selection clauses, nor in the face of the ordinary meaning of the words used in the clause. Whether a forum selection clause is mandatory or permissive is a matter of contract interpretation reviewed de novo. Northern California Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir.1995) (hereinafter “Council of Laborers ”) (citing Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 77 (9th Cir.1987)); Milk ‘N’ More, Inc. v. Beavert, 963 F.2d 1342, 1345 (10th Cir.1992) (whether a forum selection clause is “mandatory” or “permissive” is a question reviewed de novo, because it is “basically one of contract interpretation,” also citing Hunt Wesson Foods, 817 F.2d at 77). Furthermore, where the clause is ambiguous as to whether or not it is mandatory, it should be construed against the drafter. Caldas & Sons, Inc. v. Willingham, 17 F.3d 123, 127 (5th Cir.1994); Milk ‘N’ More, 963 F.2d at 1346 (also concluding that an ambiguity as to the permissive or mandatory nature of the clause should be construed against the drafter); Hunt Wesson Foods, 817 F.2d at 78 (forum selection clause that is ambiguous as to mandatory nature of clause should be construed against drafter). Terra’s argument, apparently, is that a forum selection clause that is neither mandatory nor exclusive may be disregarded, that is, not enforced, by the courts. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has stated the “general rule” in cases involving interpretation and enforcement of forum selection clauses: “When only jurisdiction is specified the clause will generally not be enforced without some further language indicating the parties’ intent to make jurisdiction exclusive.” Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea Technology, Ltd., 875 F.2d 762, 764 (9th Cir.1989); see also Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 77-78 (9th Cir.1987); Keaty" }, { "docid": "22819260", "title": "", "text": "interpretation of the forum selection clause was very broad, the district court attempted to confine the breadth of the clause not by its own terms, but by policy considerations that indicate that it would be unreasonable to apply a broad forum selection clause contained in a contract to a lawsuit that is completely unrelated to the subject of the contract. Consequently, the district court imposed the requirement that the claims at issue between the parties must be sufficiently related to the contract in order for the forum selection clause to apply. See Terra, 922 F.Supp. at 1376. . See, e.g., License Agreement, ¶ 10 (\"[njeither party hereto will assign any of its rights or obligations hereunder to any person, firm, corporation or organization not a party to this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party.”) (Appellant's App. at A261 (emphasis added)); License Agreement, ¶ 12(b) (\"The headings contained in this Agreement are used solely for convenience and do not constitute a part of the Agreement between the parties hereto.\") (Id. (emphasis added)). . Having found the clause ambiguous, we appropriately consider extrinsic evidence to interpret this contract provision. See Marren v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 84 F.3d 1068, 1070 (8th Cir.1996); Uhl v. City of Sioux City, 490 N.W.2d 69, 73 (Iowa.Ct.App.1992); Farragut v. Massey, 612 So.2d 325, 329 (Miss.1992). . Our references to portions of the License Agreement that refer to possible design defects merely bolster our belief that the forum selection clause applies to Terra's common law tort claims. We express no views regarding the applicability of any other provision (including any provision for the limitation of liability or damages) of the License Agreement to Terra's tort claims. . In The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 1913, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1971), the Supreme Court also suggests that the burden shifts to the party resisting the application of a forum selection clause to demonstrate that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable. The breadth of this holding, however, is unclear due to the fact that the" }, { "docid": "22819251", "title": "", "text": "Coastal Steel, 709 F.2d at 203. Although we recognize that Terra’s claims are alleged as tort claims, Terra plainly could have asserted a parallel claim for breach of contract in the same complaint. The fact that MCC’s technology allegedly caused an explosion that actively inflicted damage does not transform Terra’s cause of action into one based exclusively in tort. The same exact facts surrounding Terra’s tort claims would also give rise to a breach of contract claim. Therefore, according to the rationale of the First Circuit’s rale in Lambert, we believe that the forum selection clause applies to Terra’s tort claims. Several other considerations also persuade us that the forum selection clause covers Terra’s tort claims. After finalizing the license agreement, we believe that both parties could have anticipated that tort claims such as Terra now brings would be litigated in Mississippi. Paragraph 2(b) of the license agreement provides that MCC will reimburse Terra for costs or damages resulting from “any defect in the design of [Terra’s] neutralizer ... which can be shown to result from errors in the information contained in the Design Manual.” (Appellant’s App. at A255.) Although Terra contends that this provision is very limited in scope, it expressly envisions that future claims of defective design may arise between the parties. Moreover, Terra’s own complaint repeatedly refers to the specific promises that MCC made under the license agreement. (Id. at A18.) These facts support our conclusion that Terra’s tort claims arise under the license agreement, and therefore, the forum selection clause applies to Terra’s claims. B. Our conclusion that the scope of the forum selection clause covers Terra’s tort claims does not end our analysis, however. As mentioned earlier, the significance of the forum selection clause in this case arises in the context of a motion to transfer under section 1404(a). The fact that we have found the clause applicable merely allows us to consider it as one factor, albeit a very important one, in the overall transfer analysis. Terra posits the alternative argument that even if the forum selection clause applies, the other relevant factors, especially" }, { "docid": "22819259", "title": "", "text": "III. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny as moot MCC’s motion to supplement the record on appeal. . The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. . MCC's technology is currently used at 22 other ammonium nitrate manufacturing facilities. . MCC does not actually manufacture neutralizers but merely licenses its neutralizer design to its licensees. .MCC based its defamation claim on several public statements made by Terra officials in which they asserted that MCC’s defectively designed neutralizer caused the explosion. . Terra also filed its own motion to transfer in the federal district court in Mississippi, asking the Mississippi court to transfer MCC’s lawsuit to Iowa. In an unreported decision, the federal magistrate judge denied Terra’s motion to transfer, finding that the forum selection clause unambiguously required these disputes to be litigated in Mississippi. Mississippi Chem. Corp. v. Terra Int’l Inc., 1996 WL 293764, at *7 (S.D.Miss.1996). The magistrate judge's decision was affirmed by the district judge on appeal. . Recognizing that its interpretation of the forum selection clause was very broad, the district court attempted to confine the breadth of the clause not by its own terms, but by policy considerations that indicate that it would be unreasonable to apply a broad forum selection clause contained in a contract to a lawsuit that is completely unrelated to the subject of the contract. Consequently, the district court imposed the requirement that the claims at issue between the parties must be sufficiently related to the contract in order for the forum selection clause to apply. See Terra, 922 F.Supp. at 1376. . See, e.g., License Agreement, ¶ 10 (\"[njeither party hereto will assign any of its rights or obligations hereunder to any person, firm, corporation or organization not a party to this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party.”) (Appellant's App. at A261 (emphasis added)); License Agreement, ¶ 12(b) (\"The headings contained in this Agreement are used solely for convenience and do not constitute a part of the Agreement between the parties hereto.\") (Id. (emphasis added))." }, { "docid": "13646209", "title": "", "text": "the only factor which may tip the balance one way or another in this case. The court therefore turns to Terra’s arguments that it should not be bound by the forum selection clause in question here. ii. “Mandatory” and “permissive” forum selection clauses. Although a forum selection clause is ordinarily entitled to “significant” weight in a transfer analysis, Terra argues, for the first time in its supplemental brief, that the forum selection clause in this case is entitled to no weight whatsoever. Terra contends that this is so, because the forum selection clause at issue is neither mandatory nor exclusive. There are several answers to this argument. First, the court concludes that the forum selection clause in this case is mandatory and exclusive. The clause states that “[a]ny dispute or disputes arising between the parties hereunder ... will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi....” Terra contends that “will” is permissive, whereas “shall,” or “must” would have been mandatory, and that there is a total absence of words, such as “only” or “exclusively,” which would indicate that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi is the exclusive forum for actions between the parties. Terra’s arguments cannot stand, however, in the face of a number of decisions distinguishing between “mandatory” and “permissive” forum selection clauses, nor in the face of the ordinary meaning of the words used in the clause. Whether a forum selection clause is mandatory or permissive is a matter of contract interpretation reviewed de novo. Northern California Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir.1995) (hereinafter “Council of Laborers ”) (citing Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 77 (9th Cir.1987)); Milk ‘N’ More, Inc. v. Beavert, 963 F.2d 1342, 1345 (10th Cir.1992) (whether a forum selection clause is “mandatory” or “permissive” is a question reviewed de novo, because it is “basically one of contract interpretation,” also citing Hunt Wesson Foods, 817 F.2d at 77). Furthermore, where the clause is ambiguous as to whether" }, { "docid": "22819252", "title": "", "text": "from errors in the information contained in the Design Manual.” (Appellant’s App. at A255.) Although Terra contends that this provision is very limited in scope, it expressly envisions that future claims of defective design may arise between the parties. Moreover, Terra’s own complaint repeatedly refers to the specific promises that MCC made under the license agreement. (Id. at A18.) These facts support our conclusion that Terra’s tort claims arise under the license agreement, and therefore, the forum selection clause applies to Terra’s claims. B. Our conclusion that the scope of the forum selection clause covers Terra’s tort claims does not end our analysis, however. As mentioned earlier, the significance of the forum selection clause in this case arises in the context of a motion to transfer under section 1404(a). The fact that we have found the clause applicable merely allows us to consider it as one factor, albeit a very important one, in the overall transfer analysis. Terra posits the alternative argument that even if the forum selection clause applies, the other relevant factors, especially the convenience of the witnesses, weigh decidedly in favor of the Iowa forum and sufficiently outweigh the significance of the forum selection clause. Terra argues that the district court abused its discretion in evaluating these additional factors and in concluding that they do not weigh in favor of either Iowa or Mississippi, thus giving the forum selection clause dispositive effect in this case. Terra alleges that the district court abused its discretion in conducting the general section 1404(a) transfer analysis. Initially, Terra argues that the district court improperly shifted the burden of persuasion from MCC to Terra. In general, federal courts give considerable deference to a plaintiffs choice of forum and thus the party seeking a transfer under section 1404(a) typically bears the burden of proving that a transfer is warranted. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879; Scheldt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir.1992). Some courts, however, have held that the existence of a forum selection clause that dictates that a lawsuit should be transferred to another court shifts the burden to the" }, { "docid": "22819244", "title": "", "text": "was aware of the significance of the particular wording of these clauses at the time it drafted them. Consequently, we believe that the parties intended the forum selection clause in this case to apply only to disputes arising under the license agreement. This conclusion, however, only leads us to our next question — whether Terra’s tort claims actually arise under the license agreement. ‘Whether tort claims are to be governed by forum selection provisions depends upon the intention of the parties reflected in the wording of particular clauses and the facts of each ease.” Berrett v. Life Ins. Co. of the Southwest, 623 F.Supp. 946, 948-49 (D.Utah 1985). An analysis of the specific language of the forum selection clause in this ease does not clearly indicate whether the clause applies to Terra’s tort claims. As we have construed it, the clause requires any disputes arising under the license agreement to be determined in Mississippi. Terra asserts that its negligence and strict liability claims do not arise under the agreement because they are based on MCC’s breach of common law tort duties that are independent of any duty arising from the license agreement, and they do not require a particular construction of the agreement’s terms. MCC, on the other hand, contends that Terra’s tort claims target the specific subject matter of the license agreement, the neutralizer technology, and explains that without the license agreement, Terra never would have received the technology. Although the cases deciding whether very similarly-worded forum selection clauses cover tort claims have reached different conclusions, the majority of these cases suggests that such clauses do apply to tort claims. In Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Airborne Group PLC, 882 F.Supp. 1212 (D.P.R.1995), the parties entered into a sales agreement for the sale of a blimp. The agreement contained a forum selection clause which provided that “disputes hereunder or as to the construction of this Agreement shall be resolved in the Courts of England.” Id. at 1213. The court determined that, in addition to his breach of contract claims, this clause encompassed all of the plaintiffs tort claims" }, { "docid": "22819238", "title": "", "text": "clause in a contract is “a significant factor that figures centrally in the district court’s calculus.” Id. On appeal, Terra argues that the district court incorrectly found the forum selection clause applicable to its tort claims and improperly weighed the other section 1404(a) factors. Although the parties agree that we review a district court’s decision regarding a section 1404(a) transfer motion for an abuse of discretion, see Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29, 108 S.Ct. at 2243-44; Everett v. St. Ansgar Hosp., 974 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir.1992), they disagree over the appropriate standard of review regarding a district court’s construction of a forum selection clause. Terra argues that we should review the court’s interpretation of the forum selection clause de novo, because such an interpretation is equivalent to the construction of a contract which is a legal issue. MCC, however, asserts that in weighing the relevant section 1404(a) factors, the district court was not required to interpret the specific meaning of the forum selection clause but merely recognize its presence and factor it into the equation. Consequently, MCC believes that the abuse of discretion standard, which applies to the district court’s overall balancing of various factors, also applies to the court’s specific treatment of the forum selection clause. In Sun World Lines v. March Shipping Corp., 801 F.2d 1066, 1068 n. 3 (8th Cir.1986), this court, following the Ninth Cir cuit’s approach, reviewed for an abuse of discretion a district court’s “enforcement” of a forum selection clause. The dispute in Sun World, however, concerned the validity of the forum selection clause. Id. at 1067. In the case at hand, neither party challenges the validity of the forum selection clause; rather, they contest the specific meaning of the language used in the forum selection clause, which was not an issue in Sun World. The Ninth Circuit itself has refined its approach and has explained that it employs de novo review when a district court is required to interpret the language of a forum selection clause. Northern Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1036 n." }, { "docid": "22819253", "title": "", "text": "the convenience of the witnesses, weigh decidedly in favor of the Iowa forum and sufficiently outweigh the significance of the forum selection clause. Terra argues that the district court abused its discretion in evaluating these additional factors and in concluding that they do not weigh in favor of either Iowa or Mississippi, thus giving the forum selection clause dispositive effect in this case. Terra alleges that the district court abused its discretion in conducting the general section 1404(a) transfer analysis. Initially, Terra argues that the district court improperly shifted the burden of persuasion from MCC to Terra. In general, federal courts give considerable deference to a plaintiffs choice of forum and thus the party seeking a transfer under section 1404(a) typically bears the burden of proving that a transfer is warranted. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879; Scheldt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir.1992). Some courts, however, have held that the existence of a forum selection clause that dictates that a lawsuit should be transferred to another court shifts the burden to the party opposing the transfer motion. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 880; In Re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570, 573 (11th Cir.1989). Terra disagrees with the holdings in these cases and alleges that the district court abused its discretion by shifting the burden to Terra. The district court did in fact believe that the burden was on Terra to demonstrate why the forum selection clause should not be enforced. Terra, 922 F.Supp. at 1370. Nevertheless, the district court also stated that “even if the burden remained with MCC, MCC met that burden.” Id. at 1382 n. 33. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that MCC fulfilled any potential burden it had to prove that a transfer was warranted by establishing that the other section 1404(a) factors (discussed below) did not overcome the significance of the forum selection clause. Because we agree with the district court’s alternative conclusion that MCC fulfilled its potential burden, we decline to rule on the issue of whether a forum selection clause shifts the burden of proof to the party resisting" }, { "docid": "22819237", "title": "", "text": "when deciding a motion to transfer: (1) the convenience of the parties, (2) the convenience of the witnesses, and (3) the interests of justice. Id. Courts have not, however, limited a district court’s evaluation of a transfer motion to these enumerated factors. Instead, courts have recognized that such determinations require a case-by-case evaluation of the particular circumstances at hand and a consideration of all relevant factors. See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 2243-44, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988); Jumara v. State Farm, Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir.1995); 15 Challes Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3847, at 370 (2d ed.1986). As the Supreme Court explained, “[a] motion to transfer under § 1404(a) thus calls on the district court to weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors.” Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29,108 S.Ct. at 2244. Although there is no exhaustive list of specific factors to consider, courts have determined that a valid and applicable forum selection clause in a contract is “a significant factor that figures centrally in the district court’s calculus.” Id. On appeal, Terra argues that the district court incorrectly found the forum selection clause applicable to its tort claims and improperly weighed the other section 1404(a) factors. Although the parties agree that we review a district court’s decision regarding a section 1404(a) transfer motion for an abuse of discretion, see Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29, 108 S.Ct. at 2243-44; Everett v. St. Ansgar Hosp., 974 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir.1992), they disagree over the appropriate standard of review regarding a district court’s construction of a forum selection clause. Terra argues that we should review the court’s interpretation of the forum selection clause de novo, because such an interpretation is equivalent to the construction of a contract which is a legal issue. MCC, however, asserts that in weighing the relevant section 1404(a) factors, the district court was not required to interpret the specific meaning of the forum selection clause but merely recognize its presence and factor it into the" }, { "docid": "22819261", "title": "", "text": ". Having found the clause ambiguous, we appropriately consider extrinsic evidence to interpret this contract provision. See Marren v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 84 F.3d 1068, 1070 (8th Cir.1996); Uhl v. City of Sioux City, 490 N.W.2d 69, 73 (Iowa.Ct.App.1992); Farragut v. Massey, 612 So.2d 325, 329 (Miss.1992). . Our references to portions of the License Agreement that refer to possible design defects merely bolster our belief that the forum selection clause applies to Terra's common law tort claims. We express no views regarding the applicability of any other provision (including any provision for the limitation of liability or damages) of the License Agreement to Terra's tort claims. . In The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 1913, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1971), the Supreme Court also suggests that the burden shifts to the party resisting the application of a forum selection clause to demonstrate that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable. The breadth of this holding, however, is unclear due to the fact that the Court subsequently states that \"this is the correct doctrine to be followed by federal district courts sitting in admiralty.” Id. . The district court in Mississippi reached this very conclusion. Unlike the Iowa district court, the Mississippi court believed that the convenience factors favored Iowa but determined that the forum selection clause outweighed these considerations. See Mississippi Chem. Corp., 1996 WL 293764, *3. . In the district court, Terra initially argued that because it filed its lawsuit in Iowa a few hours before MCC filed its lawsuit in Mississippi, the first-filed rule dictates that this litigation should proceed in Iowa. See United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 920 F.2d 487, 488 (8th Cir.1990) (first-filed rule gives priority, for purposes of choosing among possible venues when parallel litigation has been instituted in separate courts, to the party who first established jurisdiction). The district court concluded that the first-filed rule does not \"trump” the transfer analysis and reasoned that when a transfer analysis under section 1404(a) dictates that a case should be" }, { "docid": "13646208", "title": "", "text": "The Bremen, and finding that Stewart states that a forum selection clause is a significant factor in the transfer calculus; the court held that “mere inconvenience and expense of traveling are not, standing alone, adequate reasons to disturb the parties’ contractual choice of forum,” because the forum selection clause is determinative of convenience). In the present ease, the court has found that the forum selection clause is valid and reasonable, and was fairly negotiated as part of the licensing agreement. The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15, 92 S.Ct. at 1916. In these circumstances, Terra “has already freely contractually chosen an appropriate forum,” and the court finds Terra must therefore “bear the burden of demonstrating why [it] should not be bound by [its] contractual choice of forum.” Jumara, 55 F.3d at 880. The court has already found that consideration of all other § 1404(a) factors shows that the balance of convenience is “flat,” so that the forum selection clause, entitled to “significant” weight in any event, Stewart, 487 U.S. at 30-31, 108 S.Ct. at 2244-45, is the only factor which may tip the balance one way or another in this case. The court therefore turns to Terra’s arguments that it should not be bound by the forum selection clause in question here. ii. “Mandatory” and “permissive” forum selection clauses. Although a forum selection clause is ordinarily entitled to “significant” weight in a transfer analysis, Terra argues, for the first time in its supplemental brief, that the forum selection clause in this case is entitled to no weight whatsoever. Terra contends that this is so, because the forum selection clause at issue is neither mandatory nor exclusive. There are several answers to this argument. First, the court concludes that the forum selection clause in this case is mandatory and exclusive. The clause states that “[a]ny dispute or disputes arising between the parties hereunder ... will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi....” Terra contends that “will” is permissive, whereas “shall,” or “must” would have been mandatory, and that there is a total absence" }, { "docid": "22819241", "title": "", "text": "transfer analysis under section 1404(a). To reiterate, the forum selection clause provides, “Any dispute or disputes arising between the parties hereunder, insofar as the same cannot be settled by friendly agreement, will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi....” (Appellant’s App. at A261.) Terra contends that the word “hereunder” modifies the word “arising” instead of the word “parties,” indicating that the clause applies only to claims arising under the license agreement. Terra asserts that its tort claims do not arise under the agreement but are independent of it. The district court rejected Terra’s interpretation and emphasized that the placement of “hereunder” directly after “parties” unambiguously indicates that “hereunder” modifies “parties.” Terra, 922 F.Supp. at 1376. Thus, the court concluded that the forum selection clause unambiguously applies to any disputes arising between the parties. Id. at 1375-76. After analyzing the language of the clause and reviewing the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the forum selection clause is reasonably susceptible to both interpretations. The placement of “hereunder” directly after the word “parties” could reasonably suggest that it modifies “parties,” which would give the clause a very broad scope covering any disputes arising between the parties. We also find Terra’s interpretation reasonable, because we are persuaded that, at least in this contractual context, “hereunder” typically signifies “under the agreement,” while “hereto” most often refers to the parties to the agreement. Thus, we find that the clause is ambiguous. See Wilson v. Prudential Ins. Co. Am., 97 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir.1996); Service Unlimited, Inc. v. Elder, 542 N.W.2d 855, 857 (Iowa.Ct.App.1995); Texaco, Inc. v. Kennedy, 271 So.2d 450, 452 (Miss.1973). Terra urges us to construe the ambiguous clause against its drafter' — MCC. We decline to apply the doctrine of contra proferentem to this case due to the relatively equal bargaining strengths of both parties and the fact that Terra was represented by sophisticated legal counsel during the formation of the license agreement. See Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1166 n. 33 (1st Cir.1994). We are" }, { "docid": "13646227", "title": "", "text": "to such claims, Terra should not manage to evade the scope of the forum selection clause by artful pleading of tort causes of action that plainly are related to the parties’ contractual relationship. The court will therefore seek to untangle two final, but very complex, knots in the strand of legal reasoning that will lead the court to a proper disposition of the pending motions. The court must address the parties’ heated debate over the meaning of the forum selection clause, then consider what is generally the applicability of a contractual forum selection clause to tort claims, and, more specifically, what is the applicability of this contractual forum selection clause to the tort claims brought here. i. The syntactical knot. Before undertaking the syntactical analysis called for by the parties, it would be well to reiterate the language of the forum selection clause at issue. That clause, and its companion choice-of-law clause, read as follows: This Agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi. Any dispute or disputes arising between the parties hereunder, insofar as the same cannot be settled by friendly agreement, will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi and, for the purposes of instituting such suit, COMPANY hereby consents to service in connection therewith through the Secretary of State for the State of Mississippi. The focus of the grammatical arguments is the choice of the word “hereunder” and its placement in the clause. MCC argues that “hereunder” refers to the parties, and the language stating “any dispute or disputes arising between the parties” plainly applies to tort as well as contract claims. Terra argues that if the word “hereunder” was meant to refer to parties, it should have been “hereto.” Terra points out that “hereunder” is an adverb, and, as such, usually modifies either a verb or an adjective, and in this ease must modify what Terra calls the “verbal adjective” “arising.” Furthermore, Terra brands MCC’s interpretation “absurd” and “overly expansive,” because, according to Terra, if “hereunder” refers to the parties, the" }, { "docid": "13646114", "title": "", "text": "by the choice of forum in the licensing agreement whereby Terra acquired MCC’s technology for use in the Port Neal plant. On April 28,1980, the parties entered into a licensing agreement under which MCC agreed to furnish Terra with technical information and services necessary for Terra’s use of MCC’s neutralizer technology at the Port Neal facility. The licensing agreement contained a forum selection clause, which MCC asserts is applicable to both its claims and Terra’s claims, and therefore is either controlling or persuasive on the venue questions before the court. That clause, with emphasis added, reads as follows: This Agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi. Any dispute or disputes arising between the parties hereunder, insofar as the same cannot be settled by friendly agreement, will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi and, for the purposes of instituting such suit, COMPANY hereby consents to service in connection therewith through the Secretary of State for the State of Mississippi. The court’s findings concerning the asserted ambiguity and applicability of this forum selection clause are stated in the pertinent sections of the following legal analysis. Of more general significance are the circumstances under which the licensing agreement containing the forum selection clause was negotiated. The licensing agreement was negotiated at arms length between two sophisticated companies. The court finds that the parties negotiated the contract from positions of equal bargaining strength. Furthermore, each was represented by legal counsel. Indeed, Terra was represented by a prominent Wall Street law firm. Although Terra sought over thirty changes to the licensing agreement, it did not seek any changes to the forum selection clause, thereby acquiescing to its terms. The circumstances under which the licensing agreement in general, and the forum selection clause in particular, was negotiated give no hint that the agreement or its terms were the products of fraud, influence, or overweening bargaining power. Thus, the forum selection clause represents a negotiated preference of the parties to litigate covered disputes in federal court in Mississippi. Furthermore, the" }, { "docid": "13646228", "title": "", "text": "between the parties hereunder, insofar as the same cannot be settled by friendly agreement, will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi and, for the purposes of instituting such suit, COMPANY hereby consents to service in connection therewith through the Secretary of State for the State of Mississippi. The focus of the grammatical arguments is the choice of the word “hereunder” and its placement in the clause. MCC argues that “hereunder” refers to the parties, and the language stating “any dispute or disputes arising between the parties” plainly applies to tort as well as contract claims. Terra argues that if the word “hereunder” was meant to refer to parties, it should have been “hereto.” Terra points out that “hereunder” is an adverb, and, as such, usually modifies either a verb or an adjective, and in this ease must modify what Terra calls the “verbal adjective” “arising.” Furthermore, Terra brands MCC’s interpretation “absurd” and “overly expansive,” because, according to Terra, if “hereunder” refers to the parties, the forum selection clause would encompass any dispute between the parties, irrespective of the subject matter, time, or place. Terra gives as an example of this absurdity, its assertion that the forum selection clause, interpreted as MCC would have it, would apply to “a truck accident in California involving Terra and MCC vehicles, even in the year 2000.” Terra’s Surreply, p. 5. The court concludes that Terra’s arguments do more to tangle the thread of meaning in the clause than they do to untangle it. First, Terra asserts that “hereunder” means “under or in accordance with this writing or document,” see WebsteR’s New Collegiate DICTIONARY 536 (1977), which Terra asserts means the reference must be to disputes under the agreement, i.e., contract disputes. Terra contrasts the meaning of “hereto,” which it offers as “to this writing or document,” which might properly pertain to the parties. Id. Terra points to another part of the licensing agreement between the parties in which the word “hereto” is used once where clearly referring to parties, because “hereunder” is used in" }, { "docid": "22819240", "title": "", "text": "3 (9th Cir.1995). Here, interpreting the language of the forum selection clause is necessary to the section 1404(a) transfer analysis. Before a district court can even consider a forum selection clause in its transfer analysis, it first must decide whether the clause applies to the type of claims asserted in the lawsuit. Following the Ninth Circuit’s approach, as well as our own standard of review in cases of contract interpretation, see United States v. Brekke, 97 F.3d 1043, 1049 (8th Cir.1996) (applying de novo review to district court’s construction of a contract), we conclude that de novo review is the appropriate standard for reviewing a district court’s interpretation of the specific terms contained in a forum selection clause. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 880-81; Hugel v. Corporation of Lloyd’s, 999 F.2d 206, 207 (7th Cir.1993); Milk ‘N’ More, Inc. v. Beavert, 963 F.2d 1342, 1345 (10th Cir.1992). A. Terra claims that the forum selection clause in the license agreement does not apply to its tort claims and therefore should not receive any consideration in the transfer analysis under section 1404(a). To reiterate, the forum selection clause provides, “Any dispute or disputes arising between the parties hereunder, insofar as the same cannot be settled by friendly agreement, will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi....” (Appellant’s App. at A261.) Terra contends that the word “hereunder” modifies the word “arising” instead of the word “parties,” indicating that the clause applies only to claims arising under the license agreement. Terra asserts that its tort claims do not arise under the agreement but are independent of it. The district court rejected Terra’s interpretation and emphasized that the placement of “hereunder” directly after “parties” unambiguously indicates that “hereunder” modifies “parties.” Terra, 922 F.Supp. at 1376. Thus, the court concluded that the forum selection clause unambiguously applies to any disputes arising between the parties. Id. at 1375-76. After analyzing the language of the clause and reviewing the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the forum selection clause is reasonably susceptible to both interpretations. The placement of" }, { "docid": "22819243", "title": "", "text": "convinced, however, that Terra’s more narrow interpretation of the forum selection clause (i.e., “hereunder” modifies “arising” not “parties”) is more compelling. First, construing the license agreement as a whole, see, e.g., Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662, 664 (8th Cir.1995); Lange v. Lange, 520 N.W.2d 113, 119 (Iowa 1994); Brown v. Hartford Ins. Co., 606 So.2d 122, 126 (Miss.1992), the parties uniformly use the word “hereunder” in several other portions of the license agreement to mean “under this Agreement,” while they use the word “hereto” to refer to the parties to the Agreement. Second, the forum selection clauses contained in MCC’s license agreements with other parties indicate that MCC knew how to draft an explicitly broad clause when it wanted to but did not do so here. One such clause reads, “Should any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever arise between MCC and [redacted party] in connection with or arising out of this Agreement____” (Appellant’s App. at A264.) Moreover, these other clauses were drafted many years before this litigation arose which indicates that MCC was aware of the significance of the particular wording of these clauses at the time it drafted them. Consequently, we believe that the parties intended the forum selection clause in this case to apply only to disputes arising under the license agreement. This conclusion, however, only leads us to our next question — whether Terra’s tort claims actually arise under the license agreement. ‘Whether tort claims are to be governed by forum selection provisions depends upon the intention of the parties reflected in the wording of particular clauses and the facts of each ease.” Berrett v. Life Ins. Co. of the Southwest, 623 F.Supp. 946, 948-49 (D.Utah 1985). An analysis of the specific language of the forum selection clause in this ease does not clearly indicate whether the clause applies to Terra’s tort claims. As we have construed it, the clause requires any disputes arising under the license agreement to be determined in Mississippi. Terra asserts that its negligence and strict liability claims do not arise under the agreement because they are based on MCC’s" } ]

[ { "docid": "17193023", "title": "", "text": "considered involuntary in light of the circumstances. We agree that Mendoza generally had the right to pursue alternative defenses. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez, 943 F.2d 110, 113-14 & n. 4 (1st Cir.1991) (defendant may claim interest in cocaine at suppression hearing but deny possession charge at trial). We need not delve into that issue, however, because a much more straightforward principle of law supports the district court’s decision to deny a volun-tariness hearing. See United States v. Lawrence, 889 F.2d at 1190 (quoting J.E. Riley Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 311 U.S. 55, 59, 61 S.Ct. 95, 97, 85 L.Ed. 36 (1940)) (“ ‘Where the decision below is correct it must be affirmed by the appellate court though the lower tribunal gave a wrong reason for its action.’ ”); Doe v. Anrig, 728 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir.1984) (appellate court free to affirm based on any ground supported by the record). Under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant waives a suppression claim if it is not made before trial, see F.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3), (f), and a court may grant relief from the waiver only “for cause shown,” id. at (f). See, e.g., United States v. Leal, 831 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1987). In this case, defendant filed a pretrial motion for suppression of his confession, but based it entirely on Agent Pena’s improper initiation of questioning. The voluntariness issue was not raised until the fifth day of trial and, accordingly, was waived. The record shows no reason for the delay that would have permitted the court to grant relief from the waiver. See United States v. Wilson, 895 F.2d 168, 173 (4th Cir.1990) (finding waiver where volun-tariness hearing requested on day of trial, one month after hearing on motion to suppress other evidence). See also 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 193, at 698 & n. 24 (1982) (relief under 12(f) should be granted only upon showing of cause and prejudice). We note, in addition, that the district court’s refusal to hold a hearing, although not expressed in terms of" } ]

[ { "docid": "15452474", "title": "", "text": "pretrial suppression motion, will have another bite at the apple.” United States v. Brown, 663 F.2d 229, 238 (D.C.Cir.1981)(en banc)(Wiley, J. concurring). VII Finally, our holding today is consistent with a majority of other circuits that have addressed this question, notwithstanding some intra-circuit conflicts that will be noted below: United States v. McDowell, 918 F.2d 1004, 1009 (1st Cir.1990) (failure to file pretrial suppression motion resulted in waiver, and therefore merits will not be considered on appeal); see also, United States v. Nunez, 19 F.3d 719, n. 10 (1st Cir.1994)(commenting “[f]ew courts have squarely considered whether a Rule 12(f) waiver obviates ‘plain error’ review under Rule 52(b). A number of courts have proceeded with ‘plain error’ review, however, without discussing the impact of Rule 12(f) waiver.... In any event, our precedent does not require ‘plain error’ review in circumstances where reliable review has been rendered impossible by inadequate development at the district court level_”). United States v. Ulloa, 882 F.2d 41, 43 (2d Cir.1989) (“The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and our eases make clear that a motion to suppress evidence must be made before trial and failure to make such a motion constitutes waiver.... The lawfulness of the seizures is therefore not available for consideration on appeal” (internal citations omitted)). United States v. Randolph, 27 F.3d 564 (4th Cir.)(failure to raise timely pretrial suppression motion resulted in waiver), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 942, 115 S.Ct. 349, 130 L.Ed.2d 305 (1996); United States v. Badwan, 624 F.2d 1228, 1231 (4th Cir.1980)(same). United States v. Vincent, 20 F.3d 229, 234 (6th Cir.1994)(applying plain error standards to a claim that was raised for the first time on appeal, but refusing to consider a suppression issue that was not raised below: “under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3), defendant was required to raise suppression issues prior to trial, and because failure to do so constituted a waiver of this claim, Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f), we are precluded from considering his claim on appeal.”); United States v. Obiukwu, 17 F.3d 816, 819 (6th Cir.1994)(holding that fail ure to file a timely suppression motion constitutes waiver, and" }, { "docid": "2514642", "title": "", "text": "district court denied this motion, the defense rested. Following a jury verdict of guilty as to both counts of the indictment, appellant renewed its Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 motion. The district court denied this motion as well, United States v. Gomez-Benabe, 781 F.Supp. 848 (D.P.R.1991), and Miguel Gomez appeals. II. Discussion Appellant claims that his constitutional rights were violated because the photo arrays used for pretrial identification were unduly suggestive and the product of an illegal arrest. The record is clear, however, that appellant failed to make a Rule 16 motion requesting discovery of the pretrial identification evidence before trial. Rather, appellant only sought pretrial discovery of the identity of the confidential informant, the identities of the law enforcement agents, and any exculpatory materials in the government’s possession. More importantly, appellant also failed to make a Rule 12 motion to suppress the photo identifications before trial. The relevant sections of Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 state: (b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense, objection, or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion. Motions may be written or oral at the discretion of the judge. The following must be raised prior to trial: ****** (3) Motions to suppress evidence; or ****** (4) Requests for discovery under Rule 16.... * * * if! * * (f) Effect of Failure to Raise Defenses or Objections. Failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court pursuant to subdivision (c), or prior to any extension thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) & (f) (emphasis added). When, as here, a defendant has failed to take full advantage of his Rule 16(a)(1)(C) discovery request options, his resulting ignorance of a photo’s existence does not excuse him from Rule 12’s requirement that motions to suppress be filed early. The plain language of Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) & (f) establishes that Gomez waived his right to a suppression hearing" }, { "docid": "2514644", "title": "", "text": "by failing to move for such a hearing before trial. See United States v. Leal, 831 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1987). A court may grant relief from this waiver only “for cause shown.” United States v. Mendoza-Acevedo, 950 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Gomez, 770 F.2d 251, 253-54 (1st Cir.1985). As we have stated before “the decision to grant or deny relief under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f) is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse.” Gomez, 770 F.2d at 253. We find no such abuse in this case. Before trial, appellant did not challenge the circumstances surrounding his arrest or the validity of the pretrial photo identification. Appellant made no pretrial suppression motion on either basis. As the district court pointed out, it “had no idea that the pretrial identification procedures might have been the fruits of an illegal arrest and subject to the exclusionary rule or that they had been conducted in such a way as to possibly violate defendant’s due process right” until evidence was presented at trial. United States v. Gomez-Benabe, 781 F.Supp. 848, 854 (D.P.R.1991). As a matter of policy, suppression issues should be considered before trial because “ ‘interrupting] the course of the trial for such auxiliary inquiries impedes the momentum of the main proceeding and breaks the continuity of the jury’s attention.’ ” Gomez, 770 F.2d at 253, quoting Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 342, 60 S.Ct. 266, 268, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939). The district judge’s decision furthers this sensible and longstanding policy. Furthermore, there is no legitimate explanation for appellant’s delay in filing a suppression motion that would have allowed the district court to grant relief from the waiver. See United States v. Mendoza-Acevedo, 950 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1991). In short, the record is that appellant knew all there was to know about the circumstances surrounding his arrest necessary to bring a motion to suppress. We must agree with the district court’s conclusion that “[w]ithout some reason as to why a motion to suppress was" }, { "docid": "15452482", "title": "", "text": "pendency of the proceedings); or (3) Motions to suppress evidence; or (4) Requests for discovery under Rule 16; or (5) Requests for a severance of charges or defendants under Ride 14. . Rule 12(f) provides: (f) Effect of Failure To Raise Defenses or Objections. Failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court pursuant to subdivision (c), or prior to any extension thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. . Nonetheless, some Fifth Circuit cases have suggested that even under the old Rule 41(e), failure to raise a timely suppression motion results in waiver. See, e.g., Garcia v. United States, 315 F.2d 133 (1963)(holding that when defendant failed to raise a timely suppression motion on Rule 41(e), \"he waived any right he might have had to assert that the evidence against him was obtained by illegal search and seizure.”); but see, United States v. Love, 472 F.2d 490, 497 (5th Cir.1973)(quoting, in dicta, 3 Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 856; \"Even without either a pretrial motion or an objection at trial, the appellate court may consider whether evidence was illegally obtained if it is clear from the record that plain error was committed.\") . The comments to the amendment note: [Rule 12] (b) is changed to provide for some additional motions and requests which must be made prior to trial. Subdivisions (b)(1) [relating to defects in the institution of the prosecution] and (2) [relating to defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment] are restatements of the old rule. Subdivision (b)(3) makes clear that objections to evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained must be raised prior to trial. . See, Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1444, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960) (exclusionary rule \"is calculated to prevent, not to repair”); see also, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 486, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3048, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (exclusionary" }, { "docid": "20205864", "title": "", "text": "suppress be raised prior to trial in accordance with the district court’s desired timetable.” Id. Well after Olano, the waiver provision was moved to subsection (e) of Rule 12, and the text was revised, but the waiver provision remained intact. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 advisory committee’s note on 2002 amendments. “Had the drafters thought that term outdated in light of Olano or other precedent, they could have changed the term to ‘forfeiture,’ but they did not.” Rose, 538 F.3d at 183. In our case, Green did file a motion to suppress, but the mere filing of a motion is not sufficient to avoid waiver of specific arguments that are advanced for the first time on appeal. The Rule 12 “waiver provision ‘applies not only to the failure to make a pretrial motion, but also to the failure to include a particular argument in the motion.’ ” Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d at 656 (quoting United States v. Barajas-Chavez, 358 F.3d 1263, 1266-67 (10th Cir.2004)); accord Burke, 633 F.3d at 991; Rose, 538 F.3d at 182. The rule declares that a party waives any Rule 12(b)(3) “objection” not raised by the court’s pretrial deadline. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). Rule 12(b)(3) sought to make “clear that objections to evidence on the ground that it was illegally, obtained must be raised prior to trial.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 advisory committee’s note on 1974 amendment. Although Green filed a pretrial motion to suppress, he did not urge that Growney made a de facto arrest or that the officer conducted an illegal search when he touched Green’s chest. Thus, the government had no reason to justify the officer’s actions that Green now challenges on appeal, and the district court had no occasion to address the issues. Absent a showing of good cause, the arguments that Green seeks to raise for the first time on appeal are waived under Rule 12(e). We discern no “good cause” that warrants relief from the waiver in this case. The evidence regarding Growney’s touching of Green’s chest was adduced at the suppression hearing. While belated discovery of disputed evidence might explain a defendant’s failure to raise" }, { "docid": "1340488", "title": "", "text": "must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court pursuant to subdivision (c), or prior to any extension thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. The advisory committee notes to the 1974 amendment to Rule 12 confirmed that “[subdivision (b) is changed to provide for some additional motions and requests which must be made prior to trial,” and specifically that “[s]ubdivision (b)(3) makes clear that objections to evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained must be raised prior to trial.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 advisory committee’s note to 1974 amendment. Subsequent minor changes notwithstanding, the 1974 amendments resulted in the treatment of suppression motions in Rule 12 that exists today. The waiver provision of section (f) was moved to section (e) in 2002, and its text was revised, but in making the change “the [Advisory] Committee intended] to make no change in the ... law regarding waivers of motions or defenses.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 advisory committee’s note to 2002 amendments. B. Our Court’s Decisions Our Court has never explicitly acknowledged the tension between Rule 12’s waiver provision and Rule 52(b)’s plain error provision where suppression issues raised for the first time on appeal are concerned. In one line of cases we have applied waiver and in another we have applied plain error, yet no case in either line refers to any case in the other line during its discussion of the suppression issue, nor to the Rule that arguably presents a different standard. Our waiver cases began with Frank, where we invoked Rule 12(b)(3) to hold that the defendant waived his argument that, inter alia, the warrant did not issue in compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(a) because he did not raise the issue to the district court. 864 F.2d at 1006. Then, in Velasquez we held that because the defendant did not raise to the district court her argument that her confession was involuntary, we “d[id] not reach the confession issue.” 885 F.2d at 1084 n. 6. And in Martinez-Hidalgo," }, { "docid": "6575270", "title": "", "text": "district court erred in denying his “numerous requests” for a suppression hearing regarding incriminating statements he made to law enforcement agents, and that, thereafter, those statements were admitted in evidence erroneously, including because of coercion and his not having been advised of his Miranda rights. Knezek, however, failed to timely and properly move to suppress, as required by the local rules and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12. Pursuant to the latter, motions to suppress “must be raised prior to trial”. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3). Failure to do so constitutes a waiver, “but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f). When Knezek finally, orally, moved to suppress, at the start of trial, the district court ruled that, for several reasons, the matter had been waived. We review that ruling for abuse of discretion. United States v. Marx, 635 F.2d 436, 441 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981); United States v. Bullock, 590 F.2d 117, 120 (5th Cir.1979). A district court does not abuse its discretion under Rule 12(f) in denying a suppression motion solely on the ground that the defendant failed to comply with pretrial procedures. Marx, 635 F.2d at 440-41; Bullock, 590 F.2d at 120. Knezek unquestionably failed to comply with Rule 12 and the local rules. Nor, pursuant to Rule 12(f), did he seek to show cause for relief from the finding of waiver. But, even assuming arguendo that the motion to suppress was made “prior to trial”, other factors support there not being an abuse of discretion in this case; waiver is firmly-grounded in those bases as well. The deadline for pretrial motions was June 11, 1990. A motion to suppress was never filed, either before or after that date. On June 26, Knezek’s lawyer filed a motion to withdraw, stating that Knezek was dissatisfied, because, among other things, Knezek “seem[ed] to think that Counsel should have filed some kind of pretrial motion in his case.” Knezek’s first informal request for a suppression hearing occurred two days later, well past the pretrial motion deadline. Moreover, his stated reason for wanting an unidentified statement suppressed" }, { "docid": "13160986", "title": "", "text": "was entitled to a full suppression hearing under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12, despite that fact that he failed to move for such a hearing prior to the beginning of his trial. The relevant sections of Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 read as follows: (b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense, objection, or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion. Motions may be written or oral at the discretion of the judge. The following must be raised prior to trial: ****** (3) Motions to suppress evidence; ... ****** (f) Effect of Failure to Raise Defenses or Objections. Failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial ... shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. Id. (emphasis added). The language of Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) and (f) makes clear that, in the absence of a grant of relief by the district court on a showing of good cause, Leal waived his right to a suppression hearing by failing to move for such a hearing prior to the commencement of his trial. See United States v. Gomez, 770 F.2d 251, 253 (1st Cir.1985); United States v. Barletta, 644 F.2d 50, 54 (1st Cir.1981). The decision to grant or deny Leal relief under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f) rests in the district court’s sound discretion and may not be overturned by this court absent a showing of abuse. Gomez, 770 F.2d at 253. Here, no such abuse has been shown. Moreover, even had Leal preserved this issue for appeal, which he did not, the district court properly found probable cause for Leal’s arrest, thus making the search incident to that arrest lawful. “The constitutionality of a warrantless arrest ‘depends ... upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that the [defendant] had committed or was" }, { "docid": "21565141", "title": "", "text": "request to file out of time. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 619 F.2d 494, 497 (5th Cir.1980) (district court abused its discretion in denying motion to suppress because “[government was not prejudiced by any delay”). Under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, motions to suppress must be raised prior to trial or by the court-appointed deadline. See Fed.R. Crim.P. 12(b)(3), 12(c). Under Rule 12(f), the failure of the defendant to raise a motion to suppress prior to the time set by the court “shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver” (emphasis added). We have previously declared that a motion under Rule 12(f) “is addressed to the discretion of the district judge and is to be disturbed only for clear error.” United States v. Wertz, 625 F.2d 1128, 1132 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 904, 101 S.Ct. 278, 66 L.Ed.2d 136 (1980); see also United States v. Leal, 831 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1987) (denial of relief under Rule 12(f) may be disturbed only for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, reviewing courts rarely grant relief from denials of untimely suppression motions. See generally 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal 2d § 193, at 698 n. 24 (2d ed. 1982) (gathering cases). In the cases that have denied relief from these tardy suppression motions, however, the defendant either moved to suppress after the trial had commenced, on the morning of the trial, or, when filing after the court-imposed deadline, because of a dubious excuse. See, e.g., United States v. Milian-Rodriguez, 828 F.2d 679, 683 (11th Cir.1987) (district court did not abuse discretion when defendant did not move to suppress until 49 days after the motions filing deadline), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1054, 108 S.Ct. 2820, 100 L.Ed.2d 921 (1988); United States v. Taylor, 792 F.2d 1019, 1025 (11th Cir.1986) (attempt to suppress three days into trial rejected because defendant counsel had three weeks to examine potentially excludable material), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1030, 107 S.Ct. 1957, 95 L.Ed.2d 530 (1987); United States v. Grandmont, 680 F.2d 867," }, { "docid": "1573915", "title": "", "text": "error by not allowing him to file a motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained by the government in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b, 1681k, the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4), and DOL regulations. Appellant attempted to file his motion on April 27, 1981, three months after arraignment and on the morning the trial began. The court refused to permit the filing because it was untimely. On May 15, 1981, appellant moved for a new trial, complaining in part that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to hear the suppression motion. On May 28, 1981, the district court denied, without opinion, this first motion for a new trial. Motions to suppress must ordinarily be raised prior to trial. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3), 41(f). Moreover, the court, under Rule 12(c), may “set a time for the making of pretrial motions or requests.” Finally, under Rule 12(f), failure to make the motion “at the time set by the court pursuant to subdivision (c), or prior to any extension ..., shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.” The district court of course need not be unduly rigid in applying the timeliness requirement. As the Supreme Court noted, Rule 41(e) (later divided into the present subdivisions (e) and (f)) is “not a narrow, finicky procedural requirement,” and courts have discretion to hear motions to suppress during trial. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 264, 80 S.Ct. 725, 732, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980). Nevertheless, given the intricacies of trial scheduling and crowded dockets, and the desirability of deciding questions of government misconduct not relevant to the issue of guilt prior to trial, courts are understandably reluctant to grant relief except in unusually meritorious cases for untimely motions under Rule 12(f). See generally 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 193, at 698 & nn. 23-24, 703 n. 36 (2d ed. 1982) (discussing Rule 12(f) cases granting and denying" }, { "docid": "16645375", "title": "", "text": "motions to suppress evidence, and (2) whether it was proper to include the drug amounts from the ledger pages when calculating Batista’s sentence. Because of our holding on the first issue, see infra, it is unnecessary for us to reach the merits of the suppression motions themselves. A. Suppression Arguments Waived In federal criminal proceedings, motions to suppress evidence must be raised prior to trial. Fed. R.CRIM. P. 12(b)(3). “The rationale usually given for removing suppression questions from the trial itself is that ‘interrupt[ing] the course of the trial for such auxiliary inquiries impedes the momentum of the main proceeding and breaks the continuity of the jury’s attention.’ ” United States v. Gomez, 770 F.2d 251, 253 (1st Cir.1985) (quoting Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 342, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939)). Failure to raise suppression arguments before trial “shall constitute waiver thereof.” Fed. R.CRIM. P. 12(f). This is mandatory language, and the rule applies broadly. See, e.g., United States v. Torres, 162 F.3d 6, 11 (1st Cir.1998) (holding that not only is there waiver when the defendant fails altogether to file a motion to suppress before trial, but even when he has done so but did not include a particular ground and wishes to add it later), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1057, 119 S.Ct. 1370, 143 L.Ed.2d 530 (1999); United States v. Mendoza-Acevedo, 950 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1991) (same). A single narrow exception to the waiver rule provides that “the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.” Fed. R.CRIM. P. 12(f). This relief is rarely granted, and only where there is a showing of cause and prejudice. 1 ChaRles A. WRight, Federal Practice AND Proce dure § 193, at 339 & n. 24 (3d ed.1999). We have held in the past, and reiterate here, that a mere tactical decision to delay-efforts to suppress evidence until it is adduced at trial does not come close to meeting this burden. United States v. Nunez, 19 F.3d 719, 722 (1st Cir.1994) (distinguishing tactical decisions, or even changing one’s mind later, from the paradigmatic ground for" }, { "docid": "2514641", "title": "", "text": "materials relating to offers of immunity or leniency offered by the government to potential witnesses; and (3) names of the enforcement agents that participated in the surveillance at the Ponce pier. Appellant made no pretrial request, however, to discover documents or photos relating to the pretrial identification procedures within the possession of the government pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C). At trial, following the presentation of its case, the government renewed a prior motion to admit two photo arrays into evidence. Appellant had failed to move to suppress this pretrial identification evidence before trial as required by Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) and (f). As a result, it was not until the close of the government’s case-in-chief, when the prosecutor renewed his motion to admit the photos, that Gomez first moved to suppress the photos. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court admitted the photo arrays into evidence. Appellant objected to the district court’s ruling and the government rested its case. Following the government’s case-in-chief, appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29. After the district court denied this motion, the defense rested. Following a jury verdict of guilty as to both counts of the indictment, appellant renewed its Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 motion. The district court denied this motion as well, United States v. Gomez-Benabe, 781 F.Supp. 848 (D.P.R.1991), and Miguel Gomez appeals. II. Discussion Appellant claims that his constitutional rights were violated because the photo arrays used for pretrial identification were unduly suggestive and the product of an illegal arrest. The record is clear, however, that appellant failed to make a Rule 16 motion requesting discovery of the pretrial identification evidence before trial. Rather, appellant only sought pretrial discovery of the identity of the confidential informant, the identities of the law enforcement agents, and any exculpatory materials in the government’s possession. More importantly, appellant also failed to make a Rule 12 motion to suppress the photo identifications before trial. The relevant sections of Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 state: (b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense, objection, or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before" }, { "docid": "1340487", "title": "", "text": "evidence may be made in the court of the district of trial as provided in Rule 12.” Rule 12, in turn, stated that “[a]ny defense or objection which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before the trial by motion.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(1) (emphasis added). Although subsection (b)(2) of Rule 12 listed some defenses and objections that “must” be raised before trial or else be “waive[d],” suppression motions were not among them. Only defenses and objections based on “defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment or information” were listed in that subsection. All of this changed in 1974, when the Rules were amended explicitly to require — this time with threat of waiver— that motions to suppress be raised prior to trial. Rule 12(b) was amended to state that “[m]otions to suppress evidence” “must be raised prior to trial” (emphasis added), and section (f) of the amended Rule explicitly stated that [f]ailure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court pursuant to subdivision (c), or prior to any extension thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. The advisory committee notes to the 1974 amendment to Rule 12 confirmed that “[subdivision (b) is changed to provide for some additional motions and requests which must be made prior to trial,” and specifically that “[s]ubdivision (b)(3) makes clear that objections to evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained must be raised prior to trial.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 advisory committee’s note to 1974 amendment. Subsequent minor changes notwithstanding, the 1974 amendments resulted in the treatment of suppression motions in Rule 12 that exists today. The waiver provision of section (f) was moved to section (e) in 2002, and its text was revised, but in making the change “the [Advisory] Committee intended] to make no change in the ... law regarding waivers of motions or defenses.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 advisory committee’s note to" }, { "docid": "1292230", "title": "", "text": "imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii)(II). Koontz’s properly determined Guidelines sentence exceeded 10 years by one month. III. Santana A. Motion to Suppress Santana challenges his conviction on the ground that the district court improperly denied consideration of his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence based upon a detention and seizure for which he says the police officers and FBI agents lacked probable cause. Santana’s motion in the district court was untimely. The district court granted three extensions of time to file pre-trial motions prior to the final motion date set by the court, April 26, 1991. On that date, Santana filed nine motions, including motions to suppress certain evidence. Thirty-nine days later Santana filed the motion at issue, along with a motion to file out of time. The district court denied both motions without a hearing. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(c) require the filing of all motions to suppress by the date set by the court. The failure to file a timely motion constitutes a waiver, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f); however, a district court may grant relief from the waiver upon a showing of: (1) cause for the defendant’s non-compliance, and (2) actual prejudice arising from the waiver. See United States v. Hamm, 786 F.2d 804, 806-07 (7th Cir.1986); 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure (Criminal) § 193, at 698 n. 24 (2d ed. 1982) (citing Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 84, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2505, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977)). We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 12(f) motion only for clear legal error, see United States v. Wertz, 625 F.2d 1128, 1132 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 904, 101 S.Ct. 278, 66 L.Ed.2d 136 (1980), or an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Leal, 831 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1987). Santana failed to make the threshold showing of good cause for his failure to make a timely motion. Santana’s counsel contends that she did not learn “of all of the circumstances surrounding defendant’s arrest until a lengthy meeting with Mr. Santana [in] jail in late May, 1991.” Counsel filed her motion" }, { "docid": "1332247", "title": "", "text": "suppressed. United States v. LeBron, 729 F.2d 533 (8th Cir.1984). The government urges us to dismiss Neumann’s challenge to the specificity and execution of the warrant because that issue was first raised on appeal. United States v. Hugh Chalmers Chevrolet-Toyota, Inc., 800 F.2d 737, 738 (8th Cir.1986) (declining consideration of theory of admissibility raised for the first time on appeal). In response, Neumann argues that his challenge to the overbreadth of the warrant was contained in his pretrial motion to suppress on the ground that “the affidavit in support of the search warrant is deficient in probable cause and it fails to establish any possible nexus between the things to be searched for and the places to be searched.” By motion before trial, a criminal defendant is permitted to raise any objection “capable of determination without the trial of the general issue,” but motions to suppress evidence must be raised prior to trial. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b). We note, in addition, that such a mandatory pretrial motion to suppress, filed on constitutional grounds in a criminal case, if denied, does not ordinarily have to be renewed by way of objection at trial. The failure to raise an objection which must, under the Rule, be made prior to trial, effects a waiver of the objection. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f). The advisory committee’s notes explain the effect of the Rule: Subsection (b)(3) makes clear that objections to evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained must be raised prior to trial. This is the current rule with regard to evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search. * * * It is also the practice with regard to other forms of illegality such as the use of unconstitutional means to obtain a confession. * * * it seems apparent that the same principle should apply whatever the claimed basis for the application of the exclusionary rule of evidence may be. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 advisory committee’s note to 1974 Amendments (emphasis added). This court has noted that Rule 12’s procedure for the prompt resolution of evidentiary questions is necessary for the expeditious conduct of criminal trials." }, { "docid": "2514643", "title": "", "text": "trial by motion. Motions may be written or oral at the discretion of the judge. The following must be raised prior to trial: ****** (3) Motions to suppress evidence; or ****** (4) Requests for discovery under Rule 16.... * * * if! * * (f) Effect of Failure to Raise Defenses or Objections. Failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court pursuant to subdivision (c), or prior to any extension thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) & (f) (emphasis added). When, as here, a defendant has failed to take full advantage of his Rule 16(a)(1)(C) discovery request options, his resulting ignorance of a photo’s existence does not excuse him from Rule 12’s requirement that motions to suppress be filed early. The plain language of Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) & (f) establishes that Gomez waived his right to a suppression hearing by failing to move for such a hearing before trial. See United States v. Leal, 831 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1987). A court may grant relief from this waiver only “for cause shown.” United States v. Mendoza-Acevedo, 950 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Gomez, 770 F.2d 251, 253-54 (1st Cir.1985). As we have stated before “the decision to grant or deny relief under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f) is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse.” Gomez, 770 F.2d at 253. We find no such abuse in this case. Before trial, appellant did not challenge the circumstances surrounding his arrest or the validity of the pretrial photo identification. Appellant made no pretrial suppression motion on either basis. As the district court pointed out, it “had no idea that the pretrial identification procedures might have been the fruits of an illegal arrest and subject to the exclusionary rule or that they had been conducted in such a way as to possibly violate" }, { "docid": "2514646", "title": "", "text": "not filed, th[e] court c[ould] find no basis for not applying the waiver rule. ” Gomez-Benabe, 781 F.Supp. at 854. It is unnecessary to address the substantive aspects of appellant’s arguments concerning the legality of his arrest, since appellant has totally failed to put the matter in issue. We do not reach the merits of appellant’s due process claim that the pretrial photo identifications were unduly suggestive. The district court construed First Circuit precedent “as limiting [appellant’s] waiver to challenging the identification procedures on ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ grounds.” Gomez-Benabe, 781 F.Supp. at 856. The district court went on to consider the substance of appellant’s due process claim. It is not necessary to make this excursion. In United States v. Barletta, we considered significant the difference between motions to “suppress” and other motions to merely “exclude” evidence. 644 F.2d 50, 54-55 (1st Cir.1981). Generally, motions to “suppress” deal with the operation of the exclusionary rule or “ ‘police conduct not immediately relevant to the question of guilt.’ ” Id. at 54, quoting, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 264, 80 S.Ct. 725, 732, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). The upshot of this distinction is that motions to “suppress” evidence must be brought before trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) while other motions to “exclude” evidence may be brought after trial has commenced. Id. at 54-55. The district court interpreted Bar-letta as removing from the operation of the Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f) waiver rule any cases that do not implicate the exclusionary rule. Gomez-Benabe, 781 F.Supp. at 856. Pretrial photo identification procedures, however, are “matters of police conduct not immediately relevant to the question of guilt” and are therefore the proper subject of a motion to “suppress” as defined in Barletta and governed by the restrictions of Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) & (f). See id. Appellant’s due process claims, therefore, have also been waived. III. Conclusion By failing to file a motion to suppress the photo identifications before trial as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) & (f), appellant waived his right to challenge the admission of the evidence during trial, unless the district court found good cause" }, { "docid": "2514647", "title": "", "text": "United States, 362 U.S. 257, 264, 80 S.Ct. 725, 732, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). The upshot of this distinction is that motions to “suppress” evidence must be brought before trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) while other motions to “exclude” evidence may be brought after trial has commenced. Id. at 54-55. The district court interpreted Bar-letta as removing from the operation of the Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f) waiver rule any cases that do not implicate the exclusionary rule. Gomez-Benabe, 781 F.Supp. at 856. Pretrial photo identification procedures, however, are “matters of police conduct not immediately relevant to the question of guilt” and are therefore the proper subject of a motion to “suppress” as defined in Barletta and governed by the restrictions of Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) & (f). See id. Appellant’s due process claims, therefore, have also been waived. III. Conclusion By failing to file a motion to suppress the photo identifications before trial as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3) & (f), appellant waived his right to challenge the admission of the evidence during trial, unless the district court found good cause shown. Here, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying appellant relief from the waiver under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f). Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed. . Evidence was presented at trial that this vessel arrives in Ponce just about every ten days. . Jose Gonzalez pled guilty before the trial commenced. . The government gave open-file discovery to defendant. However, the parties failed to confirm in writing what was contained in the open-file discovery package. The defendant claims he did not see the photos before trial yet the government claims they were available. . Twice during the government’s case-in-chief the prosecutor sought to admit the two photo-spreads into evidence. Both times the court deferred ruling on their admissibility until after appellant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. . The confidential informant also made an in-court identification of defendant at trial. . Rule 29(c) provides, in pertinent part: (c) Motion after Discharge of Jury. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict, a motion for" }, { "docid": "21565140", "title": "", "text": "of district court’s rejection of untimely motion “is limited”). Compare also United States v. Ulloa, 882 F.2d 41, 43 (2d Cir.1989) (failure to make timely motion constitutes waiver of that right even where trial court considers the merits), and United States v. Oldfield, 859 F.2d 392, 396 (6th Cir.1988) (issues raised in untimely motion to suppress are waived on appeal “even though the district court rules on the merits”), with United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir.1988) (when “district court considers and resolves an untimely suppression motion on its merits, we may review that decision on appeal”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 847, 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989), and United States v. Contreras, 667 F.2d 976, 978 n. 2 (11th Cir.) (merits of suppression motion properly before court of appeals because district court entertained and ruled on merits), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 849, 103 S.Ct. 109, 74 L.Ed.2d 97 (1982). However, we may reach the merits of the suppression issue if the district court committed clear error in denying the defendant’s request to file out of time. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 619 F.2d 494, 497 (5th Cir.1980) (district court abused its discretion in denying motion to suppress because “[government was not prejudiced by any delay”). Under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, motions to suppress must be raised prior to trial or by the court-appointed deadline. See Fed.R. Crim.P. 12(b)(3), 12(c). Under Rule 12(f), the failure of the defendant to raise a motion to suppress prior to the time set by the court “shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver” (emphasis added). We have previously declared that a motion under Rule 12(f) “is addressed to the discretion of the district judge and is to be disturbed only for clear error.” United States v. Wertz, 625 F.2d 1128, 1132 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 904, 101 S.Ct. 278, 66 L.Ed.2d 136 (1980); see also United States v. Leal, 831 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1987) (denial of relief under Rule 12(f) may be" }, { "docid": "21469722", "title": "", "text": "shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceedings).... (Emphasis supplied). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(c) provides: Unless otherwise provided by local rule, the court may, at the time of the arraignment or as soon thereafter as practicable, set a time for the making of pretrial motions or requests and, if required, a later date of hearing. Finally, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(f) provides some relief for defendants who fail to timely make the required pretrial motions. Failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court pursuant to subdivision (c), or prior to any extension thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. This court strictly applies Rule 12(b), and has repeatedly held that failure to raise 12(b) motions in a timely fashion precludes appellate review. See United States v. Davis, 809 F.2d 1194, 1208 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3234, 97 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987); United States v. Sachs, 801 F.2d 839, 847 (6th Cir.1986); United States v. Jones, 766 F.2d 994, 999 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1006, 106 S.Ct. 526, 88 L.Ed.2d 458 (1985); United States v. Worthington, 698 F.2d 820, 823-24 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. Woods, 544 F.2d 242, 251 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969, 97 S.Ct. 1652, 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977). The issues raised in an untimely Rule 12(b) motion are waived, even though the district court rules on the merits of the motion despite its untimeliness. As we previously stated in Sachs: [I]f a party fails to timely file a Rule 12(b) motion, the merits of the motion are not preserved for appeal even if the district court chose to hear the motion; the district court’s review of the motion “does not alter the fact that the motion to suppress was made in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3), nor does it alter the fact that the defendant waived the" } ]

[ { "docid": "22659240", "title": "", "text": "have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The next year, the BIA held that “past persecution of one spouse can be established by coerced abortion or sterilization of the other spouse,” so that spouses of individuals directly victimized by coercive family planning policies are per se eligible for asylum pursuant to § 1101(a)(42). See Matter of C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec 915, 917-18 (B.I.A.1997) (en banc). The BIA gave no reasons for reading the statute to compel this result. Petitioner Lin entered the United States in January 1991 and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal in June 1993. According to Lin’s application, he had sought the required governmental permission to marry his girlfriend and have children with her, but she was too young under Chinese law. After his girlfriend became pregnant and was forced to have an abortion, Lin left China. His girlfriend remained in China because she was too weak to travel. Following a hearing, the IJ found Lin credible, but concluded that he did not qualify for asylum based on his girlfriend’s forced abortion and denied the petition. The BIA affirmed without opinion. See In re Shi Liang Lin, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 29, 2002), aff'g No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 9, 2000). Petitioner Dong attempted to enter the United States in October 1999, and was detained by INS officials. When the INS commenced removal proceedings, Dong requested asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). His asylum petition was based on a claim that his fiancée (who continued to reside in China) had been forced to undergo two abortions and that he would be jailed and fined for having left China illegally were he to be deported." } ]

[ { "docid": "13631837", "title": "", "text": "of future persecution, he denied her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Similarly finding no evidence to indicate that petitioner would be tortured if returned to China, the IJ denied her CAT relief. D. Petitioner’s BIA Appeal Yan Fang Zhang appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. While that appeal was pending, petitioner’s counsel, by letter dated May 2, 2003, advised the BIA that, on April 23, 2003, the agency had granted to Yan Fang Zhang’s husband asylum and withholding of removal apparently based on the same family planning claim. On September 8, 2003, the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision in petitioner’s case, making no mention of the contrary ruling in her husband’s case. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review Where, as in this case, the BIA summarily affirms an IJ decision denying relief from removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we treat the IJ’s ruling as the final agency determination and review it directly, see Ming Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006). We review de novo any questions of law. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 543-44 (2d Cir.2005). The IJ’s factual findings, however, “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Thus, we will affirm the IJ’s factual determinations provided they are “supported by ‘reasonable, substantial, and probative’ evidence in the record,” Wu Biao Chen v. INS, 344 F.3d 272, 275 (2d Cir.2003) (per curiam) (quoting Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000)), and were “not reached arbitrarily or capriciously,” Zhou Yun Zhang v. United States INS, 386 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir.2004). B. Asylum and Withholding of Removal To qualify for asylum, “a refugee must demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’ ” Id. at 70 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). The standard for withholding of removal is higher, see id. at 71, requiring a showing that “it is more likely than not” that the applicant’s “ ‘life or" }, { "docid": "22626174", "title": "", "text": "later testimony. Ye appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision in July 1996. The BIA found “ampl[e] support[ ]” for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, noting that “[t]he account in [Ye]’s asylum application omits events which were so crucial to his claim that it is not credible that [Ye] would have overlooked them when preparing the application if they had in fact occurred.” The BIA specifically highlighted Ye’s failure to mention in his 1-589 form “the facts he testified to at his hearing regarding a 3-day detention in which he was beaten, and his having distributed anti-government leaflets.” In June 1997, Ye moved the BIA to reconsider its decision in light of Congress’s 1996 expansion of the definition of “refugee” to include victims of coercive family planning policies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (providing that involuntary sterilization constitutes persecution “on account of political opinion”); Matter of C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1997) (holding that an alien whose wife has been subjected to coercive family policy may establish past persecution to himself). In April 2002, the BIA granted Ye’s motion and remanded the case to the same IJ who had presided over Ye’s initial application. Once again, the IJ denied Ye’s asylum application, finding that he failed to demonstrate eligibility under either a religious persecution or coercive family planning theory. Regarding Ye’s family planning claim, the IJ again found that Ye was not credible, this time emphasizing inconsistencies between (a) Ye’s 2003 testimony and an abortion certificate submitted in support of his application, and (b) Ye’s 1995 and 2003 testimony concerning how and when his wife’s pregnancy was discovered. The IJ also found Ye ineligible for withholding of removal or relief under the CAT because he had not demonstrated that he was “more likely than not” to be tortured or persecuted upon his return to China. Ye appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, relying on inconsistencies highlighted by the IJ and BIA in their 1995 and 1996 opinions but not reiterated in the IJ’s 2003 decision. Specifically, the BIA noted that:" }, { "docid": "22773852", "title": "", "text": "386 F.3d at 74. Finally, the IJ’s finding of inherent implausibility does bear a legitimate nexus to the conclusion that Yan’s claim of persecution as a whole was not credible. See Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003) (holding that an IJ’s adverse credibility finding must be based on “specific, cogent” reasons that bear a “legitimate nexus” to the credibility of the applicant’s claim of persecution). The implausibility of Yan’s testimony that he took two expensive vacations while (a) he earned only a modest salary and supported an extended family, (b) his wife lay ill from the traumatic experience of a forced abortion, and (c) Yan himself was wanted by the authorities for evading mandatory sterilization and thus risked identification and capture during those travels, had everything to do with Yan’s claim that he was persecuted in the past and that he fears future persecution. The accounts of these vacations, in the context of the record as a whole, raise serious doubts as to whether Yan’s wife, and Yan himself, were ever subjected to persecution. We thus defer to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, which constitutes substantial evidence to support denial of relief from removal. See Zhou Yun Zhang, 386 F.3d at 79. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied. Petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal is dismissed as moot. . This Court’s decision in Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc) (holding that an applicant cannot secure asylum based on his or her spouse’s persecution under China's family planning policy absent some evidence of the applicant’s own resistance to the policy), does not foreclose Yan’s application because he claims that he personally refused to submit to sterilization. Nevertheless, because the alleged persecution of Yan’s wife was the predicate for his alleged resistance to sterilization, the IJ’s implausibility finding as to that spousal persecution reasonably extended to Yan’s personal resistance. . No specific evidence of coordination between Chinese customs and birth control officials was required to allow the IJ to conclude that it" }, { "docid": "22723016", "title": "", "text": "in her decision that this report indicated “the Khalistan movement is at a much reduced state from the way the respondent describes these rallies.” While an IJ may use a Department of State Report to discredit a generalized statement about a country, it may not be used to discredit specific testimony regarding a petitioner’s experience. See Zheng, 397 F.3d at 1143-44 (IJ improperly discredited petitioner’s testimony that the Chinese government forced his wife to abort her first child because the China country conditions report described no such incidents). The IJ’s reliance on general descriptions in the State Department report to find Mr. Singh’s testimony implausible and incredible was thus improper. Ill In an alternative holding, the IJ stated that “if respondent’s testimony were credible ... I don’t think these facts could support an asylum claim” and that “[Singh’s] claim would fail regardless.” The IJ did not provide support for this conclusion beyond expressing frustration with the inconsistency and implausibility of Mr. Singh’s claim. Mr. Singh contends that his testimony and other evidence on the record show past persecution, and that the Government has' failed to rebut this showing with evidence of changed conditions in India. In determining whether an applicant was subjected to past persecution, we review the record for substantial evidence. Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869 n. 6 (9th Cir.2003). To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant is required to demonstrate that he or she is a “refugee” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The Attorney General has the discretion to grant asylum to aliens who qualify as refugees. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The INA defines a “refugee” as “any person who is ... unable or unwilling to return to ... [his or her home] country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Physical abuse, such as a beating, constitutes persecution under this statute. Past persecution raises a presumption of a “well-founded fear” of future persecution. Chand v." }, { "docid": "20400942", "title": "", "text": "was fleeing religious persecution. The BIA concluded these inconsistencies undermined Weng’s credibility and went to the heart of her claim. The BIA also noted that the IJ had considered and rejected Weng’s argument that she had not mentioned religious persecution earlier because she feared the Chinese government would learn of her asylum application opposing one of its policies. The BIA observed that, before her credible-fear interview, Weng was advised in Mandarin that the United States could not report her statements. It also pointed out that Weng had felt comfortable noting her opposition to the Chinese government’s family-planning policies. The BIA held that Weng had not “met her burden of proof for asylum under section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” a conclusion that necessarily incorporated findings that Weng had failed to prove past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution. It also ruled that she had not met her burden to show eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the CAT. Weng petitioned this court for review. II. When “the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s ruling” but also “discussed some of the bases for the IJ’s opinion, we review both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions.” Cuko v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 32, 37 (1st Cir.2008)(internal quotation marks omitted). We also review the IJ’s credibility determination when the BIA adopted it. Id. Petitioners for asylum have the burden to prove they are “refugee[s],” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i), who are people “unable or unwilling” to return to their home countries “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Weng’s brief attacks the ground the BIA and IJ gave for rejecting her petition: that her testimony lacked credibility. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Mam v. Holder, 566 F.3d 280, 283 (1st Cir.2009). We will not disturb an adverse-credibility finding “unless [a] petitioner!] can show the record evidence, considered as a whole, “would compel a reasonable factfinder to make a contrary determination.’ ” Id. (quoting Cuko, 522 F.3d at 37)." }, { "docid": "22280350", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM. Petitioner Gui Ci Pan, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 13, 2004 order of the BIA affirming the July 23, 2003 decision of Immigration Judge Gabriel C. Videla (“the IJ”) denying petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In his asylum application, supporting statement, and testimony before the IJ, Pan claimed that he had been persecuted for violating the Chinese family planning policy and that he faces a well-founded fear of future persecution if he is returned to China. The IJ denied Pan’s claim on the grounds that (1) Pan had failed to “credibly establish[ ]” that he and his girlfriend had undergone either a traditional wedding ceremony or a legal marriage in China; (2) because Pan was not married to his girlfriend, he “has no legal status to argue that there would be any consequences to him” under the Chinese family planning policy; and (3) Pan had failed to present “any evidence that he would be imprisoned,” fined, or beaten “simply because he got his girlfriend pregnant while they were not married ... or that either of them would be sterilized.” In re Gui Ci Pan, File No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (New York, N.Y. July 23, 2003) (“IJ Decision”), at 7-8. We hold that, although the IJ’s factual findings regarding Pan’s marital status are supported by substantial evidence, we are required under Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.2005), to remand to the BIA so that the agency may determine in the first instance whether Pan’s status as a boyfriend and father would allow him, under the circumstances presented, to qualify as a refugee under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) and the BIA’s decision in In re C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1997) (en banc). We remand also for the agency to reach a definitive general credibility finding regarding Pan’s testimony and supporting statements and to determine whether Pan has established a credible claim of past persecution based on" }, { "docid": "22868583", "title": "", "text": "Immigration Judge, we adopt his decision and it is affirmed based upon and for the reasons set forth therein.” ANALYSIS A. Standards for the Relief Sought Yang here challenges the IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). To secure the relief of asylum, Yang “must show that he is a ‘refugee’ within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, ie., that he has suffered past persecution on account of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,’ or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on these grounds.” Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). Refugee status is conferred by statute upon persons who have been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization: [A] person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Although the statute does not specifically so provide, the BIA long has extended its benefits to spouses of those subjected to the coercive family planning policies described, while disallowing its benefits to boyfriends and fiancees. See In re S-L-L- 24 I. & N. Dec. 1 (B.I.A.2006), decided following remand for clarification in Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.2005), reh’g in banc granted (Nov. 13, 2006). Despite the fact that Yang purports to be the unmarried male partner of a forced abortion victim, the issue of Yang’s status was not addressed by the IJ or the BIA, and the government does not address it in" }, { "docid": "22763023", "title": "", "text": "review the timeliness determination and that the asylum claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. B, Withholding of Removal and CAT Claims Although the timeliness issue is dispositive of Liu’s asylum claim, his withholding of removal and CAT claims are unaffected by that determination. In our prior opinion, we remanded all of the claims, concluding that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence because the IJ’s finding that Liu’s testimony was insufficiently detailed was flawed. Gui Yin Liu, 475 F.3d at 138-39; see also Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir.2007) (“The IJ’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings, are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).”). The government did not challenge that conclusion in its petition for rehearing. Accordingly, our conclusion that substantial evidence did not support the adverse credibility determination stands as to the withholding of removal and CAT claims. However, since our original opinion in this case was published, this Court decided Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc), in which we held that under the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), a claim of persecution based solely on a forced abortion or sterilization procedure can only be brought by the individual who has undergone the procedure. Id. at 309-310 (stating that spouses or other partners “must turn to the two remaining categories of § 601(a), which provide protection to petitioners who demonstrate ‘other resistance to a coercive population control program’ or ‘a well founded fear that he or she will be ... subject to persecution for such ... resistance ....”’) (ellipses in original). Accordingly, Liu’s withholding of removal claim, to the extent it is based only on his wife’s forced sterilization, is doomed. However, Liu’s claims are not based solely on his wife’s forced sterilization. Indeed, even before our decision in Shi Liang Lin was handed down, Liu claimed, inter alia, that he “possesses a well-founded fear of future persecution at the hands of the family planning cadres, should he return" }, { "docid": "22280365", "title": "", "text": "emigrate from China] may have an incentive to fabricate spousal persecution claims to enhance the likelihood of their admission into the United States”). In Xue Xiang Chen v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 110 (1st Cir.2005), the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recognized an “active circuit split” on the question of whether § 1101(a)(42) applies to non-married partners, see id. at 111 & n. 2 (collecting cases), but declined to address the issue because the IJ there had rested her decision on an independent finding of adverse credibility, see id. at 111. As noted above, the IJ in this case failed to make a general adverse credibility finding regarding Pan’s testimony and supporting statements beyond his claim that he had been married in China. As a result, assuming that no such adverse credibility finding is made on remand, our determination here turns exclusively on whether Pan qualifies' — as a matter of law and under the facts presented — as a “refugee” within the meaning of § 1101(a)(42) and the BIA’s decision in C-Y-Z-. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Shi Liang Lin, we are required to remand to the BIA so that the agency may expressly determine in the first instance whether Pan has (1) demonstrated a well-founded fear that he himself will be sterilized if returned to China; or (2) established a derivative claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution based on any threat of abortion or sterilization against his girlfriend. Because Pan has failed to raise in his brief any arguments challenging the IJ’s denial of his withholding of removal and CAT claims, we deem those claims to have been waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). * * * * * * For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is Granted and the cause is Remanded for further proceedings consis tent with this opinion. Due to the unexplained delay of the BIA in responding to our remand in Shi Liang Lin, we direct that the BIA inform this panel in writing by Friday, June" }, { "docid": "23048466", "title": "", "text": "further proceedings. Neither party submitted additional evidence on remand. The IJ again found that Yu was not credible and denied his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The BIA dismissed the appeal. Regardless of the IJ’s credibility finding, the BIA concluded that the case was governed by the Attorney General’s intervening precedential decision in Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520, 523-24 (A.G.2008), which held that a spouse is not automatically eligible for refugee status based on the forced abortion or sterilization of his or her partner. The BIA noted that Matter of J-S- requires such a spouse to show that he himself suffered persecution or has a well-founded fear of suffering future persecution for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure, or for other resistance to a coercive-population control program. The BIA found that Yu had not personally suffered any past persecution and he did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his and his wife’s violation of China’s one-child policy. Accordingly, the BIA concluded that Yu was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA also concurred with the IJ that Yu had failed to meet his burden of proof for CAT protection. In his petition, Yu claims the BIA’s retroactive application of Matter of J-S- violated his due process rights because it renders him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Yu argues that previous BIA decisions entitled him to automatic refugee status based on his wife’s forced abortion and sterilization. II. DISCUSSION We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasoning. See Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir.2009). We review legal conclusions de novo. See id. Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence test and are left undisturbed if “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). We cannot reverse factual findings unless the record compels it; “the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the" }, { "docid": "22280358", "title": "", "text": "marks omitted); Xue Xiang Chen v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 110, 113 (1st Cir.2005) (“If the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence — that is, if we cannot say a finding that the alien is credible is compelled — -then the decision must be affirmed.”). It is clear from the IJ’s decision, however, that the IJ evaluated Pan’s credibility only insofar as he found that Pan was not married, see IJ Decision at 7 (“[T]he Court cannot find that [Pan] has credibly established that he and his girlfriend underwent a traditional wedding ceremony.”), and thus did not address whether Pan’s remaining testimony regarding his asylum claim — namely, that Pan and his girlfriend violated the family planning policy, went into hiding, and were sought by Chinese authorities — was in fact credible. We therefore remand to the agency to make a definitive general credibility finding regarding Pan’s testimony and supporting statements, as such a finding may be determinative in this case. If Pan’s statements and testimony, other than his claim to have been married, are credible, then the agency should determine whether Pan has established either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution within the meaning of section 601(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRI-RA”), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-689 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). With respect to Pan’s claim of past persecution, we note that because Pan’s girlfriend was able to give birth to her child after going into hiding, Pan and his girlfriend have not “been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization” under the statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Moreover, because Pan failed to present any evidence that he had been detained, beaten, or otherwise subjected to physical harm as a result of his alleged opposition to the Chinese family planning policy, Pan’s claim in his asylum application that he “was persecuted by [the] Chinese government on account of violating [the] Family Planning policy,” J.A. at 155, appears to rest solely on his contention that Chinese officials threatened to subject Pan’s" }, { "docid": "22750962", "title": "", "text": "“that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to torture if returned.” She therefore ordered Cao removed to China. The BIA affirmed without opinion, and Cao petitioned for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, amended by Real ID Act of 2005, Pub. L No. 104-13, 119 Stat. 231. He contends that the IJ violated longstanding rules in evaluating his testimony and documentary evidence and erred in each of her conclusions. DISCUSSION I. Substantive standards: asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. “To establish eligibility for asylum, a petitioner must show that he is a ‘refugee’ within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, i.e., that he has suffered past persecution on account of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,’ or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on these grounds.” Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). “[A] person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). BIA precedent allows a male applicant to stand in the shoes of his wife and apply for asylum based on her sterilization or abortion. Qiu, 329 F.3d at 148 (citing C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (B.I.A.1997)). “A showing of past persecution sets up a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution” which can be overcome by a showing, by the preponderance of the evidence, that conditions in the applicant’s country of nationality have changed sufficiently to destroy the basis for the presumption. Qiu, 329 F.3d at 148. Absent past persecution, establishing a well founded fear of future persecution requires both a subjective and an objective showing. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004). The subjective element can be satisfied by the applicant’s credible testimony concerning his fear. Id. The objective component," }, { "docid": "12273664", "title": "", "text": "found that even if Sow were credible, he had failed to show a “well-founded fear of persecution” necessary for asylum because, according to evidence in the record, the conditions in Mauritania have improved since the period of civil strife that Sow claims drove him into Senegal. The IJ also rejected Sow’s application for withholding of removal and CAT claim on the same grounds. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, finding no “clear error” in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and agreeing that Sow had provided insufficient evidence to support his application. In particular, the BIA noted that Sow’s failure to establish either his Mauritanian citizenship or his refugee status fatally undermined his application for relief. Sow petitions this court for review of the BIA’s decision. II. In his petition, Sow argues that: (1) the adverse credibility determination was not supported by “substantial evidence”; (2) the facts merit a grant of asylum and/or withholding of removal; and (3) the facts warrant relief under the CAT. “The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to any person who is a ‘refugee,’ ... that is, a person who is unable or unwilling to return to that person’s home country ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, mem bership in a particular social group, or political opinion[.]’ ” Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922, 926 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1), 1101(a)(42)(A)). Furthermore, “[p]roof of past persecution entitles an applicant to a presumption that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on the same basis.” Cooke v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 899, 903 (8th Cir.2008) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)). In order to obtain asylum, Sow must establish that he has been “persecuted or has a well-founded fear of future persecution” on account of being a Fulani in Mauritania. See, Che v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 778, 781 (8th Cir.2008). Sow also seeks withholding of removal, which is a mandatory form of relief if the applicant “show[s] a clear probability that he or she will face persecution in the country to which he or she" }, { "docid": "22626172", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM. We consider here principally (1) whether an IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence where petitioner’s written asylum application and subsequent testimony contain material inconsistencies that “reaeh[ ] to the heart of the claim” of persecution; (2) whether an IJ was required to afford petitioner an opportunity to respond before basing an adverse credibility determination on such inconsistencies; (3) whether the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding by relying on evidence in the record not cited in the IJ’s decision; (4) whether the BIA erred in declining to make administrative findings regarding the “corrected” abortion certificate which petitioner submitted for the first time on appeal, and (5) whether the BIA erred in denying petitioner’s request for withholding of removal or other relief under the CAT. Background Petitioner Xian Tuan Ye (‘Ye”), a native and citizen of China, petitions this Court for review of a July 26, 2004 Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming an April 16, 2003 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn, see In re Xian Tuan Ye, File No. [ A XX-XXX-XXX ] (New York, NY), which denied Ye’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Ye illegally entered the United States at Puerto Rico over a decade ago, in February 1994. He applied for asylum and withholding of deportation in October 1994, claiming that his wife had been abducted and forced to undergo an abortion, that he opposed the abortion because of his Christian beliefs, and that family planning officials fined and threatened him for speaking out against the abortion to others at his church. Following a hearing in October 1995, the IJ denied Ye’s application, making an adverse credibility finding and concluding that Ye’s forced abortion claim could not stand without a nexus to a protected ground, in light of then-prevailing law. In denying Ye relief, the IJ noted that Ye’s written application failed to mention that he had been “detained for a three-day period and beaten very badly,” and in that respect was inconsistent with his" }, { "docid": "6333924", "title": "", "text": "Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 560-61 (9th Cir.2004). The BIA, therefore, was put on notice that Wu was challenging the IJ’s determination that he was statutorily ineligible for asylum based on Lin’s forced abortion. We thus reject the government’s argument that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Nevertheless, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Wu was statutorily ineligible for asylum based on Lin’s experiences. The IJ properly rejected Wu’s argument that asylum protection extends to unmarried partners of women who have been persecuted under China’s family planning laws. See Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 228-29 (3d Cir.2004). Further, we note that Wu would not meet the definition of a refugee even if his traditional marriage was recognized by the Chinese government, as we recently held that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not extend automatic refugee status to spouses or unmarried partners of individuals who have been forcibly subjected to family planning measures. See LinZheng, 557 F.3d at 156 (“[Tjhere is no room for us to conclude that Congress intended to extend refugee status to anyone other than the individual who has either been forced to submit to an involuntary abortion or sterilization, has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure, or has a well-founded fear of that occurring in the future.”) (emphasis omitted). Therefore, as a matter of law, Lin’s experiences cannot establish Wu’s eligibility for asylum. Because Wu’s asylum claim is predicated on his relationship to Lin, and because he cannot establish eligibility for asylum on this basis, we need not determine whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, to the extent that Wu did not waive review of his application for withholding of removal or CAT relief, the IJ properly rejected those claims. Accordingly, after a careful review of the record, we will deny the petition for review. . Wu’s brief to this Court mentions that when they could not locate him or Lin, the family planning officials destroyed his furniture and imposed a fine. He asserts that this economic loss, combined with Lin’s abortion," }, { "docid": "22650234", "title": "", "text": "more likely than not, she would be tortured if returned to China. Weng appealed and the BIA dismissed the appeal. Adopting and affirming the IJ’s decision (except with respect to the adverse credibility finding), the BIA found that Weng was subject to the persecutor bar and, as a result, was ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Adverting to our decision in Zhang Jian Xie v. INS, 434 F.3d 136, 143 (2d Cir.2006), the BIA characterized Weng’s conduct as “active and [as having] direct consequences for the victims” of China’s family planning policy. The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of Weng’s application for CAT relief. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, we review the two decisions in tandem. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The “substantial evidence” standard of review applies, Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir.2006), and we uphold the IJ’s factual findings if they are supported by “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record,” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, “[w]e review de novo questions of law and the [BIA’s] application of law to undisputed fact.” Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). We therefore review de novo the BIA’s conclusion that Weng is subject to the persecutor bar of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must establish her status as a “refugee” under the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). The applicant may do so by demonstrating either that she has suffered “persecution” or that she has “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.... ” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The statutory definition of “refugee,” however, incorporates the “persecutor bar”: the definition ex- eludes “any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of’ a protected ground. Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i). Consequently, if Weng is a persecutor," }, { "docid": "23347090", "title": "", "text": "O’Leary, 895 F.2d 378, 384 (7th Cir.1990)).) The IJ determined that Lin’s testimony was not believable and that she could not meet her burden of proof “without necessary corroboration of the incidents in the past.” Specifically, the IJ gave two reasons for disbelieving Lin’s story. First, he concluded that Lin’s “sole motivation for coming to the United States was economic,” rather than fear of China’s coercive population control policies. In the IJ’s estimation, the fact that Lin sent her second child back to China “undercut” her testimony that she was concerned about the conse quences of having an unauthorized child. Second, the IJ decided that Lin’s descriptions of her two forced abortions were implausible and were inconsistent with “general background reports.” The IJ found it hard to believe that eight or ten people arrived to escort Lin to the hospital for her abortions. After making this credibility determination, the IJ further found that Lin had not sufficiently corroborated her alleged persecution through third-party affidavits. The IJ thought that Lin should have been able to produce this corroboration because she has remained in contact with her family in China. II A When the BIA affirms an IJ’s ruling without opinion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s decision directly. Vladimirova v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 690, 2003 WL 23676865, *5 (7th Cir. July 26, 2004). To qualify for asylum, Lin bears the burden of proving that she meets the statutory definition of “refugee” as provided in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This definition generally provides that a refugee is “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality ... who is unable or unwilling to return to ... that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). This generally applicable definition has been amended to specifically account for applicants like Lin who allege persecution based on coercive family planning policies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). Withholding of removal is governed by a more stringent standard" }, { "docid": "22626173", "title": "", "text": "Ye, File No. [ A XX-XXX-XXX ] (New York, NY), which denied Ye’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Ye illegally entered the United States at Puerto Rico over a decade ago, in February 1994. He applied for asylum and withholding of deportation in October 1994, claiming that his wife had been abducted and forced to undergo an abortion, that he opposed the abortion because of his Christian beliefs, and that family planning officials fined and threatened him for speaking out against the abortion to others at his church. Following a hearing in October 1995, the IJ denied Ye’s application, making an adverse credibility finding and concluding that Ye’s forced abortion claim could not stand without a nexus to a protected ground, in light of then-prevailing law. In denying Ye relief, the IJ noted that Ye’s written application failed to mention that he had been “detained for a three-day period and beaten very badly,” and in that respect was inconsistent with his later testimony. Ye appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision in July 1996. The BIA found “ampl[e] support[ ]” for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, noting that “[t]he account in [Ye]’s asylum application omits events which were so crucial to his claim that it is not credible that [Ye] would have overlooked them when preparing the application if they had in fact occurred.” The BIA specifically highlighted Ye’s failure to mention in his 1-589 form “the facts he testified to at his hearing regarding a 3-day detention in which he was beaten, and his having distributed anti-government leaflets.” In June 1997, Ye moved the BIA to reconsider its decision in light of Congress’s 1996 expansion of the definition of “refugee” to include victims of coercive family planning policies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (providing that involuntary sterilization constitutes persecution “on account of political opinion”); Matter of C-Y-Z-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915 (BIA 1997) (holding that an alien whose wife has been subjected to coercive family policy may establish past persecution to" }, { "docid": "15034640", "title": "", "text": "establish that their fear of sterilization was objectively reasonable. They also claim that, in considering whether their U.S.-born children would be counted for family planning purposes, the Board erred by taking administrative notice of the 2007 State Department report. Since the Board affirmed and supplemented the IJ’s decision, we review “both the immigration judge’s decision and any additional reasoning” of the Board. Mema v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 412, 416 (7th Cir.2007). We review deferentially the decision to deny the Lins’ asylum application and ask only whether it is supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Toptchev v. I.N.S., 295 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir.2002) (quoting I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)). The Board held that the Lins had not established that they are “refugees” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), which would make them eligible for asylum. See Boci v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 762, 767 (7th Cir.2007); Zhu v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir.2006). To prevail, they had to show either that they had been persecuted in China in the past, or that they have a well-founded fear that if they return to China they will be persecuted on account of their political opinion — their opposition to, and failure to comply with family planning policies. Zhu, 465 F.3d at 318. The IJ determined that the fact that Mr. Lin’s girlfriend had an unwanted abortion was inadequate to establish past persecution. The Lins do not challenge this finding; rightfully so as we “have declined to expand the definition of “refugee” to include the boyfriends of women who are forced to abort a pregnancy.” Id. at 321 (citing Chen v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.2006)). The Lins do take issue with the finding that they do not have a well-founded fear of future persecution if they return to China. Proving this requires the Lins to establish that they genuinely fear persecution and that the fear is objectively reasonable. See Toptchev, 295 F.3d at 720. While the Board found the Lins credible" }, { "docid": "16272657", "title": "", "text": "reached by the BIA.” Id. (quoting S-Cheng, 380 F.3d at 323). The Immigration and Nationality Act provides the Attorney General the discretion to grant asylum to an alien who is a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b). A “refugee” is an alien unwilling to return to her home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Congress has expanded the definition of “refugee” to include “a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(B). Such individuals “shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.” Id. Zheng does not claim she has suffered past persecution, but claims she has a well founded fear of future persecution if removed to China based on China’s coercive population control policies. To establish a well founded fear of future persecution, Zheng must show her fear is “both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Mwangi v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir.2004) (citing INS v. Car doza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)). “Subjectively, [Zheng] must demonstrate with credible evidence that she genuinely fears persecution; objectively, she must demonstrate through credible, direct, and specific evidence that a reasonable person in her position would fear persecution.” Id. (citing Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir.1997)). We hold the BIA’s determination that Zheng failed to establish her fear of persecution was objectively reasonable is not supported by substantial evidence for two reasons. First, we believe the IJ erred by failing to consider Zheng’s sister’s testimony about being forced" } ]

[ { "docid": "23145492", "title": "", "text": "the hands .of Judsph, for the benefit of Goodyear and those holding under him. The effect would also be to deprive Goodyear or Judson, or whichever of them had paid the expenses of obtaining the renewal, of the equivalent for- those expenses, except as they might have a personal remedy'against Chaffee. To the extent above stated, •the agreement of the 6th .September was already executed, and, in respect- to parties concerned, the abrogation would' work the most serious consequences. As we have already said* the ground upon which the right to put an end to the agreement is the refusal to pay the annuity of $1,500 after December, 1852. Judson proposed to Chaffee to resume the payment in June,. 1853, which'was declined; but we attach no importance to this fact, especially as we are' in a court-of law. But, in looking into the agreements of the 6th of September, and also the one of the 12th of November, the court is-Of opinion'that the payment of the annuity was not a condition to the vesting. of the interest in the patent in Judson,-and of course that.the omission or refusal to pay did' not give to Chaffee a right to rescind' the contract, nor have the effect to remit him to-his interest as patentee. The right to the annuity rested in covenant,, under the agreement of the . 12th of November. One of the-objects of that agreement was, to obtain from'Judson this covenant. . Erom the terms -and intent of the. agreement,' the remedy for'the breach could rest only upon the personal obligation of Judson, as, by the previous ojje of the 6th of September-, the interest in the patent had. passed to .Goodyear and his licensees, and no default .or act of Judson- coüld affeét them. . Chaffee chose to be satisfied with the covenant of Judson,-without stipulation or condition as it respected the other parties, and he must be content with it. The. cases of Brooks v. Stolly, (3 McLean, 526,) and Woodworth v. Weed, (1 Blatchford, 165,) have no application to this case; The attempt to rescind the contracts," } ]

[ { "docid": "3818169", "title": "", "text": "appears to have been, in substance, very like the bill in the present case. It was brought by a licensor of a patent right against a licensee. The license was given upon the payment of $1400, to wit, $200 in cash, and the remainder in notes; and the complaint was, that the notes had not been paid. There was a provision in the license, that, if the notes or any of them were not paid at maturity, then all the rights granted by the license should revert to the licensor, who should be reinvested in the same manner as if the license had not been made. The notes • were not paid. Thé licenses in the present case contain provisions that the licensees shall pay certain tariffs, and keep correct accounts, and permit their books to \"be inspected at all reasonable hours; and the complaint is that the defendants have not paid the tariffs, and have not kept true accounts, and have not permitted their books to be examined. There is no express provision in their licenses, that if they do not keep their covenants, the rights granted by the licenses shall revert to the licensor. The court, in the case in 10 Howard, say: “The dispute in this case does not arise under any act of congress, nor does the decision depend upon the construction of any law in relation to patents. It arises out of the contract stated in the bill; and there is no act of congress providing for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights of the .parties depend altogether upon common law and equity principles.” In the case of Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. [60 U. S.] 211, the court, in commenting on the effect upon a license, of the nonperformance, by the licensee of a patent right, of covenants made by him, say: “The payment of the annuity” (covenanted to be paid) “was not a condition to the vesting of the interest in the patent in Judson, ’and, of course, the omission or refusal to pay, did not give to Chaffee” (the patentee)" }, { "docid": "22204188", "title": "", "text": "principles. The object of the bill is to'have the contract set aside and declared to be forfeited ; and the prayer is, ‘that the appellant’s reinvestiture of title to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the contract, may be sanctioned by the Court,’ and for an injunction. But the injunction he asks for is in consequence of the decree of the Court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for an injunction unless the contract is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not, in a court of chancery, depended altogether upon rules and principles of equity, and in no degree whatever upon any act of Congress concerning patent rights;” The bill in the present case can not in any respéct be distinguished from that in Wilson v. Sandford, as this language of the opinion shows. But counsel for the appellant here insists that a new and more liberal rule has been adopted by this Court in. later cases, and that the time has now come for recognizing it by taking what he calls the last step. In the common feature of Wilson v. Sandford and the case before us, jurisdiction fails because the. complainant in his bill seeks forfeiture of licensed rights in equity before he can rely on the patent laws to enjoin infringement of his patent rights and obtain damages therefor. There has been no variation from the authority and effect of the case cited on this point. New Marshall Co. v. Marshall Engine Co., 223 U. S. 473, 480. White v. Lee, 3 Fed. 222; Adams v. Meyrose, 7 Fed. 208; Standard Dental Mfg. Co. v. National Tooth Company, 95 Fed. 291; Atherton Machine Company v. Atwood-Morrison Company, 102 Fed. 949, 955, approved in Excelsior Wooden Pipe Company v. Pacific Bridge Company, infra, at p. 294; Victor Talking Machine Company v. The Fair, 123 Fed. 424, 425; Comptograph Co. v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 175" }, { "docid": "22775081", "title": "", "text": "and declared to be forfeited; and the prayer is, ‘that .the appellant’s reinvestiture of title to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the contract, may be sanctioned by the court,’ and for an injunction. But the injunction he asks for is to be the consequence of the decree of the court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for an injunction unless the contract is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not, in a court of chancery, depended altogether upon the rules and principles of equity, and in no degree whatever upon any act of congress concerning patent rights. And whenever a contract is made in relation to them, which is not provided for and regulated by congress, the parties, if any dispute arises, stand upon the same ground with other litigants as to the right of appeal; and the decree of the circuit court cannot be revised here, unless the matter in dispute exceeds two thousand dollars.” The foregoing views were reiterated in Bloomer v. McQuewan (1852), 14 How. 539. In Hartshorn v. Day (1856), 19 How. 211, the court, in commenting upon the effect upon a license, of the nonperformance, by the licensee of a patent right, of cove nants made by him, and speaking in particular of a covenant to pay an annuity to one Chaffee, the patentee, said (p.222): “The payment of the annuity was not a condition to the vesting of the interest in the patent in Judson, and of course . . . the omission or refusal to pay did not give to Chaffee a right to rescind the contract, nor have the effect to remit him to his interest as patentee. The right to the annuity rested in covenant. . . . The remedy for the breach could rest only upon the personal obligation ” of the covenantor. The cases just referred to and others in accord with them were reviewed" }, { "docid": "22204187", "title": "", "text": "Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Company, 140 U. S. 344; Briggs v. United Shoe Machinery Company, 239 U. S. 48. In Wilson v. Sandjord, supra, a bill in equity was filed in a federal circuit court setting forth complainant’s ownership of a patent, an assignment to. defendants of a license in consideration of five promissory notes, with a condition of reversion to complainant on failure to pay any note. The bill averred that the first two notes were not paid, insisted that the license was forfeited by the failure and the licensor was fully reinvested at law and in equity with all his original rights, that the defendants were using the patented machine and were infringing the patent, prayed an account of profits since forfeiture, a temporary and permanent injunction, and a re-investiture of title in the complainant. On demurrer, the bill was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as- not arising under the patent laws. -Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the Court, said: “The rights of the parties depend altogether upon common law and equity principles. The object of the bill is to'have the contract set aside and declared to be forfeited ; and the prayer is, ‘that the appellant’s reinvestiture of title to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the contract, may be sanctioned by the Court,’ and for an injunction. But the injunction he asks for is in consequence of the decree of the Court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for an injunction unless the contract is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not, in a court of chancery, depended altogether upon rules and principles of equity, and in no degree whatever upon any act of Congress concerning patent rights;” The bill in the present case can not in any respéct be distinguished from that in Wilson v. Sandford, as this language of the opinion shows. But counsel for the appellant here insists that" }, { "docid": "23145484", "title": "", "text": "the written consent, of said Judson first had add obtained.” At the close of the agreement, Judson stipulates with Chaf- fee to pay all the expenses of the renewal, and also the annuity of $1,200; and also to be at all the expense of sustaining and defending the patent; and Chaffee reserves to himself the right to use the improvement in his own business. This contract was entered into without the privity of Goodyear, and changed materially the terms and conditions of that made by him- with Chaffee on the 23d May. He was at first dissatisfied with the change when it came to his notice, but afterwards acquiesced. The contract continued in operation down to the 12th November, 1851, when a modification of the same took place. This last contract recites that there was an omission in that of 6th September, in not stating that if the said licensees continued to use the improvements, they should pay their just proportion of the expenses and services in obtaining the renewal, which it was intended they should pay to Judson; and recites also that there was no stipulation on the part of Judson to pay Chaffee $1,500 per annum, as claimed by him; and it is then agreed that the licensees shall pay their share of the expenses to Judson, as a condition to the granting of a license by him to them; and that, on the payment of such share of the expenses, a license shall be granted to them. And it was further agreed, that Judson should pay Chaffee the $1,500 per annum; and also that Judson might use Chaffee’s name in the prosecution of infringements of the patent, or for any other purpose in relation to the use of it, he holding Chaffee harmless from all costs, &e., and he, Judson, to have all the benefits to be derived from said suits. It will be perceived that the only provision in this agreement differing from that of 6th September, in which Chaffee has any interest, is the one providing for an annuity of $1,500, instead of the $1,200." }, { "docid": "23145490", "title": "", "text": "no one shall have a license, &c., other than those who had a right to use the same when said patent was extended, without the written consent of said Judson;” and at the close of the agreemént, he reserves the right to -use the improvement in his own business. At this time, as we have seen,. Judson was the owner of one-eighth of the patent, and was the general agent and attorney of Goodyear in all his patent business transactions. It is apparent that the only interest in the patent, left in Chaffee, was the right reserved for his own personal use. TÍie annuity and indemnity against the expenses of the renewal were the compensation received by him for parting with the improvement. The. contract of the 12th November has no material bearing upon this part of the case. Most of the provisions were for the benefit of Judson, in relation to the licensees under Goodyear. The only provision important to Chaffee is the stipulation for the increased annuity of $1,500. 2. Then, as to the attempted, rescindment of the contracts. The agreement of 6th September had been in force from its date down to the 1st July, 1853, a period of two years and nearly ten months. During all this time, the licensees of Goodyear, at the date of the renewal of the patent, and those whom Judson may have granted a license to since the renewal, had a right to use the improvement, and especially the Shoe Associates, referred to in their agreement with Goodyear, 1st July, 1848. Besides this stipulation with Goodyear, their right was expressly recognised by Chaffee himself, in the agreement with Judson- of 6th of September. The effect of the rescindment as claimed, and which would be necessary to enable the plaintiff to succeed in his action against the defendants, would be to break up the business of these licensees, by divesting them of their rights under this agreement — rights acquired under it from .all parties connected vsdth or concerned in the patent, and especially from Chaffee, the patentee, who placed it in" }, { "docid": "23145489", "title": "", "text": "the facts, to acquiesce; and his rights, `therefore, and those cWming under him, must dep~nd upon this second agreement. • ` in respect to tins agreement, whether the title which passed from Chaffee, in the renewed patent to Judsqn, was `legal or equitable, the court is of opinion that the entire interest and ownership in the same passed to him for the benefit of Good- year, ~nd those holding rights and lic~nses under him. Th~ instrument is very inartificially diawn, but the object of it cannot be mistaken. Chaffee, in consideration of tbe premises, which included the annuity of $1,200, “and (in his own language) to place my (his) patent so that in case of death, or other accident or event, it (the patent) may enure to the benefit of said Charles Goodyear, and those who hold a right to the use of said patent, under and in connection with his licensees,” &c., nominates and appoints “said ‘William Judson, my trustee and attorney irrevocable, to hold said patent, and have the control thereof, so that no one shall have a license, &c., other than those who had a right to use the same when said patent was extended, without the written consent of said Judson;” and at the close of the agreemént, he reserves the right to -use the improvement in his own business. At this time, as we have seen,. Judson was the owner of one-eighth of the patent, and was the general agent and attorney of Goodyear in all his patent business transactions. It is apparent that the only interest in the patent, left in Chaffee, was the right reserved for his own personal use. TÍie annuity and indemnity against the expenses of the renewal were the compensation received by him for parting with the improvement. The. contract of the 12th November has no material bearing upon this part of the case. Most of the provisions were for the benefit of Judson, in relation to the licensees under Goodyear. The only provision important to Chaffee is the stipulation for the increased annuity of $1,500. 2. Then, as to" }, { "docid": "3818170", "title": "", "text": "their licenses, that if they do not keep their covenants, the rights granted by the licenses shall revert to the licensor. The court, in the case in 10 Howard, say: “The dispute in this case does not arise under any act of congress, nor does the decision depend upon the construction of any law in relation to patents. It arises out of the contract stated in the bill; and there is no act of congress providing for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights of the .parties depend altogether upon common law and equity principles.” In the case of Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. [60 U. S.] 211, the court, in commenting on the effect upon a license, of the nonperformance, by the licensee of a patent right, of covenants made by him, say: “The payment of the annuity” (covenanted to be paid) “was not a condition to the vesting of the interest in the patent in Judson, ’and, of course, the omission or refusal to pay, did not give to Chaffee” (the patentee) “a right to rescind the contract, nor have the effect to remit him to his interest as patentee.” “The remedy for the breach could rest only upon the personal obligation” of the cove-nantor. The weight of authority, therefore, in the federal courts, is clearly, that this court has no jurisdiction of the case now under consideration. •The decisions of state courts sustain these views. The jurisdiction of the circuit courts in cases arising under the patent laws, without regard to the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy, is exclusive. Curt. Pat § 496. State courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, either in law or equity where the gravamen laid, is the infringement of patent rights. Dudley v. Mayhew, 3 Comst. [3 N. Y.] 9. But, in the case of Rich v. Atwater, 16 Conn. 409, which was a bill to enforce, by injunction, the rights of the plaintiff under a special agreement made, upon a license given to the defendant, to use the patented invention, it was held that the" }, { "docid": "23145483", "title": "", "text": "per annum, payable quarterly, during the period of the extension; and reciting also that Judson had had the management of the application for the renewal, and had paid, and' became liable to’ pay, the expenses thereof, and had agreed to guaranty the payment of the annuity of $1,200; and the agreement then provided as follows: “ÍTow, I (Chaffee) do hereby, in consideration of the premises,- and to place my patent so that in case of my death, or other accident or event, it may enure to’ the benefit of said Charles Goodyear, and those who hold a right to the use of said patent, under and in connection with his licensees, according to the understanding of the parties' interested, nominate, constitute, and appoint said William Judson my trustee and attorney, irrevocable, to hold said patent, and have the control thereof, so as no one shall have a license to use said patent or invention, or. the improvements secured thereby, other than those who had a right to use the same when said patent was extended,\"without the written consent, of said Judson first had add obtained.” At the close of the agreement, Judson stipulates with Chaf- fee to pay all the expenses of the renewal, and also the annuity of $1,200; and also to be at all the expense of sustaining and defending the patent; and Chaffee reserves to himself the right to use the improvement in his own business. This contract was entered into without the privity of Goodyear, and changed materially the terms and conditions of that made by him- with Chaffee on the 23d May. He was at first dissatisfied with the change when it came to his notice, but afterwards acquiesced. The contract continued in operation down to the 12th November, 1851, when a modification of the same took place. This last contract recites that there was an omission in that of 6th September, in not stating that if the said licensees continued to use the improvements, they should pay their just proportion of the expenses and services in obtaining the renewal, which it was intended they" }, { "docid": "22543083", "title": "", "text": "he says, “given to this class of eases was intended to secure uniformity of decision in the construction of the act of Congress in relation to patents. Now, the dispute in this case does not arise under any act of Congress, nor does the decision depend upon the construction of any law in relation to patents. It arises out of the contract stated in the. bill, and there is no act of Congress providing for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights of the parties depend altogether upon common-law and equity principles. The object of the bill is to have this contract set aside and declared to be-forfeited; and the prayer is, ‘ that the appellant’s reinvestiture of title to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the contract, may be sanctioned by the court,’ and for an injunction. But the injunction he asks for is to be the consequence of the decree of the court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for an injunction, unless the contract is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not in a court of chancery depended altogether upon the rules and principles of equity, and in no degree whatever upon any act of Congress concerning patent-rights. And whenever a contract is made in relation to' them, which is not provided for and regulated by Congress, the parties, if any dispute arises, stand upon the same ground with other litigants as to the right of appeal.” Let us see how closely these remarks and the case to which they related apply to the present case. In that case a contract was made under which the defendant entered on the use of the invention. This is also true of the case before us. In that case it is charged that an act to be performed by the defendant and licensee under the contract ivas not performed, to wit, payment of the notes. In" }, { "docid": "6167070", "title": "", "text": "But the injunction he asks for is to be the consequence of the decree of the court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for am, injunction unless the contract is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not, in a court of chancery, depended altogether upon the rules and principles of equity, and in no degree whatever upon any act of Congress concerning patent rights.” (Our italics.) In Luckett v. Delpark, Inc., 270 U. S. 496, 46 S.Ct. 397, 399, 70 L.Ed. 703, the bill set forth plaintiff’s title to certain patents, the creation of certain licenses and an assignment between plaintiff and defendants, and breach of the conditions of these agreements by the defendants. The bill also alleged infringement. The prayer for relief asked that title to one patent be reassigned to plaintiff to remove a cloud on his title; that an order issue cancelling the aforementioned agreements; that an accounting be had; and that the defendants be enjoined from further use of the inventions concerned. After reviewing many Supreme Court decisions, the court held on the authority of the Wilson case that the suit did not arise under the patent laws. The court said: “We do not think that this suit arises under the patent laws. Its main and declared purpose is to enforce the rights of the plaintiff under his contracts with defendants for royalties and for pushing the sales of ‘My Pal’ garments. In addition he seeks the reconveyance of one patent on forfeiture for failure of condition to remove a cloud on his title and a cancellation of all agreements of license of the other for their breach in order presumably that, unembarrassed by his assignment and licenses, he may enjoin future infringement. ***** “In the common feature of Wilson v. Sandford and the case before us, jurisdiction fails because the complainant in his bill seeks forfeiture of licensed rights in equity before he can rely on the patent" }, { "docid": "22775082", "title": "", "text": "circuit court cannot be revised here, unless the matter in dispute exceeds two thousand dollars.” The foregoing views were reiterated in Bloomer v. McQuewan (1852), 14 How. 539. In Hartshorn v. Day (1856), 19 How. 211, the court, in commenting upon the effect upon a license, of the nonperformance, by the licensee of a patent right, of cove nants made by him, and speaking in particular of a covenant to pay an annuity to one Chaffee, the patentee, said (p.222): “The payment of the annuity was not a condition to the vesting of the interest in the patent in Judson, and of course . . . the omission or refusal to pay did not give to Chaffee a right to rescind the contract, nor have the effect to remit him to his interest as patentee. The right to the annuity rested in covenant. . . . The remedy for the breach could rest only upon the personal obligation ” of the covenantor. The cases just referred to and others in accord with them were reviewed in the. opinion in Albright v. Teas, 106 U. S. 613, decided in 1883. The case was this: A patentee sold and assigned all his title and interest in the invention covered by his patents, and the purchasers covenanted to use their best efforts to introduce the invention, to pay specified royalties for the use of the patented improvements, etc. The assignor sued in a state court for a discovery and account and a decree for the amount of royalties found due and for general relief. ' On the application of the defendants the cause was removed into a Circuit Court, upon the theory that the suit was one arising under the patent laws of the United States, and, in consequence, exclusively within the cognizance of the courts of the United States. On final hearing, however, the Circuit Court remanded the cause as being one for the settlement of controversies under a contract, of which the state court had full cognizance. This court held that as the transfer of title was absolute, no rights secured" }, { "docid": "22775080", "title": "", "text": "instalments. Each note contained a provision that the title should revert in case of non-payment. Upon the theory that the refusal to pay an instalment forfeited the rights of the licensees, Wilson sued to restrain the further use of the machine on the ground that such use was an infringement of his patent rights. It was, however, decided that the matter in controversy arose upon contract, and that the requisite jurisdictional value was not involved. The claim that jurisdiction could be exercised because the case arose under the patent laws, was thus disposed of (p. 101): “Now the dispute in this case does not arise under any act of Congress; nor does the decision depend upon the construction of any law in relation to patents. It arises out of the contract stated in the bill; and there is no act of Congress providing for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights of the parties depend altogether upon common law and equity principles. The object of the bill is to have this contract set aside and declared to be forfeited; and the prayer is, ‘that .the appellant’s reinvestiture of title to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the contract, may be sanctioned by the court,’ and for an injunction. But the injunction he asks for is to be the consequence of the decree of the court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for an injunction unless the contract is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not, in a court of chancery, depended altogether upon the rules and principles of equity, and in no degree whatever upon any act of congress concerning patent rights. And whenever a contract is made in relation to them, which is not provided for and regulated by congress, the parties, if any dispute arises, stand upon the same ground with other litigants as to the right of appeal; and the decree of the" }, { "docid": "23145491", "title": "", "text": "the attempted, rescindment of the contracts. The agreement of 6th September had been in force from its date down to the 1st July, 1853, a period of two years and nearly ten months. During all this time, the licensees of Goodyear, at the date of the renewal of the patent, and those whom Judson may have granted a license to since the renewal, had a right to use the improvement, and especially the Shoe Associates, referred to in their agreement with Goodyear, 1st July, 1848. Besides this stipulation with Goodyear, their right was expressly recognised by Chaffee himself, in the agreement with Judson- of 6th of September. The effect of the rescindment as claimed, and which would be necessary to enable the plaintiff to succeed in his action against the defendants, would be to break up the business of these licensees, by divesting them of their rights under this agreement — rights acquired under it from .all parties connected vsdth or concerned in the patent, and especially from Chaffee, the patentee, who placed it in the hands .of Judsph, for the benefit of Goodyear and those holding under him. The effect would also be to deprive Goodyear or Judson, or whichever of them had paid the expenses of obtaining the renewal, of the equivalent for- those expenses, except as they might have a personal remedy'against Chaffee. To the extent above stated, •the agreement of the 6th .September was already executed, and, in respect- to parties concerned, the abrogation would' work the most serious consequences. As we have already said* the ground upon which the right to put an end to the agreement is the refusal to pay the annuity of $1,500 after December, 1852. Judson proposed to Chaffee to resume the payment in June,. 1853, which'was declined; but we attach no importance to this fact, especially as we are' in a court-of law. But, in looking into the agreements of the 6th of September, and also the one of the 12th of November, the court is-Of opinion'that the payment of the annuity was not a condition to the vesting. of" }, { "docid": "22805716", "title": "", "text": "all other cases” evidently refer to .the description of cases provided for in thát section, and where the ' matter in dispute is below two thousand dollars. In such suits, no appeal could be allowed, but for this provision. Thé cases specified in the section in question are, “ all actions, suits, controversies on cases arising under any laW bf the United States, granting or confirming to inventors the exclusive right to their inventions or discoveries.” The right of appeal to this court is confined to cases, of this description, when the sum in'dispute is belo.w two thousand dollars. And the peculiar privilege given to this, class of cases was intended to secure uniformity of decision in the construction’ of the act. of Congress in relation to patents. Now the dispute in' this case does not arise under any act of Congress; nor' does the decision depend upon the construction of any law in relation to patents. It arises out of the contract stated in the bill-; and there is no act of Congress pro viding for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights of the parties depend altogether upon common law and equity-principles. The object of the bill is to have this contract set aside and declared to be forfeited; and the prayer is, “ that the appellant’s reinvestiture. of title, to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the' contract, may be sanctioned by the court,” and for an injunction. But the injunction he asks for is to be the consequencé of the decree of the court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for an injunction unless the contract is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not, in a court of chancery, depended altogether upon the rules and principles of equity, and in no degree' whatever upon any act of Congress concerning patent rights. And whenever a contract is made in relation to them, which" }, { "docid": "22805717", "title": "", "text": "viding for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights of the parties depend altogether upon common law and equity-principles. The object of the bill is to have this contract set aside and declared to be forfeited; and the prayer is, “ that the appellant’s reinvestiture. of title, to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the' contract, may be sanctioned by the court,” and for an injunction. But the injunction he asks for is to be the consequencé of the decree of the court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for an injunction unless the contract is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not, in a court of chancery, depended altogether upon the rules and principles of equity, and in no degree' whatever upon any act of Congress concerning patent rights. And whenever a contract is made in relation to them, which is not provided for and regulated by Congress, the parties, if any dispute aqises, stand upon the same ground with other litigants as to the right of appeal; and the decree of the Circuit Court cannot be revised here, unless the matter in dispute exceeds two thousand dollars. This appeal; therefore, must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Order. This cause came on to be. heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for .the District of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel; on consideration. whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the .want of jurisdiction." }, { "docid": "22543082", "title": "", "text": "either of the notes was not punctually paid at maturity, all the rights under the license ceased and reverted to “ Wilson, who became reinvested in the same manner as if the license had never been made.” Upon failure to pay the first two notes, Wilson brought his bill, charging that notwithstanding this, the defendants were using the machine, and thus infringing his patent. He prayed an injunction, an account, &c. The bill was dismissed in the court below, and on appeal to this court the appeal was dismissed because the amount in controversy did not exceed $2,000. If, however, it had been a case arising under the patent laws of the United States, no sum was necessary to give jurisdiction. The precise question, therefore, to be decided was whether the suit arose under-the patent laws of the United States; and the Chief Justice, after reciting the clause in ¡-he act of 1836 which gives the circuit courts jurisdiction in all such eases, proceeds to discuss that question in this manner: “ The peculiar privilege,” he says, “given to this class of eases was intended to secure uniformity of decision in the construction of the act of Congress in relation to patents. Now, the dispute in this case does not arise under any act of Congress, nor does the decision depend upon the construction of any law in relation to patents. It arises out of the contract stated in the. bill, and there is no act of Congress providing for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights of the parties depend altogether upon common-law and equity principles. The object of the bill is to have this contract set aside and declared to be-forfeited; and the prayer is, ‘ that the appellant’s reinvestiture of title to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the contract, may be sanctioned by the court,’ and for an injunction. But the injunction he asks for is to be the consequence of the decree of the court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for an injunction, unless the contract" }, { "docid": "6167069", "title": "", "text": "L.Ed. 344, “the object of the bill was to set aside a contract * * *” and also to obtain an injunction against the further use of the machine, upon the ground that it was an infringement of plaintiff’s patent rights. The court held that this was not an action arising under the patent laws, saying: “Now the dispute in this case does not arise under any act of Congress; nor does the decision depend upon the construction of any law in relation to patents. It arises out of the contract stated in the bill; and there is no act of Congress providing for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights of the parties depend -altogether upon common law and equity principles. The object of the bill is to have this contract set aside and declared to be forfeited; and the prayer is, ‘that the appellant’s reinvestiture of title to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the contract, may be sanctioned by the court,’ and for an injunction. But the injunction he asks for is to be the consequence of the decree of the court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for am, injunction unless the contract is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not, in a court of chancery, depended altogether upon the rules and principles of equity, and in no degree whatever upon any act of Congress concerning patent rights.” (Our italics.) In Luckett v. Delpark, Inc., 270 U. S. 496, 46 S.Ct. 397, 399, 70 L.Ed. 703, the bill set forth plaintiff’s title to certain patents, the creation of certain licenses and an assignment between plaintiff and defendants, and breach of the conditions of these agreements by the defendants. The bill also alleged infringement. The prayer for relief asked that title to one patent be reassigned to plaintiff to remove a cloud on his title; that an order issue cancelling the aforementioned agreements;" }, { "docid": "22775086", "title": "", "text": "providing for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights .of the parties depend altogether upon common law and equity principles.’ 10 How. 101, 102; 99 U. S. 552; 106 U. S. 619. “Those-words are equally applicable to the present case, -except that, as it is an action at law, the principles of equity have no bearing. This action, therefore, was within the jurisdiction, and, the parties being citizens of the same State, within the exclusive jurisdiction, of the State courts; and the only federal question in the case was rightly decided.” The case of Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co., 157 U. S. 659, touches upon the precise question before us. In the course of the opinion, the court said — italics mine— (p. 666): “Upon the doctrine of these cases we think it follows that one who buys patented articles of manufacture from one authorized to sell them becomes possessed of an absolute property in such articles, unrestricted in time or place. Whether a patentee may protect himself and his assignees by special contracts brought home to the purchasers is not a question- before us, and upon which we express no opinion. It is, however, obvious that such a question would arise as a question of. contract, and not as one under the inherent meaning and effect of the patent laws.” A reference to the foregoing and other decided cases is contained in the opinion in Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v.Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282. The suit was by a licensee authorized to manufacture and sell wooden pipe under certain letters patent, against two defendants, one of whom was the licensor and owner of the patent. The covenants of the licensee were, (1) to pay a license fee or royalty; (2) not to transfer or assign the license without the consent of the patentee; and (3) that the license might be revoked for failure to manufacture. While, because of peculiar conditions present in the case, the suit was held to be one arising under the patent laws, the court yet observed (p. 290): “Now, it may" }, { "docid": "22543084", "title": "", "text": "is set aside. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not in a court of chancery depended altogether upon the rules and principles of equity, and in no degree whatever upon any act of Congress concerning patent-rights. And whenever a contract is made in relation to' them, which is not provided for and regulated by Congress, the parties, if any dispute arises, stand upon the same ground with other litigants as to the right of appeal.” Let us see how closely these remarks and the case to which they related apply to the present case. In that case a contract was made under which the defendant entered on the use of the invention. This is also true of the case before us. In that case it is charged that an act to be performed by the defendant and licensee under the contract ivas not performed, to wit, payment of the notes. In the case before us it is alleged in like manner that the defendants failed to perform part of the contract, to wit, to sign a license. In that case the complainant asserted, as in this, that all right under the contract had ceased, and he was remitted to his original rights under the patent, and could, therefore, sue in the Federal court under the statute; but the court held this to be erroneous, and that the rights of the parties depended on the contract and not on the statute. Why does not the same rule apply to the present case? Wilson’s case was -stronger than Tilghman’s case, for two reasons: — 1. Because the contract was all in writing, and there was no dispute about its meaning. Here it was in parol, and there is not only dispute about its meaning, but the rights of .the parties depend almost wholly upon the points in dispute, which have no relation to the patent laws of the United States. 2. In Wilson’s case there ivas an express" } ]

[ { "docid": "23050709", "title": "", "text": "parties and gave no reason for denying defendants’ bill of costs. This was an abuse of the court’s discretion. Gilchrist v. Bolger, 733 F.2d at 1557. We have determined previously, in connection with 42 U.S.C. § 1988, that “we may decide, rather than remanding the issue to the district court, whether the ... [party] is now a prevailing party entitled to an ... award of attorneys’ fees and costs. See Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1381-83 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 1981) (en banc).” Ensley Branch, NAACP v. Seibels, 31 F.3d 1548, 1582 (11th Cir.1994). We see no principled reason not to extend this rule to allow us to decide as a matter of law whether a party has prevailed in connection with assessing costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(d). To be a prevailing party [a] party need not prevail on all issues to justify a full award of costs, however. Usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of rule 54(d).... A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has not sustained all his claims.... 10 Wright & Miller, supra, § 2667, p. 129-130. Cases from this and other circuits consistently support shifting costs if the prevailing party obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced. United States v. Mitchell, 580 F.2d 789, 793-94 (5th Cir.1978) (citations omitted). There is no question but that the district court rendered a judgment in defendants’ favor .by granting their motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs federal claims although practically that apparently constituted only a small part of plaintiffs claims. That the district court declined to exercise its: supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and dismissed all of plaintiffs remaining state law claims, does not impair the fact that, as far as the federal case was concerned, defendants prevailed. Thus, defendants were the prevailing party in the district court for purposes of Rule 54(d) and are entitled' to their costs unless the district court has some special reason to deny" } ]

[ { "docid": "23620939", "title": "", "text": "as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). As is apparent from the language of Rule 54(d)(1), “the determination of who qualifies as a prevailing party is central to deciding whether costs are available.” Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2667. In general, the litigant who is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees is also the prevailing party for purposes of costs. See 10 Moore’s Federal Practice § 54.101[3] (3d ed.2000) (noting that the “prevailing party” requirement for purposes of costs is generally, but not completely, synonymous with the “prevailing party” requirement in the attorney’s fee context); see also Tunison v. Continental Airlines Corp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1187, 1189-90 (D.C.Cir.1998) (noting that “the ‘prevailing party’ determination is generally the same in the two contexts”— i.e., Rule 54(d)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988). Under this standard, Mr. Barber was the prevailing party, having been awarded nominal damages. See Farrar, 506 U.S. at 112, 113 S.Ct. 566 (holding that “a plaintiff who wins nominal damages is a prevailing party under [the attorney’s fee statute] § 1988”). In addition, “[u]sually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54(d)[ (1) ].” Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 2667; see also Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 354 (11th Cir.1995) (“Cases from this and other circuits consistently support shifting costs if the prevailing party obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard, Mr. Barber was once again the prevailing party because the district court entered judgment in his favor. See Aplt’s App. at 42 (judgment, filed Sept. 23, 1999) (“Pursuant to the unanimous verdict of the jury, the Court hereby enters judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1.00 ....”); see also Farrar, 506 U.S. at 112, 113 S.Ct. 566 (“When a court awards nominal damages [to plaintiff], it [does not] enter[ ] judgment for defendant on the merits.... ”). In his opinion, the magistrate judge never stated explicitly whom he considered the prevailing" }, { "docid": "6529658", "title": "", "text": "1924. The Court may exercise discretion when awarding the prevailing party costs and reimbursement of expenses. See In re Fidelity/Micron Securities Litigation, 167 F.3d 735, 736 (1st Cir.1999); In re Thirteen Appeals Arising Out of San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 56 F.3d 295, 309 (1st Cir.1995). The Court will consider the facts and equities on a case-by-case basis. In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 142 F.R.D. 41, 46 (D.P.R.1992). Unverified expenses and costs may be rejected out of hand. See In re: Fidelity, 167 F.3d at 738; Weinberger v. Great N. Nekoosa Corp., 925 F.2d at 527. “The Court does have discretion to allow unverified costs where it is clear from the nature of the cost that it was necessarily incurred.” O’Rourke v. City of Providence, 1999 WL 1132539, *5 (D.R.I.1999) (citing Phetosomphone v. Allison Reed Group, Inc., 984 F.2d 4, 9 (1st Cir.1993)). But “the discretion given district judges to tax costs should be sparingly exercised with reference to expenses not specifically allowed by statute.” Farmer v. Arabian Ameri can Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 235, 85 S.Ct. 411, 13 L.Ed.2d 248 (1964). In the First Circuit, the rule is “[o]rdinarily the taxation of costs would be limited to those ordinary costs authorized by § 1920. Extraordinary costs may be allowed, however, when specifically approved by the court prior to trial.” Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 250 (1st Cir. 1985)(quoting Gradmann & Holler GmbH v. Continental Lines, S.A., 679 F.2d 272, 274 (1st Cir.1982)). A prevailing party within the meaning of Rule 54(d) is defined as follows: To be a prevailing party [a] party need not prevail on all issues to justify a full award of costs, however. Usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of rule 54(d) .... A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has not sustained all his claims .... Cases from this and other circuits consistently support shifting-costs • if the prevailing party obtains judgment on even a" }, { "docid": "15393817", "title": "", "text": "law claims for failure to state a claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Shum’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment. Finally, after the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining state law claims, the district court granted defendants’ post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”). The final judgment in this action entitles Shum to be named as a co-inventor for claims in five of the seven patents-in-suit, but entitles him to none of the more than $409 million he sought in monetary damages. Based on this mixed result, the district court concluded that both parties “prevailed” within the meaning of Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the award of costs and fees accrued during trial. Acknowledging, however, that Rule 54 might only countenance a single “prevailing party,” the district court held in the alternative that the defendants were the “prevailing party.” The parties were then each awarded the costs associated with the claims they respectively won. After offsetting these amounts, the result was a net costs award of $134,368.28 to defendants, taxed against Shum. Shum timely appealed. On appeal, Shum argues that the award of costs must be vacated and recalculated on remand because there can only be one prevailing party. Moreover, according to Shum, he is that prevailing party. Though Shum lost on all of his California law claims and failed to recover any fraction of the more than $409 million in damages he sought, Shum nevertheless argues that his limited victory on the question of inventor-ship suffices to make him a prevailing party. Further, as a prevailing party, Shum contends that he is entitled to all of his costs, while defendants are entitled to none of theirs. We agree that there can be, by definition, only one prevailing party. We nevertheless affirm the award of costs because we agree with the district court’s alternative holding that defendants are the prevailing party. Though Shum’s victory on his co-inventorship claims changes the names appearing on" }, { "docid": "6529659", "title": "", "text": "can Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 235, 85 S.Ct. 411, 13 L.Ed.2d 248 (1964). In the First Circuit, the rule is “[o]rdinarily the taxation of costs would be limited to those ordinary costs authorized by § 1920. Extraordinary costs may be allowed, however, when specifically approved by the court prior to trial.” Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 250 (1st Cir. 1985)(quoting Gradmann & Holler GmbH v. Continental Lines, S.A., 679 F.2d 272, 274 (1st Cir.1982)). A prevailing party within the meaning of Rule 54(d) is defined as follows: To be a prevailing party [a] party need not prevail on all issues to justify a full award of costs, however. Usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of rule 54(d) .... A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has not sustained all his claims .... Cases from this and other circuits consistently support shifting-costs • if the prevailing party obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced. Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 354 (11th Cir.1995)(quoting United States v. Mitchell, 580 F.2d 789, 793-94 (5th Cir.1978)) (citations omitted). In order to be a prevailing party under [Rule 54(d) ], the party must have succeeded “ ‘on a significant issue in the litigation that achieves some of the benefits the party sought in bringing the suit.’ ” Ann Howard Designs, L.P. v. Southern Frills, Inc., 7 F.Supp.2d 388, 389-90 (S.D.N.Y.1998)(quoting Screenlife Establishment v. Tower Video, Inc., 868 F.Supp. 47, 50 (S.D.N.Y.1994)). [A prevailing party is] one in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of whether the party has recovered its entire claim or a portion thereof. Garonzik v. Whitman Diner, 910 F.Supp. 167, 168 (D.N.J.1995). A prevailing party, for purposes of Rule 54(d), is a party in whose favor judgment is rendered. Traditionally, this means the party who won at trial, whether or not that party prevailed on all issues, and regardless of the amount of damages awarded. All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hill’s Pet Products" }, { "docid": "3637789", "title": "", "text": "is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of rule 54(d) .... A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has not sustained all his claims .... 10 Wright & Miller, supra, § 2667, p. 129-130. Cases from this and other circuits consistently support shifting costs if the prevailing party obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced. Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 354 (11th Cir.1995) (quoting from United States v. Mitchell, 580 F.2d 789, 793-94 (5th Cir.1978) (citations omitted)). Thus, the outer boundary of the term “prevailing party” is that a party must receive at least some relief on the merits of a claim before being considered a “prevailing party.” See Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 759—60, 107 S.Ct. 2672, 96 L.Ed.2d 654 (1987). This flexible rule allows the courts to balance the concerns for encouraging vigorous enforcement of civil rights against discouraging frivolous litigation within the specific and unique context of each individual case. Accordingly, where a defendant has prevailed on the merits of some of his claims, he may be deemed a prevailing party entitled to all costs (including fees) incurred in defending the suit. Under this standard, a prevailing party can redress those rare abusive situations in which a civil rights plaintiff files a blatantly frivolous claim, and then simply dismisses those claims voluntarily to avoid a judicial determination on the merits. 2. Standard Applicable to Prevailing Civil Rights Defendants Neither § 1988(b) nor § 2000e-5 distinguish between prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants. However, the Supreme Court has developed two distinct standards—one for prevailing civil rights plaintiffs and another for prevailing civil rights defendants. Relying on Congress’s intent to cast civil rights plaintiffs in the role of private attorneys general, and on the fact that attorney’s fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs are necessarily awarded against violators of federal law, the Supreme Court has held that a prevailing civil rights plaintiff should ordinarily recover his attorney’s fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S." }, { "docid": "23620940", "title": "", "text": "prevailing party under [the attorney’s fee statute] § 1988”). In addition, “[u]sually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54(d)[ (1) ].” Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 2667; see also Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 354 (11th Cir.1995) (“Cases from this and other circuits consistently support shifting costs if the prevailing party obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard, Mr. Barber was once again the prevailing party because the district court entered judgment in his favor. See Aplt’s App. at 42 (judgment, filed Sept. 23, 1999) (“Pursuant to the unanimous verdict of the jury, the Court hereby enters judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1.00 ....”); see also Farrar, 506 U.S. at 112, 113 S.Ct. 566 (“When a court awards nominal damages [to plaintiff], it [does not] enter[ ] judgment for defendant on the merits.... ”). In his opinion, the magistrate judge never stated explicitly whom he considered the prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54(d)(1). However, by noting that Mr. Barber had succeeded on one claim and that Williamson had succeeded on two, by describing a Tenth Circuit case as one in which “both parties were prevailing parties,” Aplt’s App. at 94 (district court order, filed Jan. 21, 2000), and by subsequently stating that Mr. Barber and Williamson alike were entitled to costs, the magistrate judge implicitly believed both to be prevailing parties under Rule 54(d)(1). To the extent that the magistrate judge found both Mr. Barber and Williamson to be prevailing parties under Rule 54(d)(1), he clearly erred. For the reasons stated above, Mr. Barber, and not Williamson, was the prevailing party for purposes of costs. Having clarified the “prevailing party” status of the respective parties, we vacate the award of costs and remand so that the magistrate judge (or the district court) may reconsider the issue of costs in light of this opinion. We note that, while costs presumptively are awarded to the prevailing party, see Klein v. Grynberg, 44 F.3d 1497," }, { "docid": "19921901", "title": "", "text": "After doing so, plaintiffs costs are reduced to only a fraction of his originally claimed costs. At that point, his costs are no longer unreasonable or unnecessary. Therefore, the court will not entirely deny his costs on that basis. Reynolds argues that the court should exercise its discretion and deny plaintiffs costs because plaintiff lost far more claims than he won. Specifically, plaintiff ultimately prevailed on only 2 of his 11 claims in this case. To the extent that the court might have discretion to deny plaintiffs costs for this reason, compare Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1058 (10th Cir.1990) (trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award costs to the party that prevailed on a majority of claims that were the central claims at issue); Howell Petroleum Corp. v. Samson Res. Co., 903 F.2d 778, 783 (10th Cir.1990) (trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award costs to a party that was only partially successful), with Barber v. T.D. Williamson, Inc., 254 F.3d 1223, 1234 (10th Cir.2001) (magistrate judge erred in granting costs to both parties where judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff; noting that usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is entered is the prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54); Cantrell v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 69 F.3d 456, 458 (party need not prevail on every issue to be considered a prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54), the court declines to do so. Even -without the punitive damage award, plaintiff still obtained a $196,416 judgment against Reynolds. This is by no means a small amount, and it should not be overshadowed by the voluminous record that is largely attributable to the aggressive manner in which Reynolds chose to litigate this case. Plaintiffs counsel did a commendable job of withstanding Reynolds’ litigation tactics of resisting discovery via largely meritless claims of privilege, filing endless motions, and raising all plausible arguments on every minute point. It took plaintiff more than eleven years to prosecute this lawsuit, to obtain a judgment against Reynolds, and to collect on that judgment." }, { "docid": "544762", "title": "", "text": "each party should bear its own costs. We must disagree. For purposes of Rule 54(d), the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is considered the prevailing party. 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2667 at 178-79 and cases cited therein. A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as a prevailing party even though he has not prevailed on all of his claims. Id. at 181. A plaintiff who recovers only nominal damages is generally considered the prevailing party and therefore entitled to recover costs. Id. at 187. We see no reason why this general rule should not be applied in the instant case. Although the jury found that plaintiff suffered no monetary loss, it nonetheless found that the District deprived plaintiff of his right to due process. We believe that plaintiff is entitled to recover all of his properly taxable costs against defendant on that basis. We must next consider the defendant’s objections to certain items taxed by the court. First, defendant objects to the taxation of $2,012.50 in costs for depositions of the defendants Pat Baker, Margaret Schmanke, Donald Dittman, Suzanna Sayler and John Bloomfield, all of which were taken by the plaintiff. The court has great discretion to tax deposition costs if it finds the deposition was “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Miller v. City of Mission, 516 F.Supp. 1333, 1340 (D.Kan.1981); Sturm v. Kansas City Peterbilt, No. 84-2239 (D.Kan., unpublished, March 26, 1986) [Available on WESTLAW DCT database]. Where a deposition was used in defense of a motion for summary judgment, the court may find that the deposition was necessarily obtained and therefore properly taxable. Miller, 516 F.Supp. at 1340; Nationwide Auto Appraiser Service, Inc. v. Association of Casualty and Surety Cos., 41 F.R.D. 76, 77 (D.Okla.1966). In the instant case the depositions at issue were heavily relied upon by the plaintiff in defending against the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the court finds these depositions properly taxable. We note, however, that as to volume one of the Sayler deposition, plaintiff has failed to deduct" }, { "docid": "8675866", "title": "", "text": "of Civil Procedure instructs that “costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs____” Although this leaves the assessment of costs to the discretion of the court, “prevailing plaintiffs presumptively will obtain costs under Rule 54(d) ... [bjecause costs are usually assessed against the losing party [and are a] normal incident of defeat.” Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 352, 101 S.Ct. 1146, 1150, 67 L.Ed.2d 287 (1981). Moreover, the fact that a party may allege damages far in excess of those he eventually recovers does not, in and of itself, mandate a denial of costs. “It has been repeatedly held that a plaintiff was a ‘prevailing’ party within the meaning of [Rule 54(d)] and entitled to costs even though he sustained only a portion of his claim.” Brown v. Consolidated Fisheries Co., 18 F.R.D. 433, 435 (D.Del.1955). See also: K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., Inc., 506 F.2d 471, 477 (9th Cir.1974), where the court dismissed defendant’s contention that since plaintiff prevailed on only two of twelve counts of its complaint, certain costs should be divided between the parties. The court assessed costs solely against defendant, noting that in general, a party in whose favor judgment is rendered by the district court is the prevailing party ... Although a plaintiff may not sustain his entire claim, if judgment is rendered for him he is the prevailing party. (Quoting 6 Moore, Federal Practice H 54.-70[4], at 1306-1307 (2d ed. 1974)). In the case at bar, plaintiff clearly is the prevailing party. Despite the fact that he recovered less than the damages alleged, he may recover costs. II. Defendant’s alternative argument presents a more tenable position. First, she contends that this Court is without the authority to tax costs for the compensation of expert witnesses in excess of statutory allowances for attendance, mileage and subsistence. In support of this position, defendant cites 28 U.S.C.A. § 1821 and Rule 23G of the General Rules of this Court. Further, defendant points to cases originating in the Fifth Circuit for the proposition that" }, { "docid": "3204722", "title": "", "text": "364 (11th Cir.1995). “Whether the facts as found suffice to render the [party] a ‘prevailing party’ is a legal question reviewed de novo.” Lipscher v. LRP Publ’ns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1305, 1321 (11th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Provided a party is a “prevailing party,” we review the district court’s decision about whether to award costs in favor of that party for an abuse of discretion. Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir.2000). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that, “[ujnless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney’s fees— should be allowed to the prevailing party.” The rule establishes “a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs.” Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir.2007). To be a prevailing party, “a party need not prevail on all issues.” Head, 62 F.3d at 354 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has not sustained all of his claims.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant is a prevailing party if the plaintiff achieves none of the benefits it sought in pursuing the lawsuit. See id. at 354-55. (concluding that a defendant was the prevailing party when the district court granted its motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs remaining state law claims); see also 10 Moore’s Federal Practice § 54.171[3][c][iv], at 54-285 (“If the case is litigated to judgment on the merits in favor of the defendant, the defendant is the prevailing party.”). Here, however, Emery prevailed on one of her claims against American. Put differently, although American avoided liability on three of the claims Emery pursued against the company, it was held liable to Emery for a civil penalty on her fourth claim. Under these facts, the district court erred in deeming American to be the prevailing party in the litigation. See Lipscher, 266 F.3d at 1321. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s award of costs in favor of American. IV. For the foregoing reasons," }, { "docid": "19921902", "title": "", "text": "(magistrate judge erred in granting costs to both parties where judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff; noting that usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is entered is the prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54); Cantrell v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 69 F.3d 456, 458 (party need not prevail on every issue to be considered a prevailing party for purposes of Rule 54), the court declines to do so. Even -without the punitive damage award, plaintiff still obtained a $196,416 judgment against Reynolds. This is by no means a small amount, and it should not be overshadowed by the voluminous record that is largely attributable to the aggressive manner in which Reynolds chose to litigate this case. Plaintiffs counsel did a commendable job of withstanding Reynolds’ litigation tactics of resisting discovery via largely meritless claims of privilege, filing endless motions, and raising all plausible arguments on every minute point. It took plaintiff more than eleven years to prosecute this lawsuit, to obtain a judgment against Reynolds, and to collect on that judgment. The court has no doubt that plaintiffs counsel incurred significant amounts of statutorily recoverable costs in litigating this case. Plaintiff ultimately prevailed, and the court will award him his statutorily recoverable costs incurred in doing so. Along those same lines, Reynolds argues that the court should deny plaintiffs costs entirely because he has failed to differentiate the costs he incurred on his losing and dismissed claims from those upon which he ultimately prevailed. The court will not entirely deny plaintiffs costs for that reason. The court will, however, endeavor to disallow costs where the record reveals that plaintiff necessarily incurred those costs prosecuting claims upon which he was ultimately unsuccessful. See Barber, 254 F.3d at 1234 (“[I]n cases in which the prevailing party has been only partially successful, some courts have chosen to apportion costs among the parties or to reduce the size of the prevailing party’s award to reflect the partial success.”). Nonetheless, the evidence at trial overlapped significantly on the claims on which plaintiff prevailed versus those on which he lost, and therefore" }, { "docid": "11265472", "title": "", "text": "Id. at 1039. It is true that Rule 54(d), and the presumption of costs allowed under the rule, ordinarily apply only to the costs that Congress defined as taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987) (explaining that “§ 1920 defines the term ‘costs’ as used in Rule 54(d)”). These enumerated categories of taxable costs provided by § 1920 limits the discretion of federal courts to award costs under Rule 54(d). See Arcadian Fertilizer, L.P. v. MPW Indus. Services Inc., 249 F.3d 1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001). But, both the Supreme Court and this Circuit have long recognized that contractual provisions can circumvent these restrictions on taxable costs. See Crawford Fitting, 482 U.S. at 444, 107 S.Ct. at 2494; Arcadian Fertilizer, 249 F.3d at 1296. Here, the parties’ contract contains broad enough language to cover the award of both taxable and nontaxable costs related to litigation arising out of the contract. As the District Court correctly noted, under Florida law, “[p]ro-visions in ordinary contracts awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party are generally enforced.” Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So.2d 1154, 1158 (Fla. 2005); see also Price v. Tyler, 890 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla. 2004). And, “[t]rial courts do not have the discretion to decline to enforce such provisions, even if the challenging party brings a meritorious claim in good faith.” Id. So, the District Court did correctly decide to award nontaxable costs to YPPI, unquestionably the prevailing party. But rather than simply awarding costs pursuant to the contract, the Court again reduced YPPI’s nontaxable costs by 92.5% after applying a mathematical ratio derived from comparing YPPI’s jury award with the damages it originally requested. The District Court provided no further analysis to justify its dramatic reduction in the nontaxable costs provided for under the contract. This ruling effectively ignores our established precedent which provides that shifting costs in favor of the prevailing party is appropriate even in the case of a nominal award, so long as the prevailing party “ ‘obtains" }, { "docid": "23560861", "title": "", "text": "abuse its discretion in awarding costs. Mitchell urges that the government prevailed only on the steering issue, losing both the refusal to let allegation and the plea for damages, and thus cannot be characterized as the “prevailing party” under Rule 54(d). A party need not prevail on all issues to justify a full award of costs, however. Usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of rule 54(d). ... A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has not sustained all his claims. . 10 Wright & Miller, supra, § 2667, p. 129— 130. Cases from this and other circuits consistently support shifting costs if the prevailing party obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced. See, e. g., Adams v. Reed, 567 F.2d 1283 (CA5, 1978); K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., 506 F.2d 471 (CA9,1974). We decline to disturb the district judge’s exercise of discretion in awarding costs to the government after it prevailed on a significant issue and procured broad affirmative equitable relief. Mitchell complains that the costs were excessive because United States marshalls made two trips to subpoena witnesses when, because of proximity, both witnesses could have been served at once. We decline, as we always have, to review the amount of costs when the court clearly acted within its power to award such costs. McWilliams Dredging Co. v. Dept. of Highways, 187 F.2d 61 (CA5, 1951). AFFIRMED. . The government originally charged that Mitchell had refused to let to blacks. The court found insufficient evidence to support the allegation. This finding is not challenged on appeal. . The Attorney General is empowered to bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 3613 if he finds either that the defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination or that the defendant has denied rights to a group of persons and the case raises an issue of general public importance. See U. S. v. Northside Realty Associates, supra. The district judge found that the Attorney General’s action" }, { "docid": "23050708", "title": "", "text": "[App. Rec. 151.] The district court made no finding whether defendants were prevailing parties for purposes of determining costs under Rule 54(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., or attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Neither did the district court explain its decision to deny attorney’s fees and costs to both parties. Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). This Court has held that “where the trial court denies the prevailing party its costs, the court must give a reason for its denial of costs so that the appellate court may have some basis upon which to determine if the trial court acted within its discretionary power.” Gilchrist v. Bolger, 733 F.2d 1551, 1557 (11th Cir.1984) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, although the district court has discretion to deny a prevailing party costs, such discretion is not unfettered. In the case sub judice, the district court did not determine whether defendants were prevailing parties and gave no reason for denying defendants’ bill of costs. This was an abuse of the court’s discretion. Gilchrist v. Bolger, 733 F.2d at 1557. We have determined previously, in connection with 42 U.S.C. § 1988, that “we may decide, rather than remanding the issue to the district court, whether the ... [party] is now a prevailing party entitled to an ... award of attorneys’ fees and costs. See Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1381-83 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 1981) (en banc).” Ensley Branch, NAACP v. Seibels, 31 F.3d 1548, 1582 (11th Cir.1994). We see no principled reason not to extend this rule to allow us to decide as a matter of law whether a party has prevailed in connection with assessing costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(d). To be a prevailing party [a] party need not prevail on all issues to justify a full award of costs, however. Usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of rule 54(d).... A party who" }, { "docid": "11265473", "title": "", "text": "Florida law, “[p]ro-visions in ordinary contracts awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party are generally enforced.” Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So.2d 1154, 1158 (Fla. 2005); see also Price v. Tyler, 890 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla. 2004). And, “[t]rial courts do not have the discretion to decline to enforce such provisions, even if the challenging party brings a meritorious claim in good faith.” Id. So, the District Court did correctly decide to award nontaxable costs to YPPI, unquestionably the prevailing party. But rather than simply awarding costs pursuant to the contract, the Court again reduced YPPI’s nontaxable costs by 92.5% after applying a mathematical ratio derived from comparing YPPI’s jury award with the damages it originally requested. The District Court provided no further analysis to justify its dramatic reduction in the nontaxable costs provided for under the contract. This ruling effectively ignores our established precedent which provides that shifting costs in favor of the prevailing party is appropriate even in the case of a nominal award, so long as the prevailing party “ ‘obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced.’ ” Lipscher v. LRP Pub., Inc., 266 F.3d 1305, 1321 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Although a reduction in costs can be justified, at least in part, on the grounds of minimal success, the District Court’s rote application of a mathematical formula does not provide a sufficient basis to overcome the strong presumption in favor of a costs award under the contract. Nor does a review of the record suggest any misconduct on the part of YPPI sufficient to justify such an extreme reduction in costs even absent a contractual entitlement. In short, the substantial reduction applied to the nontaxable costs requested by YPPI undermined the intent of the parties and denied YPPI the full benefit of its bargain with Ziplocal. No “sound basis” for this reduction in nontaxable costs was provided and conse quently the District Court abused its discretion in making the award. Accordingly, we REVERSE the District Court’s order and REMAND the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. SO ORDERED." }, { "docid": "3204721", "title": "", "text": "in denying as moot Emery’s request for an extension of time to file a reply to American’s opposition to her Rule 59(e) motion. By the time she filed her request for an extension, the district court had already ruled on the 59(e) motion. This intervening decision rendered Emery’s request moot. Further, the remedy Emery sought, for the district court to consider her argument that the Rule 59(e) motion was timely filed, was in fact achieved when the court addressed (and denied) Emery’s “Request for Status Conference” and “Submission of Verified Notice of Timely Filing of Plaintiffs Motion to Alter Judgment.” Thus, the district court considered the very arguments and evidence that Emery complains it did not. We affirm the district court’s denial of the extension request. B. Emery next argues that the district court erred in awarding costs under Rule 54(b) to American as a prevailing party in the litigation. We agree. We review the factual findings underlying a district court’s determination regarding prevailing party status for clear error. Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 364 (11th Cir.1995). “Whether the facts as found suffice to render the [party] a ‘prevailing party’ is a legal question reviewed de novo.” Lipscher v. LRP Publ’ns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1305, 1321 (11th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Provided a party is a “prevailing party,” we review the district court’s decision about whether to award costs in favor of that party for an abuse of discretion. Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir.2000). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that, “[ujnless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney’s fees— should be allowed to the prevailing party.” The rule establishes “a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs.” Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir.2007). To be a prevailing party, “a party need not prevail on all issues.” Head, 62 F.3d at 354 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has" }, { "docid": "544761", "title": "", "text": "that each party should bear its own costs. Review of the clerk’s assessment of costs is a de novo review addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 232-33, 85 S.Ct. 411, 415, 13 L.Ed.2d 248 (1964). As a threshold matter, the court notes that the motion and memorandum, objecting to plaintiff’s bill of costs is brought by all defendants, including the individual defendants in favor of whom the court directed a verdict on all claims. Judgment in this case was entered against only the defendant District, and, per plaintiff’s request, costs were taxed only against the District. Consequently, many of the arguments raised by the individual defendants in their memorandum are moot. We shall treat the remaining objections as if raised solely by the defendant District. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that costs are to be allowed the “prevailing party” unless the court otherwise directs. Defendant submits that under the facts of this case, plaintiff is not really a “prevailing party,” and that each party should bear its own costs. We must disagree. For purposes of Rule 54(d), the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is considered the prevailing party. 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2667 at 178-79 and cases cited therein. A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as a prevailing party even though he has not prevailed on all of his claims. Id. at 181. A plaintiff who recovers only nominal damages is generally considered the prevailing party and therefore entitled to recover costs. Id. at 187. We see no reason why this general rule should not be applied in the instant case. Although the jury found that plaintiff suffered no monetary loss, it nonetheless found that the District deprived plaintiff of his right to due process. We believe that plaintiff is entitled to recover all of his properly taxable costs against defendant on that basis. We must next consider the defendant’s objections to certain items taxed by the court. First, defendant objects to the taxation" }, { "docid": "23391739", "title": "", "text": "is not “ordinary” and why, in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate or inequitable to award costs. 231 F.3d at 591-92, 593 (citation omitted). We have previously approved as appropriate reasons for denying costs: (1) a losing party’s limited financial resources; (2) misconduct by the prevailing party; and (3) “the chilling effect of imposing ... high costs on future civil rights litigants.” Id. at 592 (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, we noted with approval in Mexican-American Educators that other circuits have held that the following factors are appropriate: (1) the issues in the case were close and difficult; (2) the prevailing party’s recovery was nominal or partial; (3) the losing party litigated in good faith; and, perhaps, (4) the case presented a landmark issue of national importance. Id. at 592 n. 15. See also Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945(9th Cir.2003). In this case, the district court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Champion was the “prevailing party” within the meaning of Rule 54(d)(1). See D. Idaho Local Rule 54.1(b) (“Generally, the prevailing party is the one who successfully prosecutes the action or successfully defends against it, prevails on the merits of the main issue, and the one in whose favor the decision or verdict is rendered and judgment entered.”). It nonetheless refused to award Champion pre-offer costs for three reasons. First, the court noted that “[although Plaintiff ultimately prevailed on its breach of contract claim, the damages awarded by the jury were significantly less than the amount of damages Plaintiff initially claimed was due under the contract.” Second, it noted that “despite Plaintiffs argument to the contrary, Defendant’s Rule 68 offer of judgment exceeded the amount of the final judgment in Plaintiffs favor.” Third, it noted that the “Defendant ultimately prevailed with respect to its affirmative defenses of modification and waiver of the contract, which is evidenced by the fact that the jury awarded Plaintiff damages in an amount much less than what Plaintiff claimed was due under the contract.” The first and third reasons are closely related. The core of each reason" }, { "docid": "23560860", "title": "", "text": "Long, 537 F.2d 1151 (CA4, 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 871, 97 S.Ct. 185, 50 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976), we find no support in the language or legislative history of § 3613 for extending the powers of the Attorney General by implication. III. Costs. Mitchell complains on appeal that court costs were wrongfully assessed and were excessive. The United States may, absent a statute, recover costs to the same extent as a private party. Pine River Logging & Improvement Co. v. U. S., 186 U.S. 279, 22 S.Ct. 920, 46 L.Ed. 1164 (1902); 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2667, p. 138. Rule 54(d) provides that “costs shall be allowed as of course' to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs . . . .” We review an award of costs only to correct an abuse of the district court’s discretion. Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 441 F.2d 631 (CA5), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 941, 92 S.Ct. 285, 30 L.Ed.2d 255 (1971). The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs. Mitchell urges that the government prevailed only on the steering issue, losing both the refusal to let allegation and the plea for damages, and thus cannot be characterized as the “prevailing party” under Rule 54(d). A party need not prevail on all issues to justify a full award of costs, however. Usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of rule 54(d). ... A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has not sustained all his claims. . 10 Wright & Miller, supra, § 2667, p. 129— 130. Cases from this and other circuits consistently support shifting costs if the prevailing party obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced. See, e. g., Adams v. Reed, 567 F.2d 1283 (CA5, 1978); K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., 506 F.2d 471 (CA9,1974). We decline to disturb the district judge’s exercise of discretion in awarding costs to the government after it" }, { "docid": "3637788", "title": "", "text": "in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of the damages award.” Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). To prevail, a party must be awarded some relief by a court. 121 S.Ct. at 1840 (emphasis added). This may take the form of a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree. Id. Both create the “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” which is necessary to a fee award. Id. Contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestions, a party need not succeed on all issues in order to be deemed a “prevailing party.” A party needs only to “establish his entitlement to some relief on the merits of his claims in the trial court or on an appeal.” 121 S.Ct. at 1840. As explained by the Eleventh Circuit: To be a prevailing party [a] party need not prevail on all issues to justify a full award of costs, however. Usually the litigant in whose favor judgment is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of rule 54(d) .... A party who has obtained some relief usually will be regarded as the prevailing party even though he has not sustained all his claims .... 10 Wright & Miller, supra, § 2667, p. 129-130. Cases from this and other circuits consistently support shifting costs if the prevailing party obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced. Head v. Medford, 62 F.3d 351, 354 (11th Cir.1995) (quoting from United States v. Mitchell, 580 F.2d 789, 793-94 (5th Cir.1978) (citations omitted)). Thus, the outer boundary of the term “prevailing party” is that a party must receive at least some relief on the merits of a claim before being considered a “prevailing party.” See Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 759—60, 107 S.Ct. 2672, 96 L.Ed.2d 654 (1987). This flexible rule allows the courts to balance the concerns for encouraging vigorous enforcement of civil rights against discouraging frivolous litigation within the specific and unique context of each individual case. Accordingly, where a defendant has" } ]

[ { "docid": "2444796", "title": "", "text": "“original judgment” to mean “the judgment” from which the appeal is taken, here the judgment of September 23 denying what the district court later determined to be a Rule 60(b) motion. An order denying such a motion is itself a “judgment” under Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(a): the term “judgment” as used in the rules “includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies.” Rule 59(e) applies to judgments denying Rule 60(b) motions because Rule 59(e) encompasses all motions seeking to alter or amend “the judgment.” See Echevarriar-Gonzalez v. Gonzalez-Chapel, 849 F.2d 24, 27 (1st Cir.1988). Plaintiffs Rule 59(e) motion, filed on October 7, 1993 — within 10 days of the entry of the court’s September 23, 1993 order (excluding weekends) — thus tolled the running of the period for appealing the order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. Because he filed his notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the court’s June 8, 1994 judgment, we have jurisdiction to review that denial. As to the court’s refusal to relieve plaintiff from its judgment of September 23, we see no abuse of discretion. Plaintiff proposed to amend his complaint and supply allegations needed to set forth constitutional claims. But the amended allegations merely restated arguments the district court considered and rejected in its original ruling and, in any event, provided nothing from which the court could have concluded that they had any basis in fact. Accordingly, plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment of July 1, 1993, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and the judgment of September 23, 1993, is affirmed. These opinions stand for the proposition that a motion for reconsideration filed within 10 days of entry of judgment will be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion, rather than a motion under Rule 60(b), for the purpose of calculating the time for noting an appeal — a proposition mooted by a 1993 amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure adding Rule 4(a)(4)(F). Before the amendment, the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, and perhaps the Ninth, had taken the additional step of requiring district courts to treat untimely Rule" } ]

[ { "docid": "12794816", "title": "", "text": "mooted by the defendants’ actions in 1994. Although the defendants may have released all withheld funds in 1994, Marathon has not dismissed its action challenging the defendants’ assessment of back royalties on statute of limitations grounds. Moreover, the defendants claim that they will withhold future royalty overpayments to ensure that if Marathon wins its statute of limitations case, the defendants will have funds to offset the debts found to be time-barred. To this end, the defendants point to several requests for refunds submitted by Marathon that will shortly be approved by Congress under the OCSLA; defendants aver that they will withhold those credits pending the outcome of Marathon’s statute of limitations case. Additionally, Marathon, along with all other plaintiffs, sought not only a return of withheld credits, but also declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from withholding credits in the future. Because Marathon continues to assert its statute of limitations defense, the court finds that the injunc-tive relief sought kept the controversy live. Marathon cannot successfully argue that its claims were mooted when the defendants returned withheld credits in 1994 in light of the nature of its claims and the relief sought. The court’s finding is reinforced by Marathon’s suspect conduct in this matter. By its own assertion, the defendants released the withheld credits in mid-1994. Not so coincidentally, Marathon did not argue that its claims had been mooted until after this court’s judgment against it. Marathon attempts to justify this delay by claiming that its new in-house counsel did not “become aware” that the defendants had released all its withheld credits until after this -court’s October 12 judgment. Even accepting as true, which this court is not willing to do, that the previous counsel for Marathon was somehow unable to come forward and inform the court that its claims were mooted, Marathon still cannot explain why its “new” counsel responsible for this case took from January T, 1995, until now to “become aware” that Marathon’s entire claim was mooted back in 1994. The court finds that Marathon’s claim of mootness is simply an attempt to avoid the" }, { "docid": "12794841", "title": "", "text": "constitutional inquiry under the due process clause is not controlled by the MMS’ treatment of offset in its regulations. Hence, the court reaffirms its due process analysis and finds that plaintiffs have no protected property interest in overpaid royalties withheld for offset. III. CONCLUSION For the above-stated reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that 1. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S,, Inc.’s motion to vacate the judgment as it pertains to it is GRANTED, and the court dismisses Mobil’s claims without prejudice; 2. Marathon Oil Company’s motion to vacate the judgment as it pertains to it is DENIED; and 3. the remaining plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the judgment is DENIED. SO ORDERED. . This statute establishes the power of vacatur: The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106. . To be sure, Marathon seeks to avoid this adverse judgment. However, the grounds for avoiding the judgment lie in conduct occurring prior to the entry of the judgment. . Because plaintiffs filed this motion to vacate within ten days of the court's entry of final judgment, whether the court treats the request as a motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) is irrelevant. Prior to the 1993 amendments, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allowed a valid ’ 59(e) motion, but not a 60(b) motion, to toll the thirty day time for appeal until the court ruled on that motion. However, as the D.C. Circuit has noted, in 1993, the Rules were amended to allow a Rule 60(b) motion filed within ten days of the court’s entry of judgment to toll the time for appeal as well. See Derrington-Bey v. District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections, 39 F.3d 1224, 1226 (D.C.Cir.1994) (citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(F)). . In response to" }, { "docid": "22153369", "title": "", "text": "4(a) and Rule 60(b) did not. Id. We reasoned that such a rule was necessary to remain \"consistent with the functional approach to procedure taken by the draftsmen of the federal rules.” Id. In 1993, however, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) was amended. It now reads: If a party timely files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion: * * * (iv) to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59; [or] (vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 10 days after the judgment is entered. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The 1993 amendment notes to Rule 4(a) explain that Rule 4(a) was amended to eliminate “the difficulty of determining whether a posttrial motion made within 10 days after entry of a judgment is a Rule 59(e) motion, which tolls the time for filing an appeal, or a Rule 60 motion, which historically has not tolled the time.” Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4) Advisory Committee's note (1993 amendments). The notes further explain that the amendment \"comports with the practice in several circuits of treating all motions to alter or amend judgments that are made within 10 days after entry of judgment as Rule 59(e) motions for purposes of Rule 4(a)(4).” Id. Appellant argues that in light of Rule 4(a)’s new language, the district court erred by relying on CODESCO. We disagree. We recognize that under the new language of Rule 4(a), \"a motion filed within ten days of the original judgment need not be considered a Rule 59 motion in order to preserve appellate review of the underlying order.” MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of Southern Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 278 (4th Cir.2008). As such, the rule established by CODESCO is no longer necessary. Yet, as we held in MLC Automotive, because this court has continued to cite and apply CODESCO following the amendment to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, see," }, { "docid": "22121341", "title": "", "text": "under Rule 59(e), however it may be formally styled. Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir.1978). The Town’s filing in this case satisfies this standard, for it was filed within ten days of the district court’s order and called into question the correctness of that order. In reaching this conclusion, we note that CODESCO was decided under a prior ver sion of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”). Prior to 1993, the FRAP provided that a properly filed Rule 59 motion stayed the time to appeal the underlying order, but a Rule 60(b) motion did not. The GODESCO rule thus “was not designed to constrain a district court’s substantive analysis of a post-judgment motion. Rather, it was devised for purposes of appellate review under a previous version of Fed. R.App. P. 4(a).” Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 855 (10th Cir.2005); see also Derrington-Bey v. D.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 39 F.3d 1224, 1226 n.f (D.C.Cir.1994) (same). In 1993, however, FRAP 4 was amended and now provides: (A) If a party timely files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion: (vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 10 days after the judgment is entered. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). The notes to the amended FRAP 4 explain: This [amendment] eliminates the difficulty of determining whether a posttrial motion made within 10 days after entry of a judgment is a Rule 59(e) motion, which tolls the time for filing an appeal, or a Rule 60 motion, which historically has not tolled the time. The amendment comports with the practice in several circuits of treating all motions to alter or amend judgments that are made within 10 days after entry of judgment as Rule 59(e) motions for purposes of Rule 4(a)(4). Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4) advisory committee’s note. Thus, a motion filed within ten days of the original judgment need not be" }, { "docid": "12794806", "title": "", "text": "some of the same and other leases. The MMS intends to use these credits to offset the prior debts in the event that a direct collection action is time-barred. All of the plaintiffs have raised the statute of limitations as a defense to the MMS’ collection of the prior, unpaid royalties in various suits Sled across the country; some plaintiffs also challenge the merits of the MMS’ claims. In this action, plaintiffs raised a variety of statutory, common law, and constitutional claims that they believed entitled them to take an immediate credit on the overpayment in spite of the alleged prior debts. Rejecting their arguments, the court found that the MMS could withhold the credits on overpaid royalties pending the outcome of the numerous legal challenges raised by each plaintiff to the payment of the prior debts. In its opinion, the court specifically found that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.G.A. §§ 1331-56 (1986 & West Supp. 1995), the statute under which the MMS administers the Outer Continental Shelf (offshore) leases, does not force the MMS to allow the plaintiffs to take an immediate credit on royalty overpayment. Next, the court found that neither the Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C.A. § 3716 (1983), nor common law offset principles prevented the MMS from withholding the credits. Finally, the court found that plaintiffs did not have a sufficient property interest in the withheld royalty overpayment to invoke the protection of the due process clause. In light of these findings, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thereby allowing the MMS to withhold the royalty credits for potential offset of the prior debts. Plaintiffs have now moved for reconsideration of the court’s prior opinion. First, plaintiffs MEPUS and Marathon Oil Company (“Marathon”) ask the court to vacate its judgment as it pertains to them on the grounds that their claims became moot before the court entered its judgment. Second, the remaining plaintiffs ask the court to alter its judgment by entering summary judgment in their favor. II. ANALYSIS Plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider several aspects of its October" }, { "docid": "16051238", "title": "", "text": "a “motion to alter the judgment,” which — since it was filed past the ten days allowed for a Rule 59 motion to amend or alter a judgment — the district court (correctly, see Moore’s Federal Practice, j| 60.-18[8] (1985)) treated as a Rule 60(b) motion. It is well to note, here, that the 60(b) motion was filed within the thirty-day period within which an appeal could have been taken (see Meadows v. Cohen, infra), even though untimely as a 59(e) motion to alter the judgment. On reviewing the affidavit attached to the timely (August 22) opposition of Harrison to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the district court found (erroneously, see below) that it had not raised an issue of material fact. Therefore, in an order dated October 15 and entered October 16, the district court denied 60(b) relief. On October 25, more than thirty days after the September 6 order dismissing his action, but within ten days after entry of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, Harrison filed a timely notice of appeal from the October 15 order, which had denied him Rule 60(b) relief. This appeal, now before us, raises only the issue of whether 60(b) relief was properly denied. An order denying a Rule 60(b) motion is final and appealable. Woodham v. American Cystoscope Company of Pelham, N.Y., 335 F.2d 551, 554 (5th Cir.1964). Generally, “the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” In re Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corporation S.A., 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir.1984) (citations omitted). Our review is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion. Id. Hence, review of the district court’s original order dismissing Harrison’s action on the motion for summary judgment would ordinarily be precluded. However, if in granting the earlier judgment, the district court has overlooked and failed to consider some controlling principle of law, the district court may abuse its discretion by failing to grant 60(b) relief, even though the losing party had failed to apply for relief from the" }, { "docid": "12794842", "title": "", "text": "had as may be just under the circumstances. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106. . To be sure, Marathon seeks to avoid this adverse judgment. However, the grounds for avoiding the judgment lie in conduct occurring prior to the entry of the judgment. . Because plaintiffs filed this motion to vacate within ten days of the court's entry of final judgment, whether the court treats the request as a motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) is irrelevant. Prior to the 1993 amendments, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allowed a valid ’ 59(e) motion, but not a 60(b) motion, to toll the thirty day time for appeal until the court ruled on that motion. However, as the D.C. Circuit has noted, in 1993, the Rules were amended to allow a Rule 60(b) motion filed within ten days of the court’s entry of judgment to toll the time for appeal as well. See Derrington-Bey v. District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections, 39 F.3d 1224, 1226 (D.C.Cir.1994) (citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(F)). . In response to the defendants’ claim for previous, unpaid royalties, Marathon, like all plaintiffs in this action, filed suit to prevent the defendants from collecting the back royalties on statute of limitation grounds. Marathon’s statute of limitations action is Marathon Oil Co. v. Babbit, Civil No. A93-503 (D.Alaska). In this action, Marathon does not dispute the underlying liability for the back royalties, it argues only that the claims are time-barred. . As the court’s opinion of October 12, 1995, held, even if the statute of limitations will prevent the defendants from initiating a direct action to collect the unpaid royalties, the defendants may still offset the debts with the withheld overpayment. . The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that because plaintiffs are allowed to unilaterally take a credit on onshore leases, they should also be allowed to unilaterally take a credit on offshore leases. The court held that, unlike onshore leases, the OCSLA expressly prescribed additional steps before a credit can be taken on offshore leases (although OCSLA did not, of course, require the MMS’ written permission), and" }, { "docid": "12794843", "title": "", "text": "the defendants’ claim for previous, unpaid royalties, Marathon, like all plaintiffs in this action, filed suit to prevent the defendants from collecting the back royalties on statute of limitation grounds. Marathon’s statute of limitations action is Marathon Oil Co. v. Babbit, Civil No. A93-503 (D.Alaska). In this action, Marathon does not dispute the underlying liability for the back royalties, it argues only that the claims are time-barred. . As the court’s opinion of October 12, 1995, held, even if the statute of limitations will prevent the defendants from initiating a direct action to collect the unpaid royalties, the defendants may still offset the debts with the withheld overpayment. . The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that because plaintiffs are allowed to unilaterally take a credit on onshore leases, they should also be allowed to unilaterally take a credit on offshore leases. The court held that, unlike onshore leases, the OCSLA expressly prescribed additional steps before a credit can be taken on offshore leases (although OCSLA did not, of course, require the MMS’ written permission), and thus plaintiffs could not simply equate the two. . Plaintiffs cite to the case of United States v. Texas, 507 U.S. 529, 113 S.Ct. 1631, 123 L.Ed.2d 245 (1993). The court relied upon that case for the proposition that a common law right survives the enactment of legislation unless the statute or the legislative history expresses an intent to abrogate that right. Id. at 532-37, 113 S.Ct. at 1634-36. . Plaintiffs contend that the court’s deference to the Payor Handbook is improper as the Handbook is not, under Chevron, worthy of deference. First, because the court shall reject plaintiffs’ overall claim that this court relied on the Handbook to defer to the MMS’ interpretation of whether it could withhold written permission to preserve its offset rights, plaintiffs’ claim against the Handbook itself loses its significance. Second, the court also finds that plaintiffs' argument is inaccurate. On the single issue of whether the MMS can require lessees to wait until the MMS gives them written permission before taking a credit on overpaid royalties, plaintiffs ignore the" }, { "docid": "12794807", "title": "", "text": "force the MMS to allow the plaintiffs to take an immediate credit on royalty overpayment. Next, the court found that neither the Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C.A. § 3716 (1983), nor common law offset principles prevented the MMS from withholding the credits. Finally, the court found that plaintiffs did not have a sufficient property interest in the withheld royalty overpayment to invoke the protection of the due process clause. In light of these findings, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thereby allowing the MMS to withhold the royalty credits for potential offset of the prior debts. Plaintiffs have now moved for reconsideration of the court’s prior opinion. First, plaintiffs MEPUS and Marathon Oil Company (“Marathon”) ask the court to vacate its judgment as it pertains to them on the grounds that their claims became moot before the court entered its judgment. Second, the remaining plaintiffs ask the court to alter its judgment by entering summary judgment in their favor. II. ANALYSIS Plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider several aspects of its October 12,1995, opinion and order. The court shall now explore each basis for plaintiffs’ motion and conclude, with the exception of vacating the judgment with respect to MEPUS, that plaintiffs have failed to show any clear errors of law that would warrant altering the court’s previous decision. A The Legal Standard: The court treats plaintiffs’ request to alter or amend the judgment as a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled. The motion “ ‘must address new evidence or errors of law or fact and cannot merely reargue previous factual and legal assertions.’” Assassination Archives and Research Center v. United States Dept. of Justice, 828 F.Supp. 100, 102 (D.D.C.1993) (quoting Mississippi Ass’n of Cooperatives v. Farmers’ Home Admin., 139 F.R.D. 542, 546 (D.D.C.1991)). A court will grant a motion to reconsider only if the moving party can present new facts or clear errors of law that “compel” a change" }, { "docid": "22246429", "title": "", "text": "eliminates the difficulty of determining whether a posttrial motion made within 10 days after entry of a judgment is a Rule 59(e) motion, which tolls the time for filing an appeal, or a Rule 60 motion, which historically has not tolled the time. The amendment comports with the practice in several circuits of treating all motions to alter or amend judgments that are made within 10 days after entry of judgment as Rule 59(e) motions for purposes of Rule 4(a)(4). See, e.g., ... Rados v. Celotex Corp., 809 F.2d 170 (2d Cir.1986).... Fed. R.App. P. 4 Advisory Committee Note (1993). Although Civil Rule 60(b) itself has not been amended, for purposes of calculating the time for filing an appeal from the judgment its statement that a motion thereunder “does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation” does not apply to motions that are within the scope of Rule 59(e) that have been filed within 10 days after the entry of judgment. Even under the current FRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(A), however, a motion under Civil Rule 60(b) filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment might not extend the time for appeal if it seeks only attorneys’ fees. Under Civil Rule 54(d)(2), “[cjlaims for attorneys’ fees ... shall be made by motion unless the substantive law governing the action provides for the recovery of such fees as an element of damages to be proved at trial,” and shall be made within “14 days after entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2)(A) and (B). FRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iii) provides that such a motion extends the time for appeal only if so ordered by the district court in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, rather than automatically. A motion that requests reconsideration of the merits of a plaintiffs claim for the return of moneys paid to the defendant obviously may result in an alteration of the decision on the merits and is plainly the type of motion that may be brought under Rule 59(e), automatically extending the parties’ time to appeal. Further, prejudgment interest on any type of claim is “an element of [the" }, { "docid": "12794813", "title": "", "text": "This rationale is also inapplicable to this case. Here, the question for the court is whether at the time it entered judgment, a live controversy existed that would entitle the court to render a judgment on the parties’ claims. MEPUS and Marathon, while they are certainly attempting to avoid an adverse judgment, premise their claim upon events occurring before the court entered its judgment. Finally, the court properly analyzes the request to vacate under Rule 59(e). In this circuit, Rule 59(e) includes a motion to vacate a judgment filed within ten days of the court’s entry of judgment. See Moy v. Howard Univ., 843 F.2d 1504, 1505-06 (D.C.Cir.1988); Richardson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 49 F.3d 760, 763 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1995). With the proper inquiry established, the court now turns to both MEPUS and Marathon’s request to vacate the judgment. 2. The Court Will Not Vacate Its Judgment With Respect To Marathon: Although the decision to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) is typically within the sound discretion of the court, see, for example, Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir.1993), the grounds that Marathon alleges for vacating the judgment implicate the court’s jurisdiction; therefore, this allegation requires careful scrutiny to ensure that this court had jurisdiction to enter its October 12, 1995, judgment with respect to Marathon. After considering Marathon’s allegations, the court finds that Marathon’s claims are not moot, and its motion to vacate the judgment shall be denied. Marathon alleges that prior to the court’s October 12,1995, judgment, its claims against the defendants had become moot as a result of action taken by the MMS. Marathon claims that by mid-1994, the MMS had released all of Marathon’s withheld royalty overpayments, thereby mooting Marathon’s claims. As justification for not bringing this to the court’s attention until now, Marathon relies on the fact that its “new” in-house counsel (employed since January of 1995) did not “become aware of the refund ... until after this Court’s October 12 decision had been issued.” Pis. Mot. to Alter or Amend the J. at 5." }, { "docid": "16995674", "title": "", "text": "Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir.2001). If the motion for reconsideration is filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, we construe it as filed under Rule 59(e). Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified School Dist. No. 69, 374 F.3d 857, 863 (9th Cir.2004); Am. Ironworks, 248 F.3d at 898-99; United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir.1992). This construction is in accord with Rule 59(e), which provides that a motion to alter or amend the judgment “shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e). If the motion is filed more than ten days after entry of judgment, we construe it as being filed under Rule 60(b). Am. Ironworks, 248 F.3d at 899; Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1463 n. 35 (9th Cir.1992); Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1171-72 (9th Cir.1989); Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir.1986), The difference between the rules is important. A timely filed motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) will toll the time for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment until the district court denies the Rule 59(e) motion. Shapiro, 374 F.3d at 863. However, the filing of an untimely Rule 59(e) motion does not toll the running of the appeal period. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir.1984) (citing Cel-A-Pak v. California Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 680 F.2d 664, 666 (9th Cir.1982)). The ten day time limit in Rule 59(e) “is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by the court.” Id. Indeed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), which allows for enlargement of time to file, states that a court “may not extend the time for taking any action under ... [59(e) ] ..., except to the extent and under the conditions stated [in the section itself].” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(b). The filing of a Rule 60(b) outside the ten-day time limit does not toll the time for appealing from the underlying judgment. Nutricology, 982 F.2d at 397. Therefore, unlike" }, { "docid": "22246428", "title": "", "text": "(2d Cir.1991), or cited only Rule 60(b), see Rados v. Celotex Corp., 809 F.2d 170, 171 (2d Cir.1986), or was uniformly treated in the district court as a Rule 60(b) motion, see Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d at 40 (“plaintiffs did not refer to Rule 59 in their papers; appellees treated the application as a Rule 60(b) motion in their opposition papers without comment from plaintiffs; plaintiffs argued excusable neglect, a Rule 60 basis; and [the district judge] referred to Rule 60(b) in his denial of reconsideration”). Consistent with this treatment, FRAP Rule 4(a)(4) was amended in 1993 to add some Civil Rule 60(b) motions to the category of motions that automatically extend the time for appeal. As currently worded, FRAP Rule 4(a)(4) includes in that category a motion “for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 10 days (computed using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)) after the judgment is entered,” Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). The Advisory Committee comment on the 1993 amendment states that [t]his eliminates the difficulty of determining whether a posttrial motion made within 10 days after entry of a judgment is a Rule 59(e) motion, which tolls the time for filing an appeal, or a Rule 60 motion, which historically has not tolled the time. The amendment comports with the practice in several circuits of treating all motions to alter or amend judgments that are made within 10 days after entry of judgment as Rule 59(e) motions for purposes of Rule 4(a)(4). See, e.g., ... Rados v. Celotex Corp., 809 F.2d 170 (2d Cir.1986).... Fed. R.App. P. 4 Advisory Committee Note (1993). Although Civil Rule 60(b) itself has not been amended, for purposes of calculating the time for filing an appeal from the judgment its statement that a motion thereunder “does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation” does not apply to motions that are within the scope of Rule 59(e) that have been filed within 10 days after the entry of judgment. Even under the current FRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(A), however, a motion" }, { "docid": "22153368", "title": "", "text": "Rule 59(e) motion. . In his “Motion for Relief from Judgment and to Alter and Amend Judgment,” Appellant only mentioned Rule 60(b) in the opening sentence but never addressed the elements of this rule. J.A. 100. We have previously made it clear that the failure to present an argument to the district court constitutes waiver before this court. United States v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227, 236 n. 5 (4th Cir.2005). Nevertheless, because the district court appears to have understood the Rule 60(b) argument as properly raised, we will entertain it here. . In reaching this result, the district court relied on CODESCO. 569 F.2d at 809. In CODESCO, we held that \"if a post-judgment motion is filed within ten days of the entry of judgment and calls into question the correctness of that judgment it should be treated as a motion under Rule 59(e), however it may be formally styled.” Id. at 809. We developed that approach because, at the time, Rule 59(e) tolled the 30-day appeal period imposed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) and Rule 60(b) did not. Id. We reasoned that such a rule was necessary to remain \"consistent with the functional approach to procedure taken by the draftsmen of the federal rules.” Id. In 1993, however, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) was amended. It now reads: If a party timely files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion: * * * (iv) to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59; [or] (vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 10 days after the judgment is entered. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The 1993 amendment notes to Rule 4(a) explain that Rule 4(a) was amended to eliminate “the difficulty of determining whether a posttrial motion made within 10 days after entry of a judgment is a Rule 59(e) motion, which tolls the time for filing an appeal," }, { "docid": "22884733", "title": "", "text": "A 1993 amendment to Rule 4(a)(4) has eliminated this problem by providing that a Rule 60(b) motion served within 10 days of the entry of judgment also tolls the time for the filing of a notice of appeal. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(F). Thus, for purposes of our jurisdictional analysis, we can determine whether Duke’s motion for reconsideration tolled the time period for the filing of a notice of appeal without having to decide whether Duke’s motion was made pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Because, as discussed below, we conclude that Rule 4(a)(4), as amended, should apply retroactively, we will proceed accordingly. If Duke’s motion for reconsideration was not served within ten days of the entry of judgment, it would not trigger the tolling effect of Rule 4(a)(4). In such case, his notice of appeal, filed on October 13, 1993, would be effective because the sixty-day period for its filing would have expired on October 16, 1993. Duke’s motion for reconsideration was received in the district court clerk’s office on September 2, 1993. However, both a Rule 59(e) motion and a Rule 60(b) motion that has a tolling effect under Rule 4(a)(4)(F) need only be “served” within ten days of the entry of judgment. Therefore, September 2 is not necessarily the dispositive date. Furthermore, Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service by mail is complete upon mailing. Additionally, we note that Duke filed his motion for reconsideration pro se and while incarcerated. In Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (Houston), the Supreme Court created what might be called the “prison mailbox rule.” The Supreme Court held as timely filed a pro se notice of appeal from the denial of habeas relief deposited by an inmate with prison authorities for mailing within the thirty-day period fixed by Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for the filing of a notice of appeal. Id. at 270, 108 S.Ct. at 2382. The Supreme Court stated that “the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over petitioner’s appeal because the notice of appeal" }, { "docid": "23547511", "title": "", "text": "Ford’s motion, if cognizable under the Rules of Civil Procedure at all, is in effect a motion “to alter or amend the judgment” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Because that rule requires such motions to be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, the plaintiffs argue that Ford’s motion, and its appeal, are untimely. Ford counters that its motion falls not under Rule 59(e) but under Fed.R.CivP. 60(b), which provides a more liberal time period for filing motions for relief from a final judgment or order. DISCUSSION A. Timeliness of Ford’s motion The named plaintiffs contend that Ford’s “Motion for Review of Dismissal” should be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the final judgment dismissing Puckett. Such a motion had to be made within ten days after the district court approved plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal. Because Ford did not file its motion until September 23, 1993, the plaintiffs argue, the motion was untimely and thus did not extend the period for filing a timely notice of appeal to this court. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) (providing thirty-day period from entry of judgment, or from order responding to timely filed motion under Rule 59, for filing notice of appeal). Ford’s notices of appeal are timely only if the district court’s denial of the motion for review effectively extended the period in which to bring this appeal. Clearly, if we treat Ford’s motion as arising under Rule 59(e), the motion was untimely, the thirty-day period provided by Rule 4(a) expired in September 1993, and we are without jurisdiction to consider Ford’s appeal. But Ford contends that its motion should not be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion, both because of the nature of relief sought and because Ford could not have filed a timely Rule 59 motion under the circumstances of this case. Ford argues that its motion for review is instead properly viewed as a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b) allows a more generous time period for filing motions than does Rule 59(e). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (allowing the filing of motions within a “reasonable time”). Ford argues that it filed" }, { "docid": "22780364", "title": "", "text": "such as the failure to memorialize part of a decision, from Rule 60(a) and not Rule 59(e). The Tenth Circuit took a similar view in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., holding that “[mjotions seeking mere technical changes in the form of a judgment are not Rule 59(e) motions and do not toll the time for filing notice of appeal; rather, they are akin to Rule 60(a) motions to correct clerical errors in a judgment.” Finally, the Third Circuit held in Hayden v. Scott Aviation, Inc., that correcting a failure to include non-discretionary pre-judgment interest is governed by Rule 60(a), not Rule 59(e). While Rule 60(a), providing for the correction of clerical errors, limits the otherwise unrestricted scope of Rule 59(e), the same cannot be said of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits certain specifically described motions to be filed at a time later than ten days after entry of judgment. The rule allows relief from a judgment for a number of stated grounds but provides that a motion invoking the first three grounds must be made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after entry of judgment. Thus, while Rules 59(e) and 60(b) permit the same relief — a change in the judgment — Rule 60(b) extends the time within which relief can be sought. Rule 60(b) relief may be invoked, however, only for the causes specifically stated in the rule and, we hold, only after ten days following entry of judgment. If a motion is served within those ten days and may be characterized as a Rule 59(e) motion, it must be so treated, for Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure makes timing a fundamental consideration in classifying the motion as brought under Rule 59(e) or under Rule 60(b). B. Professor Moore states that, “[a]ny motion that draws into question the correctness of a judgment is functionally a motion under Civil Rule 59(e), whatever its label.” Virtually every circuit court has held that a motion that “calls into question the correctness of a judgment should be treated as a" }, { "docid": "12794819", "title": "", "text": "between MEPUS and- the MMS had the effect of mooting MEPUS’ claims prior to the court’s entry of judgment. Key to distinguishing between Marathon and MEPUS is the fact that MEPUS dropped its challenge to the collection of the prior debts on statute of limitations grounds. As both parties state to the court, that dispute was resolved by the settlement. Thus, in order for the dispute to recur, the MMS would have to attempt to assess a new set of back royalties, and ME-PUS would have to again assert the statute of limitations defense. On the other hand, because Marathon and the MMS did not resolve the dispute over the collection of the back royalties, the MMS will inevitably seek to withhold overpaid royalties to cover that debt so long as Marathon continues to refuse to pay on statute of limitations grounds. Therefore, the court shall vacate its judgment with respect to MEPUS. C. The Remaining Plaintiffs’ Motion To Alter Or Amend The Judgment: The plaintiffs that remain in this action have asked the court to reconsider its grant of summary judgment in favor of the deten- dants. The plaintiffs present no legitimate basis for the eourt to reconsider its decision under Rule 59(e), instead reformulating many of the same arguments previously rejected by the eourt. Consequently, the court shall deny this motion. 1. Defendants Cannot Be Assured of Future Offsets: As they did in their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs again argue that there is no need for defendants to withhold credits now because “defendants enjoy an ever-replenished source of funds to offset [the] claims” in the future. Pl.Mot. to Alter or Amend the J. at 7-8. In other words, plaintiffs argue that because they typically overpay royalties each year, defendants can wait until all disputes over the debts are resolved and then withhold current credits for offset. First, in this Rule 59(e) motion, plaintiffs fail to point out any errors of law and merely reurge their previous argument. On this basis alone the eourt can deny their motion. See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 705 F.Supp. at 702." }, { "docid": "12794818", "title": "", "text": "court’s adverse judgment. Furthermore, because the court finds that Marathon’s claim is not moot, the court had jurisdiction to enter its October 12 judgment against Marathon. The court will not vacate its judgment as it pertains to Marathon; however, the court will grant Marathon’s request to join the remaining plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. 3. The Judgment Shall Be Vacated With Respect To MEPUS: On September 25; 1995, MEPUS and the defendants signed a global settlement of issues stemming from MEPUS’ asserted statute of limitations defense and the MMS’s withholding of royalty overpayment. On October 26,1995, pursuant to MEPUS’ request, Judge Harris of this court dismissed ME-PUS’ statute of limitations case, Civil Action Number 93-0184. Both parties agree that as part of their settlement, MEPUS should have dismissed its involvement in this case. Although the parties failed to notify the court of this settlement prior to its October 12, 1995, judgment, the court agrees with both MEPUS and the defendants that the judgment should be vacated with respect to ME-PUS. Unlike Marathon, the global settlement reached between MEPUS and- the MMS had the effect of mooting MEPUS’ claims prior to the court’s entry of judgment. Key to distinguishing between Marathon and MEPUS is the fact that MEPUS dropped its challenge to the collection of the prior debts on statute of limitations grounds. As both parties state to the court, that dispute was resolved by the settlement. Thus, in order for the dispute to recur, the MMS would have to attempt to assess a new set of back royalties, and ME-PUS would have to again assert the statute of limitations defense. On the other hand, because Marathon and the MMS did not resolve the dispute over the collection of the back royalties, the MMS will inevitably seek to withhold overpaid royalties to cover that debt so long as Marathon continues to refuse to pay on statute of limitations grounds. Therefore, the court shall vacate its judgment with respect to MEPUS. C. The Remaining Plaintiffs’ Motion To Alter Or Amend The Judgment: The plaintiffs that remain in this action have asked the court" }, { "docid": "22557802", "title": "", "text": "has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment * * *. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). This rule \"provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.\" United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 117, 98 L.Ed.2d 76 (1987). . Specifically, Sanders argues that the district court erroneously applied Missouri’s judicially created \"due diligence\" rule, which provides that the filing of an action tolls the statute of limitations only so long as the plaintiff exercises due diligence in serving process on the defendants. Daniels v. Schierding, 650 S.W.2d 337, 339 (Mo.Ct.App.1983). Sanders claims that the court instead should have applied Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and held that the filing of the complaint commenced the action for statute of limitations purposes. . The Fox court further stated: This circuit has not allowed relief under Rule 60(b)(1) for judicial error other than for judicial inadvertence. This is not the case here. To prevent its use as a substitute for appeal, we have required a Rule 60(b) motion alleging judicial inadvertence to be made within the time period allowed for appeal. This was not done here. Fox, 620 F.2d at 180 (citations omitted). .When a party files a timely Rule 59(e) motion within ten days after entry of judgment, but after the other party files a notice of appeal, the motion divests the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal. “The immediate filing of a notice of appeal cannot be allowed to defeat the appellee’s rights under Rule 59(e).\" Western Indus. v. Newcor Canada Ltd., 709 F.2d 16, 17 (7th Cir.1983) (per curiam). Thus, parties who do not want to run the risk of having their appeals dismissed as premature because of a timely filed postjudgment motion should wait ten days after judgment before" } ]

[ { "docid": "22564832", "title": "", "text": "(1966), appellant was not prejudiced by the unavailability of the statements for impeachment purposes. None of the government witnesses were asked on direct examination about payments to them by persons other than appellant, and the withheld material did not directly relate to the subject matter of the witnesses’ direct testimony. Under these circumstances, production was not required by the Jencks Act and the court’s order sealing the statements was proper. Appellant raises the question of the propriety of his being charged with aiding and abetting a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a) (2) so as to preserve that question for the consideration of the United States Supreme Court in the event of an appeal. He does not urge it before this court, conceding that our opinion in United States v. Kenner, 354 F.2d 780 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 958, 86 S.Ct. 1223, 16 L.Ed.2d 301 (1966), resolves the issue against him. Appellant’s final point that 18 U.S.C. § 201(f) is void for vagueness need not be considered by us for we have vacated his convictions under that section on other grounds. The judgment below should be affirmed except for the judgment of conviction upon the three counts charging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(f), which is ordered vacated. . Umans claims inconsistency between 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a) (2) which contains no element of intent on the part of a person bribing a public official, and a provision which does require an intent to influence an official decision, 18 U.S.C. § 201 (as effective until January 20, 1963). 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a) (2) reads as follows : § 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States (a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents. — Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States— ***** (2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; * ■ * * * * shall be dismissed from" } ]

[ { "docid": "17270819", "title": "", "text": "470, 475 (5th Cir.1997) (failure to exhaust); Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 324 (5th Cir.2009) (mootness). Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its well-reasoned 26 February 2008 opinion and detailed 14 November 2008 final judgment, we affirm. Because the Government no longer seeks to impose liability on Looney pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672 and has been ordered to pay Looney $2,607, her § 6672 challenges are moot. Looney’s automatic-stay claims are without merit. Although referred to as “penalty” in the statute, the liability imposed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672 is, in essence, a tax. See, e.g., Cash v. United States, 961 F.2d 562, 565 (5th Cir.1992) (“Although denoted a penalty in the statute, the liability imposed by § 6672(a) is not penal in nature because it only recovers for the Government the same amount the employer was required to withhold and remit.”). Therefore, the liability imposed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672 is exempted from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9)(D) (“an assessment for any tax”). To the extent Looney’s automatic-stay claim may be construed to be based on 26 U.S.C. § 7433, she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See 26 U.S.C. § 7433(d)(1) (exhaustion requirement). Finally, Looney’s claim that the district court’s judgment violated the “separate document” rule pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) is without merit because, by entering final judgment, the district court properly complied with the rule. AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4." }, { "docid": "11156782", "title": "", "text": "abuse of discretion in that decision. The concept of positional predisposition has its origins in the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Hollingsworth, in which that circuit concluded that the concept of predisposition has both a positional and a dispositional element. 27 F.3d 1196, 1200 (7th Cir.1994). To be positionally predisposed to commit a crime, “[t]he defendant must be so situated by reason of previous training or experience or occupation or acquaintances that it is likely that if the Government had not induced him to commit the crime some criminal would have done so.” Id. The doctrine, however, is a controversial one, see, e.g., United States v. Thickstun, 110 F.3d 1394, 1398 (9th Cir.1997) (rejecting the concept of positional predisposition), and one that we have, thus far, declined to recognize. See United States v. Reyes, 239 F.3d 722, 742 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 155-56 (5th Cir.2000). As we did in Reyes and in Wise we also find it unnecessary here to recognize the doctrine of positional predisposition. Even had Lindsay’s expert opinion testimony been admitted into evidence, Ogle could still not have established that he was not positionally predisposed to engage either in a conspiracy to commit money laundering or to commit the substantive offense of money laundering. It will be the rare case indeed where a defendant can establish a lack of positional predisposition to join in a conspiracy, and we can conclude that Ogle’s is not such a case. Ogle failed to offer any evidence that he was not positionally predisposed to join in a conspiracy. The gravamen of a conspiracy is the agreement to engage in unlawful activity, see United States v. Holcomb, 797 F.2d 1320, 1327 (5th Cir.1986). Ogle’s supposed inability actually to himself launder money has little bearing on his ability to agree to assist in that endeavor. That Ogle by himself could not personally have laundered the money is, therefore, no defense to a charge that Ogle conspired with others to have the money laundered. Similarly, Lindsay’s testimony would not have been sufficient to establish that Ogle was" }, { "docid": "9985194", "title": "", "text": "4117. “I’m doing this for the sake of Allah.” Id. at 4314. Although, as Judge McMahon stated, “It is beyond question that the Government created the crime here,” Cromitie II, 2011 WL 1842219, at *23, the evidence sufficed to permit the jury to find predisposition and reject the entrapment defense. That defense was not established as a matter of law. (C) Jury Charge on Entrapment The defendants challenge the jury charge on entrapment on the ground that the charge did not instruct the jury in accordance with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d 1196 (7th Cir.1994) (in banc). In that decision, a closely divided (6-5) in banc court ruled that an entrapment defense succeeds as a matter of law unless a defendant, whom government agents have induced to commit an offense, is “in a position without the government’s help to become involved in illegal activity.” Id. at 1200. As then-Chief Judge Posner contended, predisposition “has positional as well as dispositional force.” Id. He amplified this “positional” view of predisposition as follows: “The defendant must be so situated by reason of previous training or experience or occupation or acquaintances that it is likely that if the government had not induced him to commit the crime[,] some criminal would have done so... Id. He offered as examples a public official in a position to accept a bribe, .a drug addict to sell drugs, and a gun dealer to make illegal gun sales. Urging us to adopt the Seventh Circuit’s view, the defendants argue that none of them was in a position to acquire Stinger missiles or bombs to carry out the proposed attacks. We reject the Seventh Circuit’s expansion of the entrapment defense to permit an induced defendant, predisposed under existing standards to commit a crime, to establish the defense of entrapment simply because, prior to the unfolding of a government sting, he was not in a position where it was likely that he would have figured out how to commit the offense and how to acquire necessary devices. The principal dissent in Hollingsworth has forcefully set" }, { "docid": "11156785", "title": "", "text": "have the necessary financial connections and business acumen to get the money laundered. See, e.g., Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d at 1200 (describing one who is positionally predisposed as one who has the necessary occupation or acquaintances to make the commission of the crime possible). Accordingly, Ogle’s proposed plans to launder the money involved the use not of his own financial resources, but of those of a third party or parties, and his role in the proposed money laundering transaction was that of a broker, one responsible for the picking up and transportation of the cash in order to take advantage of the assets of a third party or parties. The defense presented no evidence establishing that Ogle’s lack of financial resources would have prevented him from laundering the money by transferring it to a third party or parties who did have the necessary assets to deposit twelve million dollars in cash without unduly arousing suspicion, and there is no evidence Ogle lacked information concerning or access to such parties (as he maintained to Blount that he had). We conclude, therefore, that Ogle’s proposed expert testimony could not have established a lack of positional predisposition, and that its exclusion, therefore, was not an abuse of discretion. C. Sentencing In his final point of error, Ogle challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in not considering a three-level reduction of his guideline offense level under section 2Xl.l(b) of the sentencing guidelines. Following Ogle’s conviction, the district court declined to consider granting Ogle a requested three-level reduction, reasoning only that section 2X1.1 did not apply to offenses under section 1956, as the commentary included with section 2X1.1 listed only offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 871, 372, and 2271. However, upon reviewing the district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo, see United States v. Hefferon, 314 F.3d 211, 224 (5th Cir.2002), we agree with Ogle’s conclusion that the district court erred in not considering the availability of a three-level reduction under section 2Xl.l(b). Sections lB1.2(a) and 2X1.1 clearly direct that section 2X1.1 shall be applied to attempts, conspiracies, and solicitation unless" }, { "docid": "21604961", "title": "", "text": "harm of the ongoing possession and distribution of the images. Cf. Paroline, 134 S.Ct. at 1722 (“Complications may arise in disaggregating losses sustained as a result of the initial physical abuse, but those questions may be set aside for present purposes.”). Several circuit courts have expounded on. this issue post-Paroline. See, e.g., United States v. Galan, 804 F.3d 1287, 1289-91 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he principles set forth by the [Supreme] Court lead to the conclusion that [the defendant] should not be required to pay for losses caused by the original abuser’s actions.”); United States v. Dunn, 777 F.3d 1171, 1181-82 (10th Cir. 2015) (“We think it inconsistent with ‘the bedrock principle that restitution should reflect the consequences of the defendant’s own conduct’ to hold [the defendant] accountable for those harms initially caused by [the victim’s] abuser.” (quoting Paroline, 134 S.Ct. at 1725)); see also United States v. Miner, 617 Fed.Appx. 102, 103 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that the district court adequately disaggregated the victim’s losses). We have not yet directly addressed this issue and leave it in the first instance to the district court and further development of the record. In sum, on remand, the Government is permitted to present additional evidence related to the restitution award for these five victims. See Jones, 616 Fed.Appx. at 729. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the restitution order and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The sentence is otherwise AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. . In October 2016, while this appeal was pending, the Government filed an opposed motion to supplement the record on appeal with the letter sent by the victims’ counsel. This court granted the motion. This court also denied a motion for reconsideration filed by Jimenez. . Section 3553(b)(2) provides in full: In sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense under section 1201 involving a minor victim, an offense under" }, { "docid": "14760442", "title": "", "text": "the reach of the milder standard of § 7214(a) (2). And in fact the jury did convict Cohen only on the lesser counts, handing down acquittals on all charges of bribery. That case is therefore applicable here as to most of the counts, in which the jury came to similar conclusions. But Barash was convicted on the jury’s first partial verdict of aiding and abetting DeSibio in the receipt of payments under § 7214(a) (2) (counts 28 and 30) and a few hours later convicted on the second partial ver-diet of bribing DeSibio under 18 U.S.C. former § 201. Thus this case squarely presents the issue absent in Cohen: can a jury properly convict a defendant on both of these counts? The question was recently raised in United States v. Umans, supra, but no answer was directly supplied. In Umans, the defendant had been indicted and convicted under the “paired” counts of § 201(b) and § 201(f), and under the old paired counts of former § 201 and § 7214(a) (2). After rejecting the defendant’s claim that the pairs of statutes contained contradictory elements of proof, the court found that “the correct relationship between § 201(b) and § 201(f) is that § 201(f) is a lesser included offense of § 201(b). There is no reason to believe that Congress intended that there should be concurrent convictions and sentences under both sections, and we should not allow multiple convictions based on the same transactions even where the sentences are concurrent.” Id. 368 F.2d at 730. The sentences on the § 201(f) counts were therefore vacated, with the court noting that there would be no effect upon the defendant’s prison term since the vacated sentences were concurrent with those which remained in force. The court said nothing, however, on the question of whether such reasoning should apply with equal force to the § 7214(a) (2) convictions and sentences, each of which had a former § 201 counterpart, even though both “pairs” of counts had been treated equally in previous portions of the opinion. Because of the concurrent jail sentences on all counts" }, { "docid": "16749861", "title": "", "text": "v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452, 471 (5th Cir.2004)). “We have repeatedly emphasized that the cumulative error doctrine necessitates reversal only in rare instances and have previously stated en banc that ‘the possibility of cumulative error is often acknowledged but practically never found persuasive.’ ” Delgado, 672 F.3d at 344 (footnote omitted) (quoting Derden v. McNeel, 978 F.2d 1453, 1456 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc)). “Its application is especially uncommon where, as here, the government presents substantial evidence of guilt.” Id. A cumulative error claim requires that “we evaluate the number and gravity of the errors in the context of the case as a whole.” United States v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 429 (5th Cir.2010). As we have discussed, Ramey has demonstrated, at most, three potential errors: the government’s alleged reference to his Fifth Amendment privilege, the introduction of testimony concerning the impact of Ra-mey’s crime on a victim of the Manhattan Gold scheme, and the government’s admission of Rule 404(b) evidence in the absence of notice. Even assuming, arguendo, that these were errors, given the substantial evidence of Ramey’s guilt adduced at trial, and the relatively inconsequential nature of the errors in the context of the entirety of the case, we are not persuaded that their cumulative effect denied Ramey of a fair trial. See United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1051-52 (5th Cir.1994). Simply put, this is not “the unusual case in which synergistic or repetitive error violate[d]” the trial’s fundamental fairness. Delgado, 672 F.3d at 344. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. . As further discussed infra, Yashare testified that she followed her father’s instructions because she was \"trained and programmed” from an early age to obey Ramey and, had she protested, Ramey would have physically abused her. . The court also held that Stone's statement did not \"have the clear effect of drawing attention to the" }, { "docid": "16749862", "title": "", "text": "evidence of Ramey’s guilt adduced at trial, and the relatively inconsequential nature of the errors in the context of the entirety of the case, we are not persuaded that their cumulative effect denied Ramey of a fair trial. See United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1051-52 (5th Cir.1994). Simply put, this is not “the unusual case in which synergistic or repetitive error violate[d]” the trial’s fundamental fairness. Delgado, 672 F.3d at 344. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. . As further discussed infra, Yashare testified that she followed her father’s instructions because she was \"trained and programmed” from an early age to obey Ramey and, had she protested, Ramey would have physically abused her. . The court also held that Stone's statement did not \"have the clear effect of drawing attention to the fact that Ramey invoked his right to silence.” Ramey I, 2008 WL 4582089, at *4. In the case at bar, Ramey does not contend that the prosecutor’s remarks were of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily have taken them to be commentary on Ramey’s silence, nor can we conclude that they were. See Rocha, 916 F.2d at 232. Thus, the only questions presently under consideration are whether the prosecutor manifestly intended to comment on Ramey’s silence and, if so, whether the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.; see also Moreno, 185 F.3d at 472. . Later, Ramey also defended by claiming that he was unaware that his actions — at least as related to the bankruptcy filings — were illegal. . In the lower court, Ramey objected to the admission of this evidence on relevance grounds. He does not reiterate his relevance objection on appeal. . For this reason, Ramey’s claim would fail even if we reviewed for harmless, rather than plain, error." }, { "docid": "23286691", "title": "", "text": "law enforcement officers or their agents” (internal quotation marks omitted)). (2) The Appellants next contend that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that, in order to prove predisposition, the government must prove that Squillacote was “in a position by virtue of his or her acquaintances, experience, occupation, or training to commit the offenses without the government’s help or involvement.” J.A. 1577. In essence, the Appellants contend that the question of predisposition includes a “positional” element — that is, a defendant is pre-disposed to commit a crime only if the defendant was in the position to commit the crime without assistance from the government. The Appellants’ “positional” argument is based on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d 1196 (7th Cir.1994) (en banc), in which a sharply divided court held that “[predisposition is not a purely mental state, the state of being willing to swallow the gov- • ernment’s bait. It has positional as well as dispositional force.” Id. at 1200. The court determined that defining predisposition only as willingness, without including an element of readiness, was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson: [H]ad the Court in Jacobson believed that the legal concept of predisposition is exhausted in the demonstrated willingness of the defendant to commit the crime without threats or promises by the government, then Jacobson was predisposed, in which event the Court’s reversal of his conviction would be difficult to explain. The government did not offer Jacobson any inducements to buy pornographic magazines or threaten him with harm if he failed to buy them. It was not as if the government had had to badger Jacobson for 26 months in order to overcome his resistance to committing a crime. He never resisted. Id. at 1199. Whether predisposition includes a readiness element has yet to be considered in this circuit, although the Ninth Circuit has rejected the Hollingsworth formulation. See United States v. Thickstun, 110 F.3d 1394, 1398 (9th Cir.1997) (“We read Jacobson not as creating a requirement of positional readiness but as applying settled entrapment law. The inference that" }, { "docid": "4541965", "title": "", "text": "in any event. Appellant points out that Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure calls for the presence of the defendant “at every stage of the trial,” but in strict theory, the command of Rule 43 should not require defendant’s presence when a transcript is sent to the jury any more than when an exhibit is sent. In either case, the jury gets no more than “what they had already been given.” See Downing v. United States, 348 F.2d 594, 601 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 901, 86 S.Ct. 235, 15 L.Ed.2d 155 (1965). For the same reason, such a procedure would not necessarily deprive a defendant of due process or the right to confrontation. See Ware v. United States, supra. Although we do not suggest that a trial judge has no discretion in the matter, there is at least one persuasive practical reason why, if a judge accedes to such a jury request, he would generally prefer to have the testimony read in open court and in the presence of defendant. In this way, it is frequently possible to ascertain more readily whether everything asked for is truly sought. In any event, the judge should consult with counsel for both sides to see if there is disagreement as to what should be submitted to the jury. Judgment reversed for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. . 18 U.S.C. § 201(c). The four counts on which Schor was convicted charged him with criminally receiving a bribe with intent to influence his official decisions, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c), receiving a payment not authorized by law, 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a) (2), making an opportunity for the Government to be defrauded, 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a) (5), and making a false audit report, 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a) (7). Appellant was also acquitted of similar charges on five other counts involving a completely different audit. . At the same time, the jury also requested the transcript of the testimony of a witness for the Government, Charles W. Gardner, as indicated below. . United States v. Rodriguez, 241 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1957);" }, { "docid": "14760441", "title": "", "text": "consideration is Barash's contention that it was error to submit to the jury the counts under 18 U.S.C. former § 201 as well as the counts under 26 U.S.C. § 7214 (a) (2), thus permitting the jury to convict on both counts. In the recent decision of United States v. Cohen, 387 F.2d 803 (2d Cir. 1967), we made clear the differences in the requirements for conviction under these sections: The aiding and abetting counts, unlike the bribery counts, require proof that the Internal Revenue Agent received a fee, not prescribed by law, for the performance of his duty. The bribery counts, unlike the aiding and abetting counts, require proof of a specific corrupt intent to influence official action. From a time standpoint alone, bribery required that money be given or promised with the intent to influence an official’s decision before that decision is reached. Id. at 805-806. The jury, concluded the court, might well have considered that Cohen did not possess the requisite intent for a bribery conviction, but that the payments were within the reach of the milder standard of § 7214(a) (2). And in fact the jury did convict Cohen only on the lesser counts, handing down acquittals on all charges of bribery. That case is therefore applicable here as to most of the counts, in which the jury came to similar conclusions. But Barash was convicted on the jury’s first partial verdict of aiding and abetting DeSibio in the receipt of payments under § 7214(a) (2) (counts 28 and 30) and a few hours later convicted on the second partial ver-diet of bribing DeSibio under 18 U.S.C. former § 201. Thus this case squarely presents the issue absent in Cohen: can a jury properly convict a defendant on both of these counts? The question was recently raised in United States v. Umans, supra, but no answer was directly supplied. In Umans, the defendant had been indicted and convicted under the “paired” counts of § 201(b) and § 201(f), and under the old paired counts of former § 201 and § 7214(a) (2). After rejecting the defendant’s" }, { "docid": "9425142", "title": "", "text": "If a defendant proposes a plausible argument that she did not intend to distribute the drugs, putting a key element “sufficiently in dispute,” then she is entitled to the lesser offense instruction. See Chrismon, 965 F.2d at 1476. 2. Entrapment Lara also asserts that he is entitled to acquittal because he was entrapped into his minor involvement with this crime. Entrapment involves “the apprehension of an otherwise law-abiding citizen who, if left to his own devices, likely would have never run afoul of the law.” Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 553-54, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992). The defense has two elements: government inducement of the crime and a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant. See Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988). (We have no need here to break the predisposition element down into “positional” and “dispositional” predisposition. See United States v. Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d 1196, 1200 (7th Cir.1994) (en banc). We recognize that other circuits have either rejected or expressed skepticism about that distinction. See, e.g., United States v. Ogle, 328 F.3d 182, 188-89 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 567 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Thickstun, 110 F.3d 1394, 1398 (9th Cir.1997). Lara’s case depends on no such distinction, as we explain below.) In order to obtain an entrapment instruction, a defendant must proffer evidence on both elements. See United States v. Santiago-Godinez, 12 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir.1993). Once a defendant meets this threshold, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the defendant was not entrapped, meaning “the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents.” Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 549, 112 S.Ct. 1535. We review a district court’s refusal to give an entrapment jury instruction de novo, United States v. Hall, 608 F.3d 340, 343 (7th Cir.2010), bearing in mind that the question whether a defendant has been entrapped is “generally one for the jury, rather than for the" }, { "docid": "7428659", "title": "", "text": "inquiring into the underlying facts of his prior conviction. In support of this argument, Gore cites Justice Thomas’ eon curring opinion in Shepard v. United States. However, in that opinion, Justice Thomas opined that consultation of any documents under the categorical approach constitutes judicial fact-finding prohibited by Apprendi v. New Jersey. This proposition does not support Gore’s contention that the district court should have been allowed to consult the underlying facts. Gore’s Sixth Amendment contention is not supported by this or any other precedent, and therefore any error cannot be plain, assuming, without deciding, that his argument was not waived. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. . 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). . United States v. Harrimon, 568 F.3d 531, 533 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1015, 175 L.Ed.2d 621 (2009). . 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). . Id. § 924(e)(2)(B). . See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03(b) (defining aggravated robbery as a \"felony of the first degree”); id. § 15.02(d) (defining criminal conspiracy as an offense that “is one category lower than the most serious felony that is the object of the conspiracy”); id. § 12.33(a) (“An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.”). . 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). . Tex. Penal Code § 15.02(a). . United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 705 (5th Cir.2010) (analyzing the elements of a conspiracy offense to determine whether the business practice exception to the federal felon in possession statute applied to defendant). . Tex. Penal Code § 29.02(a). . Id. § 29.03(a). . See, e. g., Thompson v. State, 54 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex.App. — Tyler 2001, pet. denied) (concluding that the act of using deception to separate two intended robbery victims satisfied the overt-act requirement of a conspiracy to commit robbery). . See United States v. White, 571 F.3d 365, 369 (4th Cir.2009) (holding that a conviction under North Carolina law for conspiracy to commit" }, { "docid": "14760456", "title": "", "text": "be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. . The court rejected defendant’s claim that it was error to convict him of having committed “mutually inconsistent crimes,” saying: It appears that in both claimed inconsistent instances one of the two statutes requires proof of an extra element to convict, a specific intent to influence official action, while the other statute only requires proof that payment was made to an agent in a situation where no payment was necessary. There are not contradictory elements of required proof between the two statutes; only additional elements of proof. United States v. Umans, supra, 368 F.2d at 728-729. FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge, concurring (with whom FEINBERG, Circuit Judge, also concurs): If the issue were res nova, I would have considerable difficulty in believing that an accountant who makes a payment to an internal revenue agent can properly be convicted for aiding and abetting the agent in violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a) (2). The ALI Model Penal Code, which uses the term “accomplice” to encompass aiding and abetting, § 2.06(3), says in § 2.06(6): “Unless otherwise provided by the Code or by the law defining the offense, a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by another person if: (b) the offense is so defined that his conduct is inevitably incident to its commission; * * * ” This principle would seem peculiarly applicable when the legislature has enacted other provisions, here 18 U.S.C. § 201, specifically directed against the payor, even though Congress decided in 1963 that these were not broad enough. However, this court crossed that bridge in United States v. Kenner, 354 F.2d 780, 785 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 958, 86 S.Ct. 1223, 16 L.Ed.2d 301 (1966), the applicability of which we assumed on Barash’s earlier appeal, 365 F.2d at 399 n. 3, see also United States v. Cohen, 387 F.2d 803 (2 Cir. 1967). I understand that the Government now “pairs” with § 201(b) only the lesser included offense of § 201(f), and Barash was convicted on two" }, { "docid": "16336439", "title": "", "text": "jury could have viewed Crook’s actions after the equipment was sold as an indication that he never in good faith believed that he had the right to sell the equipment and give all the proceeds to the bank as he claimed. After the equipment was sold, Crook thwarted the FSA’s efforts to inspect the equipment by failing to respond to letters and calls from Thurman and by denying his farm manager the authority to conduct a full inspection with the FSA. A rational jury could have concluded that someone who believed in good faith that he had the right to sell the equipment would have simply told the FSA that he no longer possessed the equipment. Accordingly, we also will not disturb Crook’s convictions on counts three through eight. * sis si: For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Crook’s convictions on all counts. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. . 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (Supp. IV 1999) (current version at 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (Supp. IV 2011)). . Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-78, 113 Stat. 1174. .United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437, 439 (5th Cir.2011) (citing United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir.2009)). . U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 3; Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 325-26, 4 Wall. 277, 18 L.Ed. 356 (1866). . 212 F.2d 907, 910-11 (5th Cir.1954). . Id. at 909-11. . Id. at 909 n. 2, 911 & n. 4. . Id. at 911. . See 7 U.S.C. § 6932 (authorizing the establishment of the Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA)); Agency Name Change, 61 Fed.Reg. 1109 (Jan. 16, 1996) (to be codified at 7 C.F.R. ch. XVIII) (renaming the CFSA as the FSA). . See Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 135-36, 128 S.Ct. 1572, 170 L.Ed.2d 478 (2008) (declining to apply the rule of lenity were \"there [was] no" }, { "docid": "16820528", "title": "", "text": "court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the issue. We review the district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dixon, 185 F.3d 393, 402 (5th Cir.1999). In Hollingsworth, the Seventh Circuit concluded that “[predisposition is not a purely mental state, the state of being willing to swallow the government bait. It has positional as well as dispositional force.” 27 F.3d at 1200. To be positionally predisposed, the “defendant must be so situated by reason of previous training or experience or occupation or acquaintances that it is likely that if the government had not induced him to commit the crime some criminal would have done so.” Id. In United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247 (5th Cir.1998)(en banc), this court, sitting en banc, vacated a panel opinion that had adopted Hollingsworth’s positional predisposition doctrine. In so doing, we did not reject positional predisposition outright but instead concluded that the issue was not properly before the court. Id. at 265. We have not since considered the merits of positional predisposition, although in our recent opinion in United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 155-56 (5th Cir.2000), we concluded that the defendant there did not show that he was not positionally predisposed under Hollingsworth. Like wé did in Wise, we here conclude that Reyes and Maldonado have failed to show that they were not positionally predisposed. In Hollingsworth, the court stated that public officials such as Reyes are in the position to take bribes. And we conclude that Maldonado, a lobby ist and political activist, had the training, experience, and contacts to satisfy Holl-ingsworth ’s positional requirement. Further, we reject Reyes’s and Maldonado’s argument that the opportunity for ethnic minority investment in a major city project would not have occurred absent the government’s sting operation. For one, the government had nothing to do with the Duddlesten plan; and it was that plan— not the Cayman Group — that presented the opportunity Reyes and Maldonado describe. Nor is it true that absent government involvement no minority investors existed to consider investing" }, { "docid": "16820527", "title": "", "text": "“two grand” for a meeting the next day with Councilman Fraga, who she remarked “really, really needs it.” And on each of the next two days that followed — April 30 and May 1 — the evidence shows that Maldonado attempted to pass a bribe. Like Reyes, Maldonado argues that the government’s aggressive inducement defeats any finding of predisposition. We disagree. At trial, Maldonado argued that the government’s inducement was designed to “tug at the core of her being.” Like Reyes, she contended that the hotel project represented a “historic opportunity for her community” because “of its promise of inclusion to ethnic minorities.” A rational jury, however, could have correctly concluded that the introduction of the Cayman Group and its representatives into Reyes’s and Maldonado’s community did not represent the extraordinary opportunity Maldonado argued that it did. 3. Positional Predisposition Reyes and Maldonado each argue that their respective cases present a question of “positional predisposition,” as that concept is described in United States v. Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d 1196 (7th Cir.1994)(en banc), and that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the issue. We review the district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dixon, 185 F.3d 393, 402 (5th Cir.1999). In Hollingsworth, the Seventh Circuit concluded that “[predisposition is not a purely mental state, the state of being willing to swallow the government bait. It has positional as well as dispositional force.” 27 F.3d at 1200. To be positionally predisposed, the “defendant must be so situated by reason of previous training or experience or occupation or acquaintances that it is likely that if the government had not induced him to commit the crime some criminal would have done so.” Id. In United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247 (5th Cir.1998)(en banc), this court, sitting en banc, vacated a panel opinion that had adopted Hollingsworth’s positional predisposition doctrine. In so doing, we did not reject positional predisposition outright but instead concluded that the issue was not properly before the court. Id. at 265. We have not since" }, { "docid": "2843175", "title": "", "text": "to have evidence tending to show, that the Government refused to file a motion for suspect reasons such as his race or his religion.” Id. The factual discrepancies between the two parties’ accounts do not entitle Brown to an evidentiary hearing. Brown would not be entitled to relief as a matter of law, because he has not alleged the Government’s failure to file the Rule 35(b) motion was the result of an unconstitutional motive. See supra Part III.B. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion because, as the district court correctly observed, even “[assuming arguendo that the Government did enter into a subsequent verbal agreement with the defendant, the Court could not compel the Government to file a [R]ule 35(b) motion under the circumstances here.” IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. . Although the Government sought to enforce the waiver in the district court, the Government does not seek to enforce it in this Court. Therefore, the waiver is not binding, and this Court may consider the instant appeal. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir.2006) (\"In the absence of the government's objection to [the appellant’s] appeal based on his appeal waiver, the waiver is not binding because the government has waived the issue.”). . The record is unclear as to Brown's relationship with the woman who made the call. At some points, she is referred to as Brown’s wife, in others, as Brown’s girlfriend. . In its opposition to Brown’s original § 2255 motion, the Government also argued that Brown waived his right to appeal, see supra, and Brown's claim was not cognizable under § 2255. The Government has not pressed these issues on appeal, and so we do not consider them here. See United States v. Griffith, 522 F.3d 607, 610 (5th Cir.2008) (\"It is a well worn principle that the" }, { "docid": "11156781", "title": "", "text": "proffered testimony of a defense expert on the nature of Ogle’s financial position. “[T]he admissibility of expert testimony is a matter which rests within the broad discretion of the trial judge and his decision is not to be disturbed unless it is manifestly erroneous.” United States v. Lopez, 543 F.2d 1156, 1158 (5th Cir.1976). We therefore review a district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Triplett, 922 F.2d 1174, 1182 (5th Cir.1991). At trial, Ogle sought to offer the expert testimony of Shirley Lindsay, a former IRS Special Agent and fraud examiner. At a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, Lindsay opined on Ogle’s deteriorating financial situation as it related to his ability to engage in a large-scale money laundering transaction, and concluded that, in her estimation, Ogle lacked the “positional predisposition to commit any crime, let alone money laundering.” The district court, however, found that the proffered expert testimony would be of little assistance to the jury, and excluded it. We find no abuse of discretion in that decision. The concept of positional predisposition has its origins in the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Hollingsworth, in which that circuit concluded that the concept of predisposition has both a positional and a dispositional element. 27 F.3d 1196, 1200 (7th Cir.1994). To be positionally predisposed to commit a crime, “[t]he defendant must be so situated by reason of previous training or experience or occupation or acquaintances that it is likely that if the Government had not induced him to commit the crime some criminal would have done so.” Id. The doctrine, however, is a controversial one, see, e.g., United States v. Thickstun, 110 F.3d 1394, 1398 (9th Cir.1997) (rejecting the concept of positional predisposition), and one that we have, thus far, declined to recognize. See United States v. Reyes, 239 F.3d 722, 742 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 155-56 (5th Cir.2000). As we did in Reyes and in Wise we also find it unnecessary here to recognize the doctrine of positional predisposition. Even had" }, { "docid": "16942479", "title": "", "text": "requires the court to resolve disputed issues of fact before sentencing, the court can adopt facts contained in the PSR without inquiry as long as the “facts had an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present rebuttal, evidence.” United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 943 (5th Cir.1994). Rebuttal evidence must consist of more than a defendant’s objection; it requires a demonstration that the information is “materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” Huerta, 182 F.3d at 364 (citations omitted). Although Tampico objected to a number of factual issues in the PSR, he did not introduce any rebuttal evidence. Thus, the district court did not err in accepting the PSR as evidence. III For the reasons stated above, Tampico’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. . For the purpose of Supreme Court review, Tampico also contends that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) for a prior conviction relating to sexual abuse, because the prior conviction was not alleged in the indictment. Tampico claims that this is unconstitutional after the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), which found that sentencing factors must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Tampico recognizes, however, that this issue is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). . Pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor is defined as any combination of two or more separate instances of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor by the defendant, whether or not the abuse or exploitation (A) occurred during the course of the offense; (B) involved the same or different victims; or (C) resulted in a conviction for such conduct. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, cmt. n.1. ." } ]

[ { "docid": "22119609", "title": "", "text": "or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) is typically reviewed for abuse of discretion. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. United States, 136 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir.1998). On appeal, the Lac Vieux are forwarding one argument — that “the District Court erred ... by failing to recognize that Proposal E transferred control over the exclusive right to operate electronic games of chance from the Tribes to the [Michigan Gaming Control Board] and the City of Detroit.” Putting aside the issue of the correctness of the argument, the Lac Vieux raised it tardily. The Lae Vieux acknowledge that they did not make the argument prior to filing their Rule 59(e) motion, but they argue that they did not raise the issue because they never thought the district court would determine otherwise. A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992) (“Rule 59(e) motions are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration. Thus, parties should not use them to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before judgment issued. Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)). The Lac Vieux did neither in their Rule 59(e) motion. Because the Lac Vieux could have, but did not, raise their argument before the district court ruled on the motion to compel compliance, the argument is barred. III. The district court’s decisions are affirmed. . The Lac Vieux filed a separate case against the Michigan Gaming Control Board, and others, alleging that \"Proposal E” was an impairment of contract in violation of the Michigan and United States Constitutions. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., No. 2:97-CV-67 (W.D.Mich. Oct. 31, 1997)." } ]

[ { "docid": "4551459", "title": "", "text": "day and was, therefore, timely. Whether to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is a decision which falls soundly within the discretion of the court. Huff v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1982). “A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly because of the interests in finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” U.S. ex rel. American Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc. v. The Limited, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 541, 547 (S.D.Ohio 1998). Motions to alter or amend judgments may be granted in three instances: (1) if the court has committed a clear error of law, (2) if there is newly discovered evidence, i.e. an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) “to prevent manifest injustice.” Gen-Corp, Inc. v. American Intern. Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999). The party seeking reconsideration of a decision bears the burden of proving the existence of sufficient grounds entitling them to Rule 59(e) relief. In re J & M Salupo Development Co., 388 B.R. 795, 805 (6th Cir. BAP 2008); In re Redman Oil Co., Inc., 100 B.R. 945, 948 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989). In addition to demonstrating one of the grounds for relief under Rule 59(e), the movant must also be able to show that correcting the defect by altering or amending the judgment “will result in a different disposition of the case.” Shepard v. U.S., 2009 WL 3106554, *1 (E.D.Mich.2009). Rule 59(e) relief is only to be granted in limited circumstances and should not be invoked in an attempt to “relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 2617, n. 5, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008); Aull v. Osborne, 2009 WL 722605, *1 (W.D.Ky.2009); Vanguard Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., 2006 WL 3097189, *2 (S.D.Ohio 2006). Numerous courts in the Sixth Circuit have recognized that “parties should not use [Rule 59(e) motions] to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before judgment" }, { "docid": "8500382", "title": "", "text": "F.2d 182, 186 n. 4 (10th Cir.1992), may be construed in one of two ways: if filed within 10 days of the district court’s entry of judgment, it is treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e); if filed more than 10 days after entry of judgment, it is treated as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).” Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. v. Bloomberg, LP, 312 F.3d 1292, 1296 n. 3 (10th Cir.2002). Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167 n. 9 (10th Cir.2005). The time limit in rule 59(e) is now twenty-eight days rather than ten days. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration under rule 59(e) is an “inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.2000). “Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d at 1012. “Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d at 1012. A district court has considerable discretion in ruling on a motion to reconsider under rule 59(e). See Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir.1997). Rule 60 authorizes a district court to, “[o]n motion and just terms[,] ... relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons,” including “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). A court cannot enlarge the time for filing a rule 59(e) motion. See Brock v. Citizens Bank of Clovis, 841 F.2d 344, 347 (10th Cir. 1988) (holding that district courts lack jurisdiction over untimely rule 59(e) motions); Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Sys., Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. CIV 11-0103, 2012 WL 869000, at" }, { "docid": "6410842", "title": "", "text": "trial. It is not clear if they were relying on Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Courts generally treat a motion for reconsideration as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Abraham v. Aguilar (In re Aguilar), 861 F.2d 873 (5th Cir.1988). Bankruptcy Rule 9023 makes Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally applicable in bankruptcy cases. The grant or denial of a Rule 59(e) motion is within the informed discretion of the court. Huff v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1982). Moreover, such a motion is an “extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly because of the interests in finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” American Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc. v. Limited, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 541, 547 (S.D.Ohio 1998). A court may reconsider a previous judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for newly discovered evidence; (3) to correct a clear error of law; or (4) to prevent manifest injustice. See GenCorp, Inc. v. American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999). “A motion under Rule 59(e) is not intended to provide the parties an opportunity to relitigate previously-decided matters or present the case under new theories. Rather, such motions are intended to allow for the correction of manifest errors of fact or law, or for the presentation of newly-discovered evidence.” In re Nosker, 267 B.R. 555, 564 (Bankr. S.D.Ohio 2001). “The burden of demonstrating the existence of a manifest error of fact or law rests with the party seeking reconsideration.” Id. at 565. The Panel reviews the bankruptcy court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for reconsideration or a new trial for abuse of discretion. Here, the Panel finds that the bankruptcy court’s denial was in fact reasonable. For the most part, Appellants’ motion reasserted arguments previously rejected by the bankruptcy court. Typically a motion for reconsideration that simply restates the same arguments will be denied. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1998) (“A motion under Rule 59(e) is" }, { "docid": "12487543", "title": "", "text": "the United States filed responses (Docket Entry Nos. 116 and 117) and to which the Defendant filed a reply (Docket Entry No. 118). Of the pending motions, the Court addresses first the Defendant’s motion to correct its filing date. Judgment in this action was entered on March 22, 2010. (Docket Entry No. 109). Rule 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R.C.P. 59(e). Thus, Circle C’s motion had to be filed by April 19, 2010, but was not filed until April 20, 2010. The Court concludes that the Defendant’s motion is untimely. Circle C cites the attachments to its mo tion to alter or amend as too big for electronic filing and as causing Circle C to file its motion on April 20th. (Docket Entry No. 115-1). The United States responds that any difficulty in filing the exhibits does not excuse Circle C’s failure to file the motion and supporting memorandum timely on April 19, 2010. From the Court’s perspective, the motion could have been filed timely and the attachments could have been filed separately. In any event, a Rule 59 motion can be granted only, “if there is a clear error of law, ... newly discovered evidence, ... an intervening change in controlling law, ... or to prevent manifest injustice.” Gencorp, Inc. v. American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999) (citation omitted). “To constitute ‘newly discovered evidence,’ the evidence must have been previously unavailable.” Id. Otherwise, reopening the case “would subvert the judicial imperative of bringing litigation to an end.” Id. Circle C first asserts that the United State’s proof did not satisfy the essential elements of its claims, including damages, by a preponderance of the evidence. For its contention, Circle C submits new affidavits with new supporting documentation. Yet, Circle C has not shown this evidence was previously unavailable. Circle C’s motion papers reflect that “[t]his information was [previously] provided to the Government” by Circle C. (Docket Entry No. 110-1 at 6). Thus, this evidence is not" }, { "docid": "21169332", "title": "", "text": "or prevent manifest injustice.’ ” Id. (quoting Collison v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, Local 217, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.1994)); see also Wood v. F.B.I., 432 F.3d 78, 85 n. 4 (2d Cir.2005) (affirming denial of Rule 59(e) motion where “district court did not commit error or a manifest injustice.”). Other circuits have taken a somewhat more expansive view of the grounds upon which a motion to alter or amend a final judgment may be granted, holding that “[a] motion to alter or amend the judgment is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir. 1996)). The standard of review governing Rule 59(e) motions “is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The court shall therefore review its prior order so as to determine whether it overlooked controlling law or evidence which render the Vaughn III opinion clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. B. Timeliness of the Plaintiffs’ Motion Defendant Silver and the Proposed Ta-nen Defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ motion should be rejected by this court as untimely filed. For the reasons stated below, the court rejects both arguments, and holds that the plaintiffs’ motion was timely. 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion was Timely Filed on August 24, 2006. As previously noted, Rule 59(e) states that “[a]ny motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.” Local Civil Rule 6.3 likewise states that “[a] notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument of a court order determining a motion shall be served within ten (10) days after the entry of the court’s" }, { "docid": "22038555", "title": "", "text": "Ohio Rev.Code § 3937.03. See McCullough Transfer Co. v. Virginia Surety Co., 213 F.2d 440, 442-43 (6th Cir.1954) (concluding that Ohio Legislature intended merely to fine insurers for failing to file a policy endorsement; noting that had Legislature intended to void such contracts it could have easily said so in express words). Ironically, GenCorp itself incorporated the absolute pollution exclusion into the pre-1985 insurance coverage through the retroactive Endorsements. In any event, GenCorp forfeited the argument. III. Denial of the Motion to Alter or Amend GenCorp contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant GenCorp’s Rule 59(e) motion in light of the Second Amendment to Settlement Agreement. That Amended Settlement Agreement, executed on June 17, 1997, eleven days after the court entered judgment, retroactively voided the Endorsements which formed the basis of the court’s judgment. The district court ruled that it would “not revisit this issue after entering judgment and certifying this case for appeal ... on the basis of a new legal strategy by the plaintiff.” GenCorp maintains that its Rule 59(e) motion is based solely on the district court’s failure to account for events occurring after its entry of summary judgment, and that the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion may be appealed and considered separately from GenCorp’s appeal of the judgment itself. The Excess Insurers respond that we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order, and that GenCorp’s argument also fails on the merits. We review the district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion. See Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1998); Davis v. Jellico Community Hosp. Inc., 912 F.2d 129, 133 (6th Cir.1990). A. Jurisdiction The Excess Insurers take issue with our jurisdiction. They contend that we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order because the lower court failed to include an express finding under Rule 54(b) in the order denying GenCorp’s motion to alter or amend. The Excess Insurers continue that the denial could not properly have been certified for appeal by the district court, because the motion" }, { "docid": "22038556", "title": "", "text": "Rule 59(e) motion is based solely on the district court’s failure to account for events occurring after its entry of summary judgment, and that the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion may be appealed and considered separately from GenCorp’s appeal of the judgment itself. The Excess Insurers respond that we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order, and that GenCorp’s argument also fails on the merits. We review the district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion. See Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1998); Davis v. Jellico Community Hosp. Inc., 912 F.2d 129, 133 (6th Cir.1990). A. Jurisdiction The Excess Insurers take issue with our jurisdiction. They contend that we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order because the lower court failed to include an express finding under Rule 54(b) in the order denying GenCorp’s motion to alter or amend. The Excess Insurers continue that the denial could not properly have been certified for appeal by the district court, because the motion to vacate was based entirely on a new matter not even pleaded in this action. The Excess Insurers’ first argument is spurious. The underlying judgment has been properly certified under Rule 54(b), and is therefore a “final” judgment for appeal purposes. See Zapata Gulf Marine Corp. v. P.R. Maritime Shipping Auth., 925 F.2d 812, 814-15 (5th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (noting that in a Rule 54(b) motion “the requirement of an express determination of no just reason for delay is an unequivocal notice by the district court that that document constitutes a final appealable judgment”); 10 James W. Moore, et al, 10 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 54.22[1] (3d ed.1997) (noting that “[b]e-cause Rule 54(b) does not relax the requirement of finality of judgment, any order that finally disposes of the single claim in such an action is appealable as a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 in any event”) (footnote omitted); see generally General Acquisition, Inc. v. GenCorp, Inc., 23 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (6th Cir.1994) (noting that, for Rule 54(b) certification, the appealed ruling" }, { "docid": "1977028", "title": "", "text": "(Dkt.# 12). Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED. Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. JUDGMENT In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 28, 2000, Petitioner Alfred Morales’ Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus (Dkt.# 12) is hereby DENIED. The Court certifies, there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appeal-ability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b). Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the Motion of the Petitioner, Alfred Morales (“Morales”) to alter or amend (Dkt.# 50). FACTS The underlying facts of this case and its procedural history have been thoroughly set forth in this Court’s previous opinions. There is no need to repeat either the facts or the procedural history a third time. ANALYSIS The Petitioner has moved this Court to alter or amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) states that “Any motion to alter or amend judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.” The Petitioner filed his Motion to Alter or Amend (Dkt.# 50) on April 11, 2000, within ten days of the date of the Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt.# 48) which was issued on March 29, 2000. The Sixth Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion “may be granted if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice.” Gencorp, Inc. v. American International Underwriters, 167 F.3d 249, 275 (6th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). The Petitioner has asserted that this Court has committed clear errors" }, { "docid": "4504470", "title": "", "text": "our Rule 59(e) precedent did not apply to Leí-dos because it was not a “losing party.” In re Arbitration of Certain Controversies between Sci. Applications Int’l Corp. & Hellenic Republic, 249 F.Supp.3d at 302-03. Second, the court erred in concluding that it was manifestly unjust to award Leídos judgment in euros even though Leídos had expressly sought relief in euros at least three times and had not asked for dollars until its post-judgment motion. Id. at 304-OS. In addition, the district court misinterpreted—and thus mistakenly relied on— our opinion in Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Federal Government of Nigeria, 603 Fed.Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam), which we address below. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides a limited exception to the rule that judgments are to remain final. See Derrington-Bey v. Dist. of Colum. Dep’t of Corrs., 39 F.3d 1224, 1225 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Under Rule 59(e), the court may grant a motion to amend or alter a judgment under three circumstances only: (1) if there is an “intervening change of controlling law”; (2) if new evidence becomes available; or (3) if the judgment should be amended in order to “correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (quoting Nat'l Tr. v. Dep’t of State, 834 F.Supp. 453, 455 (D.D.C. 1993)). Although the court has considerable discretion in ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion, the reconsideration or amendment of a judgment is nonetheless an extraordinary measure. Id. We have held that Rule 59(e) motions are aimed at “reconsideration, not initial consideration.” District of Columbia v. Doe, 611 F.3d 888, 896 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Nat'l Ecological Found. v. Alexander, 496 F.3d 466, 477 (6th Cir. 2007)). “Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright &" }, { "docid": "14262091", "title": "", "text": "DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to amend the judgment and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file an Amended Complaint. I. BACKGROUND The Court presented the background of this case at length in its [21] Memorandum Opinion accompanying the Order dismissing this ease. See Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc., 85 F.Supp.3d 361 (D.D.C.2015). The Court pro vides the necessary background with respect to the currently pending motion in the discussion of the issues raised by that motion below. II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to file “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment” within “28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Motions under Rule 59(e) are “disfavored” and the moving party bears the burden of establishing “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief from a final judgment. Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus, 153 F.Supp.2d 23, 28 (D.D.C.2001). Rule 59(e) motions are “discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 59(e) does not provide a vehicle “to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.1995)). DISCUSSION Plaintiffs seek to amend the Court’s opinion and judgment dismissing this case, specifically with regard to the Court’s dismissal of several claims without prejudice, and seek leave to file an Amended Complaint that purports to respond to the defects with the original Complaint that the Court identified. Notably, Plaintiffs do not argue in their motion that the Court should alter the judgment to reconsider its conclusion that the original Complaint was inadequate. Plaintiffs essentially ask the Court to reconsider its decision to deny Plaintiffs leave to file an" }, { "docid": "4551458", "title": "", "text": "amend the July 1, 2009, order granting Wells Fargo relief from the automatic stay. The Hennings made their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) is made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023. Rule 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006, the ten day time period started to run on July 2, 2009. The ten-day time limit expired on July 11, 2009, which was a Saturday. Rule 9006 provides that if the time period expires on a Saturday or Sunday or a legal holiday, the period “runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days.” Fed. R. BaniíeP. 9006(a). In this case, the next day after expiration of the Rule 9023 time period was Monday, July 13, 2009. The Hennings’ motion to alter or amend was filed on that day and was, therefore, timely. Whether to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is a decision which falls soundly within the discretion of the court. Huff v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1982). “A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly because of the interests in finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” U.S. ex rel. American Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc. v. The Limited, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 541, 547 (S.D.Ohio 1998). Motions to alter or amend judgments may be granted in three instances: (1) if the court has committed a clear error of law, (2) if there is newly discovered evidence, i.e. an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) “to prevent manifest injustice.” Gen-Corp, Inc. v. American Intern. Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999). The party seeking reconsideration of a decision bears the burden of proving the existence of sufficient grounds entitling them to Rule 59(e) relief. In re J & M Salupo Development Co., 388 B.R. 795, 805" }, { "docid": "16454706", "title": "", "text": "to alter or amend the judgment), June 25 (denying Johnson’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration) and March 21 (denying Johnson’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment). Unfortunately for Johnson, he did not file a timely notice of appeal with respect to the district court’s September 16, 2002, dismissal of his complaint. Accordingly, we cannot review the propriety of that dismissal, nor can we consider the merits of Johnson’s claim against Dr. Carline. We begin by analyzing the timeliness of the two motions that the district court construed as Rule 59(e) motions. All Rule 59(e) motions must “be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Given that the period of time specified in Rule 59(e) is less than eleven days, Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are excluded from the computation of time. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a); GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 832 n. 25 (6th Cir.1999). The judgment of dismissal was entered on September 16, 2002, but the Rule 59 motions were not filed until January 22 and May 21, respectively. Therefore, the district court properly denied these motions as untimely. Next, we turn to the district court’s denial of Johnson’s Rule 60(b) motion, which we review for abuse of discretion. Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 385 (6th Cir.2001); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Byers, 151 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir.1998). Rule 60(b) permits a district court to grant a motion for relief from the judgment for any of the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the" }, { "docid": "1977029", "title": "", "text": "and its procedural history have been thoroughly set forth in this Court’s previous opinions. There is no need to repeat either the facts or the procedural history a third time. ANALYSIS The Petitioner has moved this Court to alter or amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) states that “Any motion to alter or amend judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.” The Petitioner filed his Motion to Alter or Amend (Dkt.# 50) on April 11, 2000, within ten days of the date of the Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt.# 48) which was issued on March 29, 2000. The Sixth Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion “may be granted if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice.” Gencorp, Inc. v. American International Underwriters, 167 F.3d 249, 275 (6th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). The Petitioner has asserted that this Court has committed clear errors of law, that there is newly discovered evidence in this case, and that reconsideration of the Court’s decision would prevent manifest injustice. Furthermore, the Court has reviewed two very recent United States Supreme Court cases, Williams v. Taylor, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Williams v. Taylor, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), which were filed on April 18, 2000, after this Court’s decision in this matter. As such, to prevent manifest injustice, the Court shall revisit the arguments raised by the Petitioner in his Motion to Alter or Amend (Dkt.# 50) in the context of the most recent Supreme Court cases where applicable. The Court also shall consider the impact of the newly discovered evidence the Petitioner has submitted. The Petitioner has asserted the following arguments in support of his Motion: (1) the Court improperly denied the Petitioner discovery and an evidentiary hearing; (2) the Court has erroneously interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); (3) trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase for failing to" }, { "docid": "10823482", "title": "", "text": "global resolution, engaging in limited discovery to further resolution efforts which would not begin in earnest until the end of 2007. Meanwhile, the parties completed briefing the issues raised by the Insurers’ motion. At a status conference at the end of June 2008, the Court indicated it would withhold a ruling on the motion pending completion of the mediation, asking for a status report at the end of August 2008. In separately filed status reports, both sides were in agreement that mediation was at a standstill and that a ruling on the pending motion would assist the parties in moving forward with the resolution process. The Defendants requested oral argument in their August status report and after several continuances, on May 18, 2009, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. Motion For Reconsideration Although the Insurers request reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), a motion for reconsideration is often treated as a motion made under Rule 59(e). McDowell v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 931 F.2d 380 (6th Cir.1991); Shivers v. Grubbs, 747 F.Supp. 434 (S.D.Ohio 1990). The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is to have the court reconsider matters “properly encompassed in a decision on the merit s.” Osterneck v. Ernst and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174, 109 S.Ct. 987, 103 L.Ed.2d 146 (1989). This rule gives the district court the “power to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment.” White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 450, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982). Generally three major situations justify a district court al tering or amending its judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to consider newly dis covered evidence; or (3) to prevent a clear error of law or to prevent a manifest injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. American Intern. Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999). It is not designed to give an unhappy litigant an opportunity to relitigate matters already decided; nor is it a substitute for appeal. Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC, 477" }, { "docid": "21169331", "title": "", "text": "it was filed more than ten days after the Vaughn III order was entered, and that the prior order was correct that the evidence in the record fails to establish a prima facie case of actual injury. The Proposed Tanen Defendants join Silver in arguing that the instant motion is untimely, and further argue that the plaintiffs cannot establish actual damages because the substantial settlement they have already received from other defendants makes up for any pecuniary loss they may have suffered due to the allegedly fraudulent scheme. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) states simply that “[a]ny motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment,” but the rule “does not prescribe specific grounds for granting a motion to alter or amend an otherwise final judgment.” Munafo v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority, 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir.2004). The Second Circuit has held “that district courts may alter or amend a judgment ‘to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.’ ” Id. (quoting Collison v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, Local 217, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.1994)); see also Wood v. F.B.I., 432 F.3d 78, 85 n. 4 (2d Cir.2005) (affirming denial of Rule 59(e) motion where “district court did not commit error or a manifest injustice.”). Other circuits have taken a somewhat more expansive view of the grounds upon which a motion to alter or amend a final judgment may be granted, holding that “[a] motion to alter or amend the judgment is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir. 1996)). The standard of review governing Rule 59(e) motions “is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in" }, { "docid": "22153351", "title": "", "text": "to an adverse judgment to file either a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). Although the two rules appear similar, they are in fact quite distinct. A Rule 59(e) motion is discretionary. It need not be granted unless the district court finds that there has been an intervening change of controlling law, that new evidence has become available, or that there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Ingle, 439 F.3d at 197. By contrast, Rule 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party from an adverse judgment if the party shows either: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed.R.CivJP. 60(b). Appellant argues that because his motion invokes both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b), the district court erred by considering only Rule 59(e) and ignoring Rule 60(b). We have squarely held, however, that a motion filed under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) should be analyzed only under Rule 59(e) if it was filed no later than 10 days after entry of the adverse judgment and seeks to correct that judgment. Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir.1996); see also Vaughan v. Murray, No. 95-6081, 1995 WL 649864, at *3 n. 3 (4th Cir. Nov.6, 1995). Appellant’s motion was filed 9 days after entry of judgment and indeed sought to correct that judgment. Therefore, we find no error in the district court’s decision. Regardless, we do not believe that analyzing the motion under Rule 60(b) would have helped Appellant. In order to" }, { "docid": "22935512", "title": "", "text": "] erroneous legal standard.” Romstadt v. Allstate Ins. Co., 59 F.3d 608, 615 (6th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). B. The District Court’s Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion In Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) motion, they petitioned the district court to alter or amend its judgment by designating dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction to be “without prejudice,” in accordance with fed. R. Crv. P. 41. In denying the Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) motion, the district court held that their motion: (1) did not set forth any grounds for their request; (2) was not accompanied by a memorandum of law; (3) made no showing of any legal error, newly discovered evidence, change in law, or manifest injustice; and (4) provided no basis for amending its dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Intern Corp. v. Henderson, No. 3:03-0755, at 1 (M.D. Tenn. July 29, 2004) (order denying Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend). A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). It is apparent that Plaintiffs did not predicate their Rule 59(e) motion on the grounds of newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in controlling law. It is not evident, however, whether Plaintiffs premise their motion on the district court’s clear error of law or whether they contend that the judgment should be altered or amended to prevent manifest injustice. Based upon a plain reading of fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and the facts of this case, we hold that the district court clearly erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs’ action for lack of personal jurisdiction “with prejudice.” Our reasons in support of this conclusion are two-fold. First, our conclusion is entirely consistent with the language of Rule 41(b), which provides in relevant part, “Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in" }, { "docid": "4064399", "title": "", "text": "[Court] finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C.Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled, nor is it a vehicle for presenting theories and arguments that could have been advanced earlier.” Fresh Kist Produce, LLC v. Choi Corp., 251 F.Supp.2d 138, 140 (D.D.C.2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Messina, 439 F.3d at 759 (stating that Rule 59(e) motions may not simply “rely on the same arguments ... originally made” by the moving party) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “While the [C]ourt has considerable discretion in ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion, the reconsideration and amendment of a previous order is an extraordinary measure.” Fresh Kist Produce, 251 F.Supp.2d. at 140 (citing Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (per curiam)); see also Jung v. Ass’n of Am. Med. Coll, 184 Fed.Appx. 9, 13 (D.C.Cir.2006) (noting “the high standard for relief under Rule 59(e)”). Furthermore, Rule 59(e) motions “shall be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). However, “[a]n untimely motion under Rule 59(e) may be considered as a motion under Rule 60(b) if it states grounds for relief under the latter rule.” Computer Professionals for Social Resp. v. U.S. Secret Sen., 72 F.3d 897, 903 (D.C.Cir. 1996). Under Rule 60(b), the Court may grant a party relief from an adverse judgment on grounds, inter alia, of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, ... excusable neglect[,] ... [or] newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time [for the filing of a Rule 59 motion].” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); see Gonza lez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (stating that “Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment ... under a limited set of circumstances”) (footnote omitted). “Relief" }, { "docid": "15280692", "title": "", "text": "final judgment. The Savages argue that the district court’s decision to vacate the summary judgment should be viewed as a grant of relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which they point out cannot be done sua sponte because the rule explicitly requires that relief occur “on motion.” See United States v. Pauley, 321 F.3d 578, 581 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Eaton v. Jamrog, 984 F.2d 760, 762 (6th Cir.1993)); Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 396 (6th Cir.1993). That argument is without merit because the district court did not rely on Rule 60, but rather on its inherent power to vacate orders prior to the entry of final judgment. The inherent power to vacate orders prior to entry of final judgment is implicitly recognized in Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and is distinct from the power explicitly granted by Rule 60 to reopen cases well after final judgment has been entered. Rule 59 refers to motions “to alter or amend a judgment” and provides that they must be filed “no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). It is clear that motions subject to Rule 59(e) may be utilized in timely attempts to vacate judgment. See Huff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1982). And the advisory committee notes accompanying this rule make clear that Rule 59 applies at any time before the entry of the order plus an additional ten days after entry: “The phrase ‘no later than’ is used — rather than ‘within’ — to include post-judgment motions that sometimes are filed before actual entry of the judgment by the clerk.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 59 advisory committee’s note (1995 amendment). It is true that after 10 days from the entry of judgment, a party who seeks to vacate a judgment must rely on Rule 60(b), and the limited reasons provided therein, for obtaining relief from a judgment. Such a Rule 60(b) vacatur that does not fit within the express constraints of Rule 60 may well be beyond a court’s power for purposes of the common law" }, { "docid": "23269490", "title": "", "text": "Conkright, 535 F.3d 111, 118 (2d Cir.2008) (noting that a party is not entitled to administrative remand where remanding would be futile). Attempting to avoid this conclusion, Majestic argues that it has new evidence of Weatherspoon’s blood-alcohol level at the time of the accident. However, this Court is “limited to reviewing the administrative record at the time the plan administrator made its final decision to deny benefits.” Wilkins, 150 F.3d at 615. Majestic’s “final decision” to deny benefits occurred in 2005. Throughout the litigation, Majestic continually has asserted that the decision embodied in the denial letter of November 21, 2005 constituted its final decision regarding Weatherspoon’s entitlement to benefits. Accordingly, Majestic cannot now claim that its review is incomplete. See Darland v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 317 F.3d 516, 530 (6th Cir.2003), overruled on other grounds by Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003) (noting that equitable principles “certainly weigh against [a plan administrator] taking ... inconsistent positions” in administrative and court proceedings). We therefore conclude that the district court properly awarded benefits to the Med. IY. MAJESTIC’S RULE 59(e) MOTION A. Standard of Review Although we generally review a denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) for abuse of discretion, “when the Rule 59(e) motion seeks review of a grant of summary judgment, ... we apply a de novo standard of review.” Wilkins, 150 F.3d at 613. Because Majestic’s Rule 59(e) motion sought review of the district court’s decision to grant the Med’s motion for judgment on the administrative record, we review de novo the district court’s ruling on Majestic’s motion. See id. B. Analysis In its motion under Rule 59(e), Majestic argued that the district court’s judgment was based on clear errors of law and that a failure to find in favor of Majestic would result in “manifest injustice.” See Gen-Corp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999) (listing clear errors of law and manifest injustice as reasons supporting the grant of a Rule 59(e) motion). In support" } ]

[ { "docid": "22175342", "title": "", "text": "“If a motion for withdrawal of a plea of guilty ... is made before sentence is imposed, the court may permit withdrawal of the plea upon a showing by the defendant of any fair and just reason.” Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(d). Courts have noted that the aim of the rule is to allow a hastily entered plea made with unsure heart and confused mind to be undone, not to allow a defendant “to make a tactical decision to enter a plea, wait several weeks, and then obtain a withdrawal if he believes he made a bad choice in pleading guilty.” United States v. Alexander, 948 F.2d 1002, 1004 (6th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 345 (5th Cir.1984)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1117, 112 S.Ct. 1231, 117 L.Ed.2d 465 (1992). In determining whether a defendant invoking Rule 32(d) has shown a “fair and just reason,” this court considers such factors as those set forth in Alexander and in United States v. Head, 927 F.2d 1361, 1375 (6th Cir.), (citing United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236, 238 (6th Cir.1987)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 846, 112 S.Ct. 144, 116 L.Ed.2d 110 (1991). These include: (1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. The factors listed are a general, nonexclusive list and no one factor is controlling. We find it unnecessary to address each of these factors since the defendant has wholly failed to show any “fair and just reason” for withdrawing his plea and has not demonstrated any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. This was an 18-defendant case and all" } ]

[ { "docid": "20614574", "title": "", "text": "all of which cut against him. 1. A substantial amount of time — 118 days — elapsed between Giorgio’s plea entry and his plea withdrawal. We have held that far less time, 75 days for example, is “alone” enough to uphold the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. United States v. Valdez, 362 F.3d 903, 913 (6th Cir.2004); see also, e.g., United States v. Durham, 178 F.3d 796, 798-99 (6th Cir.1999) (77 days). 2. Giorgio did not suddenly decide to proclaim his innocence. He freely admitted his guilt throughout — before, during, and after trial. To this day, indeed, he has yet to disclaim his guilt. 3. The circumstances surrounding Giorgio’s plea suggest that it should not be withdrawn. Giorgio acknowledged the factual basis of his guilt in the plea agreement and did not challenge his guilt at the Rule 11 plea hearing. He stood by that view during trial. See Quinlan, 473 F.3d at 278. And it was only after his co-conspirators were acquitted that he changed his mind-and even then only changed his mind about the plea agreement, not about his guilt or innocence. This factor strongly supports the government. 4. Giorgio is a sophisticated and well-educated businessman, not someone apt to misunderstand what he was signing. 5. Although Giorgio did not have prior experience with the criminal-justice system, his background, time spent “soul searching,” No. 14-4192, R. 299 at 193, and comments about the plea suggest that he understood what he was doing. Quinlan, 473 F.3d at 278. 6. The government would be prejudiced if Giorgio’s plea is withdrawn. It has already spent considerable time prosecuting the three co-conspirators — and at this point it cannot retry two of them. The third one (Giorgio) admitted his guilt (based on the existing Rule 11 colloquy and trial testimony) and in his appellate briefs does not deny the truthfulness of those statements. All of this would be for naught (at least in the short term) if we permit the plea withdrawal. 7. The remaining factor requires more elaboration, but it still points in the" }, { "docid": "2175558", "title": "", "text": "not considering his allegation that counsel was ineffective before denying the motion. These arguments lack support in the record; therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Catchings’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. United States v. Wynn, 663 F.3d 847, 849 (6th Cir.2011). “A district court abuses its discretion where it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard.” United States v. Haygood, 549 F.3d 1049, 1052 (6th Cir.2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Under Rule 11(d), a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). In making the determination of whether the defendant has shown a “fair and just reason,” we consider the totality of the circumstances, including the factors set forth in United States v. Bashara: (1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior expe rience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994). These factors “are a general, non-exclusive list and no one factor is controlling.” United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996) (per curiam). Our examination of these factors in this case buttresses our conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Catchings’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because Catchings did not offer a fair and just reason that finds support in the record. 1. Length of delay. Catchings waited over two months after pleading guilty to file his motion to" }, { "docid": "22228046", "title": "", "text": "would amount to a severance after the court’s denial of Dr. Goldberg’s severance motion on the merits. The district court did not schedule or conduct a hearing, but denied the motion to withdraw the plea in reliance on the statements made by Dr. Goldberg at the time the plea of guilty was entered on October 15, 1987. In denying the motion, the district court emphasized the fact that Dr. Goldberg had testified under oath that he was satisfied with the representation provided by his counsel and that he was not under any duress or threat which induced his guilty plea. The permission to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing is not an absolute right but is a matter within the broad discretion of the district court. United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236, 238 (6th Cir.1987); United States v. Triplett, 828 F.2d 1195, 1197 (6th Cir.1987); United States v. Usher, 703 F.2d 956, 959 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. Kirkland, 578 F.2d 170, 172 (6th Cir.1978). The recent decisions of this circuit in Triplett and Spencer, supra, enumerate a number of factors that the district court may consider in evaluating whether a defendant has established, pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a “fair and just reason” to withdraw his guilty plea. Those factors include: (1) whether the movant asserted a defense or whether he has consistently maintained his innocence; (2) the length of time between the entry of the plea and the motion to withdraw; (3) why the grounds for ■ withdrawal were not presented to the court at an earlier time; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the plea of guilty, the nature and the background of a defendant and whether he has admitted his guilt; and (5) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing Dr. Goldberg to withdraw the guilty plea. While the district court did not specifically refer to the factors set forth in the Triplett-Spencer decisions, the district court was obviously" }, { "docid": "23325471", "title": "", "text": "also was no finding in the record that key witnesses were no longer available or that the few months’ delay had hindered their ability to remember key events. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the first two reasons stated by the district court. First, Valdez’s unjustified 75-day delay, alone, supported the court’s denial of a motion to withdraw. See United States v. Durham, 178 F.3d 796, 798-99 (6th Cir.1999) (“The strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial of Durham’s motion is the length of time between Durham’s plea and the filing of his motion to withdraw. Durham waited approximately seventy-seven days to file his motion after entering his guilty plea.”); Baez, 87 F.3d at 808 (“The strongest factors supporting the district court’s ruling are the sixty-seven day delay between the motion and the plea, and Baez’s failure to justify this extensive delay.”). Second, the circumstances surrounding Valdez’s plea strongly suggest that he did appreciate the crime to which he was pleading guilty and the likely sentence range to which he would be subjected. As noted above, Valdez’s alleged criminal conduct was described at least four times prior to the entry of his guilty plea. On three of those occasions, Valdez affirmatively assented to the description of his conduct, including the quantity of drugs that he allegedly possessed. There is no dispute that Valdez was competent at the time of his plea, that he had not been coerced to plead guilty, that he read and understood English and that he had discussed the indictment and the plea with his attorney, who, according to Valdez, had provided him with satisfactory advice. Because Valdez has presented no persuasive reason for such a lengthy delay in bringing his motion to withdraw and because there is no evidence of unusual circumstances surrounding his plea, the Court sees no basis to hold that the district court abused its discretion. C. Valdez’s Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Is Not Ripe for Judicial Review. Valdez argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to make clear that Valdez was pleading guilty to" }, { "docid": "22845990", "title": "", "text": "628 F.2d 1178, 1183-84 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (upholding the district court’s assessment that the testimony of the former defense counsel and the court interpreter was more credible than that of the defendant in a plea withdrawal case). Additionally, the district court noted the more than two-year delay between Nostra-tis’ guilty plea (January 25, 2000) and his plea withdrawal motion (March 22, 2002). As the cornet mentioned in its order, the time between the plea and the plea withdrawal motion is a factor to consider in ruling on that motion. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 Advisory Committee Notes (1983 Amendment) (“ ‘[I]f the defendant has long delayed his withdrawal motion, and has had the full benefit of competent counsel at all times, the reasons given to support withdrawal must have considerably more force.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 208, 222 (D.C.Cir.1975)). Courts have rejected plea withdrawal motions where the delay was much shorter than two years. See Alber, 56 F.3d at 1111 (listing as a reason for rejecting the plea withdrawal motion that three months elapsed between the plea and the motion); Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d at 1184 (one-month delay); see also United States v. Santiago, 229 F.3d 313, 318 (1st Cir.2000) (nine months); United States v. Durham, 178 F.3d 796, 798-99 (6th Cir.1999) (seventy-seven days); United States v. Gonzalez, 970 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2nd Cir.1992) (seven months). Nostratis gave no reason why he waited so long to file his plea withdrawal motion, nor did he contend on appeal that he lacked competent counsel during the two years between his plea and his motion. This two year delay suggests that the “withdrawal was intended to serve a different purpose than that avowed” by Nostratis. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d at 1184. In its order, the district court found that Nostratis moved to withdraw his plea because he was upset with his likely sentence. A defendant cannot withdraw his plea because he realizes that his sentence will be higher than he had expected. See Alber, 56 F.3d at 1111 (upholding denial of a plea withdrawal motion where the defendant “moved to withdraw his" }, { "docid": "23325469", "title": "", "text": "court. United States v. Goldberg, 862 F.2d 101, 103 (6th Cir.1988). Accordingly, this Court reviews a district court’s refusal to permit a defendant to withdraw his or her guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 104. A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after the district court accepts a plea, but before sentencing, if the defendant can show “a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). The Court may consider the following factors, among others, in deciding whether to grant permission to withdraw a guilty plea: (1) whether the movant asserted a defense or whether he has consistently maintained his innocence; (2) the length of time between the entry of the plea and the motion to withdraw; (3) why the grounds for withdrawal were not presented to the court at an earlier time; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the plea of guilty, the nature and the background of a defendant and whether he has admitted his guilt; and (5) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. Goldberg, 862 F.2d at 103-04; accord United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996). “The factors listed are a general, non-exclusive list and no one factor is controlling.” Id. The district court denied Valdez’s motion to withdraw his plea, reasoning that (1) Valdez had not offered an explanation for the 75 days that had elapsed between his plea and his motion to withdraw, (2) the circumstances surrounding the plea suggested that Valdez had understood the indictment, which he had discussed with his attorney, and (3) the government might be prejudiced by the stale recollections of witnesses and the need to expend time and money trying the case. This Court disagrees with the district court’s third stated reason, because there appeared to be no factual basis for the court to find that a few months’ delay created by Valdez’s guilty plea and subsequent withdrawal would have prejudiced the government. The government always has to spend time and money trying a case, so this “prejudice” is irrelevant on these facts. There" }, { "docid": "23325470", "title": "", "text": "to withdraw is granted. Goldberg, 862 F.2d at 103-04; accord United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996). “The factors listed are a general, non-exclusive list and no one factor is controlling.” Id. The district court denied Valdez’s motion to withdraw his plea, reasoning that (1) Valdez had not offered an explanation for the 75 days that had elapsed between his plea and his motion to withdraw, (2) the circumstances surrounding the plea suggested that Valdez had understood the indictment, which he had discussed with his attorney, and (3) the government might be prejudiced by the stale recollections of witnesses and the need to expend time and money trying the case. This Court disagrees with the district court’s third stated reason, because there appeared to be no factual basis for the court to find that a few months’ delay created by Valdez’s guilty plea and subsequent withdrawal would have prejudiced the government. The government always has to spend time and money trying a case, so this “prejudice” is irrelevant on these facts. There also was no finding in the record that key witnesses were no longer available or that the few months’ delay had hindered their ability to remember key events. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the first two reasons stated by the district court. First, Valdez’s unjustified 75-day delay, alone, supported the court’s denial of a motion to withdraw. See United States v. Durham, 178 F.3d 796, 798-99 (6th Cir.1999) (“The strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial of Durham’s motion is the length of time between Durham’s plea and the filing of his motion to withdraw. Durham waited approximately seventy-seven days to file his motion after entering his guilty plea.”); Baez, 87 F.3d at 808 (“The strongest factors supporting the district court’s ruling are the sixty-seven day delay between the motion and the plea, and Baez’s failure to justify this extensive delay.”). Second, the circumstances surrounding Valdez’s plea strongly suggest that he did appreciate the crime to which he was pleading guilty and the likely sentence range to which he would be subjected. As noted above," }, { "docid": "1675273", "title": "", "text": "‘The withdrawal of a guilty plea prior to sentencing is not an absolute right but is a matter within the broad discretion of the district court.’ ” United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236, 238 (6th Cir.1987), quoting United States v. Kirkland, 578 F.2d 170, 172 (6th Cir.1978) (per curiam). In Spencer the Court articulated several factors for the district court to consider when evaluating whether a defendant has established a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea. One factor was the length of time between entry of the plea and the motion to withdraw it. A second factor to consider is why the grounds for withdrawal were not presented earlier. The third factor is whether a defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence, and a fourth factor is the circumstances underlying the plea, the nature and background of the defendant, and whether the defendant has admitted his guilt. Spencer, 836 F.2d at 239-40. We believe all of these factors militate against defendant’s motion. First, he did not attempt to withdraw his plea until after his testimony that led the United States to announce its intention not to move for a reduction for substantial assistance. Second, he has not maintained his innocence. Third, he is familiar with the criminal justice system as is evidenced by his lengthy criminal record, see United States v. Kirkland, 578 F.2d at 171-72, and he has admitted his guilt. We reject appellant's argument that the promise of the United States to move for reduction under § 5K1.1 induced him to change his plea. Appellant’s reliance on Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), is misplaced. In Santo-bello, the promise by the prosecutor was unequivocal and unconditional. Not so here. The promise to appellant Head was conditioned on his truthful and complete testimony concerning all matters pertaining to the indictment and to other narcotics violations in which he was involved or of which he had knowledge. Further, the plea agreement specified that the decision whether to file a § 5K1.1 motion was within the full discretion of" }, { "docid": "16994981", "title": "", "text": "maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted.” United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994). These considerations represent “a general, nonexclusive list and no one factor is controlling.” United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996). The district court acted within its discretion in concluding that the application of these factors did not entitle Quinlan to withdraw from the plea agreement. First, a considerable period of time — 13 months — lapsed between Quinlan’s guilty plea and his motion to withdraw, undermining his claim that a sincere change of heart, rather than an expedient change in strategy, prompted the motion. In upholding district court decisions rejecting plea-withdrawal motions, we have noted that far shorter periods of time represented the most significant factor in support of the district court’s decision. See, e.g., United States v. Durham, 178 F.3d 796, 798-99 (6th Cir.1999) (noting that a delay of 77 days was the strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial); United States v. Baez, 87 F.3d 805, 808 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting that a delay of 67 days was the strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial); United States v. Goldberg, 862 F.2d 101, 104 (6th Cir.1988) (noting that a delay of 55 days was the strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial); United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236, 239 (6th Cir.1987) (noting that a delay of 22 days was the strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial). Second, Quinlan has not offered a legitimate explanation for such a lengthy delay. Attempting to show otherwise, he notes that he had two changes of counsel after the guilty plea, one of which arose from a conflict of interest in his representation. But the circumstances underlying each change in counsel do not advance Quinlan’s argument. One month after Quinlan signed the plea agreement, the federal public defender’s office" }, { "docid": "23083914", "title": "", "text": "consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d), a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea upon “showfing] a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). We look at the totality of the circumstances in considering whether a defendant has made a sufficient showing, including the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. Catchings, 708 F.3d at 717-18 (quoting United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994)). If the defendant is unable to establish fair and just reasons, it is not necessary for the Court to consider prejudice to the Government. Catchings, 708 F.3d at 719. In this case, the record sufficiently demonstrates that Hockenberry entered his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. At Hockenberry’s February 29, 2012 change of plea hearing, the district court performed a thorough Rule 11 colloquy. Moreover, Hockenberry testified that he understood the case proceedings; had a clear mind; was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol; and understood that he was giving up various rights by pleading guilty. At the sentencing hearing, Hockenberry testified to being stressed, tired, and off his medication at the time of his guilty plea. Hockenberry also testified that pri- or to his arrest he had been using cocaine and heroine. Nevertheless, the sentencing hearing testimony does not reflect that Hockenberry lacked a general understanding and awareness of his circumstances at the time of his guilty plea. Moreover, the district court recalled that Hockenberry had answered questions clearly, and had not appeared" }, { "docid": "2175559", "title": "", "text": "the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior expe rience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994). These factors “are a general, non-exclusive list and no one factor is controlling.” United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996) (per curiam). Our examination of these factors in this case buttresses our conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Catchings’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because Catchings did not offer a fair and just reason that finds support in the record. 1. Length of delay. Catchings waited over two months after pleading guilty to file his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have consistently determined that shorter delays weigh against withdrawal; therefore, this factor weighs against Catchings’s attempt to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Benton, 639 F.3d 723, 727 (6th Cir.2011) (collecting cases regarding the amount of delay and noting that “[t]his Court has declined to allow plea withdrawal when intervening time periods were as brief as one month”); see also United States v. Martin, 668 F.3d 787, 795 (6th Cir.2012) (collecting cases regarding the amount of delay). 2. Validity of Catchings’s reason for failing to move for withdrawal earlier. Catchings claims that he asked his attorney to file his motion to withdraw his guilty plea five days after he pleaded guilty. 11-6303 Appellant Br. at 15-16. Catchings has not pointed to any evidence in the record that supports this contention. We note, however, that Catchings did date his motion for plea withdrawal January 18, 2011, which was only five days after he was permitted to proceed pro se. Although this is some indication that Catchings himself might not have" }, { "docid": "23358878", "title": "", "text": "the withdrawal of his or her guilty plea. United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996). In deciding whether a defendant has demonstrated the existence of a “fair and just reason,” the district court should consider: (1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994). In this- case, none of the above-mentioned factors support Pluta’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Pluta waited more than four months before filing a motion to withdraw his plea. In the past, this court has sustained denials of motions to withdraw guilty pleas on the basis of delays far shorter than the four-month delay in this case. See United States v. Baez, 87 F.3d 805, 808 (6th Cir.1996) (sixty-seven day delay); United States v. Goldberg, 862 F.2d 101, 104 (6th Cir.1988) (fifty-five day delay); United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236, 239 (6th Cir.1987) (thirty-five day delay). Furthermore, Pluta has offered no legitimate reason why he could not have- filed his motion at an earlier date. Pluta by his own admission was concerned about the agreed-upon statement of facts the very day he pled guilty. Rather than expressing these concerns to the district court during the Rule 11 hearing, Pluta instead informed the court that the agreed-upon statement of facts was an accurate description of what occurred on the night of February 1, 1995. Pluta now claims that his failure to seek a withdrawal of his plea at an earlier time was due to his ignorance of the Sentencing Guidelines. According to Pluta, he did not know that he" }, { "docid": "16994982", "title": "", "text": "See, e.g., United States v. Durham, 178 F.3d 796, 798-99 (6th Cir.1999) (noting that a delay of 77 days was the strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial); United States v. Baez, 87 F.3d 805, 808 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting that a delay of 67 days was the strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial); United States v. Goldberg, 862 F.2d 101, 104 (6th Cir.1988) (noting that a delay of 55 days was the strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial); United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236, 239 (6th Cir.1987) (noting that a delay of 22 days was the strongest factor supporting the district court’s denial). Second, Quinlan has not offered a legitimate explanation for such a lengthy delay. Attempting to show otherwise, he notes that he had two changes of counsel after the guilty plea, one of which arose from a conflict of interest in his representation. But the circumstances underlying each change in counsel do not advance Quinlan’s argument. One month after Quinlan signed the plea agreement, the federal public defender’s office learned that a different division of the office had represented individual homeowners whose mortgages had been affected by the MCA collapse, leading the office to withdraw from the representation. But Quinlan has not shown how this conflict affected his decision to plead guilty. Nor in this case is it clear how this kind of conflict could have impacted his decision to enter the plea. Six months after learning of this conflict and more than two months after his second attorney had been appointed, he pleaded guilty to similar charges under state law. The withdrawal of his second attorney does not change matters. His second attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel nine months after Quinlan signed the plea agreement because he had agreed to represent Quinlan on a limited basis, namely to represent him at sentencing. When Quinlan asked him instead to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, he explained that this request was inconsistent with his terms of engagement. Nothing about the withdrawal of this counsel offers any justification for Quinlan’s" }, { "docid": "23358877", "title": "", "text": "a district court’s decision denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Riascos-Suarez, 73 F.3d 616, 621 (6th Cir.1996). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. 32(e) provides in part: “[i]f a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendré is made before sentence is imposed, the court may permit the plea to be withdrawn if the defendant shows any fair and just reason.” Fed. R.Crim. P. 32(e). The purpose of the rule “is to allow a hastily entered plea made with unsure heart and confused mind to be undone.” United States v. Alexander, 948 F.2d 1002, 1004 (6th Cir.1991). The rule, however, was not designed as a tactical tool allowing a defendant “to enter a plea, wait several weeks, and then obtain a withdrawal if he believes that he made a bad choice in pleading guilty.” Id. (quoting United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 345 (5th Cir.1984)). To that end, the defendant has the burden of proving the existence of a “fair and just reason” supporting the withdrawal of his or her guilty plea. United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996). In deciding whether a defendant has demonstrated the existence of a “fair and just reason,” the district court should consider: (1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994). In this- case, none of the above-mentioned factors support Pluta’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Pluta waited more than four months before filing a motion to withdraw his plea. In the past, this court" }, { "docid": "23083913", "title": "", "text": "presented sufficient justification for withdraw. Hockenberry also maintains that his testimony calls into question whether his plea was knowing and intelligent. “We review de novo whether a defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently; however, [t]he underlying factual bases relied upon by the district court are reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Catchings, 708 F.3d 710, 716 (6th Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, “we review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.” Id. at 717. “A district court abuses its discretion where it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard.” Id. “A guilty plea is valid if it is entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.” United States v. Young Ko, 485 Fed.Appx. 102, 104 (6th Cir.2012). “The validity of a guilty plea is assessed by reviewing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea.” Id. The defendant must have a “sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d), a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea upon “showfing] a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). We look at the totality of the circumstances in considering whether a defendant has made a sufficient showing, including the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. Catchings, 708 F.3d at 717-18 (quoting United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994)). If" }, { "docid": "16994980", "title": "", "text": "months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay over $256 million in restitution to MCA’s investors and lenders. II. Quinlan initially argues that the district court should have permitted him to withdraw his guilty plea. Once a district court accepts a guilty plea after a proper Rule 11 hearing, a defendant may withdraw from the plea agreement only when he presents the court with a “fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R.Crim. Pro. 1 1(d)(2)(B). We review a distinct court’s rejection of such a motion for “abuse of discretion.” United States v. Denkins, 367 F.3d 537, 544 n. 3 (6th Cir. 2004); see United States v. Pluta, 144 F.3d 968, 973 (6th Cir.1998). To determine whether a defendant offered a “fair and just reason” for withdrawing a plea, we consider: “(1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted.” United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994). These considerations represent “a general, nonexclusive list and no one factor is controlling.” United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996). The district court acted within its discretion in concluding that the application of these factors did not entitle Quinlan to withdraw from the plea agreement. First, a considerable period of time — 13 months — lapsed between Quinlan’s guilty plea and his motion to withdraw, undermining his claim that a sincere change of heart, rather than an expedient change in strategy, prompted the motion. In upholding district court decisions rejecting plea-withdrawal motions, we have noted that far shorter periods of time represented the most significant factor in support of the district court’s decision." }, { "docid": "16994979", "title": "", "text": "did not pay his bills — for the limited purpose of representing Quinlan at sentencing. A few months later, the new counsel moved to withdraw because Quin-lan asked to withdraw his guilty plea, a legal strategy that exceeded the attorney’s agreed-upon scope of representation. The court granted the attorney’s request to withdraw on December 15, 2004. On December 21, the court appointed still another lawyer (his fourth) to serve as Quinlan’s counsel; and on April 5, 2005, Quinlan filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea through his new counsel. After conducting a hearing on Quinlan’s motion to withdraw his plea, the court denied the motion. At Quinlan’s sentencing hearing, the district court found that the enhancement for receipt of more than $1 million in profit, see U.S.S.G. § 2Fl.l(b)(7)(B), did not apply. Sentencing at 17. Treating the guidelines range of 87-108 months as advisory, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court explained that an above-guidelines variance was appropriate. It sentenced Quinlan to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay over $256 million in restitution to MCA’s investors and lenders. II. Quinlan initially argues that the district court should have permitted him to withdraw his guilty plea. Once a district court accepts a guilty plea after a proper Rule 11 hearing, a defendant may withdraw from the plea agreement only when he presents the court with a “fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R.Crim. Pro. 1 1(d)(2)(B). We review a distinct court’s rejection of such a motion for “abuse of discretion.” United States v. Denkins, 367 F.3d 537, 544 n. 3 (6th Cir. 2004); see United States v. Pluta, 144 F.3d 968, 973 (6th Cir.1998). To determine whether a defendant offered a “fair and just reason” for withdrawing a plea, we consider: “(1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or" }, { "docid": "20614573", "title": "", "text": "a lower sentence. The court did, however, vary downward four levels on its own initiative: two due to Giorgio’s acceptance of responsibility and two due to Giorgio’s assistance, “extraordi-nar[il]y good character,” and “dutiful obe■dience.” R. 369 at 13, 56-57. It sentenced him at the bottom of the (much-lowered) guideline range — to 27 months in prison. On appeal, Giorgio challenges the district court’s refusal to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. II. A defendant may withdraw his plea if he presents the district court with a “fair and just” reason for doing so. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). We review a district court’s decision to deny a plea withdrawal for abuse of discretion. United States v. Quinlan, 473 F.3d 273, 276 (6th Cir.2007). A. First Motion. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Giorgio’s first motion did not present a “fair and just” reason for withdrawal. It carefully considered the seven relevant guideposts in this context, United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994), six of which Giorgio barely contests and all of which cut against him. 1. A substantial amount of time — 118 days — elapsed between Giorgio’s plea entry and his plea withdrawal. We have held that far less time, 75 days for example, is “alone” enough to uphold the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. United States v. Valdez, 362 F.3d 903, 913 (6th Cir.2004); see also, e.g., United States v. Durham, 178 F.3d 796, 798-99 (6th Cir.1999) (77 days). 2. Giorgio did not suddenly decide to proclaim his innocence. He freely admitted his guilt throughout — before, during, and after trial. To this day, indeed, he has yet to disclaim his guilt. 3. The circumstances surrounding Giorgio’s plea suggest that it should not be withdrawn. Giorgio acknowledged the factual basis of his guilt in the plea agreement and did not challenge his guilt at the Rule 11 plea hearing. He stood by that view during trial. See Quinlan, 473 F.3d at 278. And it was only after his co-conspirators were acquitted that he changed his mind-and" }, { "docid": "23350906", "title": "", "text": "withdraw the plea. Judge Matia then sentenced Appellant to 320 months in prison, five years of supervised release, a fine of $25,000, and a $100 special assessment. II. A. The first issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Baez’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Alexander, 948 F.2d 1002, 1003 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1117, 112 S.Ct. 1231, 117 L.Ed.2d 465 (1992); United States v. Head, 927 F.2d 1361, 1375 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 846, 112 S.Ct. 144, 116 L.Ed.2d 110 (1991). Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a court may permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing “upon a showing by the defendant of any fair and just reason.” The defendant has the burden of proving that withdrawal of the plea is justified. United States v. Stephens, 906 F.2d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1990). In deciding whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a plea, the district court may consider a number of factors including: (1) the delay in filing the motion to withdraw the plea; (2) the reasons for any delay; (3) whether the defendant has consistently maintained his innocence; and (4) the circumstances underlying the plea and the background of the defendant. Alexander, 948 F.2d at 1004. Applying these factors to Baez’s case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baez’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Although Judge Matia did not specifically address each of the factors set forth above in ruling on defendant’s motion, it is clear that the factors support his denial of the motion. The strongest factors supporting the district court’s ruling are the sixty-seven day delay between the motion and the plea, and Baez’s failure to justify this extensive delay. In Alexander, this court commented on the significance of an extended delay between a plea and a motion to withdraw, stating: Courts have noted that the aim" }, { "docid": "23470914", "title": "", "text": "the district court may be withdrawn before a sentence is imposed if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” See generally United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670, 117 S.Ct. 1630, 137 L.Ed.2d 935 (1997) (analyzing Rule 32(e), which was transferred without change to Rule 11(d)(2)(B) as part of the 2002 Amendments to the Rules). In the Sixth Circuit, as in other circuits, a multi-factor balancing test has been developed to guide district courts in deciding whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. The factors in this circuit are the following: (1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994), superceded on other grounds as recognized in United States v. Caseslorente, 220 F.3d 727, 734 (6th Cir.2000). No one factor controls; the list is general and nonexclusive. United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996). The relevance of each factor will vary according to the “circumstances surrounding the original entrance of the plea as well as the motion to withdraw.” United States v. Triplett, 828 F.2d 1195, 1197 (6th Cir.1987). Plea withdrawals should generally not be allowed where a defendant has made “a tactical decision to enter a plea, wait[ed] several weeks, and then ... be lieves he made a bad choice in pleading guilty.” United States v. Alexander, 948 F.2d 1002, 1004 (6th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 345 (5th Cir.1984)). Rather, Rule 11(d)(2)(B) is designed “to allow a hastily entered plea made with unsure heart and confused mind to be" } ]

[ { "docid": "1290406", "title": "", "text": "Singh failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We find that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and we therefore reverse its grant of Singh’s habeas petition. However, we also find that Singh is entitled to direct review of his constitutional claims in this Court. And because Singh could not have known that he was in the wrong court — our case law pre-La-Guerre would have directed him to the district court rather than to this Court— we believe that he is entitled to another chance to argue his case. Historically, aliens facing deportation could petition the district courts for a writ of habeas corpus. In 1961, however, Congress consolidated judicial review of deportation orders in the courts of appeals to streamline the deportation process. See LaGuerre, 164 F.3d at 1038 (“The purpose of consolidating review in the courts of appeals and thus cutting out the district courts was to thwart the dilatory tactics frequently employed by lawyers for de-portable aliens.”). Then in 1996, Congress further curtailed judicial review. First, AEDPA § 440(a) amended INA § 106 to provide that “any final order of deportation against an alien who is deport-able by reason of having committed a [covered] criminal offense ... shall not be subject to review by any court.” 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(10) (repealed by IIRIRA, now see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)). Second, IIRIRA § 306(f)(1)(g) restricted review— for criminal and non-criminal deportees alike — in the following terms: Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). The Supreme Court recently recognized that § 1252(g) does not bar review generally but only review of the three listed discretionary decisions, namely to “commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.” See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, — U.S. -, -, 119 S.Ct. 936, 943, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999);" } ]

[ { "docid": "312529", "title": "", "text": "with the district court, claiming that the INS had violated his due process rights by impermissibly terminating the exclusion proceedings that it had brought against him. On December 22, 1998, we issued LaGuerre, 164 F.3d at 1039, in which we held that §§ 440(a) and 401(e) of the AED-PA precluded district courts from reviewing habeas corpus petitions presented to receive judicial review of the removal orders of deportees. On this basis, the district court dismissed Morales-Ramirez’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. II. Analysis As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the district court correctly dismissed Morales-Ramirez’s petition. Morales-Ramirez originally challenged his order of removal by habeas corpus petition filed in district court. However, section 306(f)(1)(g) of IIRIRA, enacted as 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), restricts review of “any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). In LaGuerre, we held that the 1996 amendments to the INA eliminate habeas corpus jurisdiction in all cases after the effective date of the statutes. LaGuerre, 164 F.3d at 1040; see also Singh v. Reno, 182 F.3d 504, 508 (7th Cir.1999). However, in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (hereinafter “AADC’), the Supreme Court recognized that § 1252(g) only bars district court review of the explicitly listed discretionary decisions of the Attorney General: to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases and execute removal orders, which potentially limited the scope of LaGuerre. After AADC, in Singh v. Reno, 182 F.3d at 509, we relied on the reasoning of La-Guerre to conclude that § 1252(g) applies whenever an alien makes an adjudicatory challenge to an order of removal, and for this reason, the district court has no jurisdiction to hear a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Several other circuits have interpreted AADC to preserve an alien’s right to petition for habeas corpus in cases where § 1252(g) does not apply. See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 608" }, { "docid": "17856075", "title": "", "text": "interpreted § 1252(g)’s bar on judicial review to apply only to claims arising from three final and discretionary actions taken by the Attorney General in immigration cases — her decision or action to: 1) commence proceedings; 2) adjudicate cases; or 3) execute removal orders. Id. The Court found that Congress in seeking to streamline removal proceedings, intended the section to be “specifically directed at the deconstruction, fragmentation, and hence prolongation of removal proceedings.” Id. at 945. The Court also observed that the lessened capacity for judicial review of deportees’ claims is appropriate because their removal “is necessary in order to bring to an end an ongoing violation of United States law.” Id. at 947. On the basis of the foregoing, the district court properly determined that Bhatt was an alien subject to a final order of removal. “When judicial review depends on a particular fact or legal conclusion, then a court may determine whether that condition exists.” Yang, 109 F.3d at 1192. Beyond that determination, the district court lacked jurisdiction to exercise any further review of Bhatt’s requests because those requests arose from the Attorney General’s discretionary decision to execute Bhatt’s removal order — and, § 1252(g) bars federal courts from reviewing such requests. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed. . This section is a codification of § 306(f)(1)(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (\"IIR-IRA”) and of § 242(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (\"INA”). . In Yang, this court held that § 242(g) of the INA divested the district court of jurisdiction to hear habeas requests from deportees arising from final orders of removal. . In LaGuerre, this court addressed challenges to the bar on judicial review, found in Section 440(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (\"AEDPA”), over criminal aliens’ claims arising from final orders of deportation. We reasoned that although habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was not explicitly repealed by the statute, the interpretation of the statute to repeal such review was not constitutionally problematic, especially in cases analogous to Bhatt’s, where the" }, { "docid": "17856071", "title": "", "text": "against him. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Further, although LaGuerre and Yang, as Bhatt correctly notes, involved deportees who were aliens convicted of crimes in the United States, we have recently held that§ 1252(g) applies to “criminal and noncriminal deportees alike.” Singh, 182 F.3d at 508. Moreover, we have consistently decided that Congress’s 1996 amendments to the INA, and specifically § 1252(g), foreclose virtually all judicial review of deportation, including habeas review, in cases to which it applies. See Singh, 182 F.3d at 508-09; Parra v. Perryman, 172 F.3d 954, 956-57 (7th Cir.1999); Yang, 109 F.3d 1185, 1195-96. See also LaGuerre, 164 F.3d at 1040 (discussing 1996 amendments and preclusion of most habeas review). Nonetheless, we allow exceptions from § 1252(g)-types of foreclosure of judicial review in the rare cases which present “substantial constitutional issues,” Singh, 182 F.3d at 507, 509-10, or “bizarre miscarriages of justice,” LaGuerre, 164 F.3d at 1040—issues over which the administra tive agencies lack jurisdiction to decide. For these issues, deportees can seek the safety valve of direct review in the court of appeals for judicial correction of these problems. See Singh, 182 F.3d at 509-11; LaGuerre, 164 F.3d at 1040. In La-Gnerre, we suggested that such review would be warranted in a case where the BIA ordered that an alien be removed on the basis of a criminal conviction that it knew had been vacated, but the BIA disregarded the alien’s changed criminal status because the alien was of a particular race. 164 F.3d at 1040. In Singh, we found such review warranted over a criminal deportee’s claims that his due process rights were violated because the INS’s four-year delay in recalendaring a hearing resulted in his ability to apply for a discretionary waiver from removal becoming foreclosed by the 1996 changes to the INA. See Singh, 182 F.3d at 510-11. Though Bhatt argues that this court’s decision in LaGueire left leeway for judicial review in situations such as his, his case is not one of the rare exceptions qualifying for the safety valve of judicial review. He does not articulate what matter of constitutional" }, { "docid": "6832152", "title": "", "text": "was not available in immigration cases when a right of direct review existed. See Hose v. INS, 141 F.3d 932, 935 (9th Cir.1998). In Hose, the petitioner ignored her undisputed right to judicial review via a petition for review filed in this Court and instead filed a habeas petition under § 2241. Hose considered the petitioner’s claims in light of newly enacted INA § 242(g), which provides: Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. INA § 242(g) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (Supp. II 1996)). In view of INA § 242(g), the court affirmed dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction, stating: Except as provided in section 1252, federal courts are divested of all jurisdiction to hear any claim by any alien involving an immigration proceeding. This means that no federal court has jurisdiction to consider any such matter. Section 1252 gives this court jurisdiction to hear those claims by way of a petition for review of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). Section 1252 does not give the district court jurisdiction to hear Hose’s habeas petition. Not having been granted jurisdiction under section 1252, that jurisdiction is removed just as the statute says it is. Hose, 141 F.3d at 935 (emphasis in original). The court further explained in considering Hose’s habeas petition that: Under IIRIRA, Congress has not attempt ed to preclude all federal court review of orders to exclude or remove aliens. Rather it has provided a streamlined approach for consideration by the courts of appeals of claims arising from those orders and the procedures leading to them. Id. at 936. Thus, Hóse wás decided in the context of an appeal of a discretionary administrative decision for which alternative judicial remedies existed. Magana-Pizano’s habeas corpus petition arises under polar opposite conditions: he has raised" }, { "docid": "17856076", "title": "", "text": "of Bhatt’s requests because those requests arose from the Attorney General’s discretionary decision to execute Bhatt’s removal order — and, § 1252(g) bars federal courts from reviewing such requests. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed. . This section is a codification of § 306(f)(1)(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (\"IIR-IRA”) and of § 242(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (\"INA”). . In Yang, this court held that § 242(g) of the INA divested the district court of jurisdiction to hear habeas requests from deportees arising from final orders of removal. . In LaGuerre, this court addressed challenges to the bar on judicial review, found in Section 440(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (\"AEDPA”), over criminal aliens’ claims arising from final orders of deportation. We reasoned that although habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was not explicitly repealed by the statute, the interpretation of the statute to repeal such review was not constitutionally problematic, especially in cases analogous to Bhatt’s, where the deportee does not challenge the INS's jurisdiction over him. See LaGuerre, 164 F.3d at 1038." }, { "docid": "17856074", "title": "", "text": "§ 1252(g) repeals the district court’s jurisdiction to consider petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As a result, he argues, the Supreme Court’s most recent decision regarding § 1252(g), Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 936, 943-45, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (“AADC”), does not apply to his case. In his view, AADC applies to limit litigation where there are disputes over the Attorney General’s decision to initiate or to defer particular non-final immigration actions. Moreover, he argues, AADC does so only in the specific context of a class of aliens claiming First Amendment violations. Bhatt misunderstands AADC’s holding. In AADC, the Supreme Court held that § 1252(g) deprived federal courts of jurisdiction to review the aliens’ claims that the INS had selectively initiated deportation proceedings against them for exercising their First Amendment rights to express controversial political views. The Court determined that these aliens’ claims arose from the Attorney General’s final, yet discretionary, decision to commence proceedings, and thus § 1252(g) barred judicial review. The Court narrowly and literally interpreted § 1252(g)’s bar on judicial review to apply only to claims arising from three final and discretionary actions taken by the Attorney General in immigration cases — her decision or action to: 1) commence proceedings; 2) adjudicate cases; or 3) execute removal orders. Id. The Court found that Congress in seeking to streamline removal proceedings, intended the section to be “specifically directed at the deconstruction, fragmentation, and hence prolongation of removal proceedings.” Id. at 945. The Court also observed that the lessened capacity for judicial review of deportees’ claims is appropriate because their removal “is necessary in order to bring to an end an ongoing violation of United States law.” Id. at 947. On the basis of the foregoing, the district court properly determined that Bhatt was an alien subject to a final order of removal. “When judicial review depends on a particular fact or legal conclusion, then a court may determine whether that condition exists.” Yang, 109 F.3d at 1192. Beyond that determination, the district court lacked jurisdiction to exercise any further review" }, { "docid": "17856069", "title": "", "text": "a final removal order. Bhatt contends that this court has distanced itself from encouraging such a conclusion when it decided LaGuerre v. Reno, 164 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir.1998). He argues that the LaGuerre decision authorizes judicial review of final removal decisions such as his. He contends further that given the historic importance of the writ of habeas corpus in this country, § 1252(g) should not be construed to deprive federal courts of their habeas jurisdiction over non-criminal deportees. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v. Bank of Farmington, 166 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir.1999). Judicial review of deportation orders was “greatly curtailed” when Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) in 1996. See Singh v. Reno, 182 F.3d 504, 507 (7th Cir.1999). Section 1252(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code states in relevant part that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review three specific final decisions of the Attorney General in immigration proceedings: Except as provided in this section, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. Bhatt first argues that § 1252(g) does not repeal habeas jurisdiction of the federal courts over deportees. He contends that federal habeas jurisdiction over immigration decisions has always resided in the federal courts, and therefore such a repeal would give too much power to Congress. Next, Bhatt argues that it is “unsound, as a matter of statutory construction” to assume that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was repealed when the statutory language of § 1252(g) does not explicitly repeal anything. Bhatt does not dispute that § 1252(g) applies to him. In his current status as an illegal alien, he sought district court review of his habeas and temporary restraining order requests that “arise[ ] from the decision and action ... by the Attorney General ... to execute removal orders”" }, { "docid": "6835867", "title": "", "text": "from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. IIRIRA, § 242(g), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). (This provision, while new, applies to Chowdhury’s case, given our holding that it is fully retroactive. See Lalani v. Perryman, 105 F.3d 334, 336 (7th Cir.1997).)- Chowdhury suggests that his claim does not fit within this prohibition because it arose not from the actions of the Attorney General or the Board, but from the actions of his former attorneys. He argues that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are common to all proceedings and do not arise from the peculiar nature of immigration proceedings or a decision to execute a deportation order. Nevertheless, at the end of the day Chowdhury was asking the district court to stay the execution of his deportation order, pending a Board decision on his motion to reopen. He was therefore attacking one of the three specific actions over which § 1252(g) forecloses review — the execution of a removal order — and was squarely within the jurisdictional bar. See Fedorca v. Perryman, 197 F.3d 236, 239-40 (7th Cir.1999). Some circuits have taken the position that § 1252(g) does not bar habeas corpus proceedings that were brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as Chowdhury’s was. See, e.g., Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106 (2d Cir.1998); Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110 (1st Cir.1998). This court, however, is not among them — at least not at that broad level of generality. Instead, we have held that § 1252(g) forecloses review even over § 2241 habeas proceedings. See Yang v. INS, 109 F.3d 1185, 1195 (7th Cir.1997). The only exception, which was not at issue in Yang, might be for something like the set of rare cases (in the slightly different context of § 440(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) in which we have recognized that an action under § 2241 might still be possible notwithstanding similarly forbidding language. See LaGuerre v. Reno, 164 F.3d 1035, 1040 (7th Cir.1998); Turkhan v. Perryman, 188 F.3d" }, { "docid": "16560511", "title": "", "text": "illness that would render him a danger to the community. ANALYSIS 1. Jurisdiction Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code establishes the court’s authority to grant writs of habeas corpus. Habeas relief is appropriate when a person “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). a. Repeal of Habeas Jurisdiction The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRI-RA”), Pub.L. No. 104-208, Div. G, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (enacted 9/30/96), amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) to restrict federal courts’ power of judicial review over “any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action of the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate eases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Section 1252(g), however, does not prevent this court from exercising jurisdiction over petitioner’s application for habeas corpus to the extent petitioner raises constitutional due process claims. See Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that procedural due process claims arising from unconstitutional INS administrative procedures were not claims arising from a “decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien”); Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 660, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996) (stating that congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction must be express). Petitioner’s habeas claim is a collateral constitutional due process challenge to his prolonged and indefinite detention and thus, not proscribed by the IIRIRA. The government notes that, prior to 1996, section 106(a)(10) of the “INA” provided that “any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation may obtain judicial review thereof by habeas corpus proceedings.” 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(l)(10) (1995) (emphasis added). This provision has been repealed, but not replaced with another provision specifically addressing custody. The amended version of 106(a)(10) provides that “[a]ny final order of deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed [an aggravated felony or firearms offense] shall not be subject" }, { "docid": "454564", "title": "", "text": "Mar. 27, 1868, ch. 34, § 2, 15 Stat 44.” Id. Yerger held that the repealing language used was “not of doubtful interpretation” and left intact jurisdiction granted by the Constitution and earlier acts. Yerger, 75 U.S. at 105. The language of IIRIRA is quite different. Section 1252(g) provides: Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (1997) (emphasis added). This language is clear. Except as provided in section 1252, federal courts are divested of all jurisdiction to hear any claim by any alien involving an immigration proceeding. This means that no federal court has jurisdiction to consider any such matter. Section 1252 gives this court jurisdiction to hear those claims by way of a petition for review of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). Section 1252 does not give the district court jurisdiction to hear Hose’s habeas petition.. Not having been granted jurisdiction under section 1252, that jurisdiction is removed just as the statute says it is. The Seventh, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits have reached this same conclusion. See Yang v. I.N.S., 109 F.3d 1185, 1195 (7th Cir.1997) (section 1252 “abolishes even review under section 2241 ____”), cert. denied sub nom. Katsoulis v. I.N.S., — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 624, 139 L.Ed.2d 605 (1997); Auguste v. Attorney General, 118 F.3d 723, 725-26. (11th Cir.1997) (review of final orders of removal “can only be initiated in a court of appeals.”); Ramallo v. Reno, 114 F.3d 1210 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“IIRIRA now undisputably deprives” the district courts of such jurisdiction). The First and Second Circuits have held that IIRIRA does not strip district courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions challenging deportation orders. See Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 113, 120-21 (1st Cir.1998); Jearir-Baptiste v. Reno, 144 F.3d 212, 218-20 (2d Cir.1998). As these decisions are" }, { "docid": "19120056", "title": "", "text": "offense covered by section 241(a)(2)(A)(ii) for which both predicate offenses are covered by section 241(a)(2)(A)(I) shall not be subject to review by any court. (emphasis added). Petitioner argues that habeas corpus review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 survives this amendment because, pursuant to the “clear statement” rule, habeas corpus jurisdiction cannot be repealed by implication. Felker v. Turpin, - U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 2339, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996). The Court reluctantly disagrees. By removing a clear grant of habeas jurisdiction and replacing it with sweeping language that forecloses all judicial review, Congress has plainly expressed its intent to repeal habeas corpus review where the alien is being deported for having committed one of the criminal offenses enumerated in Section 440(a), and the Court will not resort to formalistic methods of statutory interpretation to thwart clear congressional intent. Accord Powell v. Jennifer, 937 F.Supp. 1245, 1252 (E.D.Mich.1996); Mbiya v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 930 F.Supp. 609, 612 (S.D.Ga.1996). 2. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act Consistent with one of its primary purpose of expediting the removal of unlawful aliens from the United States, -the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), enacted on September 30,1996, further reduces the role of federal courts in reviewing orders of removal. Section 306(a) of the IIRIRA states: EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. Except as provided in- this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (as amended by IIRIRA § 306(a)) (emphasis added). This provision limits an alien seeking judicial review of a deportation order to those avenues available in Section 1252 and otherwise divests federal courts of jurisdiction to hear such claims. Auguste v. Attorney General, 118 F.3d 723, 725 (11th Cir.1997) (“[N]o court has jurisdiction to review [orders of removal] except as provided by newly amended 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252.”). It is" }, { "docid": "11805869", "title": "", "text": "U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Since this court decided Thomas, at least two circuit courts of appeals have published decisions in which they concluded that the 1996 amendments to the INA completely repealed the habeas corpus jurisdiction of federal courts under § 2241 with respect to immigration matters. Richardson v. Reno, 162 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir.1998); LaGuerre v. Reno, 164 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir.1998). Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has discussed the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) and has, in INS v. Magana-Pizano, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1137, 143 L.Ed.2d 206 (1999), vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Magana-Pizano v. INS, 152 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir.1998) and remanded it for fur ther consideration in light of Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999). In Richardson, the Eleventh Circuit held that “[sjimply put, IIRIRA strips ah jurisdiction, including § 2241 habeas, from the district courts, [and] places exclusive judicial review in the court of appeals.” Richardson, 162 F.3d at 1345. It reached this conclusion after discussing the various amendments to the INA by IIRIRA. Specifically, the court in Richardson held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) “clearly and unequivocally precludes any jurisdiction [including habeas corpus jurisdiction] in the district court except that provided in [8 U.S.C. § 1252].” Richardson, 162 F.3d at 1357. The Richardson court went on to point out that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 does not provide ha-beas corpus review of deportation/removal orders. Moreover, the Richardson court held that while there is no express language in the INA repealing habeas jurisdiction over immigration matters, the broad language employed by Congress in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) “repeals any statutory jurisdiction over immigration decisions other than conferred by [8 U.S.C. § 1252]. That repeal includes § 2241 habeas jurisdiction over immigration decisions by the Attorney General under the INA.” Richardson, 162 F.3d at 1358. The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that the specific statutory grant of habeas jurisdiction in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) “evidences Congress’ ability to" }, { "docid": "17856070", "title": "", "text": "of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. Bhatt first argues that § 1252(g) does not repeal habeas jurisdiction of the federal courts over deportees. He contends that federal habeas jurisdiction over immigration decisions has always resided in the federal courts, and therefore such a repeal would give too much power to Congress. Next, Bhatt argues that it is “unsound, as a matter of statutory construction” to assume that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was repealed when the statutory language of § 1252(g) does not explicitly repeal anything. Bhatt does not dispute that § 1252(g) applies to him. In his current status as an illegal alien, he sought district court review of his habeas and temporary restraining order requests that “arise[ ] from the decision and action ... by the Attorney General ... to execute removal orders” against him. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Further, although LaGuerre and Yang, as Bhatt correctly notes, involved deportees who were aliens convicted of crimes in the United States, we have recently held that§ 1252(g) applies to “criminal and noncriminal deportees alike.” Singh, 182 F.3d at 508. Moreover, we have consistently decided that Congress’s 1996 amendments to the INA, and specifically § 1252(g), foreclose virtually all judicial review of deportation, including habeas review, in cases to which it applies. See Singh, 182 F.3d at 508-09; Parra v. Perryman, 172 F.3d 954, 956-57 (7th Cir.1999); Yang, 109 F.3d 1185, 1195-96. See also LaGuerre, 164 F.3d at 1040 (discussing 1996 amendments and preclusion of most habeas review). Nonetheless, we allow exceptions from § 1252(g)-types of foreclosure of judicial review in the rare cases which present “substantial constitutional issues,” Singh, 182 F.3d at 507, 509-10, or “bizarre miscarriages of justice,” LaGuerre, 164 F.3d at 1040—issues over which the administra tive agencies lack jurisdiction to decide. For these issues, deportees can seek the safety valve of direct review in the" }, { "docid": "17856068", "title": "", "text": "The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed both of his requests. In reaching its decision, the court relied primarily on the language in § 1252(g) and on this court’s decision in Yang v. INS, 109 F.3d 1185 (7th Cir.1997). In addition, the district court noted that this court in Yang found that the possibility of habeas review under the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 2, was foreclosed because such review did not extend to “discretionary decisions by the political branches of government.” District Court Order of October 20, 1998 (quoting Yang, 109 F.3d at 1195). Analysis On appeal, Bhatt confines his arguments to the sole issue of whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to address a deportee’s habeas claims after the INS has issued him a final order of removal. He challenges as faulty the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the court relied on Yang in order to conclude that the recently-amended § 1252(g) deprived district courts of jurisdiction over a challenge to a final removal order. Bhatt contends that this court has distanced itself from encouraging such a conclusion when it decided LaGuerre v. Reno, 164 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir.1998). He argues that the LaGuerre decision authorizes judicial review of final removal decisions such as his. He contends further that given the historic importance of the writ of habeas corpus in this country, § 1252(g) should not be construed to deprive federal courts of their habeas jurisdiction over non-criminal deportees. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v. Bank of Farmington, 166 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir.1999). Judicial review of deportation orders was “greatly curtailed” when Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) in 1996. See Singh v. Reno, 182 F.3d 504, 507 (7th Cir.1999). Section 1252(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code states in relevant part that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review three specific final decisions of the Attorney General in immigration proceedings: Except as provided in this section, and notwithstanding any other provision" }, { "docid": "6592152", "title": "", "text": "granting an extension, and if he did not voluntarily depart to be deported as set forth by the immigration judge. Mr. Riley did not appeal the BIA’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, nor did he voluntarily depart. On August 30, 1999, a warrant of deportation was issued based on Mr. Riley’s final deportation order. When Mr. Riley did not appear for deportation by September 21, 1999, he was arrested and transferred to the Wackenhut Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado, where he currently is held. II. Standard of Review A. Jurisdiction Respondent first asks that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In support of this argument Respondent cites the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 242(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (Supp. IV 1998) that was enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), and Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, et al., 525 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (“AADC ”). Specifically, Respondent contends that under § 242(g) there is no jurisdiction in any federal court to consider the Attorney General’s decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal orders, except as provided otherwise under § 242 of the INA. Respondent further con tends that because the application is only an attempt by Mr. Riley to delay, and further frustrate the INS’s efforts to enforce a final deportation order issued against him, it is not judicially reviewable. Respondent cites to AADC; Bhatt v. Reno, 204 F.3d 744, 748 (7th Cir.1999) (affirming the district court’s holding that § 242(g) barred federal court jurisdiction to review the alien’s habeas corpus action, which was filed after the INS issued a letter directing him to report for deportation, when the alien had already obtained full administrative and judicial review of his challenges to the final deportation order); and Mapoy v. Carroll, 185 F.3d 224, 228 (4th Cir.1999) (holding that § 242(g) precluded jurisdiction to review the petitioner’s “thinly veiled attempt to evade the dictates” of the statute, when he filed suit challenging deportation and seeking release from detention" }, { "docid": "18061954", "title": "", "text": "242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act) and provides limits on judicial review of immigration matters. Section 242(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as amended by IIRIRA, provides as follows: (g) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate eases, or execute removal orders against any alien under [the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) ]. See IIRIRA § 306. Most of the amendments to the INA made pursuant to the IIRIRA do not effect habeas corpus petitions filed prior to the effective date of April 1, 1997. Section 1252(g), however applies retroactively, “without limitation to claims arising from all past, pending or future exclusion, deportation or removal proceedings.” Dorean Vayspitter v. United States General Attorney, 1997 WL 299372, *3 (E.D.La. June 3, 1997); IIRIRA section 306, as amended October 11, 1996 Pub.L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3656, 3657. Because of Section 1252(g), the Government contends that under the clear terms of § 242(g) of the INA, as amended by the IIRIRA, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s claims. In support of their contention, the government cites two recent decisions, Yang v. I.N.S., 109 F.3d 1185 (7th Cir.1997) and Safarian v. Reno, 968 F.Supp. 1101 (E.D.La. 1997). In Yang, the Seventh Circuit held that under § 242(g) the district courts are precluded from exercising jurisdiction over deportation-related matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or any other provision of law. In so holding, the Yang court emphasized that, “Congress wanted to expedite the removal of criminal aliens from the United States by eliminating judicial review, not to delay removal by requiring aliens to start the review process in the district court rather than the court of appeals.” Yang, 109 F.3d at 1195. Next, the government cites Safarían, supra, in which the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that, “the express provisions of the" }, { "docid": "15430141", "title": "", "text": "for permanent resident status; their eligibility derives from their spouses, who have been granted suspension of deportation and lawful resident status in immigration proceedings under NACARA. The INS declined to consider Appellants’ applications because it lacked jurisdiction. Under the applicable regulations, since Appellants’ respective spouses were granted suspension of deportation by the Immigration Court in deportation proceedings, only the Immigration Court, and not the INS, has jurisdiction to adjudicate Appellants’ applications. Appellants filed a class action suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Appellants’ complaint sought mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the Attorney General and the INS to accept and process their applications under NACARA to obtain lawful permanent resident status. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because section 1252(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act precludes judicial review of the Attorney General’s discretion to commence removal proceedings in order to process the applications. Appellants now appeal that judgment. II. DISCUSSION The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing Appellants’ complaint. We review the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Bhatt v. Reno, et al., 204 F.3d 744, 746 (7th Cir.1999). Under the applicable statutory and regulatory framework, the INS can only determine whether an applicant is eligible for the discretionary grant of suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal in deportation or removal proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 240.62(b) (2001). The Immigration and Nationality Act grants the Attorney General exclusive jurisdiction over any decision to commence removal proceedings and expressly precludes federal court jurisdiction over any action implicating a decision of the Attorney General regarding commencement of removal proceedings. Section 1252(g) of this act reads: Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. 8 U.S.C. §" }, { "docid": "17114864", "title": "", "text": "for reasonable cause and upon appropriate notice” must therefore be the baseline from which all subsequent actions in this case (whether taken by the INS or Boguslaw) shall begin. B. The only conceivable fly in this ointment comes from 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), the statute on which the district court relied, which forecloses challenges to certain decisions and actions of the Attorney General. This is the principal argument the INS has made in its effort to defend the Chicago District Director’s decision. The statute, which was adopted by Congress as part of the IIRIRA’s general curtailing of judicial review in immigration cases, reads: “Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.” Perhaps this language could have been construed as the INS urges, to preclude jurisdiction merely because Bogus-law is raising a grievance around the same time that the INS is planning to execute a removal order. The Supreme Court, however, has instructed otherwise. In Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999), the Court held that § 1252(g) restricts the district courts’ power only in the three circumstances discussed in the text: when the alien challenges discretionary actions taken by the Attorney General to (1) commence proceedings, (2) adjudicate cases, and (3) execute removal orders. AADC, 525 U.S. at 482, 119 S.Ct. 936. See also Bhatt v. Reno, 204 F.3d 744, 747 (7th Cir.2000). This court has held that § 1252(g) precludes jurisdiction even in habeas cases such as this one, but (perhaps obviously) only where the statute is applicable — ie. the three areas that the Supreme Court noted in AADC. See Singh v. Reno, 182 F.3d 504, 508-09 (7th Cir.1999) (holding § 1252(g) applicable to habeas claim that challenged INS deportation decision). This case does not fall into any of those categories." }, { "docid": "6592153", "title": "", "text": "no jurisdiction in any federal court to consider the Attorney General’s decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal orders, except as provided otherwise under § 242 of the INA. Respondent further con tends that because the application is only an attempt by Mr. Riley to delay, and further frustrate the INS’s efforts to enforce a final deportation order issued against him, it is not judicially reviewable. Respondent cites to AADC; Bhatt v. Reno, 204 F.3d 744, 748 (7th Cir.1999) (affirming the district court’s holding that § 242(g) barred federal court jurisdiction to review the alien’s habeas corpus action, which was filed after the INS issued a letter directing him to report for deportation, when the alien had already obtained full administrative and judicial review of his challenges to the final deportation order); and Mapoy v. Carroll, 185 F.3d 224, 228 (4th Cir.1999) (holding that § 242(g) precluded jurisdiction to review the petitioner’s “thinly veiled attempt to evade the dictates” of the statute, when he filed suit challenging deportation and seeking release from detention after the INS issued a letter ordering him to report for deportation, and his administrative deportation proceedings were complete). Section 1252(g) provides that: Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. The Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted § 1252(g) to apply only to the three discrete actions of the Attorney General specified in the statute including the acts of commencing proceedings, adjudicating cases, or executing removal orders. See AADC, 525 U.S. at 482, 119 S.Ct. 936. The Supreme Court in AADC found that there are many other decisions or actions that may be part of the deportation process including the refusal to reconsider a final deportation order. AADC, 525 U.S. at 482, 119 S.Ct. 936. Mr. Riley asserts violations of his right to due process in the" }, { "docid": "15430142", "title": "", "text": "in dismissing Appellants’ complaint. We review the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Bhatt v. Reno, et al., 204 F.3d 744, 746 (7th Cir.1999). Under the applicable statutory and regulatory framework, the INS can only determine whether an applicant is eligible for the discretionary grant of suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal in deportation or removal proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 240.62(b) (2001). The Immigration and Nationality Act grants the Attorney General exclusive jurisdiction over any decision to commence removal proceedings and expressly precludes federal court jurisdiction over any action implicating a decision of the Attorney General regarding commencement of removal proceedings. Section 1252(g) of this act reads: Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). In Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (“AADC’), the United States Supreme Court emphasized that Congress clearly intended to bar judicial review of a decision to commence removal proceedings, stating that the purpose of section 1252(g) is to “give some measure of protection ... to discretionary determinations” of the Attorney General, and to prevent “separate rounds of judicial intervention outside the streamlined process that Congress has designed.” Id. at 485, 119 S.Ct. 936. If judicial review of a decision to commence proceedings is barred, it follows that section 1252(g) also precludes judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision not to commence removal proceedings. Alvidres-Reyes v. Reno, 180 F.3d 199, 205 (5th Cir.1999). Appellants insist that the federal court retains jurisdiction over their complaint because they are not explicitly asking the court to order the Attorney General to initiate proceedings against them; they simply want their applications processed. Appellants’ request, however, necessarily compels the Attorney General to commence proceedings in order to consider their applications. Appellants’" } ]

[ { "docid": "23046861", "title": "", "text": "of discretion” standard is a strict one and has been defined in United States v. Yoakum, 8 M.J. 763 (A.C.M.R. 1980), aff'd. on other grounds, 9 M.J. 417 (C.M.A. 1980), as follows: Quoting United States v. Glenn, 473 F.2d 191, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1972). To reverse for “an abuse of discretion involves far more than a difference in ... opinion. \\. The challenged action must ... be found to be ‘arbitrary, fanciful, clearly unreasonable,’ or ‘clearly erroneous’ in order to be invalidated on appeal.” “An abuse of discretion arises in cases in which the judge was controlled by some error of law or where the order, based upon factual, as distinguished from legal, conclusions, is without evidentiary support.” Renney v. Dobbs House, Inc., 275 S.C. 562, 274 S.E. 2d 290, 291 (1981), citing Stewart v. Floyd, 274 S.C. 437, 265 S.E. 2d 254 (1980). We have reviewed the record of trial in light of appellant’s assertion that his right to a fair trial was violated by the military judge’s refusal to close the court room. Although we find nothing in the record to show that the public or the press were clamoring to get into the courtroom, and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate what motivated the military judge to deny this simple request, there is likewise nothing in the record to show that appellant’s fear of reprisal was justified. Appellant did not elect to obtain the CID testimony in some other form recognized as proper mitigating material, such as by deposition, affidavit, or letter endorsed by the CID command. R.C.M. 1001(c)(3), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984; see also Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 2743, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (requiring court to “consider whether alternatives short of complete closure would have protected the interests of the accused”). Appellant was never denied the opportunity to present this evidence in an open courtroom; his failure to do so was his own election. Although we agree with appellant that the public’s interest in his trial was likely very small when balanced" } ]

[ { "docid": "6328281", "title": "", "text": "three motions to dismiss. See United States v. New, 50 M.J. 729, 735 (Army Ct.Crim.App.1999) (“New I”). As a result, petitioner was precluded at trial from presenting evidence to the court-martial panel' challenging the justification for the deployment and the legality of the orders. See id. Petitioner did, however, introduce sworn testimony and several exhibits in support of his motions, and the military judge made several findings of fact subsidiary to the determination of lawfulness. See id. at 737-38; Plaintiffs Motion to Reopen Proceeding and Substitute Parties Respondent, and for Leave to File an Amended and Supplemental Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, App. 2 at 422-33 (“Trial Record”). The military judge also found the deployment order’s lawfulness to be irrelevant because it was only the uniform order that petitioner was accused of disobeying. See Trial Record at 429; New I, 50 M.J. at 737-38. Petitioner subsequently was tried and convicted. Because of the pretrial rulings, his defense was limited to asserting the affirmative defenses of mistake, inability, and obedience to higher orders. See New I, 50 M.J. at 735. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (“ACCA”), which affirmed petitioner’s conviction on April 28, 1999, see New I, 50 M.J. 729, and then to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (“CAAF”), which affirmed the conviction on June 13, 2001. See United States v. New, 55 M. J. 95 (U.S. Armed Forces 2001) (“New II ”). Petitioner’s appeal to the ACCA raised several challenges to the military judge’s rulings. Petitioner first contended that the military judge’s decision to rule on the lawfulness of the orders as a matter of law, rather than have the court-martial panel decide the question as one of fact, deprived petitioner of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Both appellate courts rejected petitioner’s constitutional challenge and affirmed the military judge’s ruling as proper under the UCMJ and the military courts’ own jurisprudence. See New I, 50 M.J. at 738; New II, 55 M.J. at 101-02 (citing United States v. Carson, 15 USCMA 407," }, { "docid": "1191149", "title": "", "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: Consistent with his pleas, the appellant was convicted by a military judge sitting as a general court-martial of attempted forcible sodomy and forcible sodomy, in violation of Articles 80 and 125, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880 and 925 (1982). He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for five years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to Private El. Pursuant to the terms of a pretrial agreement, the convening authority reduced the period of confinement to twelve months and otherwise approved the adjudged sentence. Although this case was submitted on its merits, there is one matter that deserves discussion. Following arraignment, the trial defense counsel made the following request to the military judge: “Due to the sensitive nature of the charges, we would request that the court be closed for spectators and others in the courtroom dur.ing providency.” Without articulating his reasons, the military judge instructed all spectators to withdraw from the courtroom, with the exception of the company commander and the escorts. In so doing, the military judge abused his discretion. The right of the public and the press to attend criminal trials, including courts-martial, is guaranteed under the first and fourteenth amendments. United States v. Fiske, 28 M.J. 1013 (A.F.C.M.R. 1989) , review denied, 30 M.J. 212 (C.M.A. 1990) . As Judge Cox has noted, “... public confidence in matters of military justice would quickly erode if courts-martial were arbitrarily closed to the public.” United States v. Travers, 25 M.J. 61 (C.M.A.1987). The Manual for Courts-Martial generally provides that “courts-martial shall be open to the public.” Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, Rule for Courts-Martial 806(a) [hereinafter R.C.M. 806(a) ]. Although a military judge has discretion to close a session, absent an overriding inter est articulated in findings, a court-martial must be open to the public. See R.C.M. 806(b), discussion. We conclude that prior to excluding all or portions of the public from viewing a court-martial, the military judge must articulate findings warranting, and limiting as narrowly as possible, the infringement upon the constitutional right of" }, { "docid": "3791626", "title": "", "text": "Specification of Charge III: Guilty. And of Charge III: Guilty. Of Specification 1 of Charge IV: Guilty. Of Specification 2 of Charge TV: Guilty. And of Charge IV: Guilty. The military judge inadvertently and mistakenly made a finding of guilty to Specification 3 of Charge III and Charge III instead of Specification 3 of Charge II and Charge II. The military judge failed to discover the error prior to her authentication of the rec ord. Although the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) advised the convening authority that the appellant had pled guilty to Specification 3 of Charge II, the SJAR failed to mention the military judge’s error. Unfortunately, because of the failures of the military judge and the staff judge advocate to detect the error, no proceeding in revision was ordered pursuant to Rule for Courts Martial 1102 [hereinafter R.C.M.] to correct the findings. LAW Article 53, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 853, and R.C.M. 922(a) require that a court-martial announce its findings to the parties promptly in open court after they have been determined. This court has held that “the statutory right of announcement of all findings in open court is a substantial right of the accused.” United States v. Dilday, 47 C.M.R. 172, 174 (A.C.M.R.1973). We recognized in Dilday, however, that not all errors in the announcement of findings materially prejudice this substantial right. Id. at 173; see also United States v. Kolodjay, 53 M.J. 732, 734 (Army Ct.Crim.App.1999), petition denied, 55 M.J. 360 (CAAF 2001); United States v. Moser, 23 M.J. 568 (A.C.M.R.1986), set aside on other grounds, 26 M.J. 170 (C.M.A.1988); United States v. Jones, 46 M.J. 815, 816-17 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App.1997); United States v. Timmerman, 28 M.J. 531 (A.F.C.M.R.1989); see generally United States v. Kulathungam, 54 M.J. 386 (2001). “[Ijnaccuracies in a verdict have been held to be immaterial if the intention is evident from the record.” United States v. Johnson, 22 M.J. 945, 946 (A.C.M.R.1986) (citation omitted). The announcement of a verdict “is sufficient if it decides the questions in issue in such a way as to enable the court intelligently to base judgment thereon and can" }, { "docid": "12125177", "title": "", "text": "DECISION PER CURIAM: No specific errors have been assigned by appellate defense counsel, and our review of the record discloses none in any way affecting the accused. However, we do detect an error detrimental to public interest. Pursuant to her pleas, the accused was convicted of three transfers of marihuana to another Air Force member. Shortly before her court-martial, she was convicted by a civilian court on a charge of possession of marijuana. Without substantial foundation, or adequate findings of fact, the military judge, at the request of the accused, excluded spectators from the courtroom during her testimony in the sentencing phase of the trial. The stated reason for the request was that the testimony would be “sensitive and personal.” In fact, what the accused related (in addition to circumstances of the offenses) were the conditions of civilian confinement she encountered following her arrest and pursuant to her 20 day jail sentence. It is well established that the meaning of the right to a public trial in courts-martial is as full and complete as in civilian courts. United States v. Grunden, 2 M.J. 116 (C.M.A.1977); United States v. Mercier, 5 N.J. 866 (A.F.C.M.R.1978); pet. denied 6 M.J. 157 (C.M.A.1978); United States v. Moses, 4 M.J. 847 (A.C.M.R.1978), pet. denied 5 M.J. 207 (C.M.A.1978). Recently the Supreme Court of the United States amplified that right in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). In the principal opinion in that case, the Chief Justice stated: A trial courtroom is a public place where people generally-and representatives of the media-have a right to be present, and where their presence historically has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place, [footnote omitted]. 100 S.Ct. at 2828. To work effectively, it is important that society’s criminal process “satisfy the appearance of justice,” and the appearance of justice can best be provided by allowing people to observe it. [citation omitted]. 100 S.Ct. at 2825. Absent an overriding interest articulated in findings, the trial of a criminal case must be open to the public, [footnote" }, { "docid": "3914926", "title": "", "text": "the standard set forth in United States v. Kincheloe, i.e., “[a]ny conduct that would lead a reasonable man knowing all the circumstances to the conclusion that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned is a basis for the judge’s disqualification.” 14 M.J. 40, 50 (C.M.A.1982) (quotation marks omitted); see also Wright, 52 M.J. at 141; Quintanilla, 56 M.J. at 78. Because not every judicial disqualification requires reversal, we have also adopted the standards announced by the Supreme Court in Liljeberg to determine whether a military judge’s conduct warrants that remedy to vindicate public confidence in the military justice system. United States v. Butcher, 56 M.J. 87, 92 (C.A.A.F.2001). The Errors The record of trial demonstrates that Judge Boudreau presided over Martinez’s arraignment and subsequently detailed Judge Molloy as judge for Martinez’s trial. As noted, she was also Judge Molloy’s rater and supervisory judge. Although Judge Bou-dreau did not preside over Martinez’s trial, she continued to have judicial responsibilities pursuant to R.C.M. 1104(a)(2) to authenticate the portion of the record of the proceedings over which she presided. In addition, she continued to have administrative responsibility for the circuit judiciary in her capacity as Chief Circuit Judge for the circuit in which the court-martial was conducted and as Judge Molloy’s supervisor. These ongoing responsibilities required that Judge Bou-dreau ensure that her conduct did not provide a basis to question either her or Judge Molloy’s impartiality during Martinez’s court-martial. Rule 1.2 of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct (Model Code) mirrored by the Code of Judicial Conduct for Army Trial and Appellate Judges (Army Code) provides that “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.” Paramount among Judge Bou-dreau’s continuing ethical responsibilities, consistent with the Model Code and pursuant to the Army Code, was to ensure against improper ex parte communications and the appearance of partiality. Specifically, Rule 2.9 provides a general prohibition against initiating, permitting, or considering ex parte communications involving substantive matters, except in" }, { "docid": "1067106", "title": "", "text": "his address. The requirement that the appellant’s absence be voluntary necessarily requires an informed and intentional choice in the matter, which, in turn, requires the appellant’s knowledge of the trial date. Appellant’s knowledge of such date was not adequately demonstrated on the record. As the Court noted in United States v. Staten, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 493, 495-96, 45 C.M.R. 267, 270-71 (1972), the right of an accused “to be present during trial is fundamental” and I am unwilling to invoke a waiver of such right under the circumstances. The parties have informed us that the appellant was returned to military control on April 15, 1974, and continuously confined until August 12, 1975, when he was released on parole. In view of the protracted nature of the proceedings, the appellant’s discharge from the military, and the appellant’s service of a substantial portion of the confinement, we deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings. See United States v. King, 2 M.J. 4 (1976); United States v. Robbins, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 86, 39 C.M.R. 86 (1969); United States v. Sheeks, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 430, 37 C.M.R. 50 (1966). The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is reversed, and the charges and their specifications are ordered dismissed. Chief Judge FLETCHER concurs in the result. . Contrary to earlier decisions, this Court held in United States v. Ware, 1 M.J. 282 (1976), that a military judge is not required to accede to the determination of the convening authority reviewing a trial ruling grant- . ing a defense motion to dismiss that does not amount ,to a finding of not guilty. See Article 62(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862(a). . A motion for a finding of not guilty was granted as to a charge of larceny. . The Secretary of the Army reduced the confinement to 8 years. . The appellant’s petition for a new trial was denied by the Court. . In this case, the appellant was arraigned at an Article 39(a) session convened pursuant to Court-Martial Convening Order #10, dated September 1, 1972. The trial on the merits took" }, { "docid": "19959346", "title": "", "text": "that she has told this story repetitively, Your Honor, in front of adults and I see — this is not-substantially different. MJ: Okay. I’m going to grant the government’s request and order the bailiff and the escort out of the courtroom. And if you would ensure that no one enters until Miss [¶] leaves the courtroom. The bailiff and appellant’s escort departed the courtroom and DH entered, apparently accompanied by her social worker. Her testimony lasted less than an hour. The Court of Military Review held that the closure of the court during the witness’ testimony “was not an abuse of discretion” in view of the age of the witness, the nature of the charges, the lack of a jury, and the relationship between the witness and appellant. The court concluded that the military “judge properly balanced the right of the appellant to a public trial against the right of the ... witness to be spared undue embarrassment.” 17 M.J. at 974. There is little support in the record for the court’s post hoc assertions, however, as no evidence was presented on the motion and the military judge made no findings. Thus, we are left to speculate why trial counsel’s request was granted, particularly in view of the fact that only two persons were present to exclude from the courtroom. Without question, the. sixth-amendment right to a public trial is applicable to courts-martial. United States v. Grunden, 2 M.J. 116 (C.M.A.1977); United States v. Brown, 7 U.S.C.M.A 251, 22 C.M.R. 41 (1956). A public trial is believed to effect a fair result by ensuring that all parties perform their functions more responsibly, encouraging witnesses to come forward, and discouraging perjury. Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984); Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979). Although the right to a public trial is not absolute and the trial judge has authority to close limited portions of a trial over defense objection, closure of the court must be done “sparingly with the emphasis always toward a public trial.” United" }, { "docid": "15755494", "title": "", "text": "of a number of possible methodologies for demonstrating prejudice from inordinate post-trial delay (either preceding or following action by the CA), this appellant has not done so, and thus falls short of carrying that burden. Dunbar, 28 M.J. at 980 n. 5. Absent what we have earlier called “verified or verifiable prejudice,” relief is unavailable. See United States v. Agosto, 43 M.J. 853, 854 (N.M.Ct. Crim.App.1996). Mental Capacity The appellant next asserts a lack of mental capacity to stand trial. Appellant’s Brief at 17-19. She raises, for the first time, the issue of her ability to understand and appreciate the nature of the proceedings against her or to cooperate intelligently in the defense of her case below. Rule for Courts-Martial 909, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.) [hereinafter R.C.M.]. The appellant asserts that, while the military judge recognized the issue of mental capacity, he failed to decide the issue as an interlocutory question of fact as it was is duty to do. R.C.M. 909; Appellant’s Brief at 18. The appellant testified “lucidly and at length” twice before the military judge, and twice before the members. This testimony convinces us that she had a clear understanding of the nature of the proceedings, the law governing the charges, and her potential defenses, and was able to materially assist in her own defense. Record at 51-57, 259-301, 820-77, and 972-75. While her military trial defense counsel may find some retrospective question of her ability to act in her own best interest, she clearly demonstrated a grasp of her plight and made continuing, conscious attempts at avoiding conviction at trial. Her tardy attack on her capacity to stand trial, when viewed in the light of the trial record itself, does not adequately raise the issue or disturb the waiver of that issue inherent under R.C.M. 905(e). We find no substantiation of lack of any capacity beyond those matters listed in her brief before this court and in the statements of Major Folsom and Mr. Moore. In contrast, the defense evidence presented at trial clearly supports the appellant’s mental capacity and responsibility. In a" }, { "docid": "18470198", "title": "", "text": "military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Eberle, 44 M.J. 374, 375 (C.A.A.F.1996) (citing United States v. Gallegos, 41 M.J. 446 (C.A.A.F.1995)). “Pleas of guilty should not be set aside on appeal unless there is ‘a “substantial basis” in law and fact for questioning the guilty plea.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Prater, 32 M.J. 433, 436 (C.M.A.1991)). “If an accused ‘sets up matter inconsistent with the plea’ at any time during the proceeding, the military judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea.” United States v. Garcia, 44 M.J. 496, 498 (C.A.A.F.1996) (quoting Article 45(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845(a) (2000)); Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 910(h)(2). “Once the military judge has accepted a plea as provident and has entered findings based on it, an appellate court will not reverse that finding and reject the plea unless it finds a substantial conflict between the plea and the accused’s statements or other evidence of record.” Garcia, 44 M.J. at 498. “A ‘mere possibility’ of such a conflict is not a sufficient basis to overturn the trial results.” Id. (quoting Prater, 32 M.J. at 436). As in United States v. Phillippe, 63 M.J. 307 (C.A.A.F.2006), of last term, we are again called upon to determine whether the military judge’s duty to inquire further has been triggered by disclosures made during, or subsequent to, the plea colloquy. In Phillippe, we held that “when, either during the plea inquiry or thereafter, and in the absence of prior disavowals ... circumstances raise a possible defense, a military judge has a duty to inquire further to resolve the apparent inconsistency.” Id. at 310-11 (citation omitted). The existence of an apparent and complete defense is necessarily inconsistent with a plea of guilty. This was the case in Phillippe, where early termination of the alleged period of unauthorized absence was raised, presenting an apparent ambiguity or inconsistency with the plea thereby warranting further inquiry. Id. at 311; see also United States v. Pinero, 60 M.J. 31, 35 (C.A.A.F.2004); United States v. Reeder, 22" }, { "docid": "11889685", "title": "", "text": "presiding authority in a court-martial and is responsible for ensuring that a fair trial is conducted.” United States v. Quintanilla, 56 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F.2001) (citing Article 26, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 826 (2000); R.C.M. 801(a) and Discussion, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2000 ed.)). As this Court explained in Quintanilla: The judge has broad discretion in carrying out this responsibility, including the authority to call and question witnesses, hold sessions outside the presence of members, govern the order and manner of testimony and argument, control voir dire, rule on the admissibility of evidence and interlocutory questions, exercise contempt power to control the proceedings, and, in a bench trial, adjudge findings and sentence. Id. In these roles: The impartiality of a presiding judge is crucial, for “‘[t]he influence of the trial judge on the jury is necessarily and properly of great weight,’ ... and jurors are ever watchful of the words that fall from him. Particularly in a criminal trial, the judge’s last word is apt to be the decisive word.” Id. at 43 (quoting United States v. Shackelford, 2 M.J. 17,19 (C.M.A.1976)). We commend the military judge for her candor in fully disclosing her participation in the companion eases and her sensitivity to the public’s perceptions of the military justice system. That she sat on companion cases does not, without more, mandate recusal. United States v. Oakley, 33 M.J. 27, 34 (C.M.A.1991) (holding no error military judge’s refusal to recuse himself after sitting on two companion cases and making decisions in those cases regarding suppression motions). However, once the military judge performed the analysis required by R.C.M. 902(a) and announced that her participation “would suggest to an impartial person looking in that I can’t be impartial in this case,” such a person would question her impartiality. Every time she ruled on evidence, asked questions, responded to member questions, or determined instructions, the military judge exercised her discretion, a discretion that she admitted an impartial person would conclude had not been exercised in an impartial manner. Therefore, she was disqualified and abused her discretion by continuing to sit on the" }, { "docid": "19959343", "title": "", "text": "Opinion of the Court COX, Judge: Contrary to his pleas at a general court-martial, appellant was convicted by a military judge sitting alone of attempted sodomy; carnal knowledge; and lewd and lascivious acts, all involving his minor daughter, in violation of Articles 80,120, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C §§ 880, 920, and 934, respectively. His sentence to confinement for 5 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-l, and a bad-conduct discharge was approved by the convening authority and affirmed by the Court of Military Review. 17 M.J. 973 (1984). We granted review of the following issue: WHETHER, OVER HIS OBJECTION, APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL. While the procedures employed in this trial are unworthy of emulation, we conclude that the partial closure of the trial under the circumstances of this case did not deprive appellant of a public trial. This two-day trial commenced at 0915 hours, September 2, 1982, at Fort Polk, Louisiana. After approximately two hours spent on preliminary matters and a motion to suppress appellant’s pretrial confession, trial proceeded on the merits. Trial counsel commented in his opening statement that the complaining witness, appellant’s 13-year-old daughter, would “be somewhat timid or a little bit uncomfortable” when testifying to the sexual abuse inflicted upon her by her father. Defense counsel also described the witness as “timid,” “reserved” and “difficult to interview,” but attributed these characteristics to her lack of credibility. After both counsel completed their opening statements, trial counsel requested that the courtroom be closed during the testimony of his first witness: TC: Your Honor, we would like to call our first witness, Miss [DH]. And at this time, Your Honor, we note that there’s only two spectators in the courtroom, one being the bailiff and the other being Staff Sergeant Raskin, but that they both be removed and the bailiff asked to stand outside the door during the time she is here to testify. MJ: Defense. DC: Well — object, Your Honor. There’s —there are purposes for the bailiff and the escort and they’re sitting in" }, { "docid": "1191150", "title": "", "text": "In so doing, the military judge abused his discretion. The right of the public and the press to attend criminal trials, including courts-martial, is guaranteed under the first and fourteenth amendments. United States v. Fiske, 28 M.J. 1013 (A.F.C.M.R. 1989) , review denied, 30 M.J. 212 (C.M.A. 1990) . As Judge Cox has noted, “... public confidence in matters of military justice would quickly erode if courts-martial were arbitrarily closed to the public.” United States v. Travers, 25 M.J. 61 (C.M.A.1987). The Manual for Courts-Martial generally provides that “courts-martial shall be open to the public.” Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, Rule for Courts-Martial 806(a) [hereinafter R.C.M. 806(a) ]. Although a military judge has discretion to close a session, absent an overriding inter est articulated in findings, a court-martial must be open to the public. See R.C.M. 806(b), discussion. We conclude that prior to excluding all or portions of the public from viewing a court-martial, the military judge must articulate findings warranting, and limiting as narrowly as possible, the infringement upon the constitutional right of the public to attend courts-martial of the United States. United, States v. Czarnecki, 10 M.J. 570 at 572 (A.P.C.M.R.1980). In this case, the anticipated sexually explicit nature of the providence hearing involving charges of forcible sodomy should not have prevailed over the right of the public to attend a court-martial. Thus, we hold that the military judge abused his discretion in closing the court-martial to the public under the circumstances of this case. No relief is warranted, however, as that error did not affect a substantial right of the appellant. We have also considered the matter personally asserted by the appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A.1982) and find it to be without merit. The findings of guilty and the sentence are affirmed." }, { "docid": "17055047", "title": "", "text": "self-defense. All of the various self-defense instructions were tailored in terms of CPL M’s knowledge and beliefs, rather than appellant’s. An instruction explaining the right to use excessive force to deter was not requested or discussed, and was not given. At the conclusion of all the instructions and prior to releasing the members for deliberation, the military judge asked, “Other than any objections previously stated by counsel, do you have any objections or requests for additional insti-uctions at this time? ” (Emphasis supplied). Both counsel responded, “No, sir.” LAW I. Instructions. “The military judge shall give the members appropriate instructions on findings.” Rule for Courts-Martial 920(a) [hereinafter R.C.M.]. This duty includes “[s]uch other explanations, descriptions, or directions as may be necessary and which are properly requested by a party or which the military judge determines, sua sponte, should be given.” R.C.M. 920(e)(7)(emphasis supplied); United States v. Sellers, 33 M.J. 364 (C.M.A. 1991); United States v. Birdsong, 40 M.J. 606, 609 (A.C.M.R.1994). Instructions on findings must include a description of any special defenses under R.C.M. 916. United States v. Poole, 47 M.J. 17, 18 (1997)(citing R.C.M. 920(e)(3)). In determining whether an instruction on a defense is required, “the question is whether some evidence was presented to which the members might attach credit.” Birdsong, 40 M.J. at 609 (citations omitted). Any doubt concerning the giving of an instruction should be resolved in favor of the accused. United States v. McMonagle, 38 M.J. 53, 58 (C.M.A.1993)(citing United States v. Steinruck, 11 M.J. 322, 324 (C.M.A.1981)); United States v. Carroll, 45 M.J. 604, 607 (Army Ct.Crim.App.1997), pet. denied, 48 M.J. 446 (1998); United States v. Barrows, 48 M.J. 783, 787 (Army Ct.Crim.App.1998). The military judge’s refusal to give a requested instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Poole, 47 M.J. at 19 (citing United States v. Damatta-Olivera, 37 M.J. 474, 478 (C.M.A.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1244, 114 S.Ct. 2760, 129 L.Ed.2d 875, (1994); United States v. Eby, 44 M.J. 425 (1996)). The party claiming abuse of discretion bears the burden of presenting conclusive argument on the claim. United States v. Mosley, 42 M.J." }, { "docid": "1934636", "title": "", "text": "plea to be constitutionally valid it must be voluntary and intelligent and “[a] plea is not intelligent unless a defendant first receives real notice of the nature of the charge against him”). “Before accepting a plea of guilty, the military judge shall address the accused personally and inform the accused of, and determine that the accused understands ... [t]he nature of the offense to which the plea is offered....” Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 910(c)(1); see also United States v. Roeseler, 55 M.J. 286, 289 (2001) (“[T]he military judge is tasked with ensuring that the military accused understands the nature of the offenses to which guilty pleas are accepted.” (citation omitted)). The military judge’s failure “to explain to the accused every element of the offense charged” is ordinarily error. United States v. Sweet, 42 M.J. 183, 184 (1995) (citing Care, 18 U.S.C.M.A. at 541, 40 C.M.R. at 253); see R.C.M. 910(e) discussion. For the most complex offenses, such as conspiracy or accessory after the fact, “failure to explain the elements will generally result in reversal.” United States v. Nystrom, 39 M.J. 698, 702 (N.M.C.M.R.1993) (emphasis added) (citing United States v. Pretlow, 13 M.J. 85 (C.M.A.1982)); see also United States v. Bullman, 56 M.J. 377, 383 (2002) (noting that one reason appellant’s guilty plea was improvident was because the military judge failed to define “dishonorable conduct” with respect to a specification alleging dishonorable failure to pay a just debt). For other offenses, such as carnal knowledge, aggravated assault, or for criminal responsibility as an aider and abettor, failure to provide all relevant definitions is also error, but not necessarily reversible error. A guilty plea, however, is not automatically rendered improvident by the military judge’s failure to identify or explain the elements of the offense “if the accused admits facts which establish that all the elements are true.” United States v. Thomas, 45 M.J. 661, 663-64 (Army Ct.Crim.App. 1997) (citing United States v. Jones, 34 M.J. 270 (C.M.A.1992)). “Rejection of a guilty plea on appellate review requires that the record of trial show a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning" }, { "docid": "12125179", "title": "", "text": "omitted]. 100 S.Ct. at 2830. We hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Richmond Newspapers is applicable to trials by courts-martial. Prior to excluding all or portions of the public from viewing a court-martial, the military judge must articulate findings warranting, and limiting as narrowly as possible, the infringement upon the Constitutional right of the public to attend courts-martial of the United States. In the instant case, the approved findings of guilty and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, are AFFIRMED. . The details in the accused’s testimony were somewhat clinical and unpleasant, but certainly not shocking or unduly graphic. They extended to body-cavity searches, unpalatable food, unsanitary conditions, and the unsavory nature of fellow inmates. We find no indication in the record that this 21 year old accused could not have coherently presented her testimony in the presence of spectators. To the extent her embarrassment may have been increased by the presence of spectators, there is no basis in the record to conclude that such embarrassment outweighed the Constitutional right of the spectators to be present. . In fairness to the trial judge, we note that this case was tried some four months prior to the United States Supreme court decision in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). . Neither our decision, nor the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Richmond Newspaper, Inc. v. Virginia, supra, changes existing case law concerning when all or certain classes of the public may be properly excluded from all or certain portions of a court-martial. E. g., United States v. Marshall, 3 M.J. 1047 (A.F.C.M.R.1977). Moreover, we do not mean to imply, by virtue of today’s decision that other limitations on attendance at courts-martial are in any way modified. Military members, for example, must be properly excused from their duties in order to attend trial. Members of the public not otherwise authorized to be present upon a military installation are not so authorized by virtue of the trial of" }, { "docid": "16313876", "title": "", "text": "Opinion of the Court PER CURIAM: Pursuant to pleas of guilty, a military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant of two unauthorized absences — one from November 14 to December 31,1980, and the other from 0400 hours on January 26 to 2015 hours on January 27, 1981 — in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 886. Appellant was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 3 months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority approved these results; and the United States Army Court of Military Review, over Judge Garn’s dissent, affirmed. 14 M.J. 633 (1982). Upon appellant’s petition, this Court granted review of his contention, unsuccessfully urged in the intermediate court, that his plea of guilty to the brief second absence was improvident because his sworn testimony in extenuation and mitigation raised the defense of impossibility to return to military control, and that the potential inconsistency with his plea was not further inquired into and resolved by the military judge. 14 M.J. 167 (1982). We agree. During the providence inquiry into appellant’s tendered pleas of guilty, appellant admitted that he had been absent without authority from 0400 hours on January 26 until 2015 hours on January 27, 1981; that he was in Richmond Hill, Georgia; that he “knew that ... [he] had no authority to leave ... [his] unit”; and that he was “satisfied ... that ... [he] had no legal justification or excuse for ... [the] absence.” He acknowledged that he understood the elements of this offense and that the specification accurately reflected his conduct. He further stated that he had discussed his pleas with his defense counsel. Based upon this inquiry the military judge correctly accepted the pleas as provident and entered findings of guilty accordingly. However, in the presentencing phase of his trial, appellant explained under oath the circumstances leading up to each unauthorized absence. The following colloquy occurred between appellant and his defense counsel relative to the second absence: Q. Now you’ve already pled guilty to being gone at 0400" }, { "docid": "6687083", "title": "", "text": "or an applicable professional ethics canon”); Rule for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 502(d)(5) Discussion (trial counsel should be prepared to “make a prompt, full, and orderly presentation of the evidence at trial,” and consider the Military Rules of Evidence). It matters not that trial counsel seems to have been merely inexperienced, ill prepared, and unsupervised in this case. Athough one may wonder what her supervisors were doing during the course of Appellant’s trial, the prosecutorial misconduct inquiry is an objective one, requiring no showing of malicious intent on behalf of the prosecutor, and we find none here. B. Did Appellant suffer prejudice? To determine whether Appellant suffered prejudice to a substantial right from the misconduct, this Court considers the Fletcher factors: “(1) the severity of the misconduct, (2) the measures adopted to cure the misconduct, and (3) the weight of the evidence supporting the conviction.” 62 M.J. at 184. The prosecutorial misconduct in this case was sustained and severe. Trial counsel attempted to elicit improper testimony from nearly every witness called during the Government’s ease-in-chief, and made arguably improper argument during her closing argument. She repeatedly appeared unable to either understand or abide by the military judge’s rulings and instruction during the two-and-a-half day trial on the merits. As a result of this pervasive impropriety, we find that the first Fletcher factor weighs in Appellant’s favor. When we consider curative measures, however, the military judge appears to have left no stone unturned in ensuring that the members considered only admissible evidence in this case. He called multiple Article 39(a), UCMJ, sessions to prevent tainting the panel. He issued repeated curative instructions to the members, each time eliciting that they understood and would follow his instructions. He also issued a comprehensive instruction during trial counsel’s closing argument, again explaining that the members could not consider evidence that was the subject of a sustained objection for any purpose. The military judge acted early and often to ameliorate tidal counsel’s misconduct. Compare United States v. Thompkins, 58 M.J. 43, 47 (C.A.A.F.2003) (holding that “[t]he ameliorative actions of the military judge ... secured the fairness and" }, { "docid": "15300782", "title": "", "text": "DORMAN, Senior Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of conspiring to possess and distribute marijuana, and five specifications alleging various involvement with controlled substances, in violation of Articles 81 and 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881 and 912a (1994). The appellant was sentenced to confinement for 25 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to pay grade E-l, a dishonorable discharge, and a fine of $5,000. A fine enforcement provision added an additional year of confinement if the appellant failed to pay the fine. In taking action on the case, the convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. Confinement in excess of 8 years was suspended for 12 months from the date the appellant is released from confinement. We have carefully reviewed the record of trial, the appellant’s five assignments of error, and the Government’s response. Except as noted below, we conclude that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant was committed. Arts. 59(a) and 66(e), UCMJ. Multiplicity In his first assignment of error the appellant contends that his conviction for the pos session of psilocybin mushrooms, with the intent to distribute them, is multiplicious with his conviction for the subsequent distribution of those same mushrooms. He makes the same argument with respect to a quantity of marijuana he possessed and eventually distributed. The appellant did not raise this issue at trial. In support of his argument, the appellant relies on United States v. Wilson, 45 M.J. 512, 513 (Army Ct.Crim.App. 1996). In response, the Government argues that the offenses are not multiplicious because each requires proof of separate elements. In support of its argument the Government relies on United States v. Oatney, 45 M.J. 185,188-89 (1996), and United States v. Teters, 37 M.J. 370, 376 (C.M.A.1993). The Government also argues that the appellant forfeited this issue by his unconditional guilty plea without raising the issue at trial, citing United States v. Lloyd, 46 M.J. 19, 20 (1997). The Facts:" }, { "docid": "12167336", "title": "", "text": "whether further factfinding will be ordered is resolved under United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F.1997). 2. Appellant’s Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Appellant’s Sixth Amendment claim focuses on the advice he received from counsel prior to trial regarding the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. The declaration accompanying Appellant’s coram nobis petition states that: (1) he retained Mr. C as civilian counsel to represent him at his court-martial in 1998; (2) he told Mr. C that he was a permanent resident alien who had been living in the United States for fourteen years, that he intended to remain indefinitely, that his primary concern was to avoid the risk of deportation, and that he was more concerned about deportation and separation from his family than the risk of going to jail; (3) Mr. C advised Appellant that if he contested the charges, he would likely face a general court-martial, and that an acquittal would avoid deportation consequences; but a conviction at a general court-martial would constitute a felony that could be used as a basis for deportation; (4) Mr. C further advised him that a special court-martial would constitute a misdemeanor and could not be used as a basis for deportation; (5) Appellant entered into a pretrial agreement that provided for referral of charges to a special court-martial; and (6) Mr. C advised him of the specific words that he would have to use in the plea colloquy to ensure that the military judge did not reject the plea. With respect to Appellant’s plea, we note that there are specialized requirements for a guilty plea in the military justice system. See Article 45, UCMJ. The military judge must engage in a specific dialogue with the accused, in which the accused addresses the voluntariness of the plea, describes the factual basis for guilt, and demonstrates an understanding of any pretrial agreement. R.C.M. 910(d)-(f). The record reflects that Appellant had considerable difficulty in acknowledging guilt during the military judge’s plea inquiry. The inquiry in Appellant’s case extended over a two-day period before the military judge finally accepted the plea. Appellant" }, { "docid": "8245408", "title": "", "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT ROBBLEE, Judge: Contrary to his plea, appellant was convicted by a military judge sitting as a spécial court-martial of wrongful solicitation of another to commit sodomy in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter cited as UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. § 934 (1982). The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad conduct discharge and reduction to the grade of Sergeant E-5. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, thus administratively reducing appellant to the pay grade E-l by operation of law. See Article 58a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858a (1982). On appeal appellant asserts three errors, only one of which merits our discussion. Appellant argues that the military judge erred during the sentencing portion of trial by admitting in evidence, pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter cited as RCM] 1001(b)(5), a prior sworn statement made by appellant which tended to show appellant’s limited potential for rehabilitation. We agree. Initially, we acknowledge that RCM 1001 has been broadly interpreted as allowing an expanded presentencing practice in the military closely analogous to that in the civilian sector. See RCM 1001, Drafters’ Analysis, Appendix 21, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984 [hereinafter cited as Drafters’ Analysis]; United States v. Green, 21 M.J. 633 (A.C.M.R.1985), pet. denied, No. 54, 124/AR (C.M.A. 12 Jun. 1986); United States v. Harrod, 20 M.J. 777 (A.C.M.R.1985). Notwithstanding the foregoing, and while we recognize that RCM 1001(b)(5) represents a new dimension in presentencing procedure, we cannot construe its language or the Drafters’ Analysis associated with it as contemplating more than the introduction of opinion evidence, either by third party testimony or by deposition, relative to an accused’s duty performance and potential for rehabilitation. While we recognize that there might be rare circumstances in which former written statements by an accused might qualify as RCM 1001(b)(5) opinion evidence, we need not reach this question to decide this case. Accordingly, to the extent that the military judge allowed the prosecution to introduce a prior statement by appellant not in the nature of an opinion pursuant to RCM 1001(b)(5), the military judge erred. We find," } ]

[ { "docid": "23127889", "title": "", "text": "87, 89 n. 1 (3d Cir.2000). III. The Direct Confusion Claim We measure federal trademark infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and federal unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A), by identical standards. See A&H III, 166 F.3d at 202. To prove either form of Lanham Act violation, a plaintiff must démonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant’s use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion. See Commerce Nat’l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Commerce Ins. Agency, Inc., 214 F.3d 432, 437 (3d Cir.2000). The plaintiff bears the bur den of proof. See American Home Prods. Corp. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 834 F.2d 368, 371 (3d Cir.1987). It is undisputed that A & H owns Miraclesuit, and that it is a valid and legally protectable mark. Therefore, the questions in this case involve the delineation and application of standards for the evaluation of likelihood of confusion. A. The Lapp Test and the District Court’s Opinion A likelihood of confusion exists when “consumers viewing the mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.” Dranoff-Perlstein Assocs. v. Sklar, 967 F.2d 852, 862 (3d Cir.1992) (quotation marks omitted). In Inteipace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir.1983), we stated that when the goods involved in a trademark infringement action directly compete with each other, a court “need rarely look beyond the mark itself’ to determine the likelihood of confusion. Id. at 462. For noncompeting goods, we developed a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between marks: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5)" } ]

[ { "docid": "23097650", "title": "", "text": "the exclusive use of their marks when use by another would be likely to cause confusion.” Interpace Carp, v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 462 (3d Cir.1983); see, Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 291-93 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 373, 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991), and authorities cited therein; Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1228-29 (3d Cir.1978). To prove trademark infringement, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the mark is valid and legally protectable; (2) the mark is owned by the plaintiff; and (3) the defendant’s use of the mark to identify goods or services is likely to create confusion concerning the origin of the goods or services. Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d at 291 (citing Opticians Ass’n of America v. Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d 187, 192 (3d Cir.1990)). The first two requirements, validity and legal protectability, are proven where, as here, a mark was federally registered and has become “incontestible” under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 1065. Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d at 291 (citing Opticians Ass’n, 920 F.2d at 194). If the mark has not been federally registered or, if registered, has not achieved incontestability, validity depends on proof of secondary meaning, unless the unregistered mark is inherently distinctive. Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d at 291 (citing A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 296 (3d Cir.1986)). The mark in this case is both registered and incontestible. A plaintiff must also prove the third requirement, the likelihood of confusion, which exists “when the consumers viewing the mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.” Dranoff-Perlstein Assoc. v. Sklar, 967 F.2d 852, 862 (3d Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted). “Proof of actual confusion is not necessary; likelihood of confusion is all that need be shown.” Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d at 292 (internal citations omitted). The showing of proof plaintiff must make for this requirement depends on whether the goods" }, { "docid": "2262520", "title": "", "text": "law of trademark protects trademark owners in the exclusive use of their marks when use by another would be likely to cause confusion.”). To prove likelihood of confusion, plaintiffs must show that “consumers viewing the .mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.” Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978). In Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir.1983), we set forth the relevant standards on likelihood of confusion in noncompeting goods cases, commonly known as the Lapp factors: (1) [The] degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of functions; and (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market or that he is likely to expand into that market. None of these factors is determinative in the likelihood of confusion analysis and each factor must be weighed and balanced one against the other. Fisons, 30 F.3d at 473 (“[N]ot all factors must be given equal weight. The weight given to each factor in the overall picture, as well as the weighing for plaintiff or defendant, must be done on an individual fact-specific basis.”); see also A & H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 215 (“[T]he Lapp test is a qualitative inquiry. Not all" }, { "docid": "19208580", "title": "", "text": "with their particular industries and not with a specific employer or company. Defendant’s allegations are analogous in associating his own name with the sports marketing industry. Taking Defendant’s allegations as true and construing his counterclaim in the light most favorable to him, Defendant has pled sufficient allegations to support a finding of secondary meaning in his name. Therefore, Defendant has established the first element of a valid Lanham Act claim. 3. Likelihood of Confusion Plaintiffs do not contest the second element of valid Lanham Act claim, that Defendant owns the contested mark. However Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has not shown the third element: likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as to the source of the good or service. In order to show likelihood of confusion, the claimant must show that “consumers viewing the [] mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.” Commerce Nat. Ins. Services, Inc., 214 F.3d at 438-439 (internal quotations omitted). The Third Circuit generally evaluates likelihood of confusion based on weighing the ten Lapp factors: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of function; and (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or that he is likely to expand into that" }, { "docid": "23097653", "title": "", "text": "Lapp, 721 F.2d at 462 (citations omitted). Likelihood of confusion is also the test for actions brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) for unfair competition to prevent false representations as to the source or origin of goods or services by a mark confusingly similar to one already in use. See, e.g., Sun-Fun Products, Inc. v. Suntan Research & Development Inc., 656 F.2d 186, 192 (5th Cir.1981) (factors relevant to unfair competition claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 “essentially the same” as those relevant to trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114). A. Likelihood of Confusion Under the Lan-ham Act. We have adopted a ten-factor test to determine likelihood of confusion in the market place as to a product’s source in eases of alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition by a producer of a non-competing product. Dranoff-Perlstein, 967 F.2d at 862-63; Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d at 293; Lapp, 721 F.2d at 463; Scott Paper, 589 F.2d at 1229. They are: (1) degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of function; and (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or that he is likely to expand into that market. In Lapp, we applied these factors to decide an issue of trademark protection where two parties used the same trademark on noncompeting products." }, { "docid": "18071932", "title": "", "text": "the Court must proceed to examine whether Plaintiff has pointed to sufficient evidence of record of a likelihood of confusion of the parties’ products from which a reasonable jury could find for Plaintiff on the infringement and unfair competition analysis. “To prove likelihood of confusion, plaintiffs must show that ‘consumers viewing the mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.’ ” Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 280 (3d Cir.2001) (quoting Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978)). The Third Circuit has recognized a non-exhaustive list of ten factors, sometimes referred to as the “Lapp factors,” after the foundational case Interpace Corp. v. Lapp Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir.1983), that may be considered when determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists. The Lapp factors are: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods ... are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of function; [and] (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or that he is likely to expand into that market. A & H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 211 (citing Lapp, 721 F.2d at 463); see also Freedom Card, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 432 F.3d 463, 469 (3d Cir.2005). “None of these factors" }, { "docid": "15284731", "title": "", "text": "a retail customer buying a t-shirt from Big Dog with the dog/wrestler caricatures and/or the WBDF logo or scratch logo design would likely believe that it is in some way related to, connected or affiliated with, or sponsored by, WWE. “To prove likelihood of confusion, plaintiffs must show that ‘consumers viewing the mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.’ ” Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 280 (3d Gir.2001)(quoting Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978)). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals devised a non-exhaustive list of ten factors, commonly known as the “Lapp ” factors, to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between marks., Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 462 (3d Cir.1983). These factors are used to test for likelihood of confusion for goods that directly compete with each other, as well as for non-competing goods. A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d at 215. The factors are: (1) The degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of. time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of the functions; and (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the pri- or owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market or that he is likely" }, { "docid": "1923702", "title": "", "text": "card, CompuCredit believed that consumer confusion would depress the value of the FREEDOM CARD mark. Therefore, CompuCredit allegedly refused to proceed with UTN because it did not have the resources to compete with Chase. Thus, in UTN’s view, given the strength of the “CHASE” mark, and Chase’s resources, the introduction of the CHASE FREEDOM card effectively stifled any effort to close the transaction with CompuCredit or to market UTN’s product with any other institution that had expressed interest. According to UTN, Chase converted 1,506,070 Shell accounts to their new CHASE FREEDOM card. In addition, UTN claims that, although Chase launched a new CHASE PERFECTCARD in May 2003, purportedly to replace the Freedom card, Chase did not remove existing CHASE FREEDOM cards from the market. IV. GENERAL PRINCIPLES. “The Lanham Act defines trademark infringement as use of a mark so similar to that of a prior user as to be ‘likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.’ ” Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 711 (3d Cir., 2004) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)). Thus, “[t]he law of trademark protects trademark owners in the exclusive use of their marks when use by another would be likely to cause confusion.” Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Industries, Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 472 (3d Cir.1994) (citations omitted). Although Fisons Horticulture involved trademarks, not ... un fair competition, [as UTN alleges as part of its counterclaim here,] the analysis is the same. See A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 166 F.3d 197, 202 (3d Cir.1999) (“A & H III”). “To prove either form of Lanham Act violation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the mark is valid and legally protectable; (2) the mark is owned by the plaintiff; and (3) the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to create confusion concerning the origin of the goods or services.” Id. Because it is undisputed that UTN owns FREEDOM CARD, a valid and legally protectable mark, “the questions in this case involve the delineation and application of standards for the evaluation of likelihood of confusion.” A" }, { "docid": "17224023", "title": "", "text": "Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 237 (3d Cir. 2000)). “To prove likelihood of confusion, plaintiffs must show that ‘consumers viewing the mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.’ ” Id. at 280. The Third Circuit has adopted a nonexhaustive list of factors to consider in evaluating likelihood of confusion, known as the “Lapp factors.” See Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir.1983). Athough the original Lapp factors were developed for cases involving non-competing goods, they have been adapted to apply to goods that compete directly as well. KOS Pharms., 369 F.3d 700 at 709 As adapted, those factors are: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors; (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture both products, or expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or expect that the prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant’s market. KOS Pharms., 369 F.3d at 709 (citation omitted). “None of these factors is determinative in the likelihood of confusion analysis and each factor must be weighed and balanced one against the other.” Id. (citation omitted). “[T]he different factors may properly be" }, { "docid": "13063300", "title": "", "text": "distinctive. Villanova Univ. v. Villanova Alumni Educational Foundation 123 F.Supp.2d 293, 301 (E.D.Pa.2000). As will be discussed in section (c)(ii)(a) infra, the Court concludes that BIZBANK is a distinctive mark. Therefore, the Court will analyze plaintiffs Counts I and II together. (a) Ownership and (b) Validity “If the mark at issue is federally registered and has become incontestable, then validity, legal protectability and ownership are proved.” Checkpoint Sys., Inc., 269 F.3d 270 at 280 (quoting Commerce Nat’l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Commerce Ins. Agency, Inc., 214 F.3d 432, 438 (3d Cir.2000)). “A trademark becomes incontestable after the owner files affidavits stating that the mark has been registered, that it has been in continuous use for five years, and that there is no pending proceeding and that there has been no adverse decision concerning the registrant’s ownership or right to registration.” Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Industries, Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 472 n. 7 (3d Cir.1994). The affidavits referred to by the Fisons court are required by 15 U S.C. § 1065. Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit containing the required facts. Fellheimer Affidavit ¶¶2, 3 and 4, and has includes a copy of the federal registration certificate, Id. at Exhibit A. Thus, the Court concludes ownership and validity are established. (c) Likelihood of confusion To prove the likelihood of confusion, plaintiffs must show that “consumers viewing the mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.” Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978). The Third Circuit considers ten factors (“Lapp factors”) in determining whether a defendant’s use of a mark is likely to cause confusion: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion; (5) the intent of" }, { "docid": "15272653", "title": "", "text": "United States Patent and Trademark Office. See id. If the mark at issue is federally registered and has become incontestible, then validity, legal protectability, and ownership are proved. Commerce Nat’l Ins. Svcs. v. Commerce Ins. Agency, Inc., 214 F.3d 432, 438 (3d Cir.2000) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., 930 F.2d 277, 292 (3d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Altran Corp. v. Ford Motor Co., 502 U.S. 939, 112 S.Ct. 373, 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991)). Here, neither Video Pipeline nor BVHE disputes the first two elements. Because TWDC owns the marks at issue, the marks are therefore valid and legally protectable. Accordingly, the first two elements of BVHE’s Lanham Act claim have been sufficiently alleged. Under the third element, to prove likelihood of confusion, a claimant must show that “ ‘consumers viewing the mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.’ ” Checkpoint Sys. II, 269 F.3d at 280 (citing Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978)). The relevant standards regarding likelihood of confusion in noncompeting goods cases, as well as competing goods cases, see Checkpoint Sys. II, 269 F.3d at 280 n. 8 (“The multi-factor tests used to determine likelihood of confusion between noncompeting goods should also be applied in cases involving directly competing goods.”), are commonly known as the Lapp factors: (1)The degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether, the goods, though not competing, re marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which.the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9)" }, { "docid": "18071931", "title": "", "text": "Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 767-68, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1127). To prove either form of Lanham Act violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant’s use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion. See A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 210 (3d Cir.2000). The requirements of a Pennsylvania unfair competition claim mirror those of a Lanham Act claim, but without the additional federal requirement of interstate commerce. See R.J. Ants., Inc. v. Marinetti Enterprises, LLC, 771 F.Supp.2d 475, 489 (E.D.Pa.2011). The Court finds that there is no dispute that Plaintiff owns valid and legally protected trademarks for “Everlina & Laurice” and “Laurice,” fulfilling the first two prongs of the infringement and unfair competition tests. See Pl.’s Amend. Compl., Ex. A, Registration of PL’s “Everlina Laurice” trademark, ECF No. 36; id, Ex. D, Registration of PL’s “Laurice” trademark. Therefore, the Court must proceed to examine whether Plaintiff has pointed to sufficient evidence of record of a likelihood of confusion of the parties’ products from which a reasonable jury could find for Plaintiff on the infringement and unfair competition analysis. “To prove likelihood of confusion, plaintiffs must show that ‘consumers viewing the mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.’ ” Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 280 (3d Cir.2001) (quoting Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978)). The Third Circuit has recognized a non-exhaustive list of ten factors, sometimes referred to as the “Lapp factors,” after the foundational case Interpace Corp. v. Lapp Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir.1983), that may be considered when determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists. The Lapp factors are: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of" }, { "docid": "14261502", "title": "", "text": "Co., 432 F.3d 463, 470 (3d Cir.2005). A plaintiff proves trademark infringement by demonstrating that: (1) the mark is valid and legally protectable; (2) plaintiff owns the mark; and (3) the defendant’s use of its mark to identify goods or services is likely to create confusion concerning the origin of the goods or services. Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Tech., 269 F.3d 270, 279 (3d Cir.2001); A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 210 (3d Cir.2000); Fisons, 30 F.3d at 472. Likelihood of confusion exists when consumers viewing a mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark. Checkpoint, 269 F.3d at 280; Victoria’s Secret, 237 F.3d at 211; Fisons, F.3d at 472. The Third Circuit has adopted a ten-factor test, known as the “Lapp test,” to determine likelihood of confusion in the market. These factors are: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of the consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors; and (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or expect a prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant’s market. Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir.1983); Sabinsa Corp." }, { "docid": "2262519", "title": "", "text": "(3d Cir.1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1052, 121 S.Ct. 656, 148 L.Ed.2d 559 (2000). We review factual findings on the likelihood of confusion for clear error. A & H Sportswear Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 210 (3d Cir.2000). III. Checkpoint Systems alleges Check Point Software engaged in unfair competition and trademark infringement in violation §§32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act when it adopted the Checkpoint mark. To prove trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, Checkpoint Systems must prove: (1) it owns the Checkpoint mark; (2) the mark is valid and legally protectable; and (3) Check Point Software’s use of the mark to identify goods or services is likely to create confusion. Commerce Nat’l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Commerce Ins. Agency, Inc., 214 F.3d 432, 437-38 (3d Cir.2000). Neither party disputes the first two elements. The issue on appeal is whether Check Point Software’s use of the “CHECKPOINT” mark is likely to create confusion as to the source of the parties’ products. Lapp, 721 F.2d at 462 (“The law of trademark protects trademark owners in the exclusive use of their marks when use by another would be likely to cause confusion.”). To prove likelihood of confusion, plaintiffs must show that “consumers viewing the .mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.” Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978). In Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir.1983), we set forth the relevant standards on likelihood of confusion in noncompeting goods cases, commonly known as the Lapp factors: (1) [The] degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the" }, { "docid": "1923703", "title": "", "text": "15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)). Thus, “[t]he law of trademark protects trademark owners in the exclusive use of their marks when use by another would be likely to cause confusion.” Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Industries, Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 472 (3d Cir.1994) (citations omitted). Although Fisons Horticulture involved trademarks, not ... un fair competition, [as UTN alleges as part of its counterclaim here,] the analysis is the same. See A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 166 F.3d 197, 202 (3d Cir.1999) (“A & H III”). “To prove either form of Lanham Act violation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the mark is valid and legally protectable; (2) the mark is owned by the plaintiff; and (3) the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to create confusion concerning the origin of the goods or services.” Id. Because it is undisputed that UTN owns FREEDOM CARD, a valid and legally protectable mark, “the questions in this case involve the delineation and application of standards for the evaluation of likelihood of confusion.” A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 211 (3d Cir.2000) (“A & H V”). “A likelihood of confusion exists when consumers viewing the mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.” Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted). The relevant inquiry is not whether consumer confusion is a possibility, but whether confusion is likely. A & H V, 237 F.3d at 198. Once a trademark owner demonstrates likelihood of confusion, it is entitled to injunctive relief. Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc. 721 F.2d 460, 462 (3d Cir.1983) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)). There are two types of “likelihood of confusion” claims—“direct confusion” claims and “reverse confusion” claims. As we noted at the outset, we are primarily concerned with a claim of reverse eonfusion because, that is how UTN argues this appeal. Although direct confusion and reverse confusion have developed as two separate doctrines, they are not as analytically distinct as may, at" }, { "docid": "21060844", "title": "", "text": "user of the marks in this case and, if he owned the mark “TILLERY” (or “M. KELLY TILLERY”) by 1998, on what terms he licensed its use in marks other than the firm name absent his continued consent. (c) Likelihood of confusion Even if it Tillery could establish that he owns “TILLERY” or “M. KELLY TILL- ERY” as a protectable mark, he does not make a strong showing of likelihood of confusion. To prove likelihood of confusion, Tillery must show that consumers viewing the mark “leonardtillery.com” would probably assume that the service it represents is associated with the source of a different service identified by the mark TILLERY or M. KELLY TILLERY, i.e., with Tillery himself. See Checkpoint Systems v. Check Point Software Tech., 269 F.3d 270, 280 (3d Cir.2001). In the Third Circuit, the likelihood of consumer confusion is generally evaluated by weighing the ten so-called Lapp factors: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of function; (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or that he is likely to expand into that market. Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir.1983). “Not all factors must be given equal weight. The weight given to each factor in the overall picture, as well as the weighing for plaintiff or defendant, must be done" }, { "docid": "13063301", "title": "", "text": "affidavit containing the required facts. Fellheimer Affidavit ¶¶2, 3 and 4, and has includes a copy of the federal registration certificate, Id. at Exhibit A. Thus, the Court concludes ownership and validity are established. (c) Likelihood of confusion To prove the likelihood of confusion, plaintiffs must show that “consumers viewing the mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.” Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978). The Third Circuit considers ten factors (“Lapp factors”) in determining whether a defendant’s use of a mark is likely to cause confusion: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of functions; and (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the pri- or owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market or that he is likely to expand into that market. Checkpoint Sys., Inc., 269 F.3d 270 at 280 (citing Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir.1983)). No one factor is determinative, as the inquiry is one of balancing, Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 280, and “not all factors will be relevant in all cases ... the different factors may properly be accorded different weights depending on the particular factual setting.” Id. (quoting A & H Sportswear Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc.," }, { "docid": "17224022", "title": "", "text": "see American Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1433 (3d Cir. 1994) (unfair competition). “Similarly, New Jersey’s statutory unfair competition law, N.J.S.A. 56:4-1, is equivalent to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.” Pharmacia Corp., 201 F.Supp.2d at 386 (citations omitted). The following legal analysis therefore applies to Counts I through V of the Complaint. “To prevail on a claim for trademark infringement or unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the owner of a valid and legally protectable mark ... must show that a defendant’s use of a similar mark for its goods ‘causes a likelihood of confusion.’ ” KOS Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708-09 (3d Cir.2004). Here, it is undisputed that Bijur owns the Marks and that they are valid. The determinative issue is whether Devco’s use of the Marks causes a likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of confusion is a question of fact. See Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 301 (3d Cir.2001) (citing A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 237 (3d Cir. 2000)). “To prove likelihood of confusion, plaintiffs must show that ‘consumers viewing the mark would probably assume the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.’ ” Id. at 280. The Third Circuit has adopted a nonexhaustive list of factors to consider in evaluating likelihood of confusion, known as the “Lapp factors.” See Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir.1983). Athough the original Lapp factors were developed for cases involving non-competing goods, they have been adapted to apply to goods that compete directly as well. KOS Pharms., 369 F.3d 700 at 709 As adapted, those factors are: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the" }, { "docid": "23097651", "title": "", "text": "1058 and 1065. Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d at 291 (citing Opticians Ass’n, 920 F.2d at 194). If the mark has not been federally registered or, if registered, has not achieved incontestability, validity depends on proof of secondary meaning, unless the unregistered mark is inherently distinctive. Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d at 291 (citing A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 296 (3d Cir.1986)). The mark in this case is both registered and incontestible. A plaintiff must also prove the third requirement, the likelihood of confusion, which exists “when the consumers viewing the mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.” Dranoff-Perlstein Assoc. v. Sklar, 967 F.2d 852, 862 (3d Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted). “Proof of actual confusion is not necessary; likelihood of confusion is all that need be shown.” Ford Motor Co., 930 F.2d at 292 (internal citations omitted). The showing of proof plaintiff must make for this requirement depends on whether the goods or services offered by the trademark owner and the alleged infringer are in direct competition. “Where the trademark owner and the alleged infringer deal in competing goods or services, the court need rarely look beyond the mark itself.” Lapp, 721 F.2d at 462 (citations omitted). The court focuses on the marks to determine whether they are “confusingly similar.” Country Floors, Inc. v. Gepner, 930 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir.1991). Where the goods or services are not competing, the similarity of the marks is only one of a number of factors the court must examine to determine likelihood of confusion. To determine likelihood of confusion where the plaintiff and defendant deal in noncompeting goods or services, the court must look beyond the trademark to the nature of the products themselves, and to the context in which they are marketed and sold. The closer the relationship between the products, and the more similar their sales contexts, the greater the likelihood of confusion. Once a trademark owner demonstrates the likelihood of confusion, it is entitled to injunctive relief." }, { "docid": "13937910", "title": "", "text": "‘consumers viewing the mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark.’ ” Everett Lab., Inc. v. Vertical Pharm., Inc., 227 Fed.Appx. 124, 127 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting A & H Sportswear, Inc., 237 F.3d at 211). The marks need not be identical, just “confusingly similar.” Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., 30 F.3d 466, 477 (3d Cir.1994) (internal quotes omitted). Although there are two types of “likelihood of confusion” claims, only the “direct confusion” claim is at issue here. Freedom Card, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 432 F.3d 463, 470 (3d Cir. 2005). “The essence of a direct confusion claim is that a junior user of a mark attempts to free-ride on the reputation and goodwill of the senior user by adopting a similar or identical mark.” Id. Because it is difficult to find, evidence of actual confusion is not required to prove likelihood of confusion. Versa Prods., Inc. v. Bifold Co. (Mfg.) Ltd., 50 F.3d 189, 205 (3d Cir.1995); Fisons, 30 F.3d at 476 (“[W]hile evidence of actual confusion would strengthen plaintiffs case, it is not essential.”). In deciding whether similar marks create a likelihood of confusion, the Third Circuit has set forth a non-exhaustive list of ten factors to consider where direct confusion is alleged. Freedom Card, 432 F.3d at 470-71 (citing Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983)). These factors include: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the" }, { "docid": "14261501", "title": "", "text": "a chance to refute evidence is greatly diminished. Pension Benefit, 998 F.2d at 1196-97 (emphasis added). “The facts necessary to establish an affirmative defense must generally come from matters outside of the complaint. Thus, with some exceptions, affirmative defenses should be raised in responsive pleadings, not in pre-answer motions brought under Rule 12(b).” Worldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc., 343 F.3d 651, 657 (3d Cir.2003) (citations omitted). IV. DISCUSSION A. Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to a preliminary injunction based on its trademark infringement claims, its trade dress infringement claims, and its false advertising/unfair competition claims. (D.I. 9) For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits for any of these claims. Therefore, plaintiffs motion is denied. 1. Trademark infringement a. Standard “The law of trademark protects trademark owners in the exclusive use of their marks when use by another would be likely to cause confusion.” Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 472 (3d Cir.1994); Freedom Card, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 432 F.3d 463, 470 (3d Cir.2005). A plaintiff proves trademark infringement by demonstrating that: (1) the mark is valid and legally protectable; (2) plaintiff owns the mark; and (3) the defendant’s use of its mark to identify goods or services is likely to create confusion concerning the origin of the goods or services. Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Tech., 269 F.3d 270, 279 (3d Cir.2001); A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 210 (3d Cir.2000); Fisons, 30 F.3d at 472. Likelihood of confusion exists when consumers viewing a mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified by a similar mark. Checkpoint, 269 F.3d at 280; Victoria’s Secret, 237 F.3d at 211; Fisons, F.3d at 472. The Third Circuit has adopted a ten-factor test, known as the “Lapp test,” to determine likelihood of confusion in the market. These factors are: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing" } ]

[ { "docid": "23522696", "title": "", "text": "clause is the fundamental principle that statutes and regulations which purport to govern conduct must give an adequate warning of what they command or forbid. In our jurisprudence, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). The principle applies with special force to statutes which regulate in the area of First Amendment rights, but the due process requirement of fundamental fairness is hardly limited to that context. Even a regulation which governs purely economic or commercial activities, if its violation can engender penalties, must be so framed as to provide a constitutionally adequate warning to those whose activities are governed. See Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostet-ter, 384 U.S. 35, 48-50, 86 S.Ct. 1254, 16 L.Ed.2d 336 (1966); Boyce Motor Lines v. United State, 342 U.S. 337, 340, 72 S.Ct. 329, 96 L.Ed. 367 (1952). There is no doubt that the violation of § 1910.212 exposed Diebold to penalties. See 29 U.S.C. § 666. See also Brennan v. Winters Battery Mfg. Co., 531 F.2d 317, 324-25 (6th Cir. 1975). Our concern, therefore, is with the question whether the regulation gave Diebold sufficient warning that press brakes were within the scope of its point of operation guarding requirements. The question is to be answered, of course, “in the light of the conduct to which [the regulation] is applied.” United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 36, 83 S.Ct. 594, 600, 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963). Moreover, the constitutional adequacy or inadequacy of the warning given must be “measured by common understanding and commercial practice.” United States ex rel. Shott v. Tehan, 365 F.2d 191, 198 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1012, 87 S.Ct. 716, 17 L.Ed.2d 548 (1967). See also Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 231-32, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951); Stout v. Dallman," } ]

[ { "docid": "21448555", "title": "", "text": "rather, it is a final judgment. Plummer, 97 F.3d at 229 (citing Walgreen Co. v. Sara Creek Property Co., 966 F.2d 273, 275 (7th Cir.1992)). With these principles in mind, we begin our substantive review of the statute. V. DISCUSSION As stated above, plaintiffs must show actual success on the merits of their claim that HB 382 is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs offer three reasons for declaring the statute unconstitutional: (1) the statute is vague; (2) the statute unduly burdens the constitutional rights of women seeking abortions; and (3) the statute impermissibly requires third-party consent from the parents of a minor seeking an abortion. A. Vagueness “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). Due process demands that statutes give fair warning as to the conduct that is prohibited. Id. Without such warning as to the meaning of a statute, people will “steer far wider of the unlawful zone ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.” Id. at 109 (quoting Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372, 84 S.Ct. 1316, 1322-23, 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964)). A statute, therefore, is void for vagueness if people of “ordinary intelligence” are forced to guess at the meaning of the statute and differ as to its application. See Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108; Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 574, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 1248, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974). Moreover, a statute is void for vagueness if it “impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 109, 92 S.Ct. at 2299. Perhaps the most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362" }, { "docid": "1726793", "title": "", "text": "v. Colortyme, 518 N.W.2d 544, 549-50 (Mmn.1994); Citizen’s National Bank of Willmar v. Taylor, 368 N.W.2d 913, 918 (Minn.1985). 1. Constitutional Challenges The district court held that, under Minnesota law as set forth in Miller v. Colortyme and Fogie v. Rent-A-Center, the first two elements of usury are satisfied by operation of the CCSA and the general usury statute. 518 N.W.2d at 549, 518 N.W.2d 544. RAC argues that, by applying the CCSA and the usury statute to it’s rental purchase transactions in this manner, the district court violated RAC’s constitutional rights. First, RAC contends the Miller interpretation renders the CCSA and the usury statute unconstitutionally vague, depriving RAC of the “fair notice” required by the Due Process Clause. RAC also contends that the district court retroactively applied the Miller decision in violation of the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses. We reject both contentions. a. Vagueness The Supreme Court enunciated standards for evaluating claims of vagueness in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). First, the prohibitions of a statute must be defined clearly enough that a person of ordinary intelligence has a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited. Second, the statute must provide standards that are clear enough that those charged with applying the statute are not required to make basic policy decisions on a subjective or arbitrary basis. Id. These standards are not to be applied mechanically. Criminal enactments are to be examined under a stricter vagueness test while economic regulation is subject to a more tolerant examination. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498-99, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). We reject RAC’s contention that the strict test applicable to criminal statutes governs here. The statutes implicated in this case are primarily economic regulations which cover a narrow subject area and regulate the conduct of business enterprises. The punitive aspects of the usury statute impose only civil penalties. Under Village of Hoffman, we conclude that the broader, more tolerant test of vagueness is required here. 455" }, { "docid": "8123803", "title": "", "text": "would have so stated. Ill To pass constitutional muster against a vagueness attack, a statute must give a person of ordinary intelligence adequate notice of the conduct it proscribes. A statute’s application may violate the constitutional mandate against vagueness if its terms are insufficiently clear; here, the issue is whether the term “any foreign law” in the Act is sufficiently clear so as to have provided Union with “fair warning.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) (quoted in United States v. Hutson, 843 F.2d 1232 (9th Cir.1988)). A statute providing for civil sanctions is reviewed for vagueness with somewhat “greater tolerance” than one involving criminal penalties. See Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 498-99, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). And while the Act does provide for criminal sanctions in certain instances, it also requires a showing of scienter in those cases, a requirement which tends to mitigate a law’s potential vagueness. Id. at 499, 102 S.Ct. at 1193. Tested by these principles, the Act is not unconstitutionally vague; Union should at least have been aware of the strong possibility that violation of a foreign regulation would trigger the forfeiture provision of the Act; this is especially true when considering that Union is a corporation frequently involved in large international commercial transactions. Cf. United States v. $359,500 in Currency, 828 F.2d 930, 935 (2d Cir.1987) (where court expressed its concerns “with the basic fairness of imposing sanctions for the violation of a reporting requirement that might not be known by the casual traveler when the government has taken no steps whatsoever to provide reasonable notice of the requirement”) (emphasis supplied). IV Union’s final argument is that if the Act applies to the Taiwanese regulation, then the Act has unconstitutionally incorporated into federal law a regulation adopted without due process safeguards. More specifically, Union contends that incorpo ration of the regulation allows for the kind of unfettered and standardless discretion in the Act’s enforcement that the Court held unconstitutional in Smith v. Goguen," }, { "docid": "17711492", "title": "", "text": "of either criminal penalties or potential interference with constitutionally protected rights. 455 U.S. at 499, 102 S.Ct. at 1194; Diebold, Inc., 585 F.2d at 1337. When the persons affected by the regulations are a select group with specialized understanding of the subject being regulated the degree of definiteness required to satisfy due process concerns is measured by the common understanding and commercial knowledge of the group. Id. at 1336; Precious Metals Associates, Inc. v. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, 620 F.2d 900, 907 (1st Cir. 1980); United States ex rel. Shott v. Tehan, 365 F.2d 191, 198 (6th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1012, 87 S.Ct. 716,17 L.Ed.2d 548 (1967). The sufficiency of notice provided by a statute must be viewed “in light of the conduct with which a defendant is charged.” See United States v. National Dairy Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32, 83 S.Ct. 594, 597, 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963). A strong presumptive validity attaches to acts of Congress and “statutes are not automatically invalidated as vague simply because difficulty is found in determining whether certain marginal offenses fall within their language.” Id.; Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 231, 71 S.Ct. 703, 707, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951). Although the appellants have failed to identify precisely what portion of the Act they consider to be vague, it appears that the challenge is directed to the Act’s definition of “sore.” Section 1821(3) of the Act provides: (3) The term “sore” when used to describe a horse means that— (A) an irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse, (B) any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse, (C) any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse, or (D) any other substance or device has been used by a person on any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a horse, and, as a result of such application," }, { "docid": "6944673", "title": "", "text": "intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law im-permissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judge, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)). We therefore invalidate vague criminal statutes when they “fail to alert the average person of the prohibited conduct.” Brecheisen v. Mondragon, 833 F.2d 238, 241 (10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1011, 108 S.Ct. 1479, 99 L.Ed.2d 707 (1988). We “indulge a presumption” of constitutionality when reviewing vagueness challenges to state statutes. Id. In a civil context, where the enactment does not implicate constitutional rights, a court should find a statute unconstitutionally vague only if “the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95, 102 S.Ct. at 1191. Where a statute imposes a criminal penalty, we can invalidate it “even when it could conceivably have had some valid application.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1859 n. 8, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (quoting Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494, 102 S.Ct. at 1191). In the instant case, anyone who violates section 310 is subject to third degree felony charges and penalties. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-314(2). Consequently, the less demanding Kolender standard governs this case. Section 310 bans “experimentation” on “live unborn children.” “Experimentation” is an ambiguous term that lacks a precise definition. What tests and procedures constitute experimentation? There are at least three possible answers: 1) those procedures that a particular doctor or hospital have not routinely conducted; 2) those procedures performed on one subject that are designed to benefit another subject;" }, { "docid": "9649487", "title": "", "text": "State of Pa., 382 U.S. 399, 403, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966). “The void-for-vagueness doctrine reflects the principle that ‘a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.’ ” Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 629, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984) (quoting Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926)). The Supreme Court has warned against the mechanical application of vagueness doctrine, emphasizing that an “economic regulation is subject to a less strict vagueness test” and there should be “greater tolerance of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe.” Vill. of Hoffman Es- totes v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498-99, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982); see Trans Union Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 245 F.3d 809, 817 (D.C.Cir.2001) (“[BJecause the FCRA’s regulation of. consumer reporting agencies is economic, it is subject to ‘a less strict vagueness test.’ ”). Vagueness within statutes is impermissible because such statutes fail to put potential violators on notice that certain conduct is prohibited, inform them of the potential penalties that accompany noncompliance, and provide explicit standards for those who apply the law. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). “It is established that a law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standard-less that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits or leaves judges and jurors free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not in each particular case.” Giaccio, 382 U.S. at 402-03, 86 S.Ct. 518. At the outset, we recognize that statutory-damages ranges are not unique to the FCRA. The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., and the Communications Act" }, { "docid": "7996424", "title": "", "text": "... necessarily [to] guess at its meaning and [to] differ as to its application.’ ” United States v. Wunsch, 84 F.3d 1110, 1119 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926)). 16. Vague statutes are void for three reasons: “(1) to avoid punishing people for behavior that they could not have known was illegal; (2) to avoid subjective enforcement of the laws based on ‘arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement’ by government officers; and (3) to avoid any chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment freedoms.” Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir.1998) (citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)). 17. “A statute is void for vagueness when it does not sufficiently identify the conduct that is prohibited.” United States v. Makowski, 120 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 610, 139 L.Ed.2d 497 (1997); see also Kev, Inc. v. Kitsap County, 793 F.2d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir.1986) (“A fundamental requirement of due process is that a statute must clearly delineate the conduct it proscribes.”) (citing Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294). “A statute must be sufficiently clear so as to allow persons of ‘ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.’ ” Foti, 146 F.3d at 638 (quoting Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294). 18. “[P]erhaps the most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. If, for example, the law interferes with the right of free speech or of association, a more stringent vagueness test should apply.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). “[W]hen First Amendment freedoms are at stake, an even greater degree of specificity and clarity of laws is required.” Foti, at 638. 19. “[D]ue process does not require ‘impossible standards’ of clarity.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 361," }, { "docid": "17711490", "title": "", "text": "meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Id. at 333, 96 S.Ct. at 902. The notion that the administrative process must be conducted in a fashion which will ensure accuracy and a fair consideration of the affected parties’ case is fundamental to this concept. See, e.g., Banks v. FAA, 687 F.2d 92, 93-95 (5th Cir.1982); Helms v. Hewitt, 655 F.2d 487, 501-503 (3d Cir.1981), cert. granted, 455 U.S. 999, 102 S.Ct. 1629, 71 L.Ed.2d 865 (1982); Devine v. Cleland, 616 F.2d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir.1980). See also Mathews, 424 U.S. at 349, 96 S.Ct. at 909; Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401-402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427-1428, 1431, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1970). The appellants in this case do not challenge, as such, the sufficiency of the rules of practice or procedural safeguards which govern proceedings before the USDA under the Horse Protection Act’s regulations. Rather, their due process challenge is focused on the alleged unreliability of post- show examination evidence and the vagueness of the Act’s standards for finding that a horse has been sored. 1. Vagueness The appellants assert that the standards utilized by the USDA to find a horse sored are insufficiently definite to fairly apprise those involved in the industry as to what conduct is forbidden. We disagree. The constitutional prohibition against vague laws satisfies two basic concerns. First, it provides “fair warning” so as to safeguard the innocent and, second, it avoids arbitrary applications of the law by insisting upon explicit standards regulating conduct. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). To these ends, due process requires that government regulations and statutes provide adequate warning as to what they command or forbid such that persons of common intelligence will not have to guess as to their meaning and may act accordingly. See, e.g., Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982); Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, 585 F.2d 1327, 1336 (6th Cir.1978). This standard for definiteness is less stringently measured in the absence" }, { "docid": "2937046", "title": "", "text": "cash in the manner described at trial in the present case. Defendant argues that § 2024(b) is unconstitutionally vague. He contends that “[t]he phrase ‘in any manner not authorized by this chapter or the regulations issued pursuant to this chapter’ is impermissibly vague in that it fails to establish reasonable standards for determining guilt or innocence.” Brief for Appellant at 3. We find this argument to be without merit. The Supreme Court enunciated the standard for evaluating whether a particular statute is unconstitutionally vague in non First Amendment areas in Hoffman Estates, Inc. v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) (footnotes omitted)): Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications. See also General Stores, Inc. v. Bingaman, 695 F.2d 502, 503 (10th Cir.1982); Hejira Corp. v. MacFarlane, 660 F.2d 1356, 1365 (10th Cir.1981). Section 2024(b) is not unconstitutionally vague under this standard. The regulations provide a detailed description of the authorized means of acquiring food stamps. See supra note 2. The statute and regulations together give sufficient notice of the proscribed conduct and provide adequate standards for enforcement. Defendant argues that the statute is vague because it prohibits all means of acquiring food stamps if they are “not authorized” by the statute or regulations. Defendant contends that to avoid this vagueness infirmity, the statute must specifically delineate what is prohibited. Brief for" }, { "docid": "3296208", "title": "", "text": "July 1, 1998). Finally, both MARPOL and the APPS regulations defined “oily mixture” as a “mixture with any oil content.” MARPOL Annex I, Regulation 1(2); and 33 C.F.R. § 151.05 (effective July 1,1998). In my view, the breadth of this definition sets out without reasonable ambiguity in common terms that diesel fuel is “oil” and diesel oil mixed with wheat is an “oily mixture” as a “mixture with oily content.” Where, as in this case, a statute or regulation is aimed at a class of people with specialized knowledge of what is being regulated, then the specificity required by due process is measured by the common understanding of that group. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 501, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (examining vagueness of ordinance from the perspective of a “business person of ordinary intelligence”); United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275, 1289 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc) (holding that in evaluating the vagueness of a statute involving conduct of a select group of people, the statute may be upheld if the meaning of the statute is “well enough known to enable those within its reach to correctly apply [the law]”); Precious Metals Assoc., Inc. v. CFTC, 620 F.2d 900, 907-08 (1st Cir.1980) (holding that provisions of the Commodity Futures Trading Act prohibiting trading of commodity options were not unconstitutionally vague where members of regulated group were highly specialized and had thorough knowledge of what was prohibited). The test is whether the “language sufficiently conveys a definite warning as to the proscribed conduct, when measured by common understanding and commercial practice.” Precious Metals, 620 F.2d at 907. As alleged in the Indictment, Sabine Transportation Company was in the business of managing and operation United States flagged oceangoing vessels engaged in the transportation of various dry and liquid commercial cargos. Indictment, ¶ 1. The named defendants were the key operational officers of this company. Indictment, ¶¶ 3, 4 and 5. The Indictment charges the defendants with making and causing the making of detailed arrangements to accomplish the unlawful dumping of diesel-contaminated wheat from" }, { "docid": "3713184", "title": "", "text": "to preempt them through federal legislation. Indeed, in light of Congress’ evident concern with achieving freer trade on a reciprocal basis, to strike Pennsylvania’s statute would amount to a judicial redirection of established foreign trade policy—a quite inappropriate exercise of the judicial power. IV. THE VAGUENESS CHALLENGE Appellants and appellees agree that controlling vagueness doctrine is set out in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). In Grayned the Court explained Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications. Id. at 108-09, 92 S.Ct. at 2298-99. Thus, a statute should be struck as vague if (1) it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, or (2) it fails to provide explicit standards to the enforcing officer, in this case Pennsylvania’s Attorney General. The Court also has declared that economic regulation is subject to a less strict vagueness test because its subject matter is often more narrow, and because businesses, which face economic demands to plan behavior carefully, can be expected to consult relevant legislation in advance of action. Indeed, the regulated enterprise may have the ability to clarify the meaning of the regulation by its own inquiry, or by resort to an administrative process. The Court has also expressed greater tolerance of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe. Village of Hoffman Estate v. Flipside, Hoffman Estate, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498-99, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193-94," }, { "docid": "17711491", "title": "", "text": "sored. 1. Vagueness The appellants assert that the standards utilized by the USDA to find a horse sored are insufficiently definite to fairly apprise those involved in the industry as to what conduct is forbidden. We disagree. The constitutional prohibition against vague laws satisfies two basic concerns. First, it provides “fair warning” so as to safeguard the innocent and, second, it avoids arbitrary applications of the law by insisting upon explicit standards regulating conduct. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). To these ends, due process requires that government regulations and statutes provide adequate warning as to what they command or forbid such that persons of common intelligence will not have to guess as to their meaning and may act accordingly. See, e.g., Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982); Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, 585 F.2d 1327, 1336 (6th Cir.1978). This standard for definiteness is less stringently measured in the absence of either criminal penalties or potential interference with constitutionally protected rights. 455 U.S. at 499, 102 S.Ct. at 1194; Diebold, Inc., 585 F.2d at 1337. When the persons affected by the regulations are a select group with specialized understanding of the subject being regulated the degree of definiteness required to satisfy due process concerns is measured by the common understanding and commercial knowledge of the group. Id. at 1336; Precious Metals Associates, Inc. v. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, 620 F.2d 900, 907 (1st Cir. 1980); United States ex rel. Shott v. Tehan, 365 F.2d 191, 198 (6th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1012, 87 S.Ct. 716,17 L.Ed.2d 548 (1967). The sufficiency of notice provided by a statute must be viewed “in light of the conduct with which a defendant is charged.” See United States v. National Dairy Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32, 83 S.Ct. 594, 597, 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963). A strong presumptive validity attaches to acts of Congress and “statutes are not automatically invalidated as vague simply because difficulty is found in determining whether" }, { "docid": "10875114", "title": "", "text": "is no violation of plaintiff’s due process rights. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no state “shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It is well settled that a statute which is unduly vague violates the due process clause for two reasons: (i) such a law will not permit a person of ordinary intelligence either to avoid violating its prohibitions or to effectuate due compliance therewith; and (ii) such a law impermissibly delegates legislative policy-making to those charged with enforcing the legislature’s intendments. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972). An unconstitutionally vague statute is one compelling a person of average intelligence to guess and to resort to conjecture as to its meaning and/or as to its supposedly mandated application. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926); Precious Metals Associates, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 620 F.2d 900, 906-07 (1st Cir.1980). This rule, originally adopted for criminal statutes, see Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638, 34 S.Ct. 924, 925, 58 L.Ed. 1510 (1914), has been extended to civil statutes, Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 497, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (hereinafter “Village of Hoffman Estates ”); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 607-08, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2913, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1970); see A.B. Small Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 267 U.S. 233, 239, 45 S.Ct. 295, 297, 69 L.Ed. 589 (1925); Exxon Corp. v. Busbee, 644 F.2d 1030, 1033 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 932, 102 S.Ct. 430, 70 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981). The stringency with which this definition is applied depends on the circumstances of the case at bar. For example, an economic regulation ordinarily will be scrutinized under a lower-magnification microscope than a criminal statute. Village of Hoffman Estates, 102 S.Ct. at 1193. Likewise, a statute imposing civil penalties" }, { "docid": "2886228", "title": "", "text": "612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 811, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954). This principle acknowledges one’s freedom to chart a course comporting with the state of the law. “Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). A statute is vague if it “either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application . Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). Definiteness, however, is not an absolute. It does not impose “impossible standards” on the drafter. United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7-8, 67 S.Ct. 1538, 1541-1542, 91 L.Ed. 1877 (1947). Thus, language of proscription is not deficient if it “conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.” Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223, 231-32, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951). Moreover, if the forbidden act involves conduct of a select group of persons having specialized knowledge, and the challenged phraseology is indigenous to the idiom of that class, the standard is lowered and a court may uphold a statute which uses “words or phrases having a technical or other special meaning, well enough known to enable those within its reach to correctly apply them . . . .” Connally v. General Construction Corp., 269 U.S. at 391, 46 S.Ct. at 127. The appropriate measure for testing a statute directed at a class of persons possessed of specialized learning is whether the “language sufficiently conveys a definite warning as to the proscribed conduct, when measured by common understanding and commercial practice.” United States v. Tehan, 365 F.2d 191, 198 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1012, 87 S.Ct. 716, 17 L.Ed.2d 548 (1967) (emphasis added). To determine the certainty of the challenged acts and regulations, we must examine them “in the light of the conduct” with which appellants are charged. United States" }, { "docid": "3950406", "title": "", "text": "within the scope of the exception [to the statute].” J & B Entertainment, Inc., 152 F.3d at 367. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted with respect to Plaintiffs’ over-breadth challenge. Vagueness Plaintiffs also assert that the ordinance is impermissibly vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “[E]ven if an en actment does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, it may be impermissibly vague because it fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 1857, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999). In order to survive a vagueness challenge, a law must also “give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 38 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). Laws with civil penalties are scrutinized less stringently than laws with criminal penalties, though if they potentially interfere with First Amendment rights, “a more stringent vagueness test should apply.” Village of Hoffman Estates, et al. v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). However, “due process does not require ‘impossible standards’ of clarity.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 361, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (citation omitted). “Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language.” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294. Plaintiffs claim that § 23-54 is unconstitutionally vague facially and as applied to their conduct. If an enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, a facial vagueness challenge will fail unless “the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” Hoffman, 455 U.S. at 495, 102 S.Ct. 1186; IDK, Inc. v. Clark County, 836 F.2d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir.1988) (noting that “[t]he absence of a significant first amendment interest is ... fatal to a facial challenge of a business regulation for vagueness unless the regulation is vague in all possible applications”). “A" }, { "docid": "9404032", "title": "", "text": "they require abortion providers to disclose broad categories of information to patients but fail to specify the exact content of what must be discussed in order to satisfy AB 441 and thereby avoid liability. Before we address each challenge, it is necessary to set forth the legal framework for evaluating vagueness challenges. The void for vagueness doctrine rests on the basic principle of due process that a law is unconstitutional “if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); see also Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 44, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (“Due process requires that a State provide meaningful standards to guide the application of its laws.”). In Grayned, the Supreme Court explained the rationale underlying the void for vagueness doctrine: Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. 408 U.S. at 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294 (footnotes omitted). These principles are not to be mechanically applied, however, as “[t]he degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates—as well as the relative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement—depends in part on the nature of the enactment.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). The Constitution tolerates a lesser degree of vagueness in enactments “with criminal rather than civil penalties because the consequences of imprecision” are more severe. Id. at 498-99, 102 S.Ct. 1186. The most important factor" }, { "docid": "9404033", "title": "", "text": "reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. 408 U.S. at 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294 (footnotes omitted). These principles are not to be mechanically applied, however, as “[t]he degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates—as well as the relative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement—depends in part on the nature of the enactment.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). The Constitution tolerates a lesser degree of vagueness in enactments “with criminal rather than civil penalties because the consequences of imprecision” are more severe. Id. at 498-99, 102 S.Ct. 1186. The most important factor affecting the degree of clarity necessary to satisfy the Constitution is whether constitutional rights are at stake. See id. at 499, 102 S.Ct. 1186. When a law threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, such as the present case, the Constitution demands that courts apply a more stringent vagueness test. See id. Thus, there are two means by which a statute can operate in an unconstitutionally vague manner. First, a statute is void for vagueness if it fails to provide “fair warning” as to what conduct will subject a person to liability. See, e.g., Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357,103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (“[T]he void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary-people can understand what conduct is prohibited.”); see also Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186. Second, a statute must contain an explicit and ascertainable standard to prevent those charged with enforcing the statute’s provisions from engaging in “arbitrary and discriminatory” enforcement. See Gmyned, 408 U.S." }, { "docid": "1279034", "title": "", "text": "obtain translations of any law that it wishes to review. We therefore reject the argument that the Act unconstitutionally delegates congressional power. VI The fishermen next contend that the Act is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to satisfy the due process requirements of fair notice and fair enforcement. A. With regard to fair notice, “ ‘because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.’ ” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (Hoffman Estates), quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) (Grayned). The fishermen argue that the Act’s proscriptions do not clearly encompass the salmon regulation, and that therefore the Act fails to “give a person of ordinary intelligence adequate notice of the conduct it proscribes.” 594,464 Pounds, 871 F.2d at 829. We confronted this issue in 594,464 Pounds, and held that the term “any foreign law” was sufficiently clear to provide fair warning that the Act proscribes violations of the Republic of China regulation at issue in that case. Id. Thus, we ruled that the use of that term to define Act violations satisfied the constitutional standards of due process. Id. The fishermen argue, however, that our previous determination is applicable only to the civil forfeiture context under section 3374. Because “[a] statute providing for civil sanctions is reviewed for vagueness with somewhat greater tolerance than one involving criminal penalties,” they contend that the Act is not sufficiently clear to justify the imposition of criminal penalties. 594,464 Pounds, 871 F.2d at 829, citing Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498-99, 102 S.Ct. at 1193-94 (quotation omitted). They would have us hold that although section 3372 defines violations precisely enough to justify forfeiture proceedings, it is too vague to support criminal sanctions under section 3373. This argument fails to recognize, however, “that a scienter requirement may mitigate" }, { "docid": "3548790", "title": "", "text": "render Stephenson’s claim moot and allow Appellees to insulate themselves from liability simply by amending the regulation. See id. Stephenson’s standing to challenge the regulation as void-for-vagueness derives from an actual injury, directly caused by the District’s regulation, that can be compensated by a favorable decision of the courts. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). B. VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS “The void-for-vagueness doctrine is embodied in the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments.” D.C. and M.S. v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 795 F.2d 652, 653 (8th Cir.1986). A vague regulation is constitutionally infirm in two significant respects. First, the doctrine of vagueness “incorporates notions of fair notice or warning,” Goguen, 415 U.S. at 572, 94 S.Ct. at 1247, and a regulation “violates the first essential of due process of law” by failing to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct. Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926) (citations omitted). In short, a regulation is void-for-vagueness if it “forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application____” Id. Second, the void-for-vagueness doctrine prevents arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Goguen, 415 U.S. at 573, 94 S.Ct. at 1247. “A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis____” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). Stephenson makes a facial challenge to the District regulation, thus our “first task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). The regulation’s description of forbidden gang activities states: Gang related activities such as display of “colors”, symbols, signals, signs, etc., will not be tolerated on school grounds." }, { "docid": "19853903", "title": "", "text": "that this provision is invalid because it forces Project Rescue to engage in speech repugnant to its views. We disagree. Our decision in New York State Nat’l Org. for Women, 886 F.2d at 1352, is dispositive of this contention. There, we held that a leader of an antiabortion group could properly be held in contempt for “fail[ing] to instruct his followers that the TRO prohibited their goal of blocking entry to facilities providing abortion services.” Id. In accordance with that holding, we reject Project Rescue’s challenge to the “good faith effort” provision as that provision applies to the valid provisions of the injunction. 2. Due Process Project Rescue further contends that certain provisions of the injunction are imper-missibly vague. We disagree. “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). Although most void-for-vagueness challenges target municipal ordinances, criminal statutes and other generally applicable laws, see, e.g., Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (criminal statute); Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 491, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1190, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (village ordinance); United States v. Sun and Sand Imports, 725 F.2d 184, 186-87 (2d Cir.1984) (federal regulation), Project Rescue’s vagueness challenge to the injunction is nonetheless proper because an unclear injunction, like unclear legislation, “may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning” of what is prohibited. See Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108, 92 S.Ct. at 2299. Moreover, injunctions pose a particular risk of discriminatory application, see Madsen, — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2524, and that risk constitutes yet another reason to require clear and definite notice of what is prohibited. See Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108, 92 S.Ct. at 2298-99. A regulation is void for vagueness if it is so indefinite that ordinary people cannot understand that which it prohibits. See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357, 103 S.Ct. at 1858. Moreover, if the" } ]

[ { "docid": "4257686", "title": "", "text": "137 U.S. 147, 150, 11 S.Ct. 54, 34 L.Ed. 636. In this case the court-martial had jurisdiction of the person accused and the offense charged, and acted within its lawful powers. The correction of any errors it may have committed is for the military authorities which are alone authorized to review its decision. In re Yamashita, 1946, 327 U.S. 1, 8-9, 66 S.Ct. 340, 344, 345, 90 L.Ed. 499; Swaim v. United States, supra, 165 U.S. [553] at page 562, 17 S.Ct. [448] at page 451, 41 L.Ed. 823.” In Burns v. Wilson, supra, the court to some extent broadens the scope of review. It is there said to be the limited function of the civil courts in military habeas corpus cases, in coping with allegations of deprivation of basic constitutional rights, to determine whether the military courts have given fair consideration to the claims. Any such claims found not to have been fairly considered by the military courts may be adjudged on the merits by the civil courts. This court’s interpretation of Burns v. Wilson, supra, is set out in Easley v. Hunter, supra, 209 F.2d at page 487: “* * * jn other words, as we understand the Burns decision, it does no more than hold that a military court must consider questions relating to the guarantees afforded an accused by the Constitution and when this is done, the civil courts will not review its action.” The contentions made by petitioners that they were denied effective assistance of counsel and that they were not advised of their right to file a motion for new trial are interrelated and will be discussed together. Two members of the Judge Advocate General Corps were appointed to represent petitioners at the court-martial. In addition, pursuant to the request of petitioner Riggins, Lieutenant Cracraft, also a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps, was appointed as his individual counsel. At the time of arraignment, petitioners were apparently satisfied with their counsel and with the arrangements for trial. It is now argued that inadequacy of counsel is demonstrated by a failure to make proper" } ]

[ { "docid": "9990488", "title": "", "text": "petitioner testified at length concerning his psychiatric evaluation of the accused. On appeal, the Army Board of Review considered this issue of mental incompetency. Clearly, the accused had an opportunity to present the issue and, in fact, it was considered by the military authorities. It is not our function to re-evaluate the evidence in this regard. Next, petitioner complains that his appointed counsel was inadequate. This matter is not within our powers of review. The contention of inadequate counsel should have been raised during the military procedures. McKinney v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, 273 F.2d 643 (10th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 816, 80 S.Ct. 1253, 4 L.Ed.2d 1156 (1960). Petitioner further alleges the pre-trial investigation under Article of War 70 was deficient primarily because a key witness wasn’t called to testify and because he wasn’t provided with counsel. An inquiry into this matter is also beyond the scope of our consideration for the pre-trial investigation procedure of Article of War 70 is not an indispensable prerequisite to the exercise of Army General Court-Martial jurisdiction. Humphrey v. Smith, 336 U.S. 695, 69 S.Ct. 830, 93 L.Ed. 986 (1949). The final contention of petitioner is that he was not under the jurisdiction of the Commanding General, Fourth Service Command, who convened the Court-Martial and furthermore he was, as an air force personnel, entitled to a trial by air force and not ground force personnel. The facts are undisputed that petitioner was attached as a casual to Ream Army Hospital at the time of the offense. This hospital was under the command jurisdiction of the Fourth Service Command of the Army Service Forces. The Commanding General of that command had authority to convene a General Court-Martial and try the petitioner. The Army Board of Review in its review of the case determined that the court was properly constituted. We see no reason to pursue this matter further. Other matters raised by petitioner have been considered and either deemed to be without merit or beyond the scope of our review. The judgment is therefore affirmed." }, { "docid": "9990487", "title": "", "text": "powers. Hiatt v. Brown, 339 U.S. 103, 70 S.Ct. 495, 94 L.Ed. 691 (1950). This review has also been held to include an examination of the accused’s Constitutional rights but only to see that the military courts have given due consideration to the guarantees afforded by the Constitution. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953); Easley v. Hunter, 209 F.2d 483 (10th Cir., 1953); Suttles v. Davis, 215 F.2d 760 (10th Cir., 1954). Petitioner first asserts that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his arrest and trial. The only question for us to decide is whether or not the accused had an opportunity to present the insanity issue. Once we see that opportunity afforded, our inquiry must end. Whelchel v. McDonald, 340 U.S. 122, 71 S.Ct. 146, 95 L.Ed. 141 (1950). It appears that the first issue of the accused’s mental competency arose in the pre-trial investigating officer’s report. Again at the trial where the accused was represented by counsel, a medical officer who previously examined the petitioner testified at length concerning his psychiatric evaluation of the accused. On appeal, the Army Board of Review considered this issue of mental incompetency. Clearly, the accused had an opportunity to present the issue and, in fact, it was considered by the military authorities. It is not our function to re-evaluate the evidence in this regard. Next, petitioner complains that his appointed counsel was inadequate. This matter is not within our powers of review. The contention of inadequate counsel should have been raised during the military procedures. McKinney v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, 273 F.2d 643 (10th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 816, 80 S.Ct. 1253, 4 L.Ed.2d 1156 (1960). Petitioner further alleges the pre-trial investigation under Article of War 70 was deficient primarily because a key witness wasn’t called to testify and because he wasn’t provided with counsel. An inquiry into this matter is also beyond the scope of our consideration for the pre-trial investigation procedure of Article of War 70 is not an indispensable prerequisite to the exercise of Army General Court-Martial" }, { "docid": "22897409", "title": "", "text": "appeared from the application, even without the trial record, that Watson was not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. We therefore AFFIRM the' district court’s dismissal of the application for a writ of habeas corpus. . The Fifth Circuit discussed the debate over the Bums test in its opinion in Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184, 198-99 nn. 21-22 (5th Cir.1975). . The Tenth Circuit cases applying the Bums standard have addressed a wide variety of claims. See, e.g., Wolff v. United States, Til F.2d 877 (10th Cir.) (due process and confrontation claims), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 575, 83 L.Ed.2d 514 (1984); Palomera v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 937 (10th Cir.) (competence to stand trial and ineffective assistance of counsel claims), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 405, 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965); Gorko v. Commanding Officer, 314 F.2d 858 (10th Cir.1963) (jurisdictional, speedy trial, and double jeopardy claims); Thomas v. Davis, 249 F.2d 232 (10th Cir.1957) (involuntary confession claim), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 927, 78 S.Ct. 385, 2 L.Ed.2d 358 (1958). . Watson correctly argues that the determination of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires evaluation of a mixed question of law and fact. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). And generally we grant no deference to a state court determination of federal constitutional law on habeas corpus, Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 318, 83 S.Ct. 745, 759, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), with exceptions in Fourth Amendment cases. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3046, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). The Bums court, however, stated specifically that the deference due the military was greater than that due state courts. Burns, 346 U.S. at 142, 73 S.Ct. at 1048. Thus Watson’s reliance on cases involving civilian petitioners is misplaced. . The military courts have set up a procedure for supplementary evidentiary hearings when a convicted person raises issues about which there is a factual dispute that cannot be settled with mere examination of the record. See United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 149," }, { "docid": "6906705", "title": "", "text": "in the military courts and may not therefore be considered when presented for the first time in the application for habeas corpus. The civil courts may review only claims of infringement of constitutional rights which the military courts refused to give fair consideration. Burns v. Wilson, supra. Obviously, it cannot be said that they have refused to fairly consider claims not asserted.” The order of the court below dismissing appellant’s petition for a writ of ha-beas corpus was correct in all respects, and we therefore affirm. HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge (concurring specially): I agree with the Court’s disposition of the appeal but feel it proper to add a brief comment on the speedy trial issue. As the opinion points out, our review in military habeas corpus proceedings is limited and where the military tribunals have dealt fully and fairly with an allegation, a federal civil court may not exercise habeas jurisdiction simply to reevaluate the evidence. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 142, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508. The opinion in the Burns case stressed the fact that the, military reviewing courts had scrutinized trial records and discussed the petitioner’s contentions before rejecting them. Id. at 144-145, 73 S.Ct. 1045. In the instant case the Court’s opinion refers to the briefing of the speedy trial issue as appellant’s proposition I and to the statement in the opinion of the Board of Review that proposition I was not considered meritorious and did not require discussion. United States v. King, 37 C.M.R. 475, 481. Our record also shows argument on the issue and denial of a motion to dismiss based on it by the Law Officer of the General Court Martial, but no findings or discussion of the issue. We are referred to no other treatment of the claim by the military courts. Without saying that in fact the military tribunals did not fully consider the claim, to me the record before us cannot be said to show such full and fair consideration of the allegations as to foreclose the courts from hearing appellant on the issue. Therefore, I turn to the" }, { "docid": "6906702", "title": "", "text": "the appellant and the offense, we must hold that the appellant was not entitled to trial by jury. In Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508, the Court enunciated the rule that the limited function of the civil courts in reviewing a military conviction on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in addition to the jurisdictional issues under the prior rule, is to determine whether the military gave fair consideration to each of the petitioner’s constitutional claims. See also Suttles v. Davis, 215 F.2d 760 (10th Cir.). The record before us shows that the speedy trial issue was argued and considered, before the court-martial trial, by the general court-martial with the facts asserted to support the allegation of prejudice, by the convening authority, and by the Board of Review. In the brief filed with the Board of Review, the appellant’s first assignment of error was stated as follows: “The failure on the part of the military authorities to bring the accused to trial until two years and two months after the offenses charged constitutes a denial of the accused’s right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” In its opinion the Board of Review stated: “At this appellate level the case was extensively briefed and ably argued by appellate Government and defense counsel. Appellate defense counsel assign sixteen errors. Those assigned as I (the denial of a speedy trial), II, III, IV, XII, XIY and XVI, we do not consider meritorious nor requiring discussion.” This issue was also raised in appellant’s Petition for Grant of Review by the United States Court of Military Appeals. That court, however, as authorized by Article 67 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867, did not grant review on this issue. We must hold that the record shows that there was a fair consideration of this constitutional claim by the military upon full presentation of the facts and law within the meaning of Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508," }, { "docid": "13993698", "title": "", "text": "the general court-martial was convened served to deprive Kehrli of due process of law. These irregularities were improper investigation under Article 32 of the UCMJ; bypassing of Kehrli’s immediate commanding officer; improper influence of command policy by command officials; and convening of the court-martial by the de facto accuser, contrary to Article 22 of the UCMJ. (2) The conviction for possession of marijuana was based on evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court found that these points had been fully considered by the military courts during the military review process, and held that the doctrine of Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508, precluded any further review in the civilian courts. In Burns, the Court noted that while civil courts do have habeas corpus jurisdiction over court-martial convictions, the scope of review is narrower than when a civil habeas corpus proceeding is involved, and stated: “. . . [W]hen a military decision has dealt fully and fairly with an allegation raised in that application, it is not open to a federal civil court to grant the writ simply to re-evaluate the evidence. . . . ” (346 U.S. at 142, 73 S.Ct. at 1048). This Circuit has consistently adhered to a limited review doctrine which we consider to have been announced in Burns. We recently restated our position in King v. Moseley, 430 F.2d 732 (10th Cir.), as follows: “In Bums v. Wilson, . . . the Court enunciated the rule that the limited function of the civil courts in reviewing a military conviction on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in addition to the jurisdictional issues under the prior rule, is to determine whether the military gave fair consideration to each of the petitioner’s constitutional claims.” See also Smith v. McNamara, 395 F.2d 896 (10th Cir.); Kennedy v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, 377 F.2d 339 (10th Cir.); Dixon v. United States, 237 F.2d 509 (10th Cir.). In the case before us, we agree that the military courts gave full and fair" }, { "docid": "12167315", "title": "", "text": "the need for other courts to refrain from review until all military remedies have been exhausted, the Court stated “[w]e think this congressional judgment must be respected and that it must be assumed that the military court system will vindicate servicemen’s constitutional rights.” Id. As a general matter, courts outside the military justice system “will not entertain habeas petitions by military prisoners until all available military remedies have been exhausted.” Id. The exhaustion requirement is prudential rather than jurisdictional, and the Supreme Court did not preclude the possibility that the circumstances of a particular case might warrant consideration of a habeas petition by an Article III court prior to exhaustion. Id. at 761, 95 S.Ct. 1300. b. Full and fair consideration Even when remedies have been exhausted, the scope of collateral review outside the military justice system is constrained by the requirement to consider whether the military justice system has given full and fair consideration to the claims at issue. Burns, 346 U.S. at 142-46, 73 S.Ct. 1045. De novo review is appropriate only if the military justice system “manifestly refused to consider those claims.” Id. at 142, 73 S.Ct. 1045. As recently noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in New, 448 F.3d at 407-08, Article III courts have utilized various standards in applying Burns. Compare, e.g., Dodson v. Zelez, 917 F.2d 1250, 1252-53 (10th Cir.1990) (applying the deference test articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.1975)), with Brosius v. Warden, 278 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir.2002) (applying the deference standard that the court would have used in habeas review of a state court conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). Irrespective of the different approaches used by the Article III courts, they are obligated to apply the exhaustion and review standards of Schlesinger and Bums when considering claims raised by a petitioner on collateral review. 2. The relationship between courts within and outside the military justice system with respect to collateral review As previously described, courts within the" }, { "docid": "14628647", "title": "", "text": "reach the merits of the case. See Ruiz-Garcia v. Lansing, 42 Fed. Appx. 98, 100 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) (“In determining whether full and fair consideration was given to an issue, federal courts apply [the four-part Lips/Dodson test].”); see also Khan v. Hart, 943 F.2d 1261, 1262-63 (10th Cir.1991); Dodson v. Zelez, 917 F.2d 1250, 1252-53 (10th Cir.1990). As we read the district court’s approach, it assumes the possibility of a case in which the issues were not fully and fairly considered within the meaning of Bums but were nevertheless unreviewable by the district court. However, Lips/Dodson merely develops our understanding of full and fair consideration; it does not add an additional jurisdictional hurdle. The approach we clarify today is more consistent with the Supreme Court’s rule. While the district court may have incorrectly applied the four-factor test as an additional jurisdictional hurdle rather than as an aid in determining if the claims had been “fully and fairly considered” as required by Bums, it is clear that the district court’s approach did not result in an erroneous disposition of the case. Both in its initial determination that the issues had been fully and fairly considered in the military courts and in its more detailed discussion of the four factors, the district court concluded that it lacked authority to review the case. Our review of the record reveals that, had the district court applied the four factors merely as an aid in determining whether the claims were fully and fairly considered, it would have reached the same conclusion. We have held that where an issue is adequately briefed and argued before the military courts the issue has been given fair consideration, even if the military court disposes of the issue summarily. See Watson, 782 F.2d at 145. Our independent review of the record indicates that grounds one through twenty-six were each briefed and argued in the military courts. All twenty-six claims were raised in either or both the Army Court of Criminal Appeals or the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In making these claims, Petitioner made well-reasoned arguments, cited" }, { "docid": "3558080", "title": "", "text": "court-martial immediately dissolves after sentencing and is no longer available later to hear a collateral attack on the sentence. See also Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 537 n. 11, 119 S.Ct. 1538, 143 L.Ed.2d 720 (citing § 2241(c) as authority for proposition that habeas corpus is available to servicemembers in custody pursuant to court martial). On the merits, the district court properly determined that Witham is not entitled to relief. As the magistrate judge explained, three of Witham’s claims were fully and fairly considered by the military courts. Where there is no colorable jurisdictional question, a finding of full and fair consideration ends our habeas corpus inquiry. See Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 142, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953); see also Lips v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, 997 F.2d 808, 811 (10th Cir.1993) (“[I]f the military gave full and fair consideration to claims asserted in a federal habeas corpus petition, the petition should be denied.”). Wit-ham’s two remaining claims were procedurally defaulted. Where a petitioner has failed to raise a claim in the military courts, a federal court will not review the claim unless the petitioner has established “cause” and “prejudice” for failing to raise the error. Lips, 997 F.2d at 812 (citing Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 491, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986)). As the magistrate below noted, Witham made no effort to show “cause” or “prejudice” to excuse his procedural defaults. The district court therefore properly accepted the magistrate’s recommendation not to review those claims on the merits. Witham’s primary argument before this court is that the district court should have granted a hearing on his claims. Regardless of whether Witham seeks collateral review under § 2241 or § 2255, his assertion on appeal that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing is baseless. Wit-ham points to no authority standing for the proposition that a petition under § 2255 is entitled to an automatic evidentiary hearing. Moreover, we have consistently held that a district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing subsequent to a § 2255 motion or a petition for" }, { "docid": "22897407", "title": "", "text": "courts refused to consider them. See Bums, 346 U.S. at 142, 73 S.Ct. at 1048; Dickenson v. Davis, 245 F.2d 317, 320 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 918, 78 S.Ct. 349, 2 L.Ed.2d 278 (1958). We will not review petitioners’ claims on the merits if they were not raised at all in the military courts, see, e.g., McKinney v. Warden, 273 F.2d 643, 644 (10th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 816, 80 S.Ct. 1253, 4 L.Ed.2d 1156 (1960); Sutiles v. Davis, 215 F.2d 760, 763 (10th Cir. 1954). When an issue is briefed and argued before a military board of review, we have held that the military tribunal has given the claim fair consideration, even though its opinion summarily disposed of the issue with the mere statement that it did not consider the issue meritorious or requiring discussion. See King, 430 F.2d at 735. There is no indication in any of our decisions that the military must provide an evidentiary hearing on an issue to avoid further review in the federal courts. On the contrary, less than an evidentiary hearing has amounted to “full and fair consideration.” We decline to adopt a rigid rule requiring evidentiary hearings for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We hold that the military did give full and fair consideration to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim at issue in this case. Although the military courts did not afford Watson an evidentiary hearing on his claim, he did receive a hearing On his ineffective assistance claim in his appeal to the Army Court of Military Review. That court’s opinion expressly considered the explanations of Watson’s trial counsel in a post-trial affidavit and demonstrated that the military court examined the trial record of the court-martial. In Bums the Supreme Court relied in part on its belief that the military courts had scrutinized the trial record before rejecting the petitioners’ claims. Burns, 346 U.S. at 144, 73 S.Ct. at 1049. Under the circumstances of this case, it was unnecessary for the district court to issue an order to show cause or to hold an evidentiary hearing. It" }, { "docid": "13993699", "title": "", "text": "raised in that application, it is not open to a federal civil court to grant the writ simply to re-evaluate the evidence. . . . ” (346 U.S. at 142, 73 S.Ct. at 1048). This Circuit has consistently adhered to a limited review doctrine which we consider to have been announced in Burns. We recently restated our position in King v. Moseley, 430 F.2d 732 (10th Cir.), as follows: “In Bums v. Wilson, . . . the Court enunciated the rule that the limited function of the civil courts in reviewing a military conviction on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in addition to the jurisdictional issues under the prior rule, is to determine whether the military gave fair consideration to each of the petitioner’s constitutional claims.” See also Smith v. McNamara, 395 F.2d 896 (10th Cir.); Kennedy v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, 377 F.2d 339 (10th Cir.); Dixon v. United States, 237 F.2d 509 (10th Cir.). In the case before us, we agree that the military courts gave full and fair consideration to Kehrli’s claims regarding the court-martial procedures and the search and seizure. Therefore, the district court did not err in declining to consider these claims. Kehrli has presented these issues to this court for review on the merits, but such is clearly precluded. The second point we will review is Kehrli’s claim that his conviction and sentence for use and possession of marijuana violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, the right of privacy, and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The district court considered these claims on the merits since they were not discussed by the military courts, although they were presented in the petition for grant of review addressed to the United States Court of Military Appeals. The equal protection argument stems from language in the Manual for Courts-Martial which supplements the Uniform Code of Military Justice. With reference to Article 134 (10 U.S.C. § 934), paragraph 213b of the Manual states: “It is a violation of this article wrongfully to possess or use marihuana or a habit forming" }, { "docid": "15069466", "title": "", "text": "was denied any basic right guaranteed to him by the Constitution.” Dixon v. United States, 10 Cir., 237 F.2d 509. In accord, Day v. Wilson, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 247 F.2d 60; Rushing v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 272 F.2d 633, cert. den. 364 U.S. 914, 81 S. Ct. 280, 5 L.Ed.2d 229; DeCoster v. Madigan, 7 Cir., 223 F.2d 906; Begalke v. United States, 286 F.2d 606, 148 Ct. Cl. 397, cert. den. 364 U.S. 865, 81 S.Ct. 108, 5 L.Ed.2d 87; Shaw v. United States, 357 F.2d 949, 174 Ct.Cl. 899. If Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508 accomplished nothing else, it “conclusively rejected the concept advocated by Justice Minton that habeas corpus review should be restricted to questions of formal jurisdiction.” Gibbs v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 354 F.2d 469. Where the constitutional issue involves a factual determination, our inquiry is limited to whether the military court gave full and fair consideration to the constitutional questions presented. It is not our duty to re-examine and reweigh each item of evidence which tends to prove or disprove the allegations in the petition for habeas corpus. Dickenson v. Davis, 10 Cir., 245 F.2d 317, cert. den. 355 U.S. 918, 78 S.Ct. 349, 2 L.Ed.2d 278; Thomas v. Davis, 10 Cir., 249 F.2d 232, cert. den. 355 U.S. 927, 78 S.Ct. 385, 2 L.Ed.2d 358; Bennett v. Davis, 10 Cir., 267 F.2d 15; McKinney v. Warden, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 643, cert. den. 363 U.S. 816, 86 S.Ct. 1253, 4 L.Ed.2d 1156; Gorko v. Commanding Officer, 10 Cir., 314 F.2d 858, 860; Palomera v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 937, cert. den. 382 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 405, 15 L.Ed.2d 354. Here Kennedy does not contend that his appointed “counsel” was factually inadequate or ineffective (such a contention must be presented to the military courts, McKinney v. Warden, supra) but argues that the appointment of a non-legally trained officer was a per se violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel as well as his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial. We believe it is the" }, { "docid": "6906704", "title": "", "text": "so that we cannot review the issue here. Palomera v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 937 (10th Cir.); Wigand v. Taylor, 285 F.2d 594 (10th Cir.); Easley v. Hunter, 209 F.2d 483 (10th Cir.). The appellant asserts that the military courts and boards reached the wrong result. But again in view of the way in which the case reaches us, this is not for us to evaluate. The appellant’s final contention, that he was denied the right to a fair trial because of extensive unfavorable pretrial publicity, is raised here for the first time. This issue has never been presented to the military authorities nor was it raised in the court below. This being the case, the matter falls squarely within the ruling of this court in Suttles v. Davis, 215 F.2d 760 (10th Cir.). In that case, the petitioner attempted to assert that he was inadequately represented by counsel. What this court said in Suttles is applicable here: “The trial court properly found that the alleged inadequacies of counsel could have been but were not raised in the military courts and may not therefore be considered when presented for the first time in the application for habeas corpus. The civil courts may review only claims of infringement of constitutional rights which the military courts refused to give fair consideration. Burns v. Wilson, supra. Obviously, it cannot be said that they have refused to fairly consider claims not asserted.” The order of the court below dismissing appellant’s petition for a writ of ha-beas corpus was correct in all respects, and we therefore affirm. HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge (concurring specially): I agree with the Court’s disposition of the appeal but feel it proper to add a brief comment on the speedy trial issue. As the opinion points out, our review in military habeas corpus proceedings is limited and where the military tribunals have dealt fully and fairly with an allegation, a federal civil court may not exercise habeas jurisdiction simply to reevaluate the evidence. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 142, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508. The opinion in the Burns case stressed" }, { "docid": "22897405", "title": "", "text": "proceedings before deciding to uphold the convictions. Id. at 139, 73 S.Ct. at 1047. In reviewing these actions, the Supreme Court was willing to expand the scope of review available in federal courts slightly beyond purely jurisdictional concerns, but it found that the court of appeals had gone too far. Id. at 146, 73 S.Ct. at 1050. The petitioners had failed to show that the military review was “legally inadequate” to resolve their claims. Id. Without such a showing, the federal court could not reach the merits. Id. In Burns the military review of the case had included review by the Staff Judge Advocate, a decision of the Board of Review in the office of the Judge Advocate General, a decision of the Judicial Council in the Judge Advocate General’s office after briefs and oral argument, a recommendation by the Judge Advocate General, an action by the President confirming the sentences, and a decision by the Judge Advocate General to deny petitions for new trials. Id. at 144, 73 S.Ct. at 1049. The Court deemed it clear, under those circumstances, that the military courts had given full and fair consideration to each claim. Id. Although there, has been inconsistency among the circuits on the proper amount of deference due the military courts and the interpretation and weight to be given the “full and fair consideration” standard of Burns, this circuit has consistently granted broad deference to the military in civilian collateral review of court-martial convictions. See, e.g., Kehrli v. Sprinkle, 524 F.2d 328, 331 (10th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 947, 96 S.Ct. 3165, 49 L.Ed.2d 1183 (1976); King v. Moseley, 430 F.2d 732, 735 (10th Cir.1970); Kennedy v. Commandant, 377 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.1967). Although we have applied the “full and fair consideration” standard, we have never attempted to define it precisely. Rather, we have often recited the standard and then considered or refused to consider the merits of a given claim, with minimal discussion of what the military courts actually did. We will entertain military prisoners’ claims if they were raised in the military courts and those" }, { "docid": "6182817", "title": "", "text": "conviction itself is governed by the deferential standard established by the Supreme Court in Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953). In that case, the Court stated that “when a military decision has dealt fully and fairly with an allegation raised in that application [for habeas corpus], it is not open to a federal civil court to grant the writ simply to re-evaluate the evidence.” Id. at 142, 73 S.Ct. at 1049. In this circuit, we have interpreted this language to limit our review of military convictions generally to jurisdictional issues and to determination of whether the military gave fair consideration to each of the petitioner’s constitutional claims. See Watson v. McCotter, 782 F.2d 143, 144 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184, 106 S.Ct. 2921, 91 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986); King v. Moseley, 430 F.2d 732, 734-35 (10th Cir.1970). In appropriate cases, however, we will consider and decide constitutional issues that were also considered by the military courts. Mendrano v. Smith, 797 F.2d 1538, 1541-42 & n. 6 (10th Cir.1986); see Wallis v. O’Kier, 491 F.2d 1323, 1325 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 901, 95 S.Ct. 185, 42 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974); Kennedy v. Commandant, 377 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.1967). The record in this case indicates that the Military Court of Appeals considered Monk’s claim that the military judge’s reasonable doubt instruction deprived him of his right to due process. See United States v. Martin, 13 M.J. 66 (C.M.A.1982). We nonetheless hold that this constitutional claim is subject to our further review because it is both “substantial and largely free of factual questions.” Mendrano, 797 F.2d at 1542 n. 6; see Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184, 199-203 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 1505, 47 L.Ed.2d 760 (1976). “Consideration by the military of such [an issue] will not preclude judicial review for the military must accord to its personnel the protections of basic constitutional rights essential to a fair trial and the guarantee of due process of law.” Calley, 519 F.2d at 203; see Burns, 346 U.S. at 142," }, { "docid": "15069467", "title": "", "text": "evidence which tends to prove or disprove the allegations in the petition for habeas corpus. Dickenson v. Davis, 10 Cir., 245 F.2d 317, cert. den. 355 U.S. 918, 78 S.Ct. 349, 2 L.Ed.2d 278; Thomas v. Davis, 10 Cir., 249 F.2d 232, cert. den. 355 U.S. 927, 78 S.Ct. 385, 2 L.Ed.2d 358; Bennett v. Davis, 10 Cir., 267 F.2d 15; McKinney v. Warden, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 643, cert. den. 363 U.S. 816, 86 S.Ct. 1253, 4 L.Ed.2d 1156; Gorko v. Commanding Officer, 10 Cir., 314 F.2d 858, 860; Palomera v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 937, cert. den. 382 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 405, 15 L.Ed.2d 354. Here Kennedy does not contend that his appointed “counsel” was factually inadequate or ineffective (such a contention must be presented to the military courts, McKinney v. Warden, supra) but argues that the appointment of a non-legally trained officer was a per se violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel as well as his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial. We believe it is the duty of this Court to determine if the military procedure for providing assistance to those brought before a special court-martial is violative of the fundamental rights secured to all by the United States Constitution. As, the Chief Justice has said, “The various opinions of the members of the Court in Burns (supra) * * * do constitute recognition of the proposition that our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes.” Warren, The Bill of Rights and the Military, 37 N.Y.U. Law Rev. 181, 188 (1961). The question of the applicability of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in military prosecutions is the subject of much current discussion and contrariety. In this circuit two distinguished trial judges have arrived at opposite conclusions. Cf. Application of Stapley, 246 F.Supp. 316, with LeBallister v. Warden, D.C., 247 F.Supp. 349, and Kennedy v. Commandant, supra. The Military Court of Appeals is also divided, see U. S. v. Culp, 14 U.S.C.M.A. 199. In a scholarly and characteristically forthright treatise" }, { "docid": "6182816", "title": "", "text": "hence could only be brought against his immediate custodian, the Commandant of the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, in Kansas. Monk v. Secretary of Navy, 793 F.2d 364, 368-69 (D.C.Cir.1986). Monk then filed the present action for habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Discussion Monk claims on appeal that the military judge’s instruction concerning the concept of “reasonable doubt,” either individually or coupled with numerous other alleged errors, violated his due process rights and thus requires reversal of his conviction. Because we agree that the military judge’s reasonable doubt instruction was both defective and violated Monk’s constitutional right to conviction only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse on this ground and do not address Monk’s other claims of constitutional error. A. Standard of Review We review denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo. Bruni v. Lewis, 847 F.2d 561, 563 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 403, 102 L.Ed.2d 391 (1988). Our review of the military conviction itself is governed by the deferential standard established by the Supreme Court in Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953). In that case, the Court stated that “when a military decision has dealt fully and fairly with an allegation raised in that application [for habeas corpus], it is not open to a federal civil court to grant the writ simply to re-evaluate the evidence.” Id. at 142, 73 S.Ct. at 1049. In this circuit, we have interpreted this language to limit our review of military convictions generally to jurisdictional issues and to determination of whether the military gave fair consideration to each of the petitioner’s constitutional claims. See Watson v. McCotter, 782 F.2d 143, 144 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184, 106 S.Ct. 2921, 91 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986); King v. Moseley, 430 F.2d 732, 734-35 (10th Cir.1970). In appropriate cases, however, we will consider and decide constitutional issues that were also considered by the military courts. Mendrano v. Smith, 797 F.2d 1538, 1541-42 & n. 6 (10th" }, { "docid": "22897406", "title": "", "text": "it clear, under those circumstances, that the military courts had given full and fair consideration to each claim. Id. Although there, has been inconsistency among the circuits on the proper amount of deference due the military courts and the interpretation and weight to be given the “full and fair consideration” standard of Burns, this circuit has consistently granted broad deference to the military in civilian collateral review of court-martial convictions. See, e.g., Kehrli v. Sprinkle, 524 F.2d 328, 331 (10th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 947, 96 S.Ct. 3165, 49 L.Ed.2d 1183 (1976); King v. Moseley, 430 F.2d 732, 735 (10th Cir.1970); Kennedy v. Commandant, 377 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.1967). Although we have applied the “full and fair consideration” standard, we have never attempted to define it precisely. Rather, we have often recited the standard and then considered or refused to consider the merits of a given claim, with minimal discussion of what the military courts actually did. We will entertain military prisoners’ claims if they were raised in the military courts and those courts refused to consider them. See Bums, 346 U.S. at 142, 73 S.Ct. at 1048; Dickenson v. Davis, 245 F.2d 317, 320 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 918, 78 S.Ct. 349, 2 L.Ed.2d 278 (1958). We will not review petitioners’ claims on the merits if they were not raised at all in the military courts, see, e.g., McKinney v. Warden, 273 F.2d 643, 644 (10th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 816, 80 S.Ct. 1253, 4 L.Ed.2d 1156 (1960); Sutiles v. Davis, 215 F.2d 760, 763 (10th Cir. 1954). When an issue is briefed and argued before a military board of review, we have held that the military tribunal has given the claim fair consideration, even though its opinion summarily disposed of the issue with the mere statement that it did not consider the issue meritorious or requiring discussion. See King, 430 F.2d at 735. There is no indication in any of our decisions that the military must provide an evidentiary hearing on an issue to avoid further review in the federal courts. On the" }, { "docid": "22897403", "title": "", "text": "LOGAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the district court’s summary dismissal of petitioner Michael C. Watson’s application for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Watson currently is serving a ten-year court-martial sentence for rape and forcible sodomy, violations of Articles 120 and 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 925. The district court dismissed the petition, without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing, on the ground that the military tribunals previously had given “full and fair consideration” to Watson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, despite the absence of any evidentiary hearing on the issue by a military court. Watson was convicted in 1981 before a general court-martial. He appealed his conviction to the Army Court of Military Review on due process and ineffective assistance of counsel grounds; after a hearing that court affirmed his conviction and sentence. The United States Court of Military Appeals denied further review. Watson then filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus, a supporting brief, and a request for a hearing in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, the district in which he is imprisoned. He again raised ineffective assistance of counsel and due process challenges to his confinement. Two days after this filing, the district court sua sponte denied the writ. This appeal raises only the ineffective assistance claim. When a military decision has dealt “fully and fairly” with an allegation raised in a habeas petition, “it is not open to a federal civil court to grant the writ simply to reevaluate the evidence.” Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 142, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 1048, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953) (plurality opinion). In Bums the district court had dismissed the petitioners’ application for habeas corpus without hearing evidence, because it was satisfied that the court-martial had jurisdiction over the prisoners, crimes, and sentences. Id. at 138, 73 S.Ct. at 1046. The court of appeals gave the petitioners’ claims full consideration on the merits; it reviewed the evidence in the trial record and other military court" }, { "docid": "22897408", "title": "", "text": "contrary, less than an evidentiary hearing has amounted to “full and fair consideration.” We decline to adopt a rigid rule requiring evidentiary hearings for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We hold that the military did give full and fair consideration to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim at issue in this case. Although the military courts did not afford Watson an evidentiary hearing on his claim, he did receive a hearing On his ineffective assistance claim in his appeal to the Army Court of Military Review. That court’s opinion expressly considered the explanations of Watson’s trial counsel in a post-trial affidavit and demonstrated that the military court examined the trial record of the court-martial. In Bums the Supreme Court relied in part on its belief that the military courts had scrutinized the trial record before rejecting the petitioners’ claims. Burns, 346 U.S. at 144, 73 S.Ct. at 1049. Under the circumstances of this case, it was unnecessary for the district court to issue an order to show cause or to hold an evidentiary hearing. It appeared from the application, even without the trial record, that Watson was not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. We therefore AFFIRM the' district court’s dismissal of the application for a writ of habeas corpus. . The Fifth Circuit discussed the debate over the Bums test in its opinion in Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184, 198-99 nn. 21-22 (5th Cir.1975). . The Tenth Circuit cases applying the Bums standard have addressed a wide variety of claims. See, e.g., Wolff v. United States, Til F.2d 877 (10th Cir.) (due process and confrontation claims), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 575, 83 L.Ed.2d 514 (1984); Palomera v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 937 (10th Cir.) (competence to stand trial and ineffective assistance of counsel claims), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 405, 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965); Gorko v. Commanding Officer, 314 F.2d 858 (10th Cir.1963) (jurisdictional, speedy trial, and double jeopardy claims); Thomas v. Davis, 249 F.2d 232 (10th Cir.1957) (involuntary confession claim), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 927, 78 S.Ct. 385, 2 L.Ed.2d 358 (1958)." } ]

[ { "docid": "14849883", "title": "", "text": "Court also set a date to hear the parties’ oral arguments in the case. 15. On November 2, 2001, the Court heard arguments from both parties, as well as testimony from Ms. Elena Ocasio Rivera and Plaintiff himself, as witnesses for Plaintiffs. 16. After said arguments, and as agreed to by the parties, the Court ordered the Temporary Retraining Order be extended for an additional three (3) days, until November 7 at 6 p.m. 17. Said Order also stated that on that same date, the Court would issue this Opinion and Order determining whether it would issue the Preliminary Injunction against the Honorable Governor of Puerto Rico, Sila M. Calderón and Mr. César Miranda. 18. All the documentary evidence necessary to decide this case was submitted untranslated by Plaintiffs during the November 2, 2001 hearing. 19. As of November 5, 2001, no certified translations of any or all of the documentary evidence had been filed. IV. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD For injunctive relief to issue, the party seeking the preliminary injunction must establish that: (1) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the claim; (2) absent the injunction, there is a significant risk of irreparable harm; (3) the balance of hardships weighs in its favor; and (4) granting the injunction will not harm the public interest. See Lanier Professional Services, Inc., v. Ricci, 192 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1999). V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In examining whether Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the Court will simultaneously examine the allegations set forth in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, since they go to the heart or Plaintiffs case. The Court has opted to analyze the law in this fashion simply because the standard that Plaintiffs must surpass in order to succeed on their preliminary injunction claim, likelihood of success on the merits, is higher than the one they must surpass in order to defeat a motion to dismiss. A. Preliminary Injunction Standard 1. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits Defendants allege that 1) the law regarding whether the Governor may remove Mr. Quiles from his term" } ]

[ { "docid": "2572169", "title": "", "text": "on July 13, 2004 PREPA filed its Reply. (Docket No. 33). On August 2, 2004, co-defendants Rosario, Nieves and Blanes filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and Motion to Join PREPA’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Docket-No. 44). Plaintiff requested an extension of time until August 30, 2004 to file his response to this Motion to Dismiss and the same was granted. (Docket Nos. 46 and 47). Nonetheless, to this day, co-defendants Rosario, Nieves and Blanes’ Motion to Dismiss remains unopposed. PREPA’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and related pleadings were referred to this Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation. (Docket No. 34). MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD When deciding a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual claims, and indulge all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996). Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate if the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to. sustain recovery.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). Although all inferences must be made in Plaintiffs’ favor, the Court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. Moreover, when considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) the Court must limit its focus to the allegations of the complaint. Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colon, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978). Specifically, the inquiry should be “whether a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim....” Id.; see also Doyle, 103 F.3d at 190. In Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75 (1st Cir.1999) the Court held that a dismissal for failure to state a claim can only be upheld if, after giving credence to all well pleaded facts and making all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor, the" }, { "docid": "5465025", "title": "", "text": "judgment practice”). Furthermore, a recent First Circuit case buttresses the Court’s conclusion of dismissing for failure to comply with local rules. See NEPSK, Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1, 5-9 (1st Cir.2002)(granting of judgment on pleadings based on plaintiffs failure to comply with local rule requiring timely response). Accordingly, since Sears’ motion does not comply with either Rule 311.12 nor Rule 311.4, the Court denies its motion for summary judgment. II MOTION TO DISMISS Having denied the motion for summary judgment, the Court is left only with Sears’ motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 54). Thus, the Court examines Sears’ motion to dismiss. The present complaint was originally filed against nine (9) defendants. On October 31, 2001 plaintiff filed a motion requesting voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, with respect to three defendants (Docket No. 50), which was soon thereafter granted by the Court. (Docket No. 51). Accordingly, only six (6) defendants remain in this case, namely, Trans Union de Puerto Rico, Inc.; Equifax Credit Information; GMAC; Sears; GE Plus; and Resources BK MTG Group. The Court notes here that the motion to dismiss now pending before the Court was filed by Sears, and with respect to Sears only. When deciding a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual claims, and indulge all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996). Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate if the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp. 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). Although all inferences must be made in Plaintiffs’ favor, the Court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. Moreover, when considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)" }, { "docid": "8105016", "title": "", "text": "Cir.1996)(quoting Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 514 (1st Cir.1988)). Therefore, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiff must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Gooley, 851 F.2d 513. In sum, a claim shall be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) only if it appears beyond doubt that the pleader can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the pleader to relief. Conley, 355 U.S. at 45, 78 S.Ct. 99. (Emphasis added.) However, the Court is not obligated to accept plaintiffs “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. The Court must only accept those facts that are “well pleaded”, limiting its inquiry into the allegations of the complaint. Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colon, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978). In sum, the Court’s focus should always be on “whether a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim [... ].” Id.; also Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75 (1st Cir.1999). A district court’s dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo by the appeals court; such court “accept[s] as true all well-pleaded factual averments and indulg[es] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Calderon-Ortiz v. LaBoy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60, 62-63 (1st Cir.2002); SEC v. SG Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 46 (1st Cir.2001). Accordingly, “if the facts contained in the complaint, viewed in this favorable light, justify recovery under any applicable legal theory”, any order of dismissal shall be set aside. Calderon-Ortiz, 300 F.3d at 63 (quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99; Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3). FACTUAL BACKGROUND Because the standard of review for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) requires that the allegations in the complaint be examined in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the factual background is taken as averred by plaintiff in the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 12). Defendant, RRA is a private domestic corporation engaged in the business of providing information technology services. On or around April 14, 2002, plaintiff," }, { "docid": "20287912", "title": "", "text": "claim against Mr. Rafael Perez-Marcado and Mr. Luis E. Padova-ni-Padilla, in their complaint, thus, dismissal shall thus be entered forthwith as to these two named defendants. III MOTIONS TO DISMISS As the Magistrate correctly indicated, when deciding a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual claims, and indulge all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996). Furthermore, dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate if the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiff must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp. 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). Although all inferences must be made in plaintiffs favor, the Court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. Moreover, when considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) the Court must limit its focus to the allegations of the complaint. Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colon, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978). Specifically, the inquiry should be “whether a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim.... ” Id.; see also Doyle, 103 F.3d at 190. With respect to civil rights suits, in Judge v. City of Lowell, 160 F.3d 67, 74 (1st Cir.1998), the First Circuit explained that “an action under section 1983 against state officials in their individual capacities requirfes a] plaintiff to prove improper motive.... ” Thus, the Court stated, the burden is on plaintiffs to put forth in their complaint, “specific, nonconclusory factual allegations that establish that defendant acted based upon an improper motive.” Id. at 75 & n. 10 (citing Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 1596, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998)); see also Dartmouth Review, 889 F.2d at 16. “Put another way, the element of illegal motive must be pleaded by alleging specific non- conclusory facts" }, { "docid": "4255044", "title": "", "text": "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), quoted in Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 1676, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). See also Correa-Martínez v. Arrillaga-Beléndez, 903 F.2d 49, 52 (1st Cir.1990) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is warranted “only if it clearly appears, according to the facts alleged, that the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory.”). But “[a]lthough this standard is diaphanous, it is not a virtual mirage.” Berner v. Delahanty, 129 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.1997) (quoting Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988)). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must set forth ‘factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.’ ” Id. In judging the sufficiency of a complaint, courts must “differentiate between well-pleaded facts, on the one hand, and ‘bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocution, and the like,’ on the other hand; the former must be credited, but the latter can safely be ignored.” LaChapelle, 142 F.3d at 508 (quoting Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996)). See also Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir.1999). Moreover, Courts “will not accept a complainant’s unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law.” Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation, 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir.1993). a. Docket # 13 In the first cause of action Plaintiffs bring a claim under Title VII, which provides in relevant part that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to fail' or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his [or her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race ....” 42 U.S.Ci § 2000e-2(a)(1). In their motion to dismiss the complaint, the individual Defendants claim that Title VII does" }, { "docid": "5465026", "title": "", "text": "and Resources BK MTG Group. The Court notes here that the motion to dismiss now pending before the Court was filed by Sears, and with respect to Sears only. When deciding a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual claims, and indulge all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996). Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate if the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp. 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). Although all inferences must be made in Plaintiffs’ favor, the Court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. Moreover, when considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) the Court must limit its focus to the allegations of the complaint. Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colon, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978). Specifically, the inquiry should be “whether a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim .... ” Id.; see also Doyle, 103 F.3d at 190. Ill FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Court shall thus review whether dismissal is warranted, accepting as true all factual allegations within the complaint and indulging all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See Brown v. Hot, Sexy & Safer Prods. Inc., 68 F.3d 525, 530 (1st Cir.1995). Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that, in 1999, he received a telephone call from a Sears representative at the credit department, advising him that a “Sears Charge Credit Card” registered under his name had an outstanding balance which was overdue. Surprised, plaintiff indicated that he had never applied for a Sears credit card, and, in response, suggested it was all a mistake. The next day, on August 30, 1999, plaintiff requested an updated copy of his credit report from" }, { "docid": "14676983", "title": "", "text": "of Puerto Rico, 31 P.R. Laws Ann. 5141,' and request the court to exercise jurisdiction under Supplemental Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).\" The court holds that there is no cause of action under EMTALA but accepts that parties may be joined even if there is no independent- source of federal jurisdiction as to them based on the fact that they form part of “the same case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution.” The court explains. L. When deciding a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual claims, and indulge all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996). Furthermore, a dismissal,under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), is appropriate if the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiff must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp. 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). However, although all inferences must be made in plaintiffs favor, the Court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. Moreover, when considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) the Court must limit its focus to the allegations of the complaint. Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colon, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978). Specifically, the inquiry should be “whether a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim.... ” Id.; see also Doyle, 103 F.3d at 190. In Wagner v. Devine, 122 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.,1997), the First Circuit held that a trial court must first “affirm a dismissal for failure to state a claim only if it clearly appears that, on the facts alleged, the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory.” Id at 55. The Supreme Court has explained that: [i]n appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint" }, { "docid": "14429718", "title": "", "text": "must “differentiate between well-pleaded facts, on the one hand, and ‘bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocution, and the like,’ on the other hand; the former must be credited; but the latter can safely be ignored.” LaChapelle, 142 F.3d at 508 (quoting Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996)). See also Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir.1999). Moreover, Courts “will not accept a complainant’s unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law.” Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. Bar Found., 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir.1993). Applicable Law and Analysis Plaintiffs filed the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to costs, interests, and attorneys’ fees, for the alleged political discriminatory actions taken against them by Defendants in refusing to honor their obligations under their respective professional services contracts in violation of their First Amendment rights. Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that they have been deprived of their property rights without due process of law. Plaintiffs have also included a claim for violation to their substantive due process rights and supplemental causes of action under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Defendants have presented a plethora of arguments in their request for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims, namely: (1) Co-defendant Arlequn-Vlez in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity; (2) lack of standing of Co-plaintiff Ramrez to sue under Section 1983; (3) Plaintiffs have no property interest; (4) a mere breach of contract is not a deprivation of property without constitutional due process; (5) political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the professional services contracts at issue; (6) Plaintiffs have failed to state a prima facie case of political discrimination; (7) Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 1983 are time-barred; (8) the Court should abstain under the Younger doctrine; and (9) Plaintiffs’ supplemental law claims should be dismissed. See Dockets ##5, 8, 11 & 15. We will address these arguments in natural order to the extent that it is necessary. I. Section 1983 Section 1983 in itself does not confer substantive rights, but provides a venue for" }, { "docid": "13200030", "title": "", "text": "causes of action. First, Plaintiff claims that there was a contractual agreement between her and Defendant whereby she became a professor of the U.P.R. with tenure and permanent status, and chairperson of the Department of Physiology. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached an employment agreement by un fairly terminating the same on April 16,1996. Plaintiff claims that an agreement was entered between her and Defendant and that the latter unilaterally, maliciously and in bad faith, with purposeful intent of causing damages to her and with fault and negligence, breached said agreement on April 16, 1996. Second, Plaintiff seeks redress under Law 100 for discrimination on the basis of sex because she alleges that the sole reason for the termination of her agreement and pre-agreement with the U.P.R. was that she is a woman. Third, Plaintiff claims the collection of moneys allegedly owed her by the U.P.R. for lectures she provided as a visiting professor in March of 1995. I. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate if the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). The pleading requirement, however, is “not entirely a toothless tiger.” The Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1989). “The threshold [for stating a claim] may be low, but it is real.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 514 (1st Cir.1988). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Id. at 515. Although all inferences must be made in the plaintiffs favor, this court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. This is true both as to facts, and interpretation of law. See Litton Industries, Inc. v. Colon, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978) (“[0]ur focus is limited to the allegations of the complaint. The question is whether a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim.” (Internal quotations omitted)). More recently" }, { "docid": "20287911", "title": "", "text": "a whole, give [sic ] rise to a plausible inference of discriminatory animus which ultimately possesses enough convincing force to persuade a rational fact finder that the defendants’ conduct was political motivated.” (Id.) Nonetheless, in their opposition plaintiffs acquiesced to the dismissal of the amended complaint with respect to two (2) of said defendants, to wit, Rafael Perez-Mercado and Luis E. Padovani-Padilla. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gustavo Gelpi for report and recommendation, on June 13, 2002. (Docket No. 45). On July 31, 2002, an R & R was issued, recommending this Court to grant the motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 55). On August 9, 2002, plaintiffs filed a “partial objection” to the R & R. (Docket No. 58). As stated above, since plaintiffs consented to the dismissal of two defendants in their opposition, the Court shall review de novo the R & R only with respect to three (3) of the defendants; to wit, Ramon L. Segarra, Irma Soto, and Jose Nazario. However, since plaintiffs agree they fail to state a cognizable claim against Mr. Rafael Perez-Marcado and Mr. Luis E. Padova-ni-Padilla, in their complaint, thus, dismissal shall thus be entered forthwith as to these two named defendants. III MOTIONS TO DISMISS As the Magistrate correctly indicated, when deciding a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual claims, and indulge all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996). Furthermore, dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate if the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiff must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp. 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). Although all inferences must be made in plaintiffs favor, the Court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. Moreover, when considering" }, { "docid": "14056782", "title": "", "text": "read, limns facts sufficient to justify recovery on any cognizable theory.” LaChapelle v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 142 F.3d 507, 508 (1st Cir.1998) (citations omitted). “[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), quoted in Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 1676, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). See also Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 49, 52 (1st Cir.1990) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is warranted “only if it clearly appears, according to the facts alleged, that the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory”). But “[ajlthough this standard is diaphanous, it is not a virtual mirage.” Berner v. Delahanty, 129 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.1997) (quoting Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988)). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must set forth ‘factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.’ ” Id. In judging the sufficiency of a complaint, courts must “differentiate between well-pleaded facts, on the one hand, and ‘bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocution, and the like,’ on the other hand; the former must be credited, but the latter can safely be ignored.” LaChapelle, 142 F.3d at 508 (quoting Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996)). See also Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir.1999). Courts, moreover, “will not accept a complainant’s unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law.” Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation, 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir.1993). Yet courts must bear in mind that apart from allegations of civil rights or RICO violations, fraud, mistake or standing, which are not implicated here, “it is enough for a plaintiff to sketch an actionable claim by means of a generalized statement of facts from which the defendant will be able to frame" }, { "docid": "22301564", "title": "", "text": "and, Hassenfeld worked closely together and were aware of each other’s conduct. In 1992, Laudon informed plaintiffs that H.P. Leasing ought to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. He promised that Hasbro would support H.P. Leasing with a minimum of $50,000 a week in revenue. Doyle felt he had no choice, and, on March 12,1992, H.P. Leasing filed for bankruptcy. Defendants did not provide the support promised by Laudon. In June 1992, Doyle stopped making commission payments to Laudon. Doyle perceived Hasbro’s failure to award contracts to plaintiffs as a breach of the prior representations made to him. In November 1992, Doyle met with Hassenfeld, who directed that plaintiffs receive twenty to thirty thousand dollars per week in business. In January 1993, plaintiffs received $28,000 in business from Hasbro. On January 27, 1993, H.P. Leasing was closed for business. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the motion to dismiss de novo. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1996). We accept as true “all well-pleaded factual averments and indulg[e] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Id. Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate if the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery. Id. The pleading requirement, however, is “not entirely a toothless tiger.” The Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1989). “The threshold [for stating a claim] may be low, but it is real.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 514 (1st Cir.1988). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Id. at 515. Although all inferences must be made in the plaintiffs’ favor, this court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. In conducting our review of the case, we are limited to those allegations contained in the amended complaint. This is true both as to facts, see Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colón, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978) (“[0]ur focus is limited" }, { "docid": "6923323", "title": "", "text": "effectively address the statute of limitations arguments inasmuch as he did not furnish the dates in which the discriminatory acts took place. (Docket 29, Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, P-2) . DISCUSSION I. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court accepts all well-pled factual allegation as true and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor. Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New England, Inc., 203 F.3d 90, 93 (1st Cir.2000); Carparts Distribution Ctr., Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England Inc., 37 F.3d 12, 14 (1st Cir.1994); Roth v. United States, 952 F.2d 611, 613 (1st Cir.1991). To survive a motion to dismiss the plaintiff must “set forth factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable theory.” Tompkins, 203 F.3d at 93. Even when all inferences must be made in plaintiffs’ favor, the Court need not credit “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). The Complaint will be dismissed if under the facts alleged, the Court finds that the plaintiff will not “prevail on any possible theory.” Berezin v. Regency Sav. Bank, 234 F.3d 68, 70 (1st Cir.2000); Tompkins, 203 F.3d at 93. II. The 42 U.S.C. § 1983 political discrimination claim against defendants in their official capacity. With respect to López’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendants Municipality of San Juan, the Mayor, Graulau, Cordero, Ayala, Vega, Perez, and Santiago in their official capacity, it is well established that the Eleventh Amendment bars a section 1983 action against a State, State Agency, or any State Official in his official capacity for monetary damages that would have to be paid from the state treasury. See Wang v. New Hampshire Board of Registration in Medicine, 55 F.3d 698, 700 (1st Cir.1995); Vega Castro v. Puerto Rico, 43 F.Supp.2d 186, 189 (D.P.R.1999). The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico enjoys the full benefits of the Eleventh Amendment. See Ursulich v. Puerto Rico Nat. Guard, 384 F.Supp. 736, 737 (D.P.R.1974). Accordingly, López’ 42" }, { "docid": "13200031", "title": "", "text": "taken as true, do not justify recovery. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). The pleading requirement, however, is “not entirely a toothless tiger.” The Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1989). “The threshold [for stating a claim] may be low, but it is real.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 514 (1st Cir.1988). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Id. at 515. Although all inferences must be made in the plaintiffs favor, this court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. This is true both as to facts, and interpretation of law. See Litton Industries, Inc. v. Colon, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978) (“[0]ur focus is limited to the allegations of the complaint. The question is whether a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim.” (Internal quotations omitted)). More recently in the case of Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, Inc., 68 F.3d 525, 530 (1st Cir.1995), the standard was set forth as follows: “We accept the allegations of the complaint as true and determine whether under any theory, the allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action in accordance with the law (citations omitted) ...; because only well pleaded faets are taken as true, we will not accept a complainant’s unsupported conclusion or interpretation of law.” II. PROCEDURAL MATTER. NON CONVERSION OF MOTION TO DISMISS INTO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The court chooses to tackle the above captioned case using the Motion to Dismiss standard under Rule 12(b)(6) instead of the Motion for Summary Judgment standard under Rule 56. The court, thus, does not convert the Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment. The determination to convert belongs to the court using a functional approach. Garita Hotel Limited Partnership v. Ponce Federal Bank, 958 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir.1992). III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY Plaintiff" }, { "docid": "6743676", "title": "", "text": "ORDER DOMINGUEZ, District Judge. Pending before the Court are co-defendants, the Commonwealth of Puerto and Victor M. Fajardo’s Motions to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 10 and 17). Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed an opposition on January 29, 2001. (Docket No. 29). Plaintiffs causes of action are founded upon the Titles I and V of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, 12111, et seq., The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 793, and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (Docket No. 1). For the following reasons, defendants’ motions to dismiss are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW When deciding a Motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual claims, and indulge all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996); Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). Dismissal is appropriate only when the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery for the plaintiff. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Thus, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). Although all inferences must be made in the plaintiffs’ favor, this court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. Moreover, when considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “our focus [must be] limited to the allegations of the complaint.” Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colon, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978)(internal quotations omitted). Specifically, the inquiry should be “whether a liberal reading of [the complaint] can reasonably admit of a claim....” Id.; see also Doyle, 103 F.3d at 190. Recently, in Wagner v. Devine, 122 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.1997) the First Circuit held that a Court must “affirm a dismissal for failure to state a claim only if it clearly appears that, on the facts alleged, the plaintiff cannot" }, { "docid": "10739135", "title": "", "text": "OPINION AND ORDER DOMINGUEZ, District Judge. Pending before the Court is defendants, Norman Maldonado, George Hillyer, Pedro Santiago and Fernando Gallardo’s Motion to Dismiss filed on April 20, 2000. (Docket No. 31). The motion was duly opposed by plaintiff on June 26, 2000. (Docket No. 40). In the motion to dismiss, defendants aver that plaintiffs claims should be dismissed because: 1) plaintiff is barred from asserting a cause of action for monetary damages under the American ■with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”); 2) Eleventh Amendment immunity impedes plaintiff from maintaining a cause of action against the state, a state agency or a state official acting in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a, 1983 and 1988; and 3) plaintiff has failed to establish a cause of action against defendants for which relief can be granted under the ADA, ADEA, Title VII, §§ 1981, 1983, 1988 and Puerto Rico anti-discrimination laws. For the following reasons, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. I. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD When deciding a Motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual claims, and indulge all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996); Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). Dismissal is appropriate only when the facts alleged, taken as true, do not justify recovery for the plaintiff. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Thus, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). Although all inferences must be made in the plaintiffs’ favor, this court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson, 83 F.3d at 3. Moreover, when considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “our focus [must be] limited to the allegations of the complaint.” Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colón, 587 F.2d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1978)(internal quotations" }, { "docid": "5047631", "title": "", "text": "Plaintiffs Laboy, Ayala, and Ortega claim lost work, wages, and benefits caused by Loiselle. Cruz, in particular, was employed by Aid Maintenance and claims wages and holiday pay directly owed to him. All Plaintiffs have brought this action on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated contract cleaning companies, employees, and former employees. Loiselle has filed the instant motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS— MOTION TO DISMISS In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must take the allegations in the complaint as true and must make all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs. See Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Ctr., 961 F.2d 987, 988 (1st Cir.1992). The Court may grant dismissal “only if ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ ” Roeder v. Alpha Indus., Inc., 814 F.2d 22, 25 (1st Cir.1987) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 [1957]). In order to survive this motion to dismiss, however, the Plaintiffs must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). The Court “need not accept ‘bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.’ ” Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996) (quoting Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 [1st Cir.1996]). FACTUAL BACKGROUND The detailed factual background of this ease informs this Court’s analysis. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, factual allegations in the complaint will be considered true. According to the Amended Complaint, Aid Maintenance has a troubled history of employing illegal aliens. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-11. According to the records of the Immigration and Nationality Service (“INS”), Aid Maintenance has been “a known employer of illegal aliens since 1980.” Id. ¶ 7. Although the Amended Complaint does not attribute that comment to a particular record in the INS documents," }, { "docid": "14429717", "title": "", "text": "state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set.of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-6, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), quoted in Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 654, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). See also Correa-Martinez v.Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 49, 52 (1st Cir.1990) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is warranted “only if it clearly appears, according to the facts alleged, that the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory.”). But “[ajlthough this standard is diaphanous, it is not a virtual mirage.” Berner v. Delahanty, 129 F.3d 20, 25. (1st Cir.1997) (quoting Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988)). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must set forth ‘factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.’ ” Id. . In judging the sufficiency of a complaint, courts must “differentiate between well-pleaded facts, on the one hand, and ‘bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocution, and the like,’ on the other hand; the former must be credited; but the latter can safely be ignored.” LaChapelle, 142 F.3d at 508 (quoting Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996)). See also Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir.1999). Moreover, Courts “will not accept a complainant’s unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law.” Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. Bar Found., 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir.1993). Applicable Law and Analysis Plaintiffs filed the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to costs, interests, and attorneys’ fees, for the alleged political discriminatory actions taken against them by Defendants in refusing to honor their obligations under their respective professional services contracts in violation of their First Amendment rights. Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that they have been deprived of their property rights without due process of law. Plaintiffs have also included a claim for violation to their substantive due process rights" }, { "docid": "6923322", "title": "", "text": "work-related organic condition, according to the State Insurance Fund (“SIF”). The SIF prescribed him, among other things, a specific chair for his condition. (Id at 2). López claims that after numerous requests, and after filing this Complaint, he received the special chair. (Id. at 2-3). The SIF had also indicated that because of his medication, he could not be switching shifts. (Id) López alleges defendants Perez, Vega, Ayala, Cordero, Graulau and Santiago were always trying to have him change his shift to cover other employees’ absenteeism. (Id at ¶ 2). He further claims that defendants persecuted him by “auditing his time and attendance” which was not done to the rest of the personnel. (Id at ¶ 3). Finally, he claims defendants made him visit a psychiatrist who later refused to give him copy of the file, alleging that it was the property of the Municipality of San Juan. (Id at ¶ 3). The defendants aver that López failed to set forth legal arguments in opposition to their motion to dismiss and that he did not effectively address the statute of limitations arguments inasmuch as he did not furnish the dates in which the discriminatory acts took place. (Docket 29, Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, P-2) . DISCUSSION I. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court accepts all well-pled factual allegation as true and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor. Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New England, Inc., 203 F.3d 90, 93 (1st Cir.2000); Carparts Distribution Ctr., Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England Inc., 37 F.3d 12, 14 (1st Cir.1994); Roth v. United States, 952 F.2d 611, 613 (1st Cir.1991). To survive a motion to dismiss the plaintiff must “set forth factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable theory.” Tompkins, 203 F.3d at 93. Even when all inferences must be made in plaintiffs’ favor, the Court need not credit “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996)." }, { "docid": "14056783", "title": "", "text": "dismiss, “a complaint must set forth ‘factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.’ ” Id. In judging the sufficiency of a complaint, courts must “differentiate between well-pleaded facts, on the one hand, and ‘bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocution, and the like,’ on the other hand; the former must be credited, but the latter can safely be ignored.” LaChapelle, 142 F.3d at 508 (quoting Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996)). See also Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir.1999). Courts, moreover, “will not accept a complainant’s unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law.” Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation, 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir.1993). Yet courts must bear in mind that apart from allegations of civil rights or RICO violations, fraud, mistake or standing, which are not implicated here, “it is enough for a plaintiff to sketch an actionable claim by means of a generalized statement of facts from which the defendant will be able to frame a responsive pleading.” Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc., 199 F.3d 68, 72 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Garita Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Ponce Fed. Bank, 958 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir.1992) (internal quotation, marks omitted)). In so doing, “a plaintiff can make allegations either on the basis of personal knowledge or on ‘information and belief.’ ” Id. at 73. While in ruling upon a motion to dismiss the court must ordinarily ignore matters outside the pleadings, see, e.g., Maldonado v. Dominguez, 137 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1998) (in order to avoid conversion of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion, district court must ignore matters outside the pleadings); Rodriguez v. Fullerton Tires Corp., 115 F.3d 81, 83 (1st Cir.1997) (same); Vega-Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co., 110 F.3d 174, 177 (1st Cir.1997) (same), the court may consider any documents which are referred to in the nonmovant’s pleadings and which are central to his or her claim. Cf. Beddall v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.1998). B. Subject Matter" } ]

[ { "docid": "1185518", "title": "", "text": "withdrawn reference to the bankruptcy court so it was acting as a court in bankruptcy, the district court held the turnover adversary proceeding essentially to be in the nature of a wrongful levy action under 26 U.S.C. § 7426, and proceeded to try it under those elements. The district court found that the IRS established a nexus between Taxpayer (Smith) and the funds seized from Crismar by holding that Cris-mar was the alter ego of Smith. It then found that Crismar failed to meet its ultimate burden of showing the levy to be wrongful. Crismar appealed. Standard of Review In this bankruptcy matter, issues of law are reviewed de novo. We will not overturn findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Matter of Killough, 900 F.2d 61 (5th Cir.1990). Was the Wrongful Levy Right? Crismar’s appeal presents two major points. First, was the finding that Crismar was Smith’s alter ego either legally or factually erroneous, such that the nexus element of the wrongful levy action was not properly found? Second, in focusing on a wrongful levy approach, did the district court ignore the rights of the Crismar bankruptcy estate? Patterns Along the Wrongful Levy In order for Crismar to prove a wrongful levy, Crismar was required to show: 1) the IRS filed a levy covering taxpayer liability against property held by Crismar, 2) Crismar had an interest or lien on that property superior to the interest of the IRS, and 3) the levy was wrongful because Smith did not own the property, at least in part. Texas Commerce Bank—Fort Worth v. United States, 896 F.2d 152, 156 (5th Cir.1990). To prove the levy was wrongful, Crismar was first required to make an initial showing of some interest in the funds, in order to have standing. Once Crismar made the initial showing, the IRS was required to prove a nexus between the funds and Taxpayer. If the IRS proved a nexus by substantial evidence, Crismar then had the ultimate burden of proving the levy was wrongful. Morris v. United States, 813 F.2d 343, 345 (11th Cir.1987); Valley Finance, Inc. v." } ]

[ { "docid": "3863121", "title": "", "text": "the United States. Plaintiff, therefore, has the burden of showing that she has an interest in the property, and that the IRS levy on that property is wrongful. Dixon v. United States, 687 F.Supp. 598, 599 (M.D.Ga.1988) aff'd, 872 F.2d 435 (11th Cir.1989). The levy is wrongful if the property levied upon does not belong, in whole or in part, to the taxpayer against whom the levy was made. Id. (quoting Arth v. United States, 735 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.1984)). Once Plaintiff has demonstrated her interest, the burden switches to the Government to prove a nexus between the taxpayer and the property by substantial evidence. Morris v. United States, 813 F.2d 343, 345 (11th Cir.1987). The ultimate burden remains with the Plaintiff, however, to convince the court that the levy should be overturned. Id. Plaintiff easily established her ownership interest in the property the Government has seized. She is the last recorded owner of the property. There are no encumbrances shown in the evidence, other than the Government’s tax lien. The court concludes Plaintiff has standing to bring this action. The Government must prove a nexus, or connection, between the taxpayer and the property by “substantial evidence.” Morris, 813 F.2d at 345. The Government argues, with no authority, that this requires more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of the evidence. The court disagrees. A review of the case law shows that where “substantial evidence” is required, it is because the right or property interest being infringed is deemed extraordinary or unique in some way. In fact, the Eleventh Circuit in Morris quoted with approval the language of the district court’s order, which said, “In a post-levy proceeding, the IRS ‘must justify its extraordinary action in connecting a third party’s property to the particular delinquent taxpayer.’ ” Morris, 813 F.2d at 345 (quoting Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 162, 171 n. 19 (D.D.C.1980) cert. denied sub nom. Pacific Development Inc. v. United States, 451 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 3007, 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981)) (emphasis added). Since the action by the Government of seizing a" }, { "docid": "6665669", "title": "", "text": "(D.C.Cir.1980); Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.1977). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit in Flores held: We start by observing that just as police need probable cause to believe that evidence sought is to be found in the area to be searched and that such evidence relates to a crime, so, too, the Internal Revenue Service needs probable cause at the time assets are initially seized to connect those assets to a taxpayer with outstanding taxes due. Flores, 551 F.2d at 1174. In describing the policy behind such a requirement, the Ninth Circuit noted: Were this not the case, the taxes of a California resident could be collected from a totally unrelated person in New York, and the New Yorker would be forced to prove a negative fact about which he has absolutely no information, i.e., that the Californian has no interest in his property. Id. at 1175 (citing Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 218, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960) (“as a practical matter it is never easy to prove a negative”)). The District of Columbia Circuit has employed similar reasoning. See Valley Finance, 629 F.2d at 171 n. 19 (“A government showing of probable cause, familiar in other Fourth Amendment settings, can rebuff immediate challenges to the propriety of a levy”). Although not directly addressing the present issue, this circuit, in addition to many others, has cited Flores and Valley Finance with approval. See, e.g., LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 118 (2nd Cir.1997); Texas Commerce Bank-Fort Worth v. United States, 896 F.2d 152, 156 (5th Cir.1990); Security Counselors, Inc. v. United States, 860 F.2d 867, 869 (8th Cir.1988); Morris v. United States, 813 F.2d 343, 345 (11th Cir.1987); Arth v. United States, 735 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Bailey, 707 F.2d 19, 21 (1st Cir.1983). The other courts that have addressed this issue directly are markedly consistent in holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to all levies of property by the government, including tax levies. See, e.g., Andrews v. Crump, 984 F.Supp. 393 (W.D.N.C.1996); Colello v. United States" }, { "docid": "22422616", "title": "", "text": "1104, 1107 (6th Cir.1990). With respect to Article III standing, which is the subject of the challenge here, a claimant must have a colorable ownership, possessory or security interest in at least a portion of the defendant property. See United States v. 16510 Ashton, 47 F.3d 1465, 1470 (6th Cir.1995); Currency $267,961.07, 916 F.2d at 1107; United States v. $321,470.00, U.S. Currency, 874 F.2d 298, 303-04 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. One 1952 Model Ford Sedan Automobile, 213 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.1954). Article III's standing requirement is thereby satisfied because an owner or possessor of property that has been seized necessarily suffers an injury that can be redressed at least in part by the return of the seized property. See United States v. Contents of Accounts Nos. 3034504504 and 144-07143, 971 F.2d 974, 985 (3d Cir.1992) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-502, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)). A claimant need not prove the merits of his underlying claim, see Semi-Precious Stones, 7 F.3d at 483, but he must claim a facially colorable interest in the seized property. See 16510 Ashton, 47 F.3d at 1470; United States v. $122,043.00 in U.S. Currency, 792 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir.1986). Colorable claims which confer standing include the most obvious type of interest in seized property, an ownership interest. Id. A property interest less than ownership may also be sufficient to create standing. See, e.g., U.S. v. Currency Total-ling $48,318.08, 609 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that valid assignee has standing to challenge forfeiture). Possessory interests may be sufficient to bestow standing on a claimant to contest a forfeiture. See, e.g., Currency $267,961.07, 916 F.2d at 1107; United States v. 717 So. Woodward St., 2 F.3d 529, 535 a. 3 (3d Cir.1993); United States v. Amiel, 995 F.2d 367, 371 (2d Cir.1993); United States v. 1977 Porsche Carrera 911, 946 F.2d 30, 33 (5th Cir.1991); United States v. 116 Emerson St., 942 F.2d 74, 78 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. $38,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 816 F.2d 1538, 1544 (11th Cir.1987) (finding that because bailee has a possessory interest" }, { "docid": "22985341", "title": "", "text": "burden of production, shifts to the government at the intermediate step. See Century Hotels v. United States, 952 F.2d 107, 109 (5th Cir.1992); Ballard v. United States, 17 F.3d 116, 119 n. 2 (5th Cir.1994); Security Counselors, Inc. v. United States, 860 F.2d 867, 869 (8th Cir.1988); Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.1977); Morris v. United States, 813 F.2d 343, 345 (11th Cir.1987); Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 162, 171 n. 19 (D.C.Cir.1980). Further complicating matters, these circuits have differed amongst themselves as to the amount of evidence that the government must bring to meet its burden. Compare Valley Finance, 629 F.2d at 171 n. 19 (“[T]he government must establish its asserted nexus between the taxpayer and a third party by substantial evidence.”), and Century Hotels, 952 F.2d at 109 (“If the IRS proved a nexus by substantial evidence, [plaintiff] then had the ultimate burden of proving the levy was wrongful.”), with Flores, 551 F.2d at 1176 n. 8 (“We are not here faced with a situation in which the Government demonstrates a nexus between the taxpayer and the property by a preponderance of the evidence_”). However, since the government does not challenge the district court’s treatment of the burden shifting in this ease, and since, as discussed below, the government has clearly brought forth enough evidence of a nexus to meet its burden no matter how it is conceived and regardless of what the proper standard may be, we have no occasion to address these questions here. B. Issue Analysis The district court’s decision was clearly bottomed on the government’s inability to establish a transfer of Devil His Due from Robert to Edith. Under this view of the case, Robert’s involvement with the business of Lion Crest was of no moment. If indeed, as Edith claims, “[t]here is no actual entity, or even any proof that there was any ‘going concern’ under that name,” the issue would simply be whether Edith owned Devil His Due as Robert’s nominee, and proof of transfer would be an essential concern. As such, in the absence" }, { "docid": "14258010", "title": "", "text": "government contends that the IRS levy was not wrongful. The United States claims that the plaintiffs’ interest in the truck is only $2,175.27, plus interest, and that the taxpayer, Duncan, has the remaining interest in the property. This property is subject to the attachment of federal tax liens. Section 7426 of the Code provides that when a tax levy has been made on property for the collection of the assessed liability of a taxpayer, any other person who claims (1) an interest in such a property and (2) that such property was wrongfully levied on, may bring a civil action against the United States in the appropriate federal district court. The purpose of this provision, as explained by the House Ways and Means Committee, is to permit a third person who claims that the IRS tax collection activities adversely effected his property rights, to bring an action against the government in order to resolve the question of ownership of the property seized. H.R.Rep. No. 1884, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 27-28, reprinted in 1966 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS pp. 3722, 3750. A claimant must satisfy two requirements in order to successfully maintain an action for wrongful levy. First, the moving party must show that he has an interest or lien on the property in question. Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 162, 168 (D.C.Cir.1980) (“only persons claiming specific, possessory rights are entitled to seek judicial review”), cert. denied sub. nom. Pacific Development Inc. v. United States, 451 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 3007, 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981). See also Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). Second, the claimant must show that the property was wrongfully levied upon. A levy is wrongful where the money or property levied upon “does not in whole or in part belong to the taxpayer against whom the levy originated.” Arth v. United States, 735 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.1984). As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated, the term “wrongfully levied upon” contemplated by Section 7426(a)(1) means “seized ’wrongfully in relation to the third person who is bringing the suit and" }, { "docid": "8791876", "title": "", "text": "IRS could levy on this cash to satisfy Morris’s tax liability. The IRS made several attempts on December 22, 1986 to serve Michael, as president of Security, with a copy of the notice of levy, but was unable to do so until the following day. That same day, December 23, 1986, Em-mons turned over $256,094.21 of the sale proceeds to the IRS pursuant to the notice of levy. Security filed the present suit for wrongful levy on March 2, 1987. After a bench trial, the District Court concluded that Security’s rights to the seized funds were not superior to those of the United States and that the notice given to Security was adequate to sustain the levy. Accordingly, the court ordered judgment in favor of the United States and denied Security’s motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed. I. Security contends that the IRS levy was wrongful because the money seized was taken to satisfy the tax liability of a person with no ownership interest therein. We believe that this contention lacks merit. “In 26 U.S.C. § 7426, Congress has given third parties the right to bring an action against the United States when it is shown property was wrongfully seized pursuant to levy by the IRS.” Arth v. United States, 735 F.2d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir.1984). Section 7426 contains two prerequisites: (1) that the plaintiff have an interest in or lien on the property at issue, and (2) that the levy be wrongful (i.e., that the property not belong to the taxpayer against whom the levy is directed). Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). The plaintiff has the ultimate burden of proof, i.e., the plaintiff must demonstrate that the levy filed against property in his name or possession was wrongful. Arth, 735 F.2d at 1193. The first of the two requirements listed in the preceding paragraph ensures standing, and it was satisfied in this case. The IRS levied upon funds realized from the sale of property owned by Security, which thus had an interest in those funds for purposes of section 7426. The second requirement focuses" }, { "docid": "11964438", "title": "", "text": "Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). See also Frierdich v. United States, 985 F.2d 379, 383 (7th Cir.1993) (“the right of a third party to challenge a wrongful levy is confined to persons who have a fee simple or equivalent interest, a possessory interest, or a security interest in the property levied upon”); Aspinall v. United States, 984 F.2d 355, 357 (10th Cir.1993) (“Under § 7426, a plaintiff must make an initial showing of some interest in the property levied on to have standing.”); Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 162, 168 (D.C.Cir.1980). The district court found that Allied was not holding the funds in formal trust on behalf of Southpark, and thus did not have a sufficient possessory interest in the levied funds. The fact that Allied suffered a harm as a result of the wrongful levy of funds belonging to Southpark is irrelevant because the only type of injury that § 7426 protects is the deprivation of property from those who have a cognizable right to that property. See Valley Finance, 629 F.2d at 168 (stating that only parties with cognizable interest in the property come within the “zone of interests” protected by § 7426). Because Allied lacked a sufficient possessory interest in the levied funds, it would not have standing to sue under § 7426 for wrongful levy, and it would be illogical to grant Allied standing for such an action under § 7433. With respect to Allied’s claims under §§ 6331 and 6343, this court has stated that “the exclusive remedy by a third party whose property has been levied upon or sold by the [IRS] is an action pursuant to Section 7426.” Winebrenner v. United States, 924 F.2d 851, 855 (9th Cir.1991). See also Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. City of Adelanto, 87 F.3d 334, 335 (9th Cir.1996) (reaffirming the viability of Winebrenner after United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 115 S.Ct. 1611, 131 L.Ed.2d 608 (1995)). Even assuming that Allied had standing to bring an action for wrongful levy under § 7426(a), it would be" }, { "docid": "22985340", "title": "", "text": "LiButti, 894 F.Supp. at 591 (quoting Nelson v. United States, 821 F.Supp. 1496, 1501 (M.D.Ga.1993)). In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. We note that there may be difficulties with the district court’s analysis because it seems to shift the burden of proof (that is, the risk of nonpersuasion) to the government at the second step of the process, despite the fact that such a shift would appear to be proscribed by Fed.R.Evid. 301 in cases where, as here, an unrebutted presumption would support a party’s claim. The other circuits to address the issue may also have implied that the burden of proof, as opposed to the burden of production, shifts to the government at the intermediate step. See Century Hotels v. United States, 952 F.2d 107, 109 (5th Cir.1992); Ballard v. United States, 17 F.3d 116, 119 n. 2 (5th Cir.1994); Security Counselors, Inc. v. United States, 860 F.2d 867, 869 (8th Cir.1988); Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.1977); Morris v. United States, 813 F.2d 343, 345 (11th Cir.1987); Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 162, 171 n. 19 (D.C.Cir.1980). Further complicating matters, these circuits have differed amongst themselves as to the amount of evidence that the government must bring to meet its burden. Compare Valley Finance, 629 F.2d at 171 n. 19 (“[T]he government must establish its asserted nexus between the taxpayer and a third party by substantial evidence.”), and Century Hotels, 952 F.2d at 109 (“If the IRS proved a nexus by substantial evidence, [plaintiff] then had the ultimate burden of proving the levy was wrongful.”), with Flores, 551 F.2d at 1176 n. 8 (“We are not here faced with a situation in" }, { "docid": "7237082", "title": "", "text": "Computer Services Inc. v. PDA, Inc., 884 F.2d 214, 215-16 (5th Cir.1989); Netto v. Amtrak, 863 F.2d 1210, 1212 (5th Cir.1989); Brooks, Tarlton, Gilbert v. United States Fire Insurance, 832 F.2d 1358, 1364 (5th Cir.1987). Summary judgment may be affirmed, regardless of the correctness of the district court’s rulings, when we find an adequate and independent basis for that result in the record. Schuster v. Martin, 861 F.2d. 1369, 1371 (5th Cir.1988). III. WRONGFUL LEVY ACTION The IRS alleges that TCB responded improperly to the government’s Notices of Tax Levy by filing a wrongful levy action under 26 U.S.C. § 7426. According to the IRS, TCB should have surrendered both the bank account and Par’s check before pursuing TCB’s statutory remedies against the United States. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6331-6332. The IRS seeks to impose a 50% penalty against TCB under 26 U.S.C. § 6332(c)(2) for wrongful dishonor of the levy. Since TCB surrendered the proceeds of CIC’s bank account, this argument concerns only TCB’s retention of Par Properties’ check. Section 7426(a)(1), Civil Action By Persons Other than Taxpayers, affords the exclusive remedy for an innocent third party whose property is confiscated by the IRS to satisfy another person’s tax liability. United Sand and Gravel Contractors v. United States, 624 F.2d. 733, 739 (5th Cir.1980). See Trust Company of Columbus v. United States, 735 F.2d. 447, 449 (11th Cir.1984); Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 203 U.S.App.D.C. 128, 629 F.2d. 162, 168 (1980) cert. den. sub. nom. Pacific Development Inc. v. United States, 451 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 3007, 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981); Rosenblum v. United States, 549 F.2d. 1140, 1145 (8th Cir.1977) cert. den. 434 U.S. 818, 98 S.Ct. 58, 54 L.Ed.2d 74 (1977). In order to state a cause of action under this provision, the plaintiff must show: (1) that a levy has been filed against property in plaintiff’s hands, (2) that plaintiff has an interest in or a lien on the property which is senior to the interest of the United States, and (3) that the levy was wrongful. Security Counselors, Inc. v. United States, 860 F.2d. 867," }, { "docid": "7237105", "title": "", "text": "See, for example, National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 105 S.Ct. 2919, 86 L.Ed.2d 565 (1985); State Bank of Fraser v. United States, 861 F.2d. 954, 960 (6th Cir.1988); Bell Credit Union, 860 F.2d. at 365; United States v. Central Bank of Denver, 843 F.2d. 1300, 1303 (10th Cir.1988); Citizens and Southern National Bank, 538 F.2d. at 1101. . In addition to these procedural differences, TCB’s action invokes distinct substantive concerns. Many of the cases relied upon by the IRS involve fraudulent behavior and the dissipation of collectible assets. For instance, the bank, in National Bank of Commerce, 105 S.Ct. at 2919, claimed that it could not ascertain what proportion of the assets in two jointly-held bank accounts constituted \"property\" of the taxpayer. Id. at 2922. Concerned that this rationale for defying the levy would permit “a delinquent taxpayer to evade ... his obligations by placing funds in joint bank accounts”, the Supreme Court required the bank to surrender the money, allowing third parties to litigate over property rights in a subsequent proceeding. Id. at 2931. See also Arth, 735 F.2d. at 1193 (Funds in “assigned” bank account attributed to delinquent corporation rather than to “independent contractor\" who ‘saved’ company); Valley Finance, Inc., 629 F.2d. at 162 (Seizure of Pacific Development Co. assets upheld after IRS characterizes company as the \"alter ego” of delinquent taxpayer). While affirming the surrender-first rule in these situations, the courts stress \"the apparent exigencies of the situation\", and the need for the IRS to secure tax collection. See National Bank of Commerce, 105 S.Ct. at 2931; Valley Finance, Inc., 629 F.2d. at 167. By contrast, as the IRS concedes, TCB held a superior lien over the Par Properties check. TCB could not defraud the IRS by withholding those assets from the levy. Even if the IRS had held a superior claim, concerns over dissipation still would not apply. TCB had allegedly set-off the check against the taxpayer’s bank debt. As a result, the IRS would retain a cause of action against TCB for surrender of those funds. Unlike a taxpayer who could conceal or" }, { "docid": "7237098", "title": "", "text": "Court attempted to avoid in National Bank of Commerce, 105 S.Ct. at 2931, when it compared levy procedures to lien foreclosure actions: If the IRS were required to bring a lien foreclosure suit each time it wished to execute a tax lien on funds in a joint bank account, it would be uneconomical as a practical matter, to do so on small sums of money as those at issue here. Id. at 2931. With regard to the costs incurred by the IRS, a levy procedure followed by a wrongful levy action in which the third party prevails and receives a fee award, is equivalent to a lien foreclosure action. Consequently, the benefits of speed and efficiency attributable to the levy procedure do not apply in a case like TCB’s where the bank has clear priority over the disputed asset. Given the permissive language of Section 7426, the distinctions between TCB’s case and similar precedents, and the IRS’ concession that TCB satisfied the prima facie requirements under § 7426, we find that TCB justifiably instituted a wrongful levy action before surrendering the check. See Security Counselors, Inc. v. United States, 860 F.2d. 867, 869 (8th Cir.1988); Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d. 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). See also Treasury Regulations § 301.7426-1 (1988). Furthermore, we find that a meritorious wrongful levy action instituted prior to the surrender of the levied property constitutes “reasonable cause” to dishonor the levy for purposes of the 50% penalty clause under § 6332(c)(2). Thus, we affirm the district court’s determination not to penalize TCB for its actions. Even if our construction of § 7426 is in error, however, it seems to us that this case is sufficiently novel to justify the conclusion that TCB had a “reasonable cause” to dishonor the levy and cannot suffer a 50% penalty for asserting valid, superior property rights in the check. See United States v. Sterling National Bank & Trust, supra. IV. LIEN PRIORITIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS TCB also contends that it held a “security interest” in CIC’s bank accounts which primed the IRS’ interest. We reject this contention." }, { "docid": "8791877", "title": "", "text": "§ 7426, Congress has given third parties the right to bring an action against the United States when it is shown property was wrongfully seized pursuant to levy by the IRS.” Arth v. United States, 735 F.2d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir.1984). Section 7426 contains two prerequisites: (1) that the plaintiff have an interest in or lien on the property at issue, and (2) that the levy be wrongful (i.e., that the property not belong to the taxpayer against whom the levy is directed). Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). The plaintiff has the ultimate burden of proof, i.e., the plaintiff must demonstrate that the levy filed against property in his name or possession was wrongful. Arth, 735 F.2d at 1193. The first of the two requirements listed in the preceding paragraph ensures standing, and it was satisfied in this case. The IRS levied upon funds realized from the sale of property owned by Security, which thus had an interest in those funds for purposes of section 7426. The second requirement focuses on the condition precedent to government seizure, namely, that the property seized be that of the taxpayer. The Government has the burden of persuasion on this issue, see Flores, 551 F.2d at 1175, and we conclude that the Government met its burden. The evidence adduced by the Government at trial established that Security was indebted to the taxpayer, Morris, in an amount in excess of $800,000. It is well settled that a debt owed to a taxpayer is property of the taxpayer, and, as such, is subject to the levy power granted the IRS by 26 U.S.C. § 6331. See, e.g., United States v. Wein-traub, 613 F.2d 612, 614-18 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 905, 100 S.Ct. 2987, 64 L.Ed.2d 854 (1980); cf. United States v. Eiland, 223 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir.1955). Here, the IRS levied on cash held in escrow for the benefit of Security. The purpose of the levy was to reduce to possession the debt owed by Security to Morris. Morris’s lack of an interest in the particular property which" }, { "docid": "6665670", "title": "", "text": "prove a negative”)). The District of Columbia Circuit has employed similar reasoning. See Valley Finance, 629 F.2d at 171 n. 19 (“A government showing of probable cause, familiar in other Fourth Amendment settings, can rebuff immediate challenges to the propriety of a levy”). Although not directly addressing the present issue, this circuit, in addition to many others, has cited Flores and Valley Finance with approval. See, e.g., LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 118 (2nd Cir.1997); Texas Commerce Bank-Fort Worth v. United States, 896 F.2d 152, 156 (5th Cir.1990); Security Counselors, Inc. v. United States, 860 F.2d 867, 869 (8th Cir.1988); Morris v. United States, 813 F.2d 343, 345 (11th Cir.1987); Arth v. United States, 735 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Bailey, 707 F.2d 19, 21 (1st Cir.1983). The other courts that have addressed this issue directly are markedly consistent in holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to all levies of property by the government, including tax levies. See, e.g., Andrews v. Crump, 984 F.Supp. 393 (W.D.N.C.1996); Colello v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 908 F.Supp. 788 (C.D.Cal.1995); Matter of Stubblefield, 810 F.Supp. 277 (E.D.Ca.1992); TMG II v. United States, 778 F.Supp. 37 (D.D.C.1991) (Oberdorfer, J.); Peters v. Sjoholm, 95 Wash.2d 871, 631 P.2d 937 (1981). Such a finding is further supported by the background and history of the Fourth Amendment itself. The Supreme Court has noted that “one of the primary evils intended to be eliminated by the Fourth Amendment was the massive intrusion on privacy undertaken in the collection of taxes pursuant to general warrants and writs of assistance.” G.M. Leasing, 429 U.S. at 355, 97 S.Ct. 619. Commentators have generally agreed, finding that the intended purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent abusive enforcement of the tax laws through the baseless seizure of property. See generally Erin Suzanne En-right, Comment, Probable Cause for Tax Seizure Warrants, 55 U.ChlL.Rev. 210, 234 (1988). Accordingly, I believe that the Fourth Amendment applies to tax levies and mandates that the IRS develop probable cause to believe the property being levied upon is in fact the" }, { "docid": "7237083", "title": "", "text": "Other than Taxpayers, affords the exclusive remedy for an innocent third party whose property is confiscated by the IRS to satisfy another person’s tax liability. United Sand and Gravel Contractors v. United States, 624 F.2d. 733, 739 (5th Cir.1980). See Trust Company of Columbus v. United States, 735 F.2d. 447, 449 (11th Cir.1984); Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 203 U.S.App.D.C. 128, 629 F.2d. 162, 168 (1980) cert. den. sub. nom. Pacific Development Inc. v. United States, 451 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 3007, 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981); Rosenblum v. United States, 549 F.2d. 1140, 1145 (8th Cir.1977) cert. den. 434 U.S. 818, 98 S.Ct. 58, 54 L.Ed.2d 74 (1977). In order to state a cause of action under this provision, the plaintiff must show: (1) that a levy has been filed against property in plaintiff’s hands, (2) that plaintiff has an interest in or a lien on the property which is senior to the interest of the United States, and (3) that the levy was wrongful. Security Counselors, Inc. v. United States, 860 F.2d. 867, 869 (8th Cir.1988); Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d. 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). See Treasury Regulations § 301.7426-1 (1988). A levy is “wrongful” if it seizes property that does not belong, in whole or in part, to the taxpayer. Arth v. United States, 735 F.2d. 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.1984)); Trust Company of Columbus, 735 F.2d. at 448; Al-Kim Inc. v. United States, 650 F.2d. 944, 947 (9th Cir.1979). See Treasury Regulations § 301.7426-1 (1988); Senate Report No. 1708, 89th Congress, 2d Session, reprinted in 1966 U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News, 3722, 3751. Although the plaintiff must prove that the government has levied against the property at issue, the plaintiff need not demonstrate that the property has actually been surrendered in response to the levy. Section 7426(a)(1) states: Such action may be brought without regard to whether such property has been surrendered to or sold by the Secretary. In this way, Congress sought to balance the primary lienholder’s interests in the property against the government’s interest in collecting tax revenue. 1966 U.S.Code Congressional & Administrative" }, { "docid": "16450369", "title": "", "text": "is further supported by a legislative understanding that the Act as a whole “substantially improves the status of private secured creditors.” As already indicated, Pacific, the actual owner of the various properties levied or seized by the Government, unquestionably has standing under section 7426(a). It is equally apparent, however, that Pacific’s three general creditors lack standing to sue. Their mere claim of a contractual right to be paid, unsecured by a lien or other specifically enforceable property interest, does not provide judicial access. To hold otherwise would invite litigation from numerous parties only remotely aggrieved by IRS levies, with consequent disruptive effects on federal tax enforcement. Congress intended a far narrower right to sue, and we see no reason to deviate from that clearly expressed design. The situation as to Valley Finance, Inc. (“Valley”) is somewhat different. Valley held a second deed of trust on the land and premises at 1604 K Street, N.W., Washington, D. C., making it a partly secured creditor of Pacific. This deed of trust, entered into on February 15, 1977, and recorded one month later, is the type of property interest which does confer standing. Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir. 1977). The interest asserted in this instance, however, is clearly junior to that claimed by the Government. The Federal tax lien, which was filed on January 19, 1977, with the Recorder of Deeds in Wash ington, D. C., attached to all property owned by Pacific as of that date. Pacific’s subsequent transfer by deed of trust was therefore a conveyance without legal effect. See generally United States v. Pioneer American Ins. Co., 374 U.S. 84, 83 S.Ct. 1651, 10 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). Valley’s claim is not one on which relief can be granted, and it was properly dismissed. Accordingly, we consider only the various challenges by Pacific to the legality of IRS conduct. NOTICE AND HEARING RIGHTS In the first instance, Pacific claims to have been denied certain procedural rights due under the Internal Revenue Code. The failure to provide it with a notice of deficiency following the jeopardy assessment" }, { "docid": "14258011", "title": "", "text": "& ADMIN.NEWS pp. 3722, 3750. A claimant must satisfy two requirements in order to successfully maintain an action for wrongful levy. First, the moving party must show that he has an interest or lien on the property in question. Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 162, 168 (D.C.Cir.1980) (“only persons claiming specific, possessory rights are entitled to seek judicial review”), cert. denied sub. nom. Pacific Development Inc. v. United States, 451 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 3007, 69 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981). See also Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). Second, the claimant must show that the property was wrongfully levied upon. A levy is wrongful where the money or property levied upon “does not in whole or in part belong to the taxpayer against whom the levy originated.” Arth v. United States, 735 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.1984). As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated, the term “wrongfully levied upon” contemplated by Section 7426(a)(1) means “seized ’wrongfully in relation to the third person who is bringing the suit and not merely wrongful in relation to a taxpayer who may suffer from the collateral effects to the seizure.” Rosenblum v. United States, 549 F.2d 1140, 1145 (8th Cir.1977). As a general rule, in a wrongful levy suit “the moving party retains the ultimate burden of proof in its attempt to persuade the District Court that the government action should be overturned.” Valley Finance, at 171 n. 19. The claimant must show that the levy filed against the property in his name or possession was wrongful. Arth, at 1193. The Government, with greater access to the facts, bears the burden of persuasion with respect to establishing a nexus between the delinquent taxpayer and the subject property sufficient to support the levy. In Section 6321, the Code gives the Government a lien for unpaid taxes on all property and rights to property of any taxpayer who does not pay his taxes after demand. This lien reaches all of the taxpayer’s property interests. United States v. National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 720, 105 S.Ct. 2919, 2924," }, { "docid": "11964437", "title": "", "text": "whether such property has been surrendered to or sold by the Secretary. 26 U.S.C. § 7426(a) (emphasis added). Thus, section 7426 expressly excludes from those authorized to bring a wrongful levy action the taxpayer against whom the IRS is seeking to collect the taxes. See Shannon v. United States, 521 F.2d 56, 59 (9th Cir.1975). To grant Allied standing in this case under § 7433 would circumvent this restriction and would lead to the illogical result that a taxpayer who is the target of the IRS’s collection efforts would have standing to sue only if it did not own the levied property. Section 7426 also requires that only a party with a sufficient possessory interest in the property may bring a claim for wrongful levy. This court has explained: Section 7426 contains two distinct prerequisites to its application: (1) that the plaintiff have an interest in or lien on the property at issue, and (2) that the levy be wrongful (i.e., that the property not be the taxpayer’s). The first of these requirements ensures standing.... Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). See also Frierdich v. United States, 985 F.2d 379, 383 (7th Cir.1993) (“the right of a third party to challenge a wrongful levy is confined to persons who have a fee simple or equivalent interest, a possessory interest, or a security interest in the property levied upon”); Aspinall v. United States, 984 F.2d 355, 357 (10th Cir.1993) (“Under § 7426, a plaintiff must make an initial showing of some interest in the property levied on to have standing.”); Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 162, 168 (D.C.Cir.1980). The district court found that Allied was not holding the funds in formal trust on behalf of Southpark, and thus did not have a sufficient possessory interest in the levied funds. The fact that Allied suffered a harm as a result of the wrongful levy of funds belonging to Southpark is irrelevant because the only type of injury that § 7426 protects is the deprivation of property from those who have a cognizable right to that" }, { "docid": "7237084", "title": "", "text": "869 (8th Cir.1988); Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d. 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). See Treasury Regulations § 301.7426-1 (1988). A levy is “wrongful” if it seizes property that does not belong, in whole or in part, to the taxpayer. Arth v. United States, 735 F.2d. 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.1984)); Trust Company of Columbus, 735 F.2d. at 448; Al-Kim Inc. v. United States, 650 F.2d. 944, 947 (9th Cir.1979). See Treasury Regulations § 301.7426-1 (1988); Senate Report No. 1708, 89th Congress, 2d Session, reprinted in 1966 U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News, 3722, 3751. Although the plaintiff must prove that the government has levied against the property at issue, the plaintiff need not demonstrate that the property has actually been surrendered in response to the levy. Section 7426(a)(1) states: Such action may be brought without regard to whether such property has been surrendered to or sold by the Secretary. In this way, Congress sought to balance the primary lienholder’s interests in the property against the government’s interest in collecting tax revenue. 1966 U.S.Code Congressional & Administrative News at 3724. When the levied property provides the only realistic source from which the senior lienholder can realize collection, or when the levy effectively destroys or otherwise irreparably injures the lienholder’s superior interest, the tax levy is “wrongful” as against that lienholder, even if the lien-holder’s legal rights to enforce its interests survive the levy. Treasury Regulations § 301.7426-1 (1988). Section 7426 permits the lienholder to safeguard its superior rights in the property without surrendering the collateral. The remedial provisions of section 7426 support this interpretation. Section 7426(b)(1) permits a court to enjoin en- for cement of the levy, would irreparably injure rights in property which the court determines to be superior to rights of the United States in such property.” Inferentially, if a court may remedy a wrongful levy by enjoining enforcement, the lienholder need not have honored the levy before filing suit. Myers v. United States, 647 F.2d. 591, 602 (5th Cir.Unit A 1981) (§ 7426 guarantees immediate access to the courts and the right to seek injunc-tive relief). See Al-Kim Inc.," }, { "docid": "16450368", "title": "", "text": "Recognizing that the Government’s rigorous tax enforcement activities at times encroached upon persons other than the delinquent taxpayer, Congress sought to provide a measure of protection for the property rights of these third parties. See S.Rep.No.1708, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 29, reprinted in [1966] U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 3722, 3750. In so doing, Congress created a new exception to the broad statutory rule prohibiting suits in restraint of federal tax assessment efforts. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (1976 & Supp. II 1978). This exception is precisely drawn and of limited scope. The statutory language, by effectively equating the terms “interest” and “lien” and relating both to “property,” indicates that only persons claiming specific, possessory rights are entitled to seek judicial review. Subsequent discussion of relief affordable when property interests are found “superior to rights of the United States in such property” conveys a similar understanding that litigants must advance a particular, secured interest. 26 U.S.C. § 7426(b)(1) (1976). This traditional reading of the term “interest” is consistent with usage elsewhere in the Act. It is further supported by a legislative understanding that the Act as a whole “substantially improves the status of private secured creditors.” As already indicated, Pacific, the actual owner of the various properties levied or seized by the Government, unquestionably has standing under section 7426(a). It is equally apparent, however, that Pacific’s three general creditors lack standing to sue. Their mere claim of a contractual right to be paid, unsecured by a lien or other specifically enforceable property interest, does not provide judicial access. To hold otherwise would invite litigation from numerous parties only remotely aggrieved by IRS levies, with consequent disruptive effects on federal tax enforcement. Congress intended a far narrower right to sue, and we see no reason to deviate from that clearly expressed design. The situation as to Valley Finance, Inc. (“Valley”) is somewhat different. Valley held a second deed of trust on the land and premises at 1604 K Street, N.W., Washington, D. C., making it a partly secured creditor of Pacific. This deed of trust, entered into on February 15, 1977," }, { "docid": "7237099", "title": "", "text": "wrongful levy action before surrendering the check. See Security Counselors, Inc. v. United States, 860 F.2d. 867, 869 (8th Cir.1988); Flores v. United States, 551 F.2d. 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1977). See also Treasury Regulations § 301.7426-1 (1988). Furthermore, we find that a meritorious wrongful levy action instituted prior to the surrender of the levied property constitutes “reasonable cause” to dishonor the levy for purposes of the 50% penalty clause under § 6332(c)(2). Thus, we affirm the district court’s determination not to penalize TCB for its actions. Even if our construction of § 7426 is in error, however, it seems to us that this case is sufficiently novel to justify the conclusion that TCB had a “reasonable cause” to dishonor the levy and cannot suffer a 50% penalty for asserting valid, superior property rights in the check. See United States v. Sterling National Bank & Trust, supra. IV. LIEN PRIORITIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS TCB also contends that it held a “security interest” in CIC’s bank accounts which primed the IRS’ interest. We reject this contention. Section 6321 of the tax code gives the IRS a lien “upon all property and rights to property” belonging to a delinquent taxpayer. Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 512, 80 S.Ct. 1277, 1280, 4 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1960). The lien arises on the date that the IRS assesses unpaid taxes, applies to currently owned as well as after-acquired property, and continues until the taxpayer satisfies the debt, or the statute of limitations runs. 26 U.S.C. § 6322. See Glass City Bank v. United States, 326 U.S. 265, 267, 66 S.Ct. 108, 110, 90 L.Ed. 56 (1945); United States v. Cache Valley Bank, 866 F.2d. 1242, 1244 (10th Cir.1989); Prewitt v. United States, 792 F.2d. 1353, 1355 (5th Cir.1986). Where a third party also claims a lien interest in the taxpayer’s property, the basic priority rule of “first in time, first in right” controls, unless Congress has created a different priority rule to govern the particular situation. Rice Investment Company v. United States, 625 F.2d. 565, 568 (5th Cir.1980). See United States v. Wingfield, 822" } ]

[ { "docid": "22708232", "title": "", "text": "city, its Mayor, and the six other Council members as defendants. Alleging, inter alia, that the license cancellation amounted to content-based censorship, and that its constitutional rights to free expression and due process had been violated under color of state law, respondent sought compensatory and punitive damages against the city and its officials under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and under two pendent state-law counts, including tortious interference with contractual relationships. App. 8. At the conclusion of six days of trial, the District Court charged the jury with respect to the § 1983 and tortious interference counts. Included in its charge was an instruction, given without objection, that authorized the jury to award punitive damages against each defendant individually, “based on the degree of culpability of the individual defendant.” App. 62. The jury returned verdicts for respondent on both counts, awarding compensatory damages of $72,910 and punitive damages of $275,000; of the punitive damages, $75,000 was spread among the seven individual officials and $200,000 was awarded against the city. Petitioner moved for .a new trial, arguing that punitive damages cannot be awarded under § 1983 against a municipality, and that even if they can, the award was excessive. Because petitioner challenged the punitive damages instruction to which it had not objected at trial, the District Court noted that the challenge was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51. But the court was determined not to “rest its decision on this procedural ground alone.” App. to Pet. for Cert. B-3. Reasoning that “a careful resolution of this novel question is critical to a just verdict in this case,” id., at B-7, the court proceeded to consider petitioner’s substantive legal arguments on their merits. The District Court recognized, ibid., that Monell had left undecided the question whether municipalities may be held liable for punitive damages. 436 U. S., at 701. The court observed, however, that punitive damages often had been awarded against individual officials in § 1983 actions, and it found no clear basis for distinguishing between individuals and municipalities in this regard. Emphasizing the general deterrent purpose served by" } ]

[ { "docid": "20071851", "title": "", "text": "for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to adduce evidence of a “policy or custom” by the municipal defendants that caused the plaintiffs’ deprivation of rights. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Batista v. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d 393, 397 (2d Cir.1983) (claim under Monell requires showing of “(1) an official policy or custom that (2) causes the plaintiff to be subjected to (3) a denial of a constitutional right”). However, the plaintiffs have referred the court to a report by a New York State Commission of Investigation that concerns allegations of habitual unlawful wiretapping by the Suffolk County Police Department. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit H. Among the findings of that report was a conclusion that: Detectives and police officers of the Suffolk County Police Department have engaged in illegal wiretapping with the approval of their supervising sergeant and the Bureau Chief of the Narcotics Bureau of the District Attorney’s Office. Id. The report further details an extensive practice of illegal wiretapping in narcotics investigations by the defendant Suffolk County Police Department — with the apparent approval of those charged with the formation of police policies. Id. Reports such as this have been held to be admissible in a Section 1983 action and to be probative of a Monell claim. Gentile v. County of Suffolk, 926 F.2d 142, 151 (2d Cir.1991) (similar — if not same — report admitted against municipal defendant to show “policy or custom” of police misconduct). Because the plaintiffs’ have brought forth evidence for their Monell claim, then, this part of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be denied. However, the court, on its own motion, dismisses the claims for punitive damages under Section 1983 against the municipal defendants. Such relief is unavailable. Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2762, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981). CONCLUSION The motions of the defendants Lechmanski, Gallagher, and Murphy for summary judgment are granted; also, the claims for punitive damages against the municipal defendants are dismissed. As to all other" }, { "docid": "22406084", "title": "", "text": "political subdivision which employed the defendant. The purpose of Section 895.46 is to prevent government employees from having to pay out of their own pockets judgments arising out of their official duties. Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Wauwatosa Board of Education, 88 Wis.2d 385, 389, 276 N.W.2d 761, 764-765 (1979). As the district court recognized, this policy is not served in regard to Woelfel and Glaser. No judgment has been entered against them or their estates, and they as nonparties are not liable for anything. Therefore the City bears no obligation to indemnify with respect to this portion of the damages. Notwithstanding the lack of indemnification, plaintiffs contend that Woelfel’s and Glaser’s conduct amounted to a municipal policy, practice, custom, or usage, mandating municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. In the event that Monell conduct is not found, plaintiffs assert that the City can be held liable for punitive damages on a theory of respondeat superior, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(2), 1985(3), and 1986. We disagree. Regardless of the disposition of the Monell and respondeat superior issues, the import of City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616, precludes plaintiffs from recovering punitive damages against municipalities absent indemnification. There the City of Newport, Rhode Island, cancelled a license for a concert the day before the first scheduled performance on the grounds that one of the acts played rock music rather than jazz, the city council fearing that the act would attract a “rowdy and undesirable” audience. City of Newport, 453 U.S. at 250, 101 S.Ct. at 2751. The concert promoter sued the City under Section 1983, alleging that the City’s actions violated his First Amendment rights. The jury awarded both compensatory and punitive damages against the City, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the punitive damages issue, holding that a municipality is immune from punitive damages in a Section 1983 action. Although Monell, supra, held that municipalities, like other “persons” under Section" }, { "docid": "824885", "title": "", "text": "(1979); Jung v. Schafer, 77 Ill.App.2d 391, 222 N.E.2d 707 (1966), the only persons entitled to recover under the wrongful death claim are decedent’s surviving children and his father. Therefore, the motion to strike decedent’s other relatives as beneficiaries under Count V is granted. Punitive Damages In each count of the complaint plaintiff asserts a claim for punitive as well as compensatory damages. The defendant City has moved to dismiss the punitive damage claims against it on both the federal and state claims. The Supreme Court has recently held that municipalities are not subject to awards of punitive damages in § 1983 actions. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981). Therefore, the claims for punitive damages against the City in counts III and IV are dismissed. It is equally clear that punitive damages are not recoverable under the pendant state claims. The Illinois Tort Immunity Act provides, Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a local public entity is not liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action brought directly against it by the injured party. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 85, § 2-102. Punitive damages are also precluded in any claim under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act. See Rusher v. Smith, 70 Ill.App.3d 889, 26 Ill.Dec. 905, 388 N.E.2d 906 (1979). Accordingly, claims for punitive damages under the pendant state causes of action are likewise stricken. In sum, our rulings on the various motions to dismiss are as follows: Defendants’ motions to dismiss the § 1983 action against the City and supervisory defendants and the §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985 conspiracy action against the individual defendants, are denied. Defendants’ motions to dismiss Superintendent Brzeczek from the wrongful death claim in Count VI and to strike plaintiffs other than the next of kin from the wrongful death claim under Count V are granted. Defendants’ motions to strike punitive damage claims against the City under the federal claims and against all defendants under the pendant state claims are granted. In all other respects defendants are ordered to answer in 14 days. . The" }, { "docid": "7644936", "title": "", "text": "liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action brought directly against it by the injured party.” Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 85, § 2-102 (1979). The Seventh Circuit has held that the Illinois Tort Immunity Act “cannot protect defendants against a cause of action grounded, as here, on a federal statute.” McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287, 290 (7th Cir. 1968). In Spence v. Staras, 507 F.2d 554, 558 (7th Cir. 1974), the Seventh Circuit held that, provided certain aggravating circumstances are shown, punitive damages are recoverable under federal law in a section 1983 action, even in the absence of actual loss to the plaintiff. See also Fact Concerts, Inc. v. City of Newport, 626 F.2d 1060, 1067 (1st Cir. 1980), cert. granted sub nom., Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 782, 66 L.Ed.2d 603 (1980), argued March 13, 1981, 29 Crim.L.Rptr. 4013 (up holding an award of punitive damages against a municipality in a section 1983 suit). Accordingly, the villages’ motion to strike the request for punitive damages is denied. It is so ordered. The villages and Chief Kohnke also move to strike the prayer for punitive damages under the state law wrongful death and survival claims. Illinois law is clear that punitive damages may not be recovered under either the Survival Act, Ill.Rev. Stat., ch. 110%, § 27-6 (1979), or the Wrongful Death Act, Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 70, §§ 1, 2 (1979). See Mattyasovszky v. West Towns Bus Company, 61 Ill.2d 31, 330 N.E.2d 509, 512 (1975); Rusher v. Smith, 70 Ill.App.3d 889, 26 Ill.Dec. 905, 910-911, 388 N.E.2d 906, 911-12 (5th Dist. 1979). See also In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Illinois, on May 25, 1979, 644 F.2d 594, at 605-606 (7th Cir., 1981). Hamrick contends, however, that to deny punitive damages in wrongful death and survival actions while permitting them in personal injury cases violates principles of equal protection, citing In re Paris Air Crash of March 3, 1974, 427 F.Supp. 701 (C.D.Cal.1977). Other courts have reached a contrary result. See Johnson v. International Harvester Co., 487 F.Supp. 1176, 1178-82 (D.N.D.1980). Accordingly, the" }, { "docid": "19186776", "title": "", "text": "Court,. said motion is due to be denied. B. Immunity. Pursuant to his complaint, the plaintiff has brought this action against the following defendants: The City of Prattville, an Alabama municipal corporation; Malcolm D. Smith, William W. Gillespie, E.T. Waldren, Wilton C. Moates, and George P. Walthall, Jr., individually and in their official capacities as members of the City Council for the City of Prattville, Alabama. Further, as to all defendants, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages. Pursuant to their motion to dismiss, the defendants contend, inter alia, that (1) the defendant City of Prattville is immune from plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages; and (2) the individual defendants are absolutely immune from plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and monetary damages. In part, this Court agrees. As to the defendant City of Pratt-ville, it is well-established law that, in the context of a § 1983 action, municipal liability must be predicated on more than a respondeat superior theory. Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that government as an entity is responsible under § 1983. See, Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Further, in such a case, local governmental entities can be sued directly for damages and injunctive or declaratory relief. See Memphis Police Department v. Gamer, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). However, in no event, are punitive damages available under § 1983 from a municipal defendant. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). Accordingly, to the extent that the defendants’ motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of any punitive damage claims against the defendant City of Prattville, said motion is due to be granted. As to the individual defendants, said defendants contend that, to the extent the plaintiff sues them in their official capacities, they" }, { "docid": "21554482", "title": "", "text": "plaintiff in Bell brought a civil rights action against a police officer who intentionally shot and killed the plaintiff’s son. The plaintiff also sued high ranking city officials who concealed facts pertaining to the killing. Id. at 1224. We held that the district court correctly determined that the city of Milwaukee was required to indemnify the police officer and the city officials for the compensatory and punitive damages awarded against them. Id. at 1271-72. During the Bell appeal, the city conceded that the Wisconsin indemnity statute required it to indemnify the police officer and the public officials. Because of the city’s concession, the villages and the police commission argue that we should not give Bell precedential effect in deciding this case. However, the city did contest a portion of the indemnity award in Bell. Specifically, the city argued that it was not required to indemnify the police officer and city officials for the punitive damages awarded against them because a municipality is immune from punitive damages in a federal civil rights suit. Id. at 1270. Although the city’s challenge in Bell was based on different grounds than those proffered by the defendants in this case, what we said in response to the city’s challenge is pertinent to the case at hand. In Bell, we acknowledged that municipalities are immune from punitive damages in federal civil rights suits. Nonetheless, we also pointed out that a state indemnity statute may waive municipal immunity for punitive damages. Id. at 1271 (citing City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 269, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2761 n. 30, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981)). After recognizing that some state indemnity statutes preclude indemnification for malicious or wilful employee misconduct, we stated that, “Wisconsin does not so limit its indemnification law.” We stated that the Wisconsin indemnity statute applied “to all ‘judgments,’ no distinctions being made for compensatory versus punitive damages.” Id. We concluded that regardless of the willfulness of the conduct at issue, Wisconsin’s indemnity statute was a state-created rule shifting liability to municipalities for punitive damage awards against their employees. Id. In another case" }, { "docid": "4127076", "title": "", "text": "conspiring with its own employees when they are acting pursuant to official policy or custom. A similar principle precludes a corporation from being charged with conspiracy to violate the anti-trust laws “when it exercises its rights through its officers and agents, which is the only medium through which it can possibly act.” Nelson Radio & Supply Co. v. Motorola, 200 F.2d 911, 914 (5th Cir. 1952). However, if through its mayor or other executive leadership, or through the mayor and council, a municipal corporation should combine or agree with one or more police officers, acting individually and independently of the city, to specifically deprive an individual of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and in furtherance of that combination or agreement one of the conspiring police officers acts with a specific intent to deprive said individual of such rights, a section 1985 conspiracy claim would be stated against the municipal corporation and its police officers. The proposed fifth cause of action lacks allegations of fact that would comply with this narrow but permissible section 1985 claim against a municipality and its police officers. III. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages in the amount of one hundred million dollars. Defendant City of Cleveland urges that punitive damages cannot be assessed against a municipal corporation, citing Ranells v. City of Cleveland, 41 Ohio St.2d 1, 321 N.E.2d 885 (1975); therefore, it asks that the de.mand for punitive damages be stricken. Punitive damages are generally held to be recoverable in appropriate circumstances against individual defendants in civil rights actions. With respect to municipal defendants, Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978), which held that a municipality is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did not expressly address the issue of punitive damages. Mo-nell specifically involved the liability of a municipality for “equitable relief in the nature of back pay” under' section 1983. On the issue of remedies, the Court stated only the following: “Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary," }, { "docid": "3365221", "title": "", "text": "against the City and Gates and because Carey emphasized the importance of vindicating absolute rights, the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed even though they could only obtain nominal damages against the City, and punitive damages against Gates in his individual capacity. See id. The court also noted, but did not hold, that the importance of symbolic vindication of constitutional rights may have necessitated proceeding with the second phase of the trial even if the plaintiffs had not alleged separate and distinct wrongs by the City and Gates. See id. at 640, n. 4. Surprisingly, George, discussed above, followed soon after Larez, holding that dismissal of the Monell claims was harmless error. See George, 973 F.2d at 709. In a recent case, Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d 514 (9th Cir.1999) the Ninth Circuit appeared to rely on the fact that the plaintiff had alleged separate and distinct wrongs against the City and Gates in its decision to reinstate the plaintiff's claims against them. See id. at 523-24. The district court had dismissed these claims following a finding of excessive force against the individual officer. As is discussed above, this Court adopts the position that the Ninth Circuit intimated in La-rez — that the importance of vindicating constitutional rights requires permitting a plaintiff to proceed against the municipality, despite the fact that only nominal damages are at issue. . A plaintiff could raise claims of wrongdoing against the municipality that are separate and distinct from the allegations against a named individual defendant. In such a case, the Monell claims could survive bifurcation because the findings and awards against the individual would not moot the claims against the municipality. See, e.g., Larez, 946 F.2d at 640 (holding that it was proper to proceed to the second phase of the trial because plaintiff alleged that the City of Los Angeles and the police chief had committed separate and distinct constitutional violations from those committed by the individual officers). In light of the important goals a finding of liability against the municipality can serve, we decline to hold that a plaintiff must" }, { "docid": "15488105", "title": "", "text": "that “local public entities are immune from punitive damage awards in civil rights actions,\" the court held that the Illinois Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (“the Tort Immunity Act”), Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 85, ¶ 9-102 (1983), waived the county’s common law immunity from the $100 punitive damage claim awarded plaintiff Kolar. Cromley asserts that Kolar stands for the proposition that “the Board’s immunity from liability for punitive damages was waived by state law when Illinois enacted the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act\") (pi. mem. in oppos. to def. mo. to dis. at 17-18). We find that conclusion misleading. Kolar decided only that the Tort Immunity Act waived the county's exposure as an indemnitor, leaving intact the common law immunity from punitive damages articulated in City of Newport, in actions brought directly against local public entities. See abo Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1271 (7th Cir.1984) (holding that the well-established policy of municipal immunity from punitive damages precluded plaintiffs from recovering punitive damages absent indemnification, but rejecting the contention that such immunity precluded indemnification of the punitive damages awarded against the individual defendants). Thus defendants are correct insofar as Kolar supports their contention that the defendant board is absolutely immune from punitive damages. The holding does not, however, impact on the exposure of the individuals. Nor does this immunity preclude Board indemnification. . For the sake of simplicity, this court uses “libel\" to refer to both its traditional meaning as well as that previously associated with \"slander\" because \"Illinois law no longer recognizes any substantive differences between the two causes of action.\" American Pet Motels, Inc. v. Chicago Veterinary Medical Association, 106 Ill.App.3d 626, 629 n. 1, 62 Ill.Dec. 325, 328 n. 1, 435 N.E.2d 1297, 1300 n. 1 (1st Dist.1982). We also use \"defamation\" to impart the same meaning. . Cromley alleges that \"[a]s a result of Meints and Dittle's defamatory statements, Cromley has suffered the loss of her position as Reading Department Chairperson/Chapter 1 Director, loss of appointment to the position of Associate English Department Chairperson, other injury to and loss" }, { "docid": "11636469", "title": "", "text": "waiving any other aspects of his Monell claim. To the contrary, he reiterated his intention to amend his complaint to focus and refine the claim. The procedural challenges in this case stem in part from the complex development of § 1983 doctrine from Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961) (municipalities not liable under § 1983), to Monell, 436 U.S. at 694-95, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (municipalities may be liable under § 1983 for injuries caused by municipal policy, custom, or practice), to the establishment of the qualified-immunity defense for individual defendants, see, e.g., Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). If a § 1983 plaintiff seeks only monetary relief, and if a municipal defendant is willing (or required) to indemnify individual defendants for compensatory damages as well as an award of attorney’s fees and costs, a Monell claim against the municipality will offer a prevailing plaintiff no additional remedy (aside, perhaps, from nominal damages). In such cases there is no need for the parties to spend time and money litigating a Monell claim. If the plaintiff fails to prove a violation of his constitutional rights in his claim against the individual defendants, there will be no viable Monell claim based on the same allegations. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986). Accordingly, the judge’s decision to stay the Monell suit while the claims against the individual officers were litigated to judgment was sensible, especially in light of the volume of civil-rights litigation that district courts must manage. In some civil-rights cases, however, a verdict in favor of individual defendants would not necessarily be inconsistent with a plaintiffs verdict on a factually distinct Monell claim. See, e.g., Thomas v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 604 F.3d 293, 305 (7th Cir.2010). In still other cases, the plaintiff may want an injunction against future constitutional violations or some other equitable remedy, and he may be willing to invest the time and effort needed to prove his entitlement to" }, { "docid": "17866354", "title": "", "text": "found only that section 9-102 waived county immunity from punitive damages. The defendants in the instant case are a board of education and its employees. This court is unwilling to extend to a local school board the waiver of immunity found in Kolar. The court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages. D. Requirement of “Custom” or “Usage” in Section 1983 Action The defendant Board of Education next contends that the plaintiff has alleged only a single act of discrimination against her, and not a “policy” or “custom” of the Board which would violate section 1983. The defendant relies on Lyman v. Board of Education, 605 F.Supp. 193, (N.D.Ill. 1985), which dismissed a section 1983 action against board of education. The court in Lyman relied on Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), to hold that a single instance of unconstitutional firing does not create an official policy or custom for which a municipality could be held liable. The Supreme Court has since made it clear that under Monell municipal liability may indeed attach to a single decision by a municipal policymaker. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). The court in Pembaur held that when a governmental policymaker properly decides to adopt a particular course of action, that decision represents an act of official governmental policy. Pembaur, 475 U.S. at -, 106 S.Ct. at 1299. The remaining question is whether or not the defendant Board was a policymaker whose single act could give rise to municipal liability under Pembaur. Final policymaking authority is a matter of state law. Id. at-, 106 S.Ct. at 1300. In Illinois, a board of education is granted the authority to employ and dismiss teachers. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 122, § 10-21.1, -22.4 (1985). These powers have been held to be non-delegable powers, Paprocki v. Board of Education of McHenry Community High School, Dist. No. 156, McHenry County, 31 Ill.App.3d 112, 334 N.E.2d 841 (1975), which must be exercised by the school board" }, { "docid": "1917912", "title": "", "text": "person with final policymaking authority that caused her claimed deprivation of rights, the court would be inclined to grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count III. Plaintiff requested leave to amend her Complaint, however, and in the interest of justice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court finds that Count III should not be dismissed on this basis at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint in order to properly plead her § 1983 claim in light of the principles established by the Supreme Court in Monell and Praprotnik. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment as to Count III is therefore denied on this basis. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages should be dismissed because a municipality is not liable for punitive damages under § 1983. The court agrees. In City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2762, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981), the Supreme Court held that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under § 1983. Thus, the claim for punitive damages against Arlington County must be dismissed. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for punitive damages against Arlington County is granted. . The Fourth Circuit recognizes each of these equitable remedies. See Olson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 904 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1990) (equitable tolling); English v. Pabst Brewing Co., 828 F.2d 1047, 1049 (4th Cir.1987) (equitable estoppel); Joyner v. Garrett, 751 F.Supp. 555, 562-63 (E.D.Va.1990) (waiver). . In Patterson, the Supreme Court construed the following version of § 1981: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. 42 U.S.C. §" }, { "docid": "21554481", "title": "", "text": "348 N.W.2d at 559 (emphasis added). The defendants contend that Ibrahim is inapposite because Ibrahim involved a state rather than a municipal employee. We disagree. While the holding of Ibra-him is inapposite — our case does not involve Wisconsin’s 120 day notice statute— the Wisconsin Supreme Court clearly indicated in dictum that the Wisconsin indemnity statute does not distinguish between intentional and nonintentional torts in determining whether a public official or em ployee qualifies for indemnification. We see no reason why the Supreme Court’s pronouncement is dependent on whether an intentional tort is committed by a state as opposed to a municipal employee. The indemnity statute treats municipal employees no differently than state employees. The statute plainly says that judgments “shall be paid by the state or political subdivision of which the defendant is an officer or employe.” Wis.Stat. § 895.46(l)(a) (emphasis added). In Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir.1984), a case closely analogous to ours, this court required a Wisconsin municipality to indemnify employees who had committed intentional torts. The plaintiff in Bell brought a civil rights action against a police officer who intentionally shot and killed the plaintiff’s son. The plaintiff also sued high ranking city officials who concealed facts pertaining to the killing. Id. at 1224. We held that the district court correctly determined that the city of Milwaukee was required to indemnify the police officer and the city officials for the compensatory and punitive damages awarded against them. Id. at 1271-72. During the Bell appeal, the city conceded that the Wisconsin indemnity statute required it to indemnify the police officer and the public officials. Because of the city’s concession, the villages and the police commission argue that we should not give Bell precedential effect in deciding this case. However, the city did contest a portion of the indemnity award in Bell. Specifically, the city argued that it was not required to indemnify the police officer and city officials for the punitive damages awarded against them because a municipality is immune from punitive damages in a federal civil rights suit. Id. at 1270." }, { "docid": "22406092", "title": "", "text": "895.46 does not apply to punitive damages. Rather, the City argues that the punitive damages rule of City of Newport precludes municipal liability irrespective of Wisconsin law, so that the City is not responsible for the punitive damages of Grady, Johnson, and Shaffer. This contention, however, directly conflicts with the recognition in City of Newport that some state indemnification statutes exclude indemnification for “malicious or willful misconduct by employees,” 453 U.S. at 269 n. 30, 101 S.Ct. at 2761 n. 30, and that these limited statutes do not shift the liability from the offending official to the municipality for such conduct. Wisconsin does not so limit its indemnification law. The obvious implication is that, regardless of the willfulness of the conduct at issue, an unlimited indemnification statute superimposes upon the common law a state-created rule which shifts the liability to the municipality. Therefore the district court rightly held that the City must indemnify Grady and Shaffer for the punitive damages arising from the shooting and from the conspiracy (Johnson’s punitive damages being vacated and Shaffer’s reduced in regard to the conspiracy), as well as indemnify all defendants for the com pensatory damages arising out of the killing and the conspiracy. X. LIABILITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF McCAULEY Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s holding that Milwaukee County cannot be held liable for the conduct of then District Attorney William McCauley. For the reasons set out this holding was proper. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint added as named defendants Milwaukee County and “the Office of Milwaukee County District Attorney,” alleging that the acts of McCauley (who died in 1964) in assisting the cover-up constituted a custom or policy of defendants who are therefore liable for McCauley’s participation in the conspiracy under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. The motion on behalf of Milwaukee County to dismiss the amended complaint was denied by the district court in an unpublished decision and order, Bell v. City of Milwaukee, No. 79-C-927 (Feb. 13, 1981). The district court also denied the County’s motion for summary judgment, Bell II," }, { "docid": "17866353", "title": "", "text": "in deferral states must have at least the 180 days they would have in non-deferral states. Consequently, the abbreviated 90-day state filing period would not render a filing with the EEOC untimely. Based on this court’s previous interpretation of Title VII and the Seventh Circuit’s dicta in Martinez, this court finds that the plaintiff's untimely filing with the IDHR bars suit under Title VII. The plaintiff’s Counts III and IV are therefore dismissed. C. Claim for Punitive Damages Under Section 1983 Also in her section 1983 count, the plaintiff demands punitive damages against the defendants. The defendants contend that governmental entities are immuné from liability from punitive damages under section 1983. Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247,101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981). Nevertheless, state law may waive that immunity. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980). The plaintiff relies on Kolar v. Sangamon County, 756 F.2d 564 (7th Cir.1985), which found that Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 85, § 9-102 (1985), created such a waiver. Kolar, however, found only that section 9-102 waived county immunity from punitive damages. The defendants in the instant case are a board of education and its employees. This court is unwilling to extend to a local school board the waiver of immunity found in Kolar. The court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages. D. Requirement of “Custom” or “Usage” in Section 1983 Action The defendant Board of Education next contends that the plaintiff has alleged only a single act of discrimination against her, and not a “policy” or “custom” of the Board which would violate section 1983. The defendant relies on Lyman v. Board of Education, 605 F.Supp. 193, (N.D.Ill. 1985), which dismissed a section 1983 action against board of education. The court in Lyman relied on Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), to hold that a single instance of unconstitutional firing does not create an official policy or custom for which a municipality could be held liable. The" }, { "docid": "8723247", "title": "", "text": "of harassing individuals in plaintiff’s situation, the portion of plaintiff’s complaint against the City based on section 1983 will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint within thirty (30) days if plaintiff can in good faith allege a viable cause of action against the City. See Baffa v. Black, supra, at 1085; Williams v. Township of Bristol, supra, slip op. at 6; Kedra, supra, at Wilkinson v. Ellis, supra, at 1090-676-79; 91. F. Punitive Damages The Supreme Court has recently held that municipalities enjoy immunity from any claim for punitive damages brought under section 1983. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2760-62, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981). Accordingly, punitive damages may not be claimed against the City even if it were assumed — contrary to what I have held — that plaintiff had stated a claim against the City cognizable under section 1983. However, the immunity from punitive damages discussed in City of Newport, supra, does not necessarily apply to officials and employees of a municipality because punitive damages may be awarded in appropriate circumstances in order to punish gross violations of constitutional rights. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257 n.ll, 98 S.Ct. 1042,1049 n.ll, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978) (punitive damages may be awarded against government officials who knowingly and maliciously deprive others of their civil rights). Because plaintiff has not alleged any malice on the part of the Police Commissioner, the claims for punitive damages against defendant Solomon will be dismissed, but those .claims against officer Schuck will not be dismissed. G. Pendent State Law Claims Plaintiff has asserted a variety of pendent state law claims against all defendants. In general, if the federal cause of action is sufficiently “substantial” to give a federal court subject matter jurisdiction, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-38, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1378-79, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974), then the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, permit pendent state law claims to be adjudicated in tandem with the federal claims so long as both sets of claims “derive from a" }, { "docid": "8052495", "title": "", "text": "and effective means of deterrence. Id. at 268-69,101 S.Ct. at 2760. In addition, imposing punitive damages on municipalities may create a serious risk to the municipalities’ financial integrity. Id. at 270-71,101 S.Ct. at 2761-62. Imposing punitive damages potentially results in a windfall to the complaining party and may have a substantial impact on the local treasury, and, consequently, on services available to the public. Id. Even if the treble damages imposition were deemed compensatory in purpose, a reasonable statutory construction would permit us to affirm. As the district court noted, the statute’s focus is on the wrongdoer who actually caused the injury. Thus when a municipality is vicariously and not directly liable for the injury, the municipality is not one who “cause[d] or procure[d]” the malicious prosecution. See Mich.Comp. Laws § 600.2907. The district court, therefore, properly refused to treble the damages with respect to the municipality. IV. The final argument advanced by plaintiff (and amicus curiae) is the alleged erroneous dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. As a threshold matter, we note that plaintiff did not allege or demonstrate any practice or custom on the part of the City of Milan or its police department with respect to any of the individual officers’ actions. A § 1983 action is therefore unavailable against the City, because “the touchstone of a § 1983 action against a government body is an allegation that official policy is responsible for a deprivation of [constitutional] rights.” Monell v. New York City Dept, of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). A municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036. “The ‘official policy’ requirement [of Monell ] was intended to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality, and thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1292,1298, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) (emphasis in original). Moreover, we hold that on the basis of the rationale" }, { "docid": "15488104", "title": "", "text": "III both have paragraphs numbered 45-48. The textually cited paragraph numbers correspond to those actually in the complaint. . This court cannot, as plaintiff urges, reject the Seventh Circuit’s longstanding application of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine beyond its antitrust origins. . To reiterate, counts II and III both have paragraphs numbered 45-48 and the textually cited paragraph numbers correspond to those actually used in the complaint. . As is explained infra at note 15, the Board’s freedom from punitive damage claims described in City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981), applies only to direct actions against the Board and not to litigation arising out of the Board’s indemnification of officials. . The Seventh Circuit’s Kolar v. County of San-gamon of State of Ill. opinion, 756 F.2d 564 (1985), isn’t as succinct as defendants implicitly suggest, nor as sweeping as plaintiff contends. In Kolar the court permitted a plaintiff in a § 1983 action to recover punitive damages from the county. After noting the general rule that “local public entities are immune from punitive damage awards in civil rights actions,\" the court held that the Illinois Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (“the Tort Immunity Act”), Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 85, ¶ 9-102 (1983), waived the county’s common law immunity from the $100 punitive damage claim awarded plaintiff Kolar. Cromley asserts that Kolar stands for the proposition that “the Board’s immunity from liability for punitive damages was waived by state law when Illinois enacted the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act\") (pi. mem. in oppos. to def. mo. to dis. at 17-18). We find that conclusion misleading. Kolar decided only that the Tort Immunity Act waived the county's exposure as an indemnitor, leaving intact the common law immunity from punitive damages articulated in City of Newport, in actions brought directly against local public entities. See abo Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1271 (7th Cir.1984) (holding that the well-established policy of municipal immunity from punitive damages precluded plaintiffs from recovering punitive damages absent indemnification, but rejecting the" }, { "docid": "4127079", "title": "", "text": "to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause . It has been held, for example, that since Congress did not provide for a statute of limitations in actions under section 1983 and other civil rights statutes, the most analogous state statute of limitations is to be applied. The availability of punitive damages against a municipality, however, should be determined as a matter of uniform federal law, and should not vary from state to state, depending on each state’s policy with respect to punitive damages. Therefore, Ranells, supra, cannot be applied as controlling although its reasoning may be con sidered. Instead, the court will look to the policies underlying the imposition of liability upon municipalities under section 1983 and determine whether those policies are served or disserved by allowing the recovery of punitive damages against a municipality. The fundamental goal embodied in the civil rights statutes of compensating aggrieved individuals for violations of their constitutional rights is fulfilled by the availability of compensatory damages, given the limited scope of the action which the Court holds may be brought against a municipality under section 1983. A prevailing plaintiff is made whole by an award of compensatory damages; as Ranells, supra, 41 Ohio St.2d at 7, 321 N.E.2d at 889, holds, an award of punitive damages against a municipality goes beyond compensation. It acts as a windfall for the particular plaintiff. The availability of punitive damages is usually justified on the ground that punitive damages punish the offender and deter others from acting similarly. In the case of a municipality, however, neither justification is compelling. With respect to punishment, the imposition of even compensatory damages is in itself a form of punishment. As discussed in Part II, to obtain Monel! - type relief against a municipality, wilful or reckless acts of commission or omission on the part of the municipality must be proved. Yet, proof of such acts usually warrants the trier of fact to award punitive damages. Thus, if punitive damages were allowed in this case, plaintiffs could obtain punitive damages against the municipal defendants without" }, { "docid": "14524048", "title": "", "text": "practice or custom also was a cause of the violation of Rebecca DiSor-bo’s constitutional rights. Finally, the jury addressed the damages to award Rebecca DiSorbo. After receiving an instruction from the court that the City would pay for Pedersen’s damages, the jury awarded Rebecca ' DiSorbo $400,000 in compensatory damages and $625,000 in punitive damages for her excessive force and battery claims, and nominal compensatory damages and $650,000 in punitive damages for her abuse of process claim. Discussion I. District Court’s Ruling Requiring City to Indemnify Pedersen We begin with the question of who must bear responsibility for the damages awarded to Rebecca DiSorbo. As an initial matter, we note that the City is at a minimum jointly and severally hable for compensatory damages pursuant to its liability under Monell. See White-Ruiz v. City of New York, 983 F.Supp. 365, 390-92 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (imposing joint and several liability to defendant police officers and a municipality found liable under Monell)-, see also In re Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan & IRAP Litig., 957 F.2d 1020, 1027 (2d Cir.1992) (“Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, when two or more persons’ torts together cause an injury, each tortfeasor is liable to the victim for the total damages.”). The City’s liability, however, is limited to Rebecca DiSorbo’s compensatory damages, as punitive damages may not be awarded against a municipality under Monell. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981); Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir.1999). In its order and judgment, the District Court found that the City was obligated to indemnify Pedersen for both punitive and compensatory damages “based on representations by defense counsel.” This ruling stood in clear contradiction with the New York Supreme Court’s decision on the very same indemnification issue. After Corporation Counsel denied Pedersen’s petition for indemnification consistent with General Municipal Law § 50-j(6)(a), the Schenectady PBA, on behalf of Pedersen, challenged this administrative determination in state court pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules. In a decision" } ]

[ { "docid": "7666911", "title": "", "text": "v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 92, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003)). Moreover, the burden of producing such evidence “is not onerous and should preclude sending the case to the jury only where the record is devoid of evidence that could reasonably be construed to support the plaintiffs claim.” Id. at 400 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Daugherty contends that the evidence he presented of a discriminatory atmosphere in the workplace is sufficient evidence that race was at least a factor in his termination. In particular, Daugherty points to the evidence of Finkbeiner’s numerous racially insensitive statements. These statements are sufficient evidence of racial animus only if they have some connection to the decision to terminate Daugherty. See Blair, 505 F.3d at 525. The fact that the statements do not specifically mention Daugherty means only that they are not direct evidence of discrimination; they could still be circumstantial evidence of discrimination. See id. at 525-26. Indeed, we have held that “[c]ircumstantial evidence establishing the existence of a discriminatory atmosphere at the defendant’s workplace in turn may serve as circumstantial evidence of individualized discrimination directed at the plaintiff.” Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 356 (6th Cir.1998). In determining whether discriminatory comments are circumstantial evidence of discrimination in a particular case, we consider factors such as the identity of the speaker, the nature and substance of the comments, and the temporal proximity of the comments to the challenged decision. See id. at 354-57. Generally, discriminatory comments can qualify as evidence that a particular decision was discriminatory if the speaker was “in a position to influence the alleged decision.” Id. at 355. The parties dispute what direct role Finkbeiner had in the decision to terminate Daugherty, with the City contending that Williams was the sole decisionmaker. As the mayor, however, Finkbeiner “was in a position to shape the attitudes, policies, and decisions of the division’s managers, including [Williams],” id., just as “ ‘[w]hen a major company executive speaks, everybody listens in the corporate hierarchy,’ ”" } ]

[ { "docid": "7666922", "title": "", "text": "the testimony in Sprint involved supervisors “who played no role in the adverse employment decision challenged by the plaintiff.” 552 U.S. at 380, 128 S.Ct. 1140. Here, the district court did not consider other ways in which the excluded evidence could be “related ... to the plaintiffs circumstances and theory of the case,” id. at 388, 128 S.Ct. 1140, such as temporal and geographical proximity, whether the various decision-makers knew of the other decisions, whether the employees were similarly situated in relevant respects, or the nature of each employee’s allegations of retaliation. Cf. Bennett v. Nucor Corp., 656 F.3d 802, 809-10 (8th Cir.2011) (approving the district court’s approach of evaluating whether each incident involved “the same place, the same time, the same decision makers, or whether it’s such that the people who are making the decisions reasonably should have known about the hostile environment”) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1807, 182 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012); Elion v. Jackson, 544 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (D.D.C.2008) (listing as factors “whether such past discriminatory behavior by the employer is close in time to the events at issue in the case, whether the same decisionmakers were involved, whether the witness and the plaintiff were treated in a similar manner, and whether the witness and the plaintiff were otherwise similarly situated”). The district court’s error in excluding the evidence was not harmless. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a) (a party challenging the exclusion of evidence must show that “the error affects a substantial right”). When determining if an evidentiary error is harmless, we have held that, “if ‘one cannot say, with fair assurance, ... that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected.’ ” Mike’s Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, L.L.C., 472 F.3d 398, 409-10 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting DePew v. Anderson, 311 F.3d 742, 751 (6th Cir.2002)). Like most employment-discrimination plaintiffs, Daugherty relied largely on circumstantial evidence to present his case of retaliation to the jury. In such cases, “each piece of evidence served to complete part of the puzzle of th[e] case”" }, { "docid": "13630488", "title": "", "text": "argument that there are other possible explanations for Santoro’s silence is correct and well-taken. However, in the context of summary judgment, where we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we believe that Asmo’s argument is sufficient to call into question Santoro’s motives. Santoro’s silence is evidence of pretext because it can be read as speculation regarding the impact of Asmo’s pregnancy on her work, and an employer’s speculation or assumption about how an employee’s pregnancy will interfere with her job can constitute evidence of discriminatory animus. Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 583-84 (5th Cir.2003). A statement by another Keane employee lends further evidence towards the conclusion that there was discrimination on the part of Keane. After Asmo was informed of her termination, she told Ron Knauer, who was Regional Sales Vice President for the midwest region and reported to Gary Gindele, that she was “seek[ing] legal counsel because [she] strongly believefd] that [she] was let go from Keane because [she] was pregnant with twins.” (J.A. 239). In response to Asmo’s statement, Ron Knauer said, “I don’t blame you, Susan. You need to do what you need to do.” Id. In discrimination cases, in order to evaluate the relevance of a remark made by an individual who works for the employer (here, Keane), we consider both the substance of a remark as well as the influence the individual had in the employee’s termination. Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 355 (6th Cir.1998). Knauer did not have a direct or indirect influence on Asmo’s termination, and thus, his remark alone is not sufficient to prove that Keane discriminated against Asmo. Id. at 354. However, this court has held that “[a]lthough discriminatory statements by a nondecisionmaker, standing alone, generally do not support an inference of discrimination, the comments of a nondeci-sionmaker are not categorically excluda-ble. Circumstantial evidence establishing the existence of a discriminatory atmosphere at the defendant’s workplace in turn may serve as circumstantial evidence of individualized discrimination directed at the plaintiff.” Id. at 356 (citations omitted). Knauer’s statements on their" }, { "docid": "21447661", "title": "", "text": "not categorically excludable. Circumstantial evidence establishing the existence of a discriminatory atmosphere at the defendant’s workplace in turn may serve as circumstantial evidence of individualized discrimination directed at the plaintiff. While evidence of a discriminatory atmosphere may not be conclusive proof of discrimination against an individual plaintiff, such evidence does tend to add “color” to the employer’s decisionmaking processes and to the influences behind the actions taken with respect to the individual plaintiff. Ereegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 356 (6th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This reasoning applies with equal force to retaliatory conduct. Several factors that we have found to increase the probative value of such statements or conduct are present here: Gordon is a supervisor in Ford’s hierarchy, not a co-worker; Gordon’s meetings were held close in time to the termination decision; and his actions “buttressE ] other evidence of pretext.” Id. at 357 (discussing these factors). Moreover, Gordon was involved in most of the meetings about Harris’s poor performance before the actual termination decision, “a factor the Ereegovich Court found indicative of the intermediate employee’s influence over the employment decisions.” Chattman v. Toho Tenax Am., Inc., 686 F.3d 339, 353 (6th Cir.2012). II. CONCLUSION The majority fails to engage in the fact-intensive, case-by-case determination required by the ADA and by EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA to assess Harris’s claims. The majority consistently refuses to take the posture that summary judgment requires. Instead, it takes the facts in the light least favorable to Harris or determines for itself that Harris’s testimony is not credible. When the EEOC regulations and the standards of summary judgment are faithfully applied, clearly the EEOC has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether Harris is a qualified individual, either because physical presence is not an essential function of her job or because telework is a reasonable accommodation for her, and regarding whether Ford retaliated against Harris for filing a charge with the EEOC. I therefore dissent, and would REVERSE the district court and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion." }, { "docid": "19899234", "title": "", "text": "an inference of discrimination, the comments of a nondecisionmaker are not categorically excludable. Circumstantial evidence establishing the existence of a discriminatory atmosphere at the defendant’s workplace in turn may serve as circumstantial evidence of individualized discrimination directed at the plaintiff. While evidence of a discriminatory atmosphere may not be conclusive proof of discrimination against an individual plaintiff, such evidence does tend to add “color” to the employer’s decisionmaking processes and to the influences behind the actions taken with respect to the individual plaintiff. Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 356 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Furthermore, “evidence of a ... discriminatory atmosphere is not rendered irrelevant by its failure to coincide precisely with the particular actors or timeframe involved in the specific events that generated a claim of discriminatory treatment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In evaluating such statements, “courts must carefully evaluate factors affecting the statement’s probative value, such as the declarant’s position in the [employer’s] hierarchy, the purpose and content of the statement, and the temporal connection between the statement and the challenged employment action, as well as whether the statement buttresses other evidence of pretext.” Id. at 357 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The statements in this case evidence a discriminatory atmosphere in the Department in which male officers frequently made derogatory or discriminatory remarks about female officers. Two of the comments were made by sergeants who were members of the sixteen-person command staff, which serves as the managerial arm of the Department. Discriminatory statements made by individuals occupying managerial positions can be particularly probative of a discriminatory workplace culture. See Vincent v. Brewer Co., 514 F.3d 489, 498 (6th Cir.2007); Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 357. Moreover, Sergeant Kowalski’s alleged discriminatory remark about female officers was made in the context of a meeting attended by at least one other member of the command staff in which two female officers were denied promotions. Risch does not specify the officers who made the other discriminatory comments. However, Risch’s testimony indicates that comments such as women did not belong on the police force, and that Chief Quisenberry will “never have" }, { "docid": "16896088", "title": "", "text": "Hudson to other information submitted by Hudson. Aker offers no evidence that it conducted any independent fact gathering. Without considering information from an independent source, Aker’s review could not have scrubbed Hudson’s alleged age bias from the forced rankings and recommendation. Aker points to the impact analysis performed by upper management, showing an increase in the average age of the Louisville site team following the layoffs. But that does not assist Aker in avoiding liability at this stage of the case. Although the substance of the impact analysis might be convincing evidence to rebut a disparate impact claim, it does nothing to rebut the fact that Hudson’s recommendations served as the basis for the layoff decisions, and that Hudson stated he made his decision based on an illegal factor: age. B. Aker argues that even if it is saddled with Hudson’s comments, those comments do not constitute direct evidence that age was the but-for factor in the decision to fire Sharp. We cannot agree. “Direct evidence of discrimination is that evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was [the] motivating factor in the employer’s actions.” Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir.2003) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). “It does not require the fact finder to draw any inferences to reach that conclusion.” Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 440 F.3d 350, 359 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir.2000)). “In assessing the relevancy of a discriminatory remark, we look first at the identity of the speaker.” Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 354 (6th Cir.1998). Discriminatory remarks by decision makers and those who significantly influence the decision-making process can constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Bartlett v. Gates, 421 Fed.Appx. 485, 489 (6th Cir.2010); DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 417 (6th Cir.2004); Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 360 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir.2004). But “ ‘only the most blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate on the basis of age,’ satisfy this criteria.” Scott v. Potter," }, { "docid": "22227250", "title": "", "text": "as a rubber 'stamp, or the ‘cat’s paw,’ for a subordinate employee’s prejudice, even if the manager lacked discriminatory intent.” Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1231 (10th Cir.2000) (citing, inter alia, Long, 88 F.3d at 307); see also Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir.2000) (Stating that “discriminatory comments ... made by the key decisionmaker or those in a position to influence the deci-sionmaker” can be used by the plaintiff to establish pretext); Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 354-55 (6th Cir.1998) (“[Decisionmaker] rule was never intended to apply formalistically, and [thus] remarks by those who did not independently have the authority or did not directly exercise their authority to fire the plaintiff, but who nevertheless played a meaningful role in the decision to terminate the plaintiff, [are] relevant.”); Griffin v. Washington Convention Ctr., 142 F.3d 1308, 1312 (D.C.Cir.1998) (“[E]viidenee of a subordinate’s bias is relevant where the ultimate decision maker is not insulated from the subordinate’s influence.”); Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc., 163 F.3d 1236, 1249 (11th Cir.1998) (“In a cat’s paw situation, the harasser clearly causes the tangible employment action, regardless of which individual actually signs the employee’s walking papers.”); Long, 88 F.3d at 307 (citing Shager); Kientzy v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 990 F.2d 1051, 1060 (8th Cir.1993) (“A reasonable jury could have found that [the employee] used [the decisionmakers] as the conduit of his prejudice — ‘his cat’s paw.’ ”). We therefore look to who actually made the decision or caused the decision to be made, not simply to who officially made the decision. Consequently, it is appropriate to tag the employer with an employee’s age-based animus if the evidence indicates that the worker posséssed leverage, or exerted influence, over the. titular decision-maker. As in Reeves, Russell fortified her evidence of age-related remarks by “[introducing] evidence that [the speaker of the discriminatory remarks] was the actual decisionmaker behind [her] firing.” Reeves, 120 S.Ct. at 2111 (emphasis added). Defendants repeatedly emphasize that Russell and Ciulla were both managers at the same level and that Russell" }, { "docid": "22227249", "title": "", "text": "defendant’s argument that subordinate exerted no influence over ultimate decisionmaker and thus determining that sufficient evidence existed to demonstrate a causal nexus between the discriminatory remarks and the employment decision (citing Long, 88 F.3d at 307)). Our sister circuits also support this approach. For instance, in Shager v. Upjohn Co., Judge Posner, writing for a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversed a summary judgment for the employer in an ADEA case, finding that the influence of the person with the discriminatory attitude may well have been decisive in the employment decision. See 913 F.2d 398, 405 (7th Cir.1990). “If the [formal decisionmakers] acted as the conduit of [the employee’s] prejudice — his cat’s paw — the innocence of the [decision-makers] would not spare the company from liability.” Id. Many circuit cases have also echoed the idea underlying Judge Posner’s “cat’s paw” analysis that courts will not blindly accept the titular decisionmaker as the true decisionmaker: “[A] defendant may be held liable if the manager who discharged the plaintiff merely acted as a rubber 'stamp, or the ‘cat’s paw,’ for a subordinate employee’s prejudice, even if the manager lacked discriminatory intent.” Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1231 (10th Cir.2000) (citing, inter alia, Long, 88 F.3d at 307); see also Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir.2000) (Stating that “discriminatory comments ... made by the key decisionmaker or those in a position to influence the deci-sionmaker” can be used by the plaintiff to establish pretext); Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 354-55 (6th Cir.1998) (“[Decisionmaker] rule was never intended to apply formalistically, and [thus] remarks by those who did not independently have the authority or did not directly exercise their authority to fire the plaintiff, but who nevertheless played a meaningful role in the decision to terminate the plaintiff, [are] relevant.”); Griffin v. Washington Convention Ctr., 142 F.3d 1308, 1312 (D.C.Cir.1998) (“[E]viidenee of a subordinate’s bias is relevant where the ultimate decision maker is not insulated from the subordinate’s influence.”); Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab," }, { "docid": "13630489", "title": "", "text": "response to Asmo’s statement, Ron Knauer said, “I don’t blame you, Susan. You need to do what you need to do.” Id. In discrimination cases, in order to evaluate the relevance of a remark made by an individual who works for the employer (here, Keane), we consider both the substance of a remark as well as the influence the individual had in the employee’s termination. Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 355 (6th Cir.1998). Knauer did not have a direct or indirect influence on Asmo’s termination, and thus, his remark alone is not sufficient to prove that Keane discriminated against Asmo. Id. at 354. However, this court has held that “[a]lthough discriminatory statements by a nondecisionmaker, standing alone, generally do not support an inference of discrimination, the comments of a nondeci-sionmaker are not categorically excluda-ble. Circumstantial evidence establishing the existence of a discriminatory atmosphere at the defendant’s workplace in turn may serve as circumstantial evidence of individualized discrimination directed at the plaintiff.” Id. at 356 (citations omitted). Knauer’s statements on their own do not prove discrimination, but they indicate that he might believe there was discriminatory action taking place at Keane. Instead of defending the company he worked for, he told Asmo to “do what she needed to do.” (J.A. 239). Thus, while Knauer’s statements are not dispositive, they lend further weight towards Asmo’s argument that she was discriminated against and can serve as “circumstantial evidence establishing the existence of’ discrimination. Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 356. In addition to the behavior and statements of Keane employees, there is evidence of pretext based on the proffered reasons given by Keane for Asmo’s termination. “An employee can show pretext by offering evidence that the employer’s proffered reason had no basis in fact, did not actually motivate its decision, or was never used in the past to discharge an employee.” Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799, 805-06 (6th Cir.1998). See Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir.1994). Keane’s stated reasons for Asmo’s termination to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, to the district court," }, { "docid": "18288952", "title": "", "text": "in the decision to select these plaintiffs.” Id. This analysis comports with the definition of direct evidence. It is also consistent with our opinions requiring some degree of connection between the comments and the relevant decision if the comments are to be considered even as circumstantial evidence of discrimination. See, e.g., Smith v. Leggett Wire Co., 220 F.3d 752, 759 (6th Cir.2000) (statements by non-decision makers insufficient to establish pretext as circumstantial evidence); Bush v. Dictaphone Corp., 161 F.3d 363, 369 (6th Cir.1998) (same); Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 355 (6th Cir.1998) (noting that isolated and ambiguous comments are too abstract to be considered as circumstantial evidence of discrimination in pretext analysis). We note, however, that there exists some tension in the law of this circuit. In Talley v. Bravo Pitino Restaurant, Ltd., 61 F.3d 1241 (6th Cir.1995), we held that racist comments by the plaintiffs managers “constituted direct evidence that plaintiffs termination may have been racially motivated,” notwithstanding that the comments were temporally removed from the termination decision and did not address the plaintiff in particular. Id. at 1249. Similarly, in DiCarlo, a supervisor told an Italian-American employee that there were too many “dirty wops” working at the facility; about two weeks later, the supervisor terminated the employee. DiCarlo, 358 F.3d at 412-13. Because the slurs were uttered by an individual with decision-making authority regarding the plaintiffs job, we held that these statements were direct evidence of national-origin discrimination. Id. at 416. As an initial matter, we observe that this court decided both Talley and DiCarlo before Rowan and that “[rjeported panel opinions are binding on subsequent panels.” 6 Cir. R. 206(c); United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 567 (6th Cir.2006) (when two cases reach irreconcilable conclusions, the earlier-decided case controls). Further, we see no principled reason for concluding that race-based and national-origin-based slurs are such overpowering evidence of discrimination that no inference is necessary to connect the expressed discriminatory animus to the adverse employment action, but mocking an older employee’s age is not. Although Rowan did not discuss Talley or DiCarlo, we" }, { "docid": "23251406", "title": "", "text": "747, 750 (7th Cir.1998)). This evidence usually requires an admission from the decisionmaker about his discriminatory animus, which is rare indeed, but a plaintiff can also establish an inference of discrimination under the direct method by relying on circumstantial evidence such as: (1) suspicious timing, ambiguous oral or written statements, or behavior toward or comments directed at other employees in the protected group; (2) evidence, whether or not rigorously statistical, that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received systematically better treatment; and (3) evidence that the employee was qualified for the job in question but was passed over in favor of a person outside the protected class and the employer’s reason is a pretext for discrimination. Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.Com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir.2007); see also Atanus v. Perry, 520 F.3d 662, 671 (7th Cir.2008) (stating that under the direct method, a plaintiff can establish discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA through circumstantial evidence “which suggests discrimination through a longer chain of inferences”) (internal citation omitted). “Whether the plaintiff proceeding according to the direct method relies on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, [he] can avoid summary judgment for the other party by ‘creating a triable issue of whether the adverse employment action of which [he] complains had a discriminatory motivation.’ ” Rudin, 420 F.3d at 721 (citation omitted). There is no admission from Chief Davis that he suspended Nagle or assigned Nagle to less desirable job duties because of his race or his age. The defendants also point out that the discriminatory remarks upon which Nagle relies lack temporal proximity to the adverse employment actions of which Nagle complains. Nagle argues, however, that he is not relying exclusively on evidence of suspicious timing to establish discrimination under the direct method. Instead, he points to our decision in Paz v. Wauconda Healthcare & Rehab. Ctr., LLC, 464 F.3d 659, 666 (7th Cir.2006), where we held that a district court “cannot view the record in small pieces that are mutually exclusive of each other,” but must consider evidence of discriminatory remarks, despite being attenuated from the adverse employment" }, { "docid": "7666921", "title": "", "text": "Id. at 388, 128 S.Ct. 1140. Here, the district court improperly focused exclusively on whether the same person made each allegedly retaliatory personnel decision. The court correctly noted that “other acts” evidence “must be logically or reasonably tied to the decision made with respect to [Daugherty],” R.70 at 12, but looked only to the existence of a common decisionmaker as the necessary tie. As described above, the court premised its admissibility ruling on “whether the same person made the decision” to fire Daugherty as made the decision to fire the other employees, id. at 16, and, specifically, “whether there’s ... any evidence that Finkbeiner played a role in the decision to terminate Mr. Daugherty,” id. at 8. After determining that Daugherty had failed to connect each decision to Finkbeiner, the court announced that it would exclude Griffin and Morehead’s “other acts” testimony. Whether the same actors are involved in each decision is a factor, but Sprint makes clear that it cannot be the only factor in the decision whether to admit “other acts” evidence. Notably, the testimony in Sprint involved supervisors “who played no role in the adverse employment decision challenged by the plaintiff.” 552 U.S. at 380, 128 S.Ct. 1140. Here, the district court did not consider other ways in which the excluded evidence could be “related ... to the plaintiffs circumstances and theory of the case,” id. at 388, 128 S.Ct. 1140, such as temporal and geographical proximity, whether the various decision-makers knew of the other decisions, whether the employees were similarly situated in relevant respects, or the nature of each employee’s allegations of retaliation. Cf. Bennett v. Nucor Corp., 656 F.3d 802, 809-10 (8th Cir.2011) (approving the district court’s approach of evaluating whether each incident involved “the same place, the same time, the same decision makers, or whether it’s such that the people who are making the decisions reasonably should have known about the hostile environment”) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1807, 182 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012); Elion v. Jackson, 544 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (D.D.C.2008) (listing as factors “whether such past discriminatory behavior" }, { "docid": "1343645", "title": "", "text": "that he was going to be laid-off. Evidently, the Plaintiff inquired as to why younger employees were not going to be laid-off, and Carroll responded “you are old enough to retire.” (Steiner Dep. at 73^4.) The Plaintiff was not laid-off at this time, but instead was returned to work at the Weirton facility. The second incident occurred at some time before the Plaintiff was laid-off, during a conversation between the Plaintiff and Young. Young allegedly told the Plaintiff “[wjhy don’t you put a package together what it would take for you to retire.” (Steiner Dep. at 165.) The Plaintiff contends that the comments show that he was targeted by the Defendants for discharge based upon his age. Discriminatory comments by persons with supervisory responsibility for the decision to discharge a protected employee may indicate age discrimination. See Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 354-55 (6th Cir.1998). However, the Sixth Circuit has held that “ ‘isolated and ambiguous comments are too abstract, in addition to being irrelevant and prejudicial, to support a finding of age discrimination.’ ” Id. at 355 (quoting Phelps v. Yale Security, Inc., 986 F.2d 1020, 1025 (6th Cir.1993)). A direct nexus between the comments and the adverse employment action is not necessary, but goes to their probative value. See id. Additionally, multiple alleged discriminatory comments are not viewed in isolation, but rather with the understanding that “the remarks buttress one another as well as any other [ ] evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory animus.” Id. at 356. The comments made by Young and Carroll do not establish that the Plaintiff was targeted for discharge because of his age. The comment made by Carroll some eighteen months prior to the Plaintiffs discharge, is insufficient evidence of discriminatory animus. First, the temporal connection between the comment and the adverse employment action is too remote for this Court to conclude that the comment was related to the Plaintiffs discharge. Next, the Plaintiff was sent back to work at the Weirton facility to perform catch-all maintenance duties for eighteen months prior to being discharged, and was" }, { "docid": "22963739", "title": "", "text": "discrimination). Thus, the stray remarks were not relevant. See Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 354 (6th Cir.1998) (“In assessing the relevancy of a discriminatory remark, we look first at the identity of the speaker. An isolated discriminatory remark made by one with no managerial authority over the challenged personnel decisions is not considered indicative of ... discrimination.”); cf. Robinson v. Runyon, 149 F.3d 507, 512 (6th Cir.1998) (holding that evidence showing that co-employees circulated a fake employment application incorporating racial stereotypes was relevant where the plaintiff showed that upper management knew of the application, but did not condemn it). that between the years 1989 through 1995, there were no black supervisors at the Leitchfield plant, the Adcom plant, or the Winchester plant. Smith further testified that he thought that he was discharged because for years he had complained about the lack of black supervisors. Smith also asked the jury to infer discriminatory purpose because other white employees received less severe discipline for offenses similar to Smith’s. Employee Willie Reed brought a gun to the plant, but was not terminated. On August 8, 1992, Employee Cecil Hopper, threatened a supervisor with bodily harm, but received only a written warning despite a disciplinary record. On February 1, 1994, employee Jeff Banta heated up a pair of pliers and touched them against a coworker’s neck, yet he received only a verbal warning. Defendants maintained that Smith’s threat, not his race, was the reason for his termination. Riley’ testified that he was concerned about the threat because he knew Smith had guns. As plant manager, Riley stated that he ,felt an obligation to ensure the safety of all plant employees. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law to Defendants on Smith’s failure to promote claim and pattern or practice discrimination claim. .The jury found that Adcom fired Smith on the basis of race and awarded him $100,000 in damages. Defendants then moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) for a post-verdict judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The district court" }, { "docid": "19899233", "title": "", "text": "(2) “None of you [female officers] will ever go anywhere....” Id. (3) A “majority” of male officers told Risch that women do not belong in the police force. Id. (4) Sergeant Clemens said that Risch was “bitching” when she raised a concern about “neatness and how things were filed” and suggested a possible improvement. ROA at 96 (Risch Dep. Tr. at 73-74). (5) During a meeting to consider promoting officers to the position of FTO attended by members of the command staff, Sergeant Kowalski made “a general statement ... something to do with the women in the Department” that “was clearly negative.” ROA at 383-84 (Teichow Dep. Tr. at 16-17). Risch and another female officer were denied promotions at that meeting. We have held that discriminatory remarks, even by a nondecisionmaker, can serve as probative evidence of pretext. See Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 356-57 (6th Cir.1998). We have explained the relevance of such discriminatory remarks as follows: Although discriminatory statements by a nondecisionmaker, standing alone, generally do not support an inference of discrimination, the comments of a nondecisionmaker are not categorically excludable. Circumstantial evidence establishing the existence of a discriminatory atmosphere at the defendant’s workplace in turn may serve as circumstantial evidence of individualized discrimination directed at the plaintiff. While evidence of a discriminatory atmosphere may not be conclusive proof of discrimination against an individual plaintiff, such evidence does tend to add “color” to the employer’s decisionmaking processes and to the influences behind the actions taken with respect to the individual plaintiff. Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 356 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Furthermore, “evidence of a ... discriminatory atmosphere is not rendered irrelevant by its failure to coincide precisely with the particular actors or timeframe involved in the specific events that generated a claim of discriminatory treatment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In evaluating such statements, “courts must carefully evaluate factors affecting the statement’s probative value, such as the declarant’s position in the [employer’s] hierarchy, the purpose and content of the statement, and the temporal connection between the statement and the challenged employment" }, { "docid": "22361090", "title": "", "text": "autonomous judgment of the non-discriminating decisionmaker, is the real cause of the adverse employment action.” Id. at 1400 (emphasis added). The answer is clear: “the prejudices of [the subordinate] are imputed to the employee who has formal authority over the plaintiffs job.” Id. The Shager and Wallace opinions were nevertheless careful to point out that the subordinate’s bias will not be imputed to a formal decisionmaker who acts for reasons that are untainted by discrimination. See Shager, 913 F.2d at 405; Wallace, 103 F.3d at 1400. Most other circuits, in either mixed-motive or pretext cases, have held that when the discriminatory bias of a subordinate influences an employment decision, the employer will be charged with the subordinate’s bias. See, e.g., Griffin v. Washington Convention Ctr., 142 F.3d 1308, 1312 (D.C.Cir.1998) (“[E]vidence of a subordinate’s bias is relevant where the ultimate decision maker is not insulated from the subordinate’s influence.”); Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir.2000) (“One method [of proving pretext] is to show that discriminatory comments were made by ... those in a position to influence the decisionmaker.”); Rose v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 257 F.3d 156, 162 (2d Cir.2001) (discriminatory comments of plaintiffs supervisor, who did not have formal firing authority but who “had enormous influence in the decision-making process,” constitute direct evidence of discrimination); Abramson v. William Paterson Coll. of New Jersey, 260 F.3d 265, 286 (3d Cir.2001) (internal quotations and citation omitted) (“Under our case law, it is sufficient if those exhibiting discriminatory animus influenced or participated in the decision to terminate ... [because] an evaluation at any level, if based on discrimination, [may] influence[] the decisionmaking process and thus allow[] discrimination to infect the ultimate decision.”); Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir.2000) (“If the [plaintiff] can demonstrate that others had influence or leverage over the official decisionmaker ... it is proper to impute their discriminatory attitudes to the formal decisionmaker.”); Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 354 (6th Cir.1998) (“[R]emarks by those who did not independently have the authority" }, { "docid": "18108043", "title": "", "text": "decision-maker” to take an adverse action, Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587, 604 n. 13 (6th Cir.2008). To the extent these cases are not inconsistent with Staub, we look to them for additional guidance. Chattman has demonstrated that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Tullock’s actions were a proximate cause of his discipline. In Madden we held that the biased supervisor’s “discrimination in what information [he] presented to senior managers” was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find causation. 549 F.3d at 677. Chattman has presented parallel evidence. Like Madden, Chattman alleges that Tullock knew that white employees engaged in horseplay but never reported any of those incidents to upper management, instead reporting the only incident on record of a black employee engaging in horseplay. In Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., we held that a biased employee’s “position [of] influence” is probative of that employee’s ability to influence the ultimate decisionmaker. 154 F.3d 344, 355 (6th Cir.1998). Like the biased supervisor in Ercegovich, who was head of retail sales, Tullock’s position as Human Resources Director doubtlessly gave him some authority over personnel decisions. Further, Tullock was “involved in some parts of the discussion” regarding Chattman’s discipline and non-promotion, a factor the Ercegovich Court found indicative of the intermediate employee’s influence over the employment decisions. Id. Thus, we cannot say that the investigation conducted by Verbruggen and Lane was “unrelated” to Tullock’s actions. Tullock was the Human Resources manager, and he actively inserted himself in the decisionmaking process. He both misinformed and selectively informed Lane and Verbruggen about the incident. A reasonable factfinder could find Tullock’s actions were a proximate cause of the adverse decisions. Because Chattman has presented evidence of Tullock’s discriminatory animus and offered sufficient proof under the Staub rule to create genuine issues of fact as to intent and causation, this evidence will be imputed to Toho. Thus, summary judgment was improper. The adverse employment actions alleged by Chattman and any damages flowing therefrom are matters to be resolved by a jury. III. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the district court’s" }, { "docid": "7666914", "title": "", "text": "Q: Okay. A: Sign off on the lay off list is another way of putting it. R.23 at 78-79 (Finkbeiner Dep.). In certain circumstances, even statements by a non-decisionmaker can be probative evidence of discrimination, such as when the speaker holds a management position, the statements are commonplace or made in a relevant context (such as a meeting in which personnel decisions are made), or where other evidence of animus exists. Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep’t, 581 F.3d 383, 393 (6th Cir.2009); Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 356-57. Finkbeiner was clearly in a management position, made some of his comments in staff meetings attended by the Department heads, and was part of the group tasked with producing lay-off lists. Even if made by a relevant speaker, “ ‘[i]solated and ambiguous’ ” comments will not support a finding of discrimination. Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 355 (quoting Phelps v. Yale Sec., Inc., 986 F.2d 1020, 1025 (6th Cir.1993)). While Finkbeiner’s comments unambiguously relate to race, only some of them refer to race in the context of employment. Nonetheless, other alleged comments — most notably that black employees lack professionalism and drive — seem particularly striking evidence of bias against black workers. Finally, Finkbeiner’s comments carry more probative weight because of the other evidence of pretext. Id. at 356. As the district court found, Daugherty presented evidence of pretext by showing that the City gave inconsistent reasons for his termination and that the proffered reason of budgetary constraints may have lacked a factual basis. See Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir.1994) (identifying “the proffered reasons did not actually motivate [plaintiffs] discharge” and “the proffered reasons had no basis in fact” as ways of showing pretext). Although much of the evidence does not relate directly to Daugherty’s termination, the burden at the summary-judgment stage is not onerous. See White, 533 F.3d at 400. Combined with evidence that the City’s proffered reason for Daugherty’s termination was pretext, this circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory atmosphere at the workplace is enough to raise an issue of fact as to whether race" }, { "docid": "18108042", "title": "", "text": "However, if the adverse employment action is related to the discriminatory action, the employer may be liable. Neither independent investigation nor independent judgment on the part of the employer provides a per se defense. For example, if the intermediate supervisor makes a biased report to the ultimate decisionmaker, it may be a causal factor in the adverse action if the independent investigation by the employer “takes it into account without determining that the adverse action was, apart from the supervisor’s recommendation, entirely justified.” Id. Also, if “the independent investigation relies on facts provided by the biased supervisor,” id., then the investigation was not, in actuality, independent and the employer is liable. As Toho points out, Staub’s causation analysis is not contrary to the cat’s paw case law that already exists in this Circuit. We have previously held that an employer is liable for an intermediate employee’s discrimination when there is proof of a “causal nexus” between the discrimination and the adverse action, Madden, 549 F.3d at 677, or when the intermediate employee “influences the unbiased decision-maker” to take an adverse action, Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587, 604 n. 13 (6th Cir.2008). To the extent these cases are not inconsistent with Staub, we look to them for additional guidance. Chattman has demonstrated that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Tullock’s actions were a proximate cause of his discipline. In Madden we held that the biased supervisor’s “discrimination in what information [he] presented to senior managers” was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find causation. 549 F.3d at 677. Chattman has presented parallel evidence. Like Madden, Chattman alleges that Tullock knew that white employees engaged in horseplay but never reported any of those incidents to upper management, instead reporting the only incident on record of a black employee engaging in horseplay. In Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., we held that a biased employee’s “position [of] influence” is probative of that employee’s ability to influence the ultimate decisionmaker. 154 F.3d 344, 355 (6th Cir.1998). Like the biased supervisor in Ercegovich, who was head" }, { "docid": "18288951", "title": "", "text": "slurs qualify as direct evidence of discrimination. Specifically, Blair points to Tsolis’s referring to Blair as “the old man on the sales force,” and Tsolis’s mocking question regarding whether “the old guy can make it up the stairs.” Like Tsolis’s statement regarding Blair’s suitability for the Ford account, these statements are admissible because they are not offered to prove that Blair was old or that he had difficulty ascending stairs. Instead, these statements are offered for the fact that Tsolis made them. Having concluded that these derogatory comments are admissible, we next consider whether they constitute direct evidence of age discrimination. In Rowan, we held that when managers make age-biased statements outside the context of the decision to discharge the plaintiff, the statements are not direct evidence of age discrimination. Rowan, 360 F.3d at 550. We explained, “Since the plaintiffs do not allege that they were made in relation to the decision to discharge the plaintiffs as part of the reduction in force, an inference is required that [age] bias may have played a role in the decision to select these plaintiffs.” Id. This analysis comports with the definition of direct evidence. It is also consistent with our opinions requiring some degree of connection between the comments and the relevant decision if the comments are to be considered even as circumstantial evidence of discrimination. See, e.g., Smith v. Leggett Wire Co., 220 F.3d 752, 759 (6th Cir.2000) (statements by non-decision makers insufficient to establish pretext as circumstantial evidence); Bush v. Dictaphone Corp., 161 F.3d 363, 369 (6th Cir.1998) (same); Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 355 (6th Cir.1998) (noting that isolated and ambiguous comments are too abstract to be considered as circumstantial evidence of discrimination in pretext analysis). We note, however, that there exists some tension in the law of this circuit. In Talley v. Bravo Pitino Restaurant, Ltd., 61 F.3d 1241 (6th Cir.1995), we held that racist comments by the plaintiffs managers “constituted direct evidence that plaintiffs termination may have been racially motivated,” notwithstanding that the comments were temporally removed from the termination decision and" }, { "docid": "16896089", "title": "", "text": "the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was [the] motivating factor in the employer’s actions.” Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir.2003) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). “It does not require the fact finder to draw any inferences to reach that conclusion.” Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 440 F.3d 350, 359 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir.2000)). “In assessing the relevancy of a discriminatory remark, we look first at the identity of the speaker.” Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 354 (6th Cir.1998). Discriminatory remarks by decision makers and those who significantly influence the decision-making process can constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Bartlett v. Gates, 421 Fed.Appx. 485, 489 (6th Cir.2010); DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 417 (6th Cir.2004); Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 360 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir.2004). But “ ‘only the most blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate on the basis of age,’ satisfy this criteria.” Scott v. Potter, 182 Fed.Appx. 521, 526 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 582 (11th Cir.1989)). “[T]o prevail on direct evidence at the summary judgment stage, it seems that plaintiffs must prove ‘by a preponderance of the evidence ... that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged employer decision.’ ” Bartlett, 421 Fed.Appx. at 488-89 (quoting Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614, 621 (6th Cir.2009)). Aker contends that Hudson’s tape-recorded remarks do not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination because they were stray remarks that were unrelated to the decision-making process. It is true that “general, vague, or ambiguous comments do not constitute direct evidence of discrimination because such remarks require a factfinder to draw further inferences to support a finding of discriminatory animus.” Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696, 708 (6th Cir.2008) (citing Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc., 505 F.3d 517, 524-25 (6th Cir.2007) (evidence that supervisor removed employee from account because he was “too old” did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination because it was not" } ]

[ { "docid": "5247315", "title": "", "text": "action. Determinations of public concern, and the balancing itself, require ad hoc case-by-case application. The cases are, therefore, not good sources for rules of general application. But they do identify facts that are relevant, and the legal significance of those facts, to be applied in fact-bound situations. Connick spoke of “public concern” in terms of political, social or other concern of the community, i.e., the larger body politic. Id. at 146, 103 S.Ct. at 1689. It indicated that public concern was to be decided by referring to the content, form and context of the speech as revealed by the entire record. A panoply of other indicia have been swept into the public concern inquiry. A highly emphasized factor is whether the speaker is in pursuit of purely private interests. Pickering itself set out several employer interests that are relevant in the second, or balancing, analysis. Many of the cases reexamine in the balancing process the content, form and context rubric set out in Pickering. E.g., Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir.1989). In Maples v. Martin, 858 F.2d 1546, 1552-53 (11th Cir.1988), we addressed the public concern inquiry as applied to speech in the educational setting. We distinguished between critical comments relating to internal administration of college affairs and speech directly affecting the public’s perception of the quality of education in the institution. In the case before us the First Amendment issues could not be addressed in the unitary or global fashion employed by the plaintiff and the district court. In Kurtz v. Vickrey, 855 F.2d 723 (11th Cir.1988), we noted the necessity of separating instances of speech in order that the Pickering/Con-nick test could be carried out. Kurtz’s “speech” consisted of different oral statements, memoranda, and letters published over a period of years. In contrast is Eiland v. Montgomery, 797 F.2d 953, 957 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 3263, 97 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987), which was distinguished by the Kurtz opinion. In Eiland we had held that a single expression, consisting of one poem, posted in three locations in the same building" } ]

[ { "docid": "6067524", "title": "", "text": "employee’s right to freedom of speech is not absolute. See Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir.1989). To prevail in a claim for unlawful retaliation under the First Amendment, the public employee must show that the speech in question was on “a matter of public concern,” that the employee’s First Amendment rights outweigh the employer’s interest in the efficiency of its public services, and that the protected speech was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment decision. Id. [citing Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1689, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983)]. Once the Plaintiff makes this showing, the public employer then has the burden of proving that it would have reached the same employment decision in the absence of the employee’s protected speech. Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d at 1566 [citing Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 286, 97 S.Ct. 568, 575, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)]. Whether the subject of Plaintiff’s speech was a matter of public concern is a threshold question of law. Eiland v. City of Montgomery, 797 F.2d 953, 957 n. 5 (11th Cir.1986). The Court must look to the “content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record,” in making this determination. Id. at 956-57 n. 4 (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. at 1690). The interests protected by the First Amendment in the public employment context are “the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 142, 103 S.Ct. at 1687 (quoting Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734). Thus, absent a showing that the subject of Stalter’s grievances related to matters of public concern, this Court need go no further with Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff claims that the April 15, 1990, written grievance he sent to Lt. Pitts regarding the order he" }, { "docid": "16510708", "title": "", "text": "of members of the police department is inherent. Yet the thrust of the poem, both from its wording and from the context from whence it arose as being posted three days prior to the mayoral election, focuses upon criticism of the mayor. This case boils down to the question of whether the appellant’s interest in criticism of the mayor in the heat of a political campaign, in which the running of the police department is an issue, outweighs the appellee’s interest in maintaining intradepartmental harmony where that criticism of the mayor necessarily carries some critical fallout on members of the police department who work with the mayor. The Pickering balancing test has been applied in this circuit to cases involving police officers both prior to, see, e.g., Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833 (11th Cir.1982); Wilson v. Taylor, 658 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.1981), and subsequent to Connick. See, e.g., McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.1985); Berry v. Bailey, 726 F.2d 670 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985); Leonard v. City of Columbus, 705 F.2d 1299 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1204, 104 S.Ct. 3571, 82 L.Ed.2d 870 (1984). As we noted in Waters, although police officers need not suffer a “watered-down version” of their constitutional rights, “the state’s interest in regulating its police force can be especially compelling.” 684 F.2d at 836 (citations omitted). The district court in our case, as required by Connick and these cases, focused part of its inquiry in this regard on the potential disruption within the police department stemming from the appellant’s speech. Although an employer need not allow events to deteriorate to the point of actual disruption before taking action, the Court in Con-nick cautioned “a stronger showing may be necessary if the employee’s speech more substantially involved matters of public concern.” 461 U.S. at 152, 103 S.Ct. at 1692-93, 75 L.Ed.2d at 723. Clearly matters directly affecting an electoral campaign go directly to the heart of the democratic electoral process, see Leonard, 705 F.2d at 1304, which requires that we give the" }, { "docid": "23229146", "title": "", "text": "had ever violated the confidentiality of his office, and he responded “No, you have not.\" Rl-51-51 (Deposition of Ellen McCabe). In his affidavit Chief Sharrett essentially admitted that McCabe had not actually breached any confidences when he stated that he transferred her because \"I did not want to wait until a disruption occurred before taking action.” Rl-23-4 (Affidavit of Plantation Police Chief C.E. Sharrett, Jr.). . Because a police department's mission, unlike that of other public agencies, requires dealing with threats to public safety, the maintenance of high morale, internal discipline, and confidentiality tends to be uniquely important to the effective functioning of a police department. See McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 940 (11th Cir.1985); Soderstrum v. Town of Grand Isle, 925 F.2d 135, 140-41 (5th Cir.1991). . Because maintaining high morale, discipline, and confidentiality is so important to proper police department functioning, and because these qualities may be compromised relatively easily by employees’ exercising their rights, we have held that police departments’ interest in regulating their employees’ conduct tends to be particularly heavy. See Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833, 836 (11th Cir.1982) (\"the state’s interest in regulating its police force can be especially compelling”); Eiland v. City of Montgomery, 797 F.2d 953, 958 (11th Cir.1986) (same) (quoting Waters), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 3263, 97 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987)." }, { "docid": "1175548", "title": "", "text": "existence of Berger’s protected interest, we assume that Barhight’s claim was found to have failed on the same basis that Berger’s was rejected. So far as we can perceive, defendants have raised no independent defenses to Barhight’s claim, which presumably is only for appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. . Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968) (policy respecting revenue proposals); Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979) (allegedly racially discriminatory policies). . Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (transfer of claimant; application of political pressure to employees). . Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (questioning confidence in and reliability of specific supervisors). . Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (in privately arranged meeting with supervisor). . Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (open letter to newspaper). . See, e.g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (5 to 4 decision as to whether particular speech was protected). . Cf., e.g., Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833, 839 n. 12, 840 (11th Cir.1982) (possible disruption of external operations); Byrd v. Gain, 558 F.2d 553, 554 (9th Cir.1977) (same)." }, { "docid": "22895886", "title": "", "text": "2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987). This circuit employs a four-part test to determine whether a state (or, as in this case, a city) has done so. First, a court must determine whether the employee’s speech may be fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1689, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Rankin, 483 U.S. at 384, 107 S.Ct. at 2896; Morgan v. Ford, 6 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1221, 114 S.Ct. 2708, 129 L.Ed.2d 836 (1994) (citing Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir.1989)). Speech addresses a matter of public concern when the speech can be “fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. at 1690.... Second, a court must weigh the employee’s “[F]irst [AJmendment interests” against the interest of the City, as an employer, “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Morgan, 6 F.3d at 754. In performing this balancing test, a court must consider several factors: (1) whether the speech at issue impeded the government’s ability to perform its duties effectively; (2) the manner, time and place of the speech; and (3) the context within which the speech was made. Connick, 461 U.S. at 151-55, 103 S.Ct. at 1692-94; Morales v. Stierheim, 848 F.2d 1145, 1149 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1013, 109 S.Ct. 1124, 103 L.Ed.2d 187 (1989).... Third, a court must determine whether the speech in question played a “substantial part” in the government’s decision to discharge the employee.... Fourth, if the employee shows that the speech was a substantial motivating factor in the decision to discharge him, the City must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision in the absence of the protected conduct. Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1083-85 (11th Cir.1996). We will assume without deciding that Rice-Lamar’s expression constitutes speech on a matter of public concern, and dispose of" }, { "docid": "23251827", "title": "", "text": ". 757 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 981, 106 S.Ct. 385, 88 L.Ed.2d 338 (1985). . Id. at 1189. . See Jones, 680 F.2d at 101. . See Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Communications, 738 F.2d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting Whiting v. Jackson State Univ., 616 F.2d 116, 121 (5th Cir.1980)). . Id. at 1185. .See id. at 1185. . Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978). . Cf. Smith v. Horner, 839 F.2d 1530, 1537 (11th Cir.1988). . See Simmons, 757 F.2d at 1189; Walker, 684 F.2d at 1360 n. 5; Jones, 680 F.2d at 101. . See supra note 28. . Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2373, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1979). . Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company, 424 U.S. 747, 763, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 1264, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976). . Albermarle, 422 U.S. at 421, 95 S.Ct. at 2373. . Nord v. U.S. Steel Corp., 758 F.2d 1462, 1472 (11th Cir.1985). . Brown v. Evening News Ass'n, 473 F.Supp. 1242, 1245 (E.D.Mich.1979). . Sivell v. Conwed Corp., 666 F.Supp. 23, 26 (D.Conn.1987). . 758 F.2d at 1473 n. 11. . 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g) (1988). . EEOC v. Guardian Pools, Inc., 828 F.2d 1507, 1510 (11th Cir.1987). . Sellers v. Delgado Community College, 839 F.2d 1132, 1138 (5th Cir.1988). . Guardian Pools, 828 F.2d at 1511. . Sellers, 839 F.2d at 1139. . Id. . Id. . McKelvy v. Metal Container Corp., 854 F.2d 448, 453 (11th Cir.1988); see abo Delaney v. Tanzler, 34 Empl.Prac.Dec. (CCH) p 34,349 (M.D.Fla.1984); EEOC v. Local 638, 674 F.Supp. 91, 105 (S.D.N.Y.1987). . Nord, 758 F.2d at 1473. . See discussion In re National Airlines, Inc., 700 F.2d 695 (11th Cir.) cert. denied sub nom. Gardner v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 464 U.S. 933, 104 S.Ct. 337, 78 L.Ed.2d 306 (1983). . Nord, 758 F.2d at 1474. . James v. Stockham Valves and Fittings Co., 559 F.2d 310, 358 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1034, 98 S.Ct. 767," }, { "docid": "23229124", "title": "", "text": "388, 107 S.Ct. at 2899 (citation omitted). The principle underlying the focus on these factors seems to be that the employer’s interest will weigh more heavily in the Pickering balance the more closely the challenged employment action serves the employer’s interest in the efficient and effective functioning of the office. See Kukla, 647 F.Supp. at 805 (“The public employer-employee cases ... turn on the extent to which the restriction of the employee’s rights relates to the demands of the government agency’s work. The scales ultimately tip on whether the restriction is sufficiently related to the agency’s work to outweigh the protection given to the right.”); Developments in the Law—Public Employment, 97 Harv.L.Rev. 1611, 1748 n. 47 (noting Professor Gerald Frog’s assertion that “the linchpin of Court decisions concerning the constitutional rights of public employees is [the] relevance” of challenged restrictions of constitutional rights to preservation of governmental efficiency) (emphasis in original). The more a public employee’s transfer or discharge is necessary to the effective functioning of the office, the more the transfer or discharge becomes justifiable, and thus the more likely it is that a court will find the transfer or discharge constitutionally permissible by finding the employer’s interest to outweigh the employee’s interest in the Pickering balance. See, e.g., Morales v. Stierheim, 848 F.2d 1145, 1151 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied sub nom. Leon v. Avino, 489 U.S. 1013, 109 S.Ct. 1124, 103 L.Ed.2d 187 (1989); McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 939-40 (11th Cir.1985); cf. Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388-92, 107 S.Ct. at 2899-2901. Where loyalty to an employer and the ability to keep confidences are essential to the proper performance of public functions, the public employer’s interest will weigh heavily if the employee’s exercise of the right would compromise loyalty and confidentiality, because restricting those rights may be necessary to preserve the employer’s interest in effective office functioning. See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 570, 88 S.Ct. at 1735; Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388, 107 S.Ct. at 2899; see also McDaniel v. Woodard, 886 F.2d 311, 315 (11th Cir.1989). For this reason, “[w]hen close working relationships are essential to" }, { "docid": "9904267", "title": "", "text": "of public concern and the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734-35. We have faithfully applied this balancing test after independently reviewing the facts revealed by the records in Morales v. Stierheim, 848 F.2d 1145 (11th Cir.1988); McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.1985); Leonard v. City of Columbus, 705 F.2d 1299 (11th Cir.1983), and Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833 (11th Cir.1982). To avoid supererogation we adhere to the rationale common to those cases. II. Just last year we revisited Pickering in Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir.1989), and articulated a four-step analytical evaluation of the evidence to reduce the generalities of the Pickering test to specific application to the facts on a case by case basis to strike the proper balance. Bryson, 888 F.2d at 1565. A. Roberts denied terminating Williams because of speech. Therefore, we have carefully examined the content, form, and context of her speech appearing in the record to determine whether it addresses a matter of public concern. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 384, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2896, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987). The speech with which we are concerned is contained in the editorials, composed by Williams, appearing in the newsletter of the Fulton County Employees Association for the months of February, March, April and May, 1986, which were distributed to all county employees and made available to the general public, and her letter of March 21, 1986, to Roberts inquiring as to the reason for her transfer. The February editorial criticizes the recent budget adopted by the Board of Commissioners which contained no provision for an increment to county employees. The theme of the March editorial was that superior performance of duties by county employees was in the public interest and that a pay raise should be considered both as a reward and a booster of morale. The April editorial was a tribute to Freedom of Speech. The May editorial, captioned \"A Postcard From the Bahamas\" with" }, { "docid": "23518792", "title": "", "text": "morale, and instill public confidence in the law enforcement institution.” Gasparinetti v. Kerr, 568 F.2d 311, 315-16 (3rd Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 903, 98 S.Ct. 2232, 56 L.Ed.2d 401 (1977); also see Note, Free Speech and Impermissible Motive in Dismissal of Public Employees, 89 Yale L.J. 376, 381, 381 n. 14 (1979). As the Supreme Court recognized in Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 246-47, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1445-1446, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976), a police department has a substantial interest in developing “discipline, esprit de corps, and uniformity” within its ranks so as to insure the safety of persons and property. See Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833, 839 (11th Cir.1982); Kannisto v. City and County of San Francisco, 541 F.2d 841, 843 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1552, 51 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); cf. Janusaitus v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, 607 F.2d 17, 26 (2nd Cir.1979) (fire department, like police department, has greater than normal government interest in maintaining morale and discipline). Pursuant to this substantial interest, the Patrol, as a paramilitary force, should be accorded much wider latitude than the normal government employer in dealing with dissension within its ranks. Wilson v. Taylor, 658 F.2d 1021, 1027 (5th Cir.1981); Gasparinetti, 568 F.2d 311, 321-22 (3rd Cir.1977) (Rosenn, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); cf. Chappel v. Wallace, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983). This requires judicial deference on two levels in this case. First, the Patrol’s determination that an officer’s speech-related conduct has contributed to dissension within the ranks is entitled to considerable deference. Kannisto, 541 F.2d at 844, citing Kelley, 425 U.S. at 246, 96 S.Ct. at 1445. Second, the Patrol’s discretionary decision to reassign or discipline an officer whose speech-related conduct has contributed to dissension is similarly entitled to considerable deference. Waters, 684 F.2d at 839. As the Supreme Court has recently expressed in Connick v. Meyers, -U.S. -, -, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1692, 75 L.Ed.2d 708, 723 (1983), “[w]hen close working relationships are essential to fulfilling public responsibilities, a wide degree of deference to the" }, { "docid": "22786021", "title": "", "text": "employer “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1735. Because no bright-line standard exists to put the employer on notice of a constitutional violation, this circuit has recognized that a public employer is entitled to immunity from suit unless the Pickering balance “would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the discharge of the employee was unlawful.” Dartland, 866 F.2d at 1323. Accordingly, this court need not decide the precise result of applying the Pickering balancing test to Busby. See id. at 1324. Instead, we need only decide whether such a result would be so evidently in favor of protecting the employee’s right to speak that reasonable officials in appellees' place “would necessarily know that the termination of [Busby] under these circumstances violated [Busby’s] constitutional rights.” Id. Assuming that the matters upon which Busby commented were matters of public concern, on Busby’s side of the Pickering scale is her interest in expressing her opinion on the alleged malfeasance of her superiors. On appellees’ side of the scale is their interest in maintaining loyalty, discipline, good working relationships among the employees, and, in general, the OPD’s reputation. See id. In this regard, appellees’ case is strengthened by the fact that the OPD is a quasi-military organization. In quasi-military organizations such as law enforcement agencies, comments concerning co-workers’ performance of their duties and superior officers’ integrity can “directly interfere[] with the confidentiality, esprit de corps and efficient operation of the [police department].” Egger v. Phillips, 710 F.2d 292, 327 (7th Cir.) (Coffey, J. concurring in part), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 918, 104 S.Ct. 284, 78 L.Ed.2d 262 (1983). “[Discipline is a necessary component of a smoothly-operating police force. Although this necessity of discipline does not rise to the same level as required by the military, ... discipline must be maintained among police officers during periods of active duty.” Williams v. Board of Regents, 629 F.2d 993, 1003 (5th Cir.1980) (citation omitted), cert. denied sub. nom., Saye v. Williams, 452 U.S. 926, 101 S.Ct. 3063, 69 L.Ed.2d 428 (1981); see" }, { "docid": "23229125", "title": "", "text": "justifiable, and thus the more likely it is that a court will find the transfer or discharge constitutionally permissible by finding the employer’s interest to outweigh the employee’s interest in the Pickering balance. See, e.g., Morales v. Stierheim, 848 F.2d 1145, 1151 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied sub nom. Leon v. Avino, 489 U.S. 1013, 109 S.Ct. 1124, 103 L.Ed.2d 187 (1989); McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 939-40 (11th Cir.1985); cf. Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388-92, 107 S.Ct. at 2899-2901. Where loyalty to an employer and the ability to keep confidences are essential to the proper performance of public functions, the public employer’s interest will weigh heavily if the employee’s exercise of the right would compromise loyalty and confidentiality, because restricting those rights may be necessary to preserve the employer’s interest in effective office functioning. See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 570, 88 S.Ct. at 1735; Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388, 107 S.Ct. at 2899; see also McDaniel v. Woodard, 886 F.2d 311, 315 (11th Cir.1989). For this reason, “[w]hen close working relationships are essential to fulfilling public responsibilities,” the Court has accorded “a wide degree of deference to the employer’s judgment.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 151-52, 103 S.Ct. at 1692; Goffer, 956 F.2d at 1049. There is no genuine issue that loyalty and the ability to keep confidences are essential to the proper performance of McCabe’s former job. McCabe conceded at oral argument that the position of secretary to the chief of police requires keeping confidences. Furthermore, both appellees and McCabe have produced substantial evidence that loyalty and keeping confidences are required for proper performance of the job from which McCabe was transferred. First, there is no dispute that Chief Sharrett’s duties involve confidential matters. In an affidavit, Chief Sharrett swore that his duties include both hiring, disciplining, and discharging all Plantation police officers and supervision of the Internal Affairs Unit (“Internal Affairs”), the section that investigates alleged misconduct by Plantation police officers. See Rl-23-2 (Affidavit of Plantation Police Chief C.E. Sharrett, Jr.). McCabe has produced no evidence contradicting these assertions. Second, there is no dispute that McCabe’s duties required" }, { "docid": "13058854", "title": "", "text": "United States courts cannot be expected to police law enforcement practices around the world, let alone to conform such practices to Fourth Amendment standards by means of deterrence, the exclusionary rule does not normally apply to foreign searches conducted by foreign officials. See, e.g., United States v. Janis, supra, 428 U.S. at 455-56 n. 31, 96 S.Ct. at 3032-33 n. 31; United States v. Hensel, 699 F.2d 18, 25 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 958, 103 S.Ct. 2431, 77 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1983); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711-12 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 906, 96 S.Ct. 2226, 48 L.Ed.2d 830 (1976); United States v. Hawkins, 661 F.2d 436, 455-56 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 991, 102 S.Ct. 2274, 73 L.Ed.2d 1287 (1982); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 2862, 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979); United States v. Morrow, 537 F.2d 120, 139-40 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied sub nom. Martin v. United States, 430 U.S. 956, 97 S.Ct. 1602, 51 L.Ed.2d 806 (1977); United States v. Rose, 570 F.2d 1358, 1361-62 (9th Cir.1978); United States v. Callaway, 446 F.2d 753, 755 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1021, 92 S.Ct. 694, 30 L.Ed.2d 670 (1972). The exclusionary rule does apply to a foreign search if American officials or officers participated in some , significant way, for in such a situation the deterrence principle may be deemed to operate. See, e.g., Stowe v. Devoy, supra; United States v. Morrow, supra; United States v. Rose, supra; Stonehill v. United States, 405 F.2d 738, 743 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 960, 89 S.Ct. 2102, 23 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969). This exception to the usual foreign search rule does not provide any comfort to this appellant, however, for it is clear from the record that there was no United States participation whatever in either of the searches of his residence. As indicated above, note 3 supra, the American authorities did not even know about his first search until after the second search had been effected. The motion to suppress was properly" }, { "docid": "23518791", "title": "", "text": "loyalty, and departmental morale, provided these interests outweigh the employees’ speech interest. Id. Therefore, in determining whether the transfer here infringed Hughes’ first amendment rights, our duty as enunciated by the Court in Pickering is to weigh Hughes’ interests in speaking and gathering information against the Patrol’s interest in promoting efficiency, discipline and morale. In weighing these interests, we are to consider both the nature of the employment relationship and the nature of the speech activity involved. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 569-73, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1735-1737, 20 L.Ed.2d 811. With this in mind, we are convinced that the evidence in this case tilts the balance so heavily in favor of the Patrol’s interest that Hughes’ first amendment claim borders on the frivolous. B. The Patrol’s Substantial Interest in Maintaining Morale v. Hughes’ Dissension Causing Speech-Related Activity More so than the typical government employer, the Patrol has a significant government interest in regulating the speech activities of its officers in order “to promote efficiency, foster loyalty and obedience to superior officers, maintain morale, and instill public confidence in the law enforcement institution.” Gasparinetti v. Kerr, 568 F.2d 311, 315-16 (3rd Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 903, 98 S.Ct. 2232, 56 L.Ed.2d 401 (1977); also see Note, Free Speech and Impermissible Motive in Dismissal of Public Employees, 89 Yale L.J. 376, 381, 381 n. 14 (1979). As the Supreme Court recognized in Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 246-47, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1445-1446, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976), a police department has a substantial interest in developing “discipline, esprit de corps, and uniformity” within its ranks so as to insure the safety of persons and property. See Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833, 839 (11th Cir.1982); Kannisto v. City and County of San Francisco, 541 F.2d 841, 843 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1552, 51 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); cf. Janusaitus v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, 607 F.2d 17, 26 (2nd Cir.1979) (fire department, like police department, has greater than normal government interest in maintaining morale and discipline). Pursuant to this substantial interest, the Patrol, as" }, { "docid": "19694401", "title": "", "text": "a birthday party for a public employee ... when intended to punish her for exercising her free speech rights\") (quotation omitted). See abo Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833, 837 n. 9 (11th Cir.1982). Cf. Georgia Ass’n of Educators v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist., 856 F.2d 142, 145 (11th Cir.1988). . An employee who arranges to \"communicate privately ... rather than to spread his views before the public\" does not forfeit the first-amendment protection that would otherwise be afforded such expression, if addressed to a matter of public concern. Givhan v. Western Line Consol. Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 415-16, 99 S.Ct. 693, 696-97, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979). Accord Berdin v. Duggan, 701 F.2d 909, 912 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 893, 104 S.Ct. 239, 78 L.Ed.2d 230 (1983). . The Supreme Court further explained that: “The explanation for the Constitution’s special concern with threats to the right of citizens to participate in political affairs is no mystery. The First Amendment was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... Accordingly, the Court has frequently reaffirmed that speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 145, 103 S.Ct. at 1689 (quotations omitted), .Such a balancing standard “reflects both the historical evolvement of the rights of public employees,. and the common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitu tional matter.\" Connick, 461 U.S. at 143, 103 S.Ct. at 1688. . Courts should give particular weight to the heightened need for discipline, confidentiality, esprit de corps, and close working relationships in quasi-military organizations like police departments. Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 774 (11th Cir.1991). Nevertheless, this may not be taken so far as to require police officers to \"suffer a ‘watered-down version’ of their constitutional rights.\" Eiland, 797 F.2d at 958 (quotation omitted). . The rationale behind this fourth step is to avoid \"plac[ing] an employee in a better position as a" }, { "docid": "22407741", "title": "", "text": "aspects of the particular employment milieu are especially germane. In Clark v. Holmes, supra, 474 F.2d at 931, we summarized these state interests as follows: (1) the need to maintain discipline or harmony among co-workers; (2) the need for confidentiality; (3) the need to curtail conduct which impedes the [employee’s] proper and competent performance of his daily duties; and (4) the need to encourage a close and personal relationship between the employee and his superiors, where that relationship calls for loyalty and confidence. While these interests are ever present, their strength and applicability in any given employment situation depend on both the nature of the tasks performed by the particular employee and the mission of the agency for which he works. Harmony is particularly required among employees who frequently are required to work on joint projects and the importance of avoiding disharmony among such workers is particularly acute in certain types of endeavors. In the instant case, all of the state interests enunciated above are particularly acute, both because of the need for teamwork among agents and the high stakes that are involved in law enforcement. The caselaw appears unanimous in recognizing the salience of these interests in the context of state and local law enforcement agencies, e.g., Waters v. Chaffin, supra, 684 F.2d at 839; Barrett v. Thomas, supra, 649 F.2d at 1198; Bickel v. Burkhart, supra, 632 F.2d at 1257 (dictum); Byrd v. Gain, supra, 558 F.2d at 554; Kannisto v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 541 F.2d at 843; Hanneman v. Breier, supra, 528 F.2d at 754-56; Muller v. Conlisk, supra, 429 F.2d at 904r-05; Meehan v. Macy, supra, 425 F.2d at 470-71; see Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 246, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1445, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976) (acknowledging legitimate interest in maintaining discipline and esprit de corps among police officers); Tygrett v. Barry, supra, 627 F.2d at 1283; cf. Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, supra, 607 F.2d at 26 (applying principle to firefighters); see generally Finck, Nonpartisan Speech in the Police Department: The Aftermath of Pickering, 7 Hastings Con. L.Q. 1001 (1980)." }, { "docid": "15070358", "title": "", "text": "based on his 27 years experience with the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, he knew all too well what the reaction would be. It would be immediate and highly adverse to his department’s operation. There was no reason for Carson to wait in this type of situation. The Supreme Court has held there is no necessity for an employer to allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action. Connick, 461 U.S. at 152,103 S.Ct. at 1692, 75 L.Ed.2d at 723. Connick cautioned that “a stronger showing may be necessary if the employee’s speech more substantially involved matters of public concern.” 461 U.S. at 152,103 S.Ct. at 1692, 75 L.Ed.2d at 723. Such a showing has been made here. Sheriff Carson was faced with an explosive racial situation in a city already marked by poor relations between a sizeable black minority and the city’s most important law enforcement agency. Without an immediate response, serious conflict was almost certain to occur. The Supreme Court has recognized that law enforcement agencies are qualitatively different from other Government branches. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 245-46, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1444-45, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1978). See also Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833, 839 n. 12 (11th Cir.1982); Leonard v. City of Columbus, 705 F.2d 1299 (11th Cir.1983). The First Amendment does not pro tect personal behavior in the law enforcement context to the same extent that it does in other areas of Governmental concern. The need for high morale and internal discipline in a police force led this Court to hold that “a reasonable likelihood of harm generally is ... enough to support full consideration of the police department’s asserted interests in restricting its employees’ speech.” Waters, 684 F.2d at 839 n. 12. Based on an independent and complete review of the record, we hold that the trial court was correct in finding that balancing the rights of the parties required a decision for defendants. The rights plaintiff seeks to exercise are important. We recognize the dangerousness of any principle" }, { "docid": "22786022", "title": "", "text": "appellees’ side of the scale is their interest in maintaining loyalty, discipline, good working relationships among the employees, and, in general, the OPD’s reputation. See id. In this regard, appellees’ case is strengthened by the fact that the OPD is a quasi-military organization. In quasi-military organizations such as law enforcement agencies, comments concerning co-workers’ performance of their duties and superior officers’ integrity can “directly interfere[] with the confidentiality, esprit de corps and efficient operation of the [police department].” Egger v. Phillips, 710 F.2d 292, 327 (7th Cir.) (Coffey, J. concurring in part), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 918, 104 S.Ct. 284, 78 L.Ed.2d 262 (1983). “[Discipline is a necessary component of a smoothly-operating police force. Although this necessity of discipline does not rise to the same level as required by the military, ... discipline must be maintained among police officers during periods of active duty.” Williams v. Board of Regents, 629 F.2d 993, 1003 (5th Cir.1980) (citation omitted), cert. denied sub. nom., Saye v. Williams, 452 U.S. 926, 101 S.Ct. 3063, 69 L.Ed.2d 428 (1981); see Egger, 710 F.2d at 327-28 (Coffey, J., concurring in part). We agree that courts should consider and give weight to the need for maintaining a close working relationship in quasi-military organizations like police departments. See Saye v. Williams, 452 U.S. 926, 929, 101 S.Ct. 3063, 3065, 69 L.Ed.2d 428 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Egger, 710 F.2d at 328 (Coffey, J., concurring in part). Appellees did not bar Busby from voicing her complaints; they merely sought to delay her access to a public forum until after the OPD’s internal affairs division could investigate her complaints. We recognize that some of Busby’s allegations against Paden ultimately proved true. Yet, under Pickering, it is far from clear that any of the appellees violated the first amendment in terminating Busby for her refusal to acknowledge the policy of delaying publication of acts of malfeasance until after such sensitive allegations could be investigated internally. We therefore decline to hold that appellees would inevitably have been led to conclude that their actions violated Busby’s constitutional right to" }, { "docid": "12081821", "title": "", "text": "1684, 1691-94, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir.1986). We first address whether Morales’ speech addressed a matter of public concern, and then turn to the Pickering balancing process. Both issues are questions of law with respect to which the court is required to examine for itself the statements at issue and the circumstances under which they are made to determine whether or not there is First Amendment protection. Rankin v. McPherson, supra; Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 148 n. 7, 150 n. 10, 103 S.Ct. at 1690 n. 7, 1692 n. 10. A. Speech Addressed Public Concern The threshold question of whether Morales’ statements constituted speech on a matter of public concern “must be determined by the content, form and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. at 1690. In determining whether Morales’ statements were constitutionally protected, the district court stated without explanation that those statements touched upon a matter of public concern. The parties stipulated that the garbage clean-up campaign for Melrose neighborhood and OCED’s failure to implement it are matters of public concern. We agree, and we conclude that Morales’ statement at the September 17 Melrose Board meeting addressed that public concern. Morales’ statement, “The one who is lying is you,” came after Barrios denied Morales’ explanation that Barrios’ own lack of diligence, rather than any neglect on the part of OCED, could have delayed the clean-up campaign. While “the actual words [Morales] spoke cannot be said to be valuable to the public at large, the first amendment’s protections do not turn on the social worth of the statements....”, Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833 (11th Cir.1982) (citations omitted). In context — i.e., an attempt to defend OCED’s efforts with respect to the clean-up campaign against Barrios’ public criticism—Morales’ speech did relate to matters of public concern. Morales’ statements after the June 19 meeting and in his October 2 memorandum to OCED Director Martin also addressed matters of public concern. The statements conveyed Morales’ assessment of Barrios’ service to" }, { "docid": "9904266", "title": "", "text": "of the defendant’s case, Roberts renewed his first motion for a directed verdict, and also moved for directed verdict on the grounds that his interest in promoting the efficiency of public services, which he performs through his employees, outweighed the interest of the plaintiff in commenting upon matters of limited public concern (SR. 1-122-128). Again, the district court denied the defendant’s motion (SR. 1-128). DISCUSSION I. In the seminal case of Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), the Supreme Court announced a broad test to differentiate the power of government to regulate the speech of its employees and its power to limit the speech of its citizens in general. [T]he state has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general. The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the [employee] as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734-35. We have faithfully applied this balancing test after independently reviewing the facts revealed by the records in Morales v. Stierheim, 848 F.2d 1145 (11th Cir.1988); McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.1985); Leonard v. City of Columbus, 705 F.2d 1299 (11th Cir.1983), and Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833 (11th Cir.1982). To avoid supererogation we adhere to the rationale common to those cases. II. Just last year we revisited Pickering in Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir.1989), and articulated a four-step analytical evaluation of the evidence to reduce the generalities of the Pickering test to specific application to the facts on a case by case basis to strike the proper balance. Bryson, 888 F.2d at 1565. A. Roberts denied terminating Williams because of speech. Therefore, we have carefully examined the content, form, and context of her speech" }, { "docid": "23251826", "title": "", "text": "(citing Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd., 594 F.2d 489, 495 (5th Cir.1979), and Pearce v. Wichita County, 590 F.2d 128, 134 (5th Cir.1979)). . But cf. Hill v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 885 F.2d 804, 808-10 (11th Cir.1989). . See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. at 1093 (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824). . See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254, 101 S.Ct. at 1094. . See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095; Caban-Wheeler, 904 F.2d at 1554. . Lincoln v. Board of Regents, 697 F.2d 928, 938 (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826, 104 S.Ct. 97, 78 L.Ed.2d 102 (1983); cf. Bigge v. Albertsons, Inc., 894 F.2d 1497, 1502 (11th Cir.1990). . Jones v. Lumberjack Meats, Inc., 680 F.2d 98, 101 (11th Cir.1982); see Canino v. EEOC, 707 F.2d 468, 471 (11th Cir.1983); Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355, 1359 n. 3, 1360 (11th Cir.1982). . See EEOC v. White & Son Enters., 881 F.2d 1006, 1011-12 (11th Cir.1989). . 757 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 981, 106 S.Ct. 385, 88 L.Ed.2d 338 (1985). . Id. at 1189. . See Jones, 680 F.2d at 101. . See Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Communications, 738 F.2d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting Whiting v. Jackson State Univ., 616 F.2d 116, 121 (5th Cir.1980)). . Id. at 1185. .See id. at 1185. . Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978). . Cf. Smith v. Horner, 839 F.2d 1530, 1537 (11th Cir.1988). . See Simmons, 757 F.2d at 1189; Walker, 684 F.2d at 1360 n. 5; Jones, 680 F.2d at 101. . See supra note 28. . Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2373, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1979). . Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company, 424 U.S. 747, 763, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 1264, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976). . Albermarle, 422 U.S. at 421, 95 S.Ct. at 2373. . Nord v. U.S. Steel Corp., 758 F.2d 1462, 1472 (11th Cir.1985)." } ]

[ { "docid": "22253179", "title": "", "text": "Customs officers to assess antidump-ing duties promptly against the entries that are subject to the order. 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a) (1994). In the case of the published final results of an administrative review, the applicable statute provides that the final results should set forth the determination of antidumping duty rates that “shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties” on the subject entries. 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2) (1988). A fair construction of those statutes is that because they impose an obligation on Customs to liquidate the entries promptly after publication of the order in question, the suspension of liquidation is removed as of the time of the publication. Moreover, as the trial court noted, tying the removal of suspension to the issuance of an anti-dumping duty order or the final results in an administrative review has the virtue of parallelism with the mechanism by which suspension was initiated; thus, suspension is begun by publication of an announcement of the beginning of the antidumping investigation, and suspension is removed by the publication of the announcement of the conclusion of the investigation. The legislative history of section 1504(d) also supports the trial court’s conclusion that suspension of liquidation was removed upon publication of the final results in the Federal Register. Before section 1504 was enacted, there was no statutory restriction on the length of time Customs could take to liquidate an entry. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 6 F.3d 763, 767 (Fed.Cir.1993). “Customs could delay liquidation as long as it pleased, with or without giving notice.” Int’l Cargo & Surety Ins. Co. v. United States, 779 F.Supp. 174, 177 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1991). In 1978, Congress enacted section 1504 to impose a four-year time limit for liquidation. The primary purpose of section 1504 was to “increase certainty in the customs process for importers, surety companies, and other third parties with a potential liability relating to a customs transaction.” Dal-Tile Corp. v. United States, 829 F.Supp. 394, 399 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1993) (internal quotations and citation omitted). In 1993, Congress amended section 1504(d). The amendment was" } ]

[ { "docid": "22259815", "title": "", "text": "expires.” 893 F.2d at 340 n. 5. . Section 1673b(d) provides, in part, that after an affirmative preliminary determination that there exists “a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the merchandise is being sold, or is likely to be sold, at less than fair value,” the administering authority (Commerce) \"shall order the suspension of liquidation of all entries of merchandise subject to the determination.” Simply put, \"[ljiqui-dation is suspended ... because it is not possible ... to determine what duties will be assessed against those entries.” Int'l. Trading, 281 F.3d at 1272. . Section 1516a(c)(2) provides that \"the United States Court of International Trade may enjoin the liquidation of some or all entries of merchandise covered by a determination of the ... administering authority ... upon request by an interested party for such relief and a proper showing that the requested relief should be granted under the circumstances.\" . Fujitsu General's “cause of action\" challenged tire 35.40% antidumping duty rate found in the administrative review. There is therefore no dispute that the cause of action was \"sustained in whole or in part” by our decision in Fujitsu General, which affirmed Commerce's determination, on remand, of a reduced 26.17% antidumping duty rate. . To the extent that Congress intended to equate the publication instruction in § 1516a(e)(2) with the notice requirement of § 1504(d), it could have — as it did in 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3)(C), requiring Commerce to publish the results of administrative reviews concerning entries whose liquidation is enjoined — mandated that Commerce publish \"the final disposition and issue instructions to the Customs Service with respect to the liquidation of entries pursuant to the review.” However, instead of requiring the publication of liquidation instructions, thus potentially evincing an intent to effect notice of the suspension’s removal, section 1516a(e)(2) simply instructs Customs to publish notice of the court decision." }, { "docid": "21992767", "title": "", "text": "date that the final results are published to safeguard an interested party’s right of judicial review). Instead, that framework provides that the Court of International Trade “may enjoin the liquidation of some or all entries ... covered by a determination of [Commerce] ..., wpon a request by an interested party for such relief and a proper showing that the requested relief should be granted under the circumstances.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2) (emphasis added). The statute further provides that “[ujnless such liquidation is enjoined by the court,” entries “shall be liquidated in accordance with the determination of [Commerce] ...,” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(l) (emphasis added), which Customs carries out “promptly and, to the greatest extent practicable, within 90 days” after Commerce issues instructions. 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3)(B). Congress therefore placed the responsibility on interested parties to act affirmatively and request an injunction. Absent some form of legislative “fix” by Congressional action&emdash;perhaps via an amendment to sections 1516a or 1675 that suspends liquidation pending judicial review&emdash;Commerce, and not the Court of International Trade, is best situated to remedy, if not eliminate, the problems presented by this case. Interestingly, Commerce anticipated these very problems in a case before the Federal Circuit, Int’l Trading I. There, Commerce expressed the concern that lifting suspension of liquidation upon publication of the final results in the Federal Register may not allow time for “aggrieved parties ... to seek judicial review under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a.” Int’l Trading I, 281 F.3d at 1273. The Federal Circuit ultimately rejected Commerce’s concern, explaining that the statutory framework did not force “Commerce and Customs to act so quickly” that interested parties would be “deprived of their rights to seek correction of ministerial errors or judicial review of the final results. All that is required is that Commerce and Customs fulfill their respective obligations so that liquidation occurs within six months.” Id. at 1274; see also Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2005); 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Here, Commerce and Customs did not “act so quickly.” Plaintiffs were properly in court and liquidation did not occur until 75" }, { "docid": "15201738", "title": "", "text": "the Court of International Trade, and liquidation may be enjoined pending the outcome of an administrative review and litigation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a; 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Typically, once Commerce has finished its administrative review determination (and once any litigation under section 1516a has concluded), Commerce will send instructions to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) to liquidate the entries made during the period of review covered by the determination. Because the Tariff Act provides that the final determination “shall be the basis for the assessment of ... antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the determination,” 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(C), Commerce’s liquidation instructions “must correctly reflect the final administrative review determination so that the determination is the basis for the assessment at liquidation; if Commerce instructions are inaccurate or incorrect, Customs will liquidate the entries according to the improper instructions and the determination will not be the basis for the assessment of duties.” Shinyei-CAFC(I), 355 F.3d at 1306. If an importer believes that the liquidation instructions issued by Commerce to Customs do not correctly reflect the final determination, the importer may challenge those instructions in the Court of International Trade under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See id.; Consol. Bearings, 348 F.3d at 1002. Once Customs receives liquidation instructions from Commerce — and unless liquidation is enjoined — Customs will actually liquidate the entries made during the review period covered by Commerce’s determination, “collecting] any increased duties due or refunding] any excess of the estimated duties deposited on entry.” Wolff Shoe Co. v. United States, 141 F.3d 1116, 1118 (Fed.Cir.1998). “By statute, Customs must complete liquidation of an entry within certain time limits. If Customs fails to do so, the entry is ‘deemed liquidated’ (i.e., liquidated by operation of law),” at the amount of duties deposited upon entry (i.e., without any increase or decrease from the estimated duties). Id. (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1504). An importer who believes that Customs has erred in liquidating the importer’s entries (for example, by collecting higher duties than were actually due) may file an administrative protest with" }, { "docid": "17861645", "title": "", "text": "17-19. Liquidation is the “final computation or ascertainment of the duties ... accruing on an entry.” 19 C.F.R. § 159.1; see also Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1345-46 (Fed.Cir.1995). In most circumstances, Commerce will order Customs to liquidate entries within one year of the date of entry or withdrawal of the subject merchandise. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a). There is, however, a statutory provision specifically directing deemed liquidation (liquidation by operation of law), if certain criteria are met. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Section 1504(d) provides that, except in circumstances not relevant here, When a suspension [of liquidation] required by statute or court order is removed, the Customs Service shall liquidate the entry ... within 6 months after receiving notice of the removal from the Department of Commerce.... Any entry ... not liquidated by the Customs Service within 6 months after receiving such notice shall be treated as having been liquidated at the rate of duty ... at the time of entry.... 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Thus, this section directs the deemed liquidation of unliqui-dated entries six months after the order suspending liquidation has been removed. Id. For this deemed liquidation to occur, however, certain criteria must be met: “(1) the suspension of liquidation that was in place must have been removed; (2) Customs must have received notice of the removal of the suspension; and (3) Customs must not liquidate the entry at issue within six months of receiving such notice.” Koyo Corp. of U.S.A. v. United States, 29 CIT —,—, 403 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1308 (2005) (citing Fujitsu v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2002)). Pursuant to § 1504, if these criteria are met, the entry is liquidated at the entered rate six months after the suspension order is removed. See § 1504(d) (stating that entries meeting the requirements of this subsection “shall be treated as having been liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duty asserted at the time of entry by the importer of record.”). Unsurprisingly, defendant-intervenors disagree with Commerce’s position that the entries were liquidated by operation of" }, { "docid": "9698828", "title": "", "text": "to the four entries at issue and does not do so retroactively. B. The February 2, 2000 E-Mail Message Commerce Sent to Customs Constitutes Proper Notice Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) In discussing liquidation by operation of law pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d), the Court of Appeals in Fujitsu General America, Inc. v. United States concluded that “in order for a deemed liquidation to occur, (1) the suspension of liquidation that was in place must have been removed; (2) Customs must have received notice of the removal of the suspension; and (3) CusT toms must not liquidate the entry at issue within six months of receiving such notice.” 283 F.3d at 1376. Plaintiff argues that all three requirements have been met and that the entries at issue therefore should be deemed to have liquidated by operation of law at the rate asserted by plaintiff at the time of entry, which rate was zero. The court agrees. Following the administrative review of the Antidumping Duty Order, during which review liquidation of the entries subject to the review was suspended by statute, the Court in Industrial Quimica Del Nalon, 13 CIT at 1055, 729 F.Supp. at 103, ordered an injunction suspending liquidation of the entries subject in this action. The injunction dissolved and suspension of liquidation was removed on July 17, 1993, the date after which an appeal of the judgment of the Court regarding the final anti-dumping duty margin rate became time-barred. See Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc., 283 F.3d at 1379; Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs. of Am., 85 F.3d 589, 590-91 (Fed.Cir.1996); Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 339-40 (Fed.Cir.1990). The court now turns to the issue of when Customs received notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation by Commerce for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Plaintiff maintains that Customs received notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation via the February 2, 2000 e-mail message from Commerce. The electronic communication from Commerce to Customs stated that “[rjecords at the Department of Commerce indicate that there should be no unliquidated entries" }, { "docid": "21992766", "title": "", "text": "rendering [plaintiffs’ cause of action moot.”). A preliminary injunction against liquidation is therefore integral to the prosecution of a cause of action challenging the final results of an administrative review. See Belgium, 452 F.3d at 1292 (“In international trade cases, the Court of International Trade is authorized to grant preliminary injunctions barring liquidation in order to preserve the importer’s right to challenge the assessed duties.”). Tianjin does not address liquidation or the facts of this case. As such, plaintiffs are left with a naked assertion that the time periods of section 1516a (and perhaps USCIT R. 56.2) impliedly stay liquidation to permit an interested party to obtain a preliminary injunction against liquidation. The statutory framework, however, does not administratively suspend or automatically stay liquidation following the final results of an administrative review while an interested party decides whether or not to commence an action or move for an injunction. See Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268, 1273 (Fed.Cir.2002) (“Int’l Trading I ”) (rejecting argument that suspension of liquidation must continue beyond the date that the final results are published to safeguard an interested party’s right of judicial review). Instead, that framework provides that the Court of International Trade “may enjoin the liquidation of some or all entries ... covered by a determination of [Commerce] ..., wpon a request by an interested party for such relief and a proper showing that the requested relief should be granted under the circumstances.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2) (emphasis added). The statute further provides that “[ujnless such liquidation is enjoined by the court,” entries “shall be liquidated in accordance with the determination of [Commerce] ...,” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(l) (emphasis added), which Customs carries out “promptly and, to the greatest extent practicable, within 90 days” after Commerce issues instructions. 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3)(B). Congress therefore placed the responsibility on interested parties to act affirmatively and request an injunction. Absent some form of legislative “fix” by Congressional action&emdash;perhaps via an amendment to sections 1516a or 1675 that suspends liquidation pending judicial review&emdash;Commerce, and not the Court of International Trade, is best situated to" }, { "docid": "22813794", "title": "", "text": "the 1997 entries, with the result that those entries were deemed liquidated by operation of law on March 8, 2000, six months after the 1999 Final Results were published in the Federal Register. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) (any entry not liquidated within 6 months after suspension of liquidation is lifted will be deemed liquidated at cash deposit rate); Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303, 1308-09 (Fed.Cir.2005) (publication of final results in Federal Register lifts suspension of liquidation and begins six month period). In September 2000 and February 2001, the port of Port Huron, Michigan gave notice to NHC that its 1997 entries had been deemed liquidated at the cash deposit rate, which for those entries ranged from 3.18% to 7.61 %. NHC received actual notice of the deemed liquidations and courtesy notices from Customs. Yet, NHC (i) never filed a protest with Customs under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c), (ii) never sought reliquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c), and (iii) did not commence an action against Customs under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Instead, NHC waited until the administrative review of its 2001 entries to allege that Customs had over-collected the duties on its 1997 entries, and accordingly requested Commerce to setoff the subsidy rate for the 2001 entries by the amount of the overpayment on the 1997 entries. Commerce concluded it lacked the authority to make the requested setoff, stating that it does not have authority to address what is essentially a customs protest issue concerning entries from a prior, completed review in the context of this administrative review. Parties cannot revive an issue for which the deadlines for proper challenge have already passed by raising it in an ongoing administrative proceeding. Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 68 Fed.Reg. 25,339 (May 12, 2003). In its final results that year, Commerce reiterated that it had properly instructed Customs about the assessment rate for 1997 entries at the time of the 1999 review and that it lacked statutory authority to correct Customs’ error. Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada:" }, { "docid": "15201758", "title": "", "text": "recover additional duties simply by making a new liquidation of the original entry.”); Am. Int’l Chem., Inc. v. United States, 387 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1269-1270 (2005) (“Because Customs did not liquidate the four entries ... at issue in this action within six months from the date Customs received notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation, the entries liquidated by operation of § 1504(d) at the zero rate of anti-dumping duty asserted by plaintiff at the time of entry[, and] Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to a refund .... ”); cf. SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 512 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“[S]ection 1504(d) mandates deemed liquidation at the cash deposit rate regardless of whether the cash deposit rate is higher or lower than the rate instructed by Commerce.... ”). Indeed, we recently confirmed that “[u]nder the statutory tariff scheme enacted by Congress, the character of a deemed liquidation is procedural not substantive.” Koyo Corp. of U.S.A. v. United States, 497 F.3d 1231, 1242 (Fed.Cir.2007). “The deposit rate is the correct rate of duty assessed for a deemed liquidation under the procedures of 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d), but if it is adverse to the party being assessed the duties because it is contrary to the final review results then it is unlawful and has no substantive effect.” Id. at 1242-43. Although the Koyo case concerned a claim of Customs error rather than Commerce error, this core holding — that a deemed liquidation is unlawful and of no substantive effect if it is contrary to final review results — is equally applicable in the context of Shinyei’s APA claim. Assuming that Shinyei’s entries were covered by the Amended Review Results, their deemed liquidation at the deposit rate was unlawful because that liquidation was contrary to the Amended Review Results, which set forth lower duty rates than the deposit rate. See Shinyei-CAFC(I), 355 F.3d at 1302 (“If Shinyei’s entries were indeed covered' by the Amended Review Results, as it claims, there was presumably an error somewhere in the instruction/liquidation process.”). If there was an error in the instruction process, then Shinyei is entitled" }, { "docid": "22813793", "title": "", "text": "governments of Canada and Quebec. Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Can ada, 57 Fed.Reg. 30,946 (July 13, 1992). Commerce amortized these nonrecurring subsidies over fourteen years, the average useful life of assets in the magnesium industry, and ordered an equal amount to be countervailed each year. Id. As a result, magnesium imports from Canada are subject to countervailing duty orders, which have been reviewed annually since 1992. Countervailing Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada, 57 Fed.Reg. 39,392 (Aug. 31, 1992). In 1999, Commerce conducted an administrative review of NHC’s 1997 magnesium entries. As a result of this review, Commerce set a countervailing subsidy rate of 2.02%. Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 Fed.Reg. 48,805, 48,806 (Sept. 8, 1999). Accordingly, on December 8, 1999, Commerce lifted the suspension of liquidation then in effect for Canadian magnesium imports and instructed Customs to liquidate the 1997 entries and collect countervailing duties at 2.02%. Customs did not immediately liquidate some of the 1997 entries, with the result that those entries were deemed liquidated by operation of law on March 8, 2000, six months after the 1999 Final Results were published in the Federal Register. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) (any entry not liquidated within 6 months after suspension of liquidation is lifted will be deemed liquidated at cash deposit rate); Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303, 1308-09 (Fed.Cir.2005) (publication of final results in Federal Register lifts suspension of liquidation and begins six month period). In September 2000 and February 2001, the port of Port Huron, Michigan gave notice to NHC that its 1997 entries had been deemed liquidated at the cash deposit rate, which for those entries ranged from 3.18% to 7.61 %. NHC received actual notice of the deemed liquidations and courtesy notices from Customs. Yet, NHC (i) never filed a protest with Customs under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c), (ii) never sought reliquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c), and (iii) did not commence an action against Customs under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)." }, { "docid": "18120479", "title": "", "text": "have received notice of the removal of the suspension; and (3) Customs must not liquidate the entry at issue within six months of receiving such notice.” Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2002). In Fujitsu, the importer claimed that Customs erroneously liquidated its entries after having received notice that the injunction against liquidation had been removed. 283 F.3d at 1368-70. The statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) (1999), “governs the deemed liquidation of entries whose liquidation previously was suspended by a court order.” Id. at 1376. It provides that, when a suspension of liquidation required by court order is removed, Customs must liquidate the entry within six months after receiving notice of the removal from Commerce, other agency, or a court with jurisdiction over the entry. § 1504(d). Entries not liquidated by Customs within six months after receiving such notice are deemed liquidated at the rate of duty asserted at the time of entry. Id. In order for a party’s entries to be deemed liquidated, a conclusive decision must be rendered so that suspension of liquidation is removed, see Fujitsu, 283 F.3d at 1379, the same moment that any preliminary injunction granted by the lower court dissolves. Because there is no confusion as to whether the injunction ended earlier or later than when suspension of liquidation was removed, Commerce faces no difficulties in ascertaining when it may give a liquidation instruction to Customs. The second scenario, in which the court grants a preliminary injunction and determines that the agency’s actions are invalid, leaves the injunction in force because there has not been an action in favor of the Government. Throughout any subsequent court ordered remands to the agency or appeals, liquidation may not occur until either a final decision in accordance with § 1516a(e) is reached and the time to appeal expires, or an appeals court renders a conclusive decision. The third and fourth scenarios involve instances when the court does not grant an injunction. Under the third scenario, in which no injunction is issued and the court finds for the Government, the court’s rules provide" }, { "docid": "22259806", "title": "", "text": "to Customs the following day provided notice to Customs that the suspension of liquidation had been lifted. Int’l. Trading Co. v. United States, 110 F.Supp.2d 977, 988 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000). Accordingly, the court concluded that Customs had failed to liquidate the entries within six months after receiving notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation. The court therefore held that the entries were deemed liquidated at the 2.72% deposit rate. Id. The government appealed the ruling to this court. On appeal, we affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade that the entries at issue were deemed liquidated under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). In so doing, we determined that Commerce’s publication of the final results of the administrative review in the Federal Register constituted notice to Customs within the meaning of section 1504(d). Int’l. Trading, 281 F.3d at 1275. We stated: [T]he date of publication provides an unambiguous and public starting point for the six-month liquidation period, and it does not give the government the ability to postpone indefinitely the removal of suspension of liquidation (and thus the date by which liquidation must be completed) as would be the case if the six-month liquidation period did not begin to run until Commerce sent a message to Customs advising of the removal of suspension of liquidation. Beyond that, treating the date of notification as separate from the date of publication could lead to messy factual disputes about when Customs actually received notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation. As in this case, the courts would be required to referee debates about what kind of communication from Commerce relating to the announcement of the final results constituted a qualifying “notice” of the removal of suspension. Id. at 1275-76. We think the rationale articulated in International Trading applies in this case. The Court of International Trade enjoined liquidation in Fujitsu General pending the litigation. It did so pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2). Thereafter, the suspension of liquidation was removed when the litigation came to an end. It is just as important that there be “an unambiguous and" }, { "docid": "459841", "title": "", "text": "law, countervailing duties deposited by the importer at the time of entry are included in the amount of duty required to be paid. See id. at 1088-89. We conclude that the court erred on the first issue but correctly decided the second issue. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand. BACKGROUND I. The countervailing duty laws impose additional duties on imported products which are subsidized by the country of export or manufacture. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1303, 1671 (1982). These additional duties are called “countervailing” duties. They are levied on subsidized imports to offset the unfair competitive advantages created by foreign subsidies. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1356 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.1996). Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1671, the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) must impose countervailing duties on subsidized imports if it determines that the subject imports are in fact being subsidized, and the International Trade Commission determines that “an industry in the United States—© is materially injured, or (ii) is threatened with material injury ... by reason of the [subsidized] imports.” After the initial determination, Commerce must perform annual reviews of outstanding countervailing duty orders. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a) (“At least once during each 12-month period beginning on the anniversary of the date of publication of a countervailing duty order[,]” Commerce shall “review and determine the amount of any net subsidy.”). After Commerce performs an annual review under § 1675(a), the statute allows an interested party to seek judicial review of the factual findings and legal conclusions of Commerce in the Court of International Trade. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2). During an annual review by Commerce, “liquidation” of all entries of merchandise subject to the outstanding countervailing duty order is suspended. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a); Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe v. United States, 748 F.2d 1560, 1565, 3 Fed. Cir. (T) 28, 34 (1984). Suspension of liquidation occurs because the annual review scheme established in 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a) would be frustrated unless the final results of the review applied to the entries covered by the review. See Ambassador, 748 F.2d" }, { "docid": "12287098", "title": "", "text": "the FOIA request to inquire as to amounts distributed for the Second Review Entries under the Continued Dumping And Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, 19 U.S.C. § 1675c (the “CDSOA” or “Byrd Amendment”). The Byrd Amendment allows domestic producers with qualifying expenditures for a particular year to obtain a share of the antidumping duties collected by Customs for that year. Customs responded by letter of September 24, 2002, forwarding four pages of the Bulletin Notice. On December 12, 2002, the domestic producers requested that Customs reliquidate the entries consistent with the final judgment of the Court of International Trade, affirmed by this court in Cemex I. Finally, on April 4, 2003, Ad Hoc moved the Court of International Trade to enforce that judgment, requesting that the court direct liquidation of the Nogales Entries at the 106.846 percent ad valorem final assessment rate. II. PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE In its August 12, 2003 Order, the Court of International Trade determined that proper deemed liquidation had not been established for any of the Nogales Entries, as the March 23, 1998 instructions to Customs were neither unambiguous nor public. See Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2002). While those instructions purported to “constitute the immediate lifting of suspension,” the ninety-day period under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) to file for writ of certiorari did not expire until April 8, 1998. The Court of International Trade stated: “Here, the March 23, 1998 notice was not public, and it cannot be said to be unambiguous where the suspension had not yet been lifted.” Cemex II, 279 F.Supp.2d at 1362. Accordingly, the court held that the March 23, 1998 e-mail failed to trigger the six-month deemed liquidation period under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Turning next to the issue of what remedies may be available to Ad Hoc, the Court of International Trade observed that section 1504(d) was meant to benefit importers: “The purpose of [19 U.S.C. § 1504(d)] is to give importers finality as to their duty obligations by providing for deemed liquidation at the rate claimed by the" }, { "docid": "12287099", "title": "", "text": "Entries, as the March 23, 1998 instructions to Customs were neither unambiguous nor public. See Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2002). While those instructions purported to “constitute the immediate lifting of suspension,” the ninety-day period under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) to file for writ of certiorari did not expire until April 8, 1998. The Court of International Trade stated: “Here, the March 23, 1998 notice was not public, and it cannot be said to be unambiguous where the suspension had not yet been lifted.” Cemex II, 279 F.Supp.2d at 1362. Accordingly, the court held that the March 23, 1998 e-mail failed to trigger the six-month deemed liquidation period under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Turning next to the issue of what remedies may be available to Ad Hoc, the Court of International Trade observed that section 1504(d) was meant to benefit importers: “The purpose of [19 U.S.C. § 1504(d)] is to give importers finality as to their duty obligations by providing for deemed liquidation at the rate claimed by the importers, unless actual liquidation occurred within specified time limits.” Id. at 1360 (emphasis added) (citing Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268,1272 (Fed. Cir.2002); United States v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc., 112 F.3d 1550, 1559 (Fed. Cir.1997) (“The ‘deemed liquidated’ provision of section 1504 was added to the customs laws in 1978 to place a limit on the period within which importers and sureties would be subject to the prospect of liability for a customs entry.”)). Accordingly, section 1504(d) fits neatly into the Customs protest of liquidation scheme. If a deemed liquidation or any liquidation is adverse to an importer, it has its protest remedies under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 and access to judicial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Domestic parties have no specific avenue of relief for improper liquidation. The Byrd Amendment might have been accompanied with a new administrative remedy provision for domestic parties, but it was not. Cemex II, 279 F.Supp.2d at 1362 (emphasis added). As to the Nogales Entries, which were liquidated in 2001, the trial court concluded" }, { "docid": "459842", "title": "", "text": "the [subsidized] imports.” After the initial determination, Commerce must perform annual reviews of outstanding countervailing duty orders. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a) (“At least once during each 12-month period beginning on the anniversary of the date of publication of a countervailing duty order[,]” Commerce shall “review and determine the amount of any net subsidy.”). After Commerce performs an annual review under § 1675(a), the statute allows an interested party to seek judicial review of the factual findings and legal conclusions of Commerce in the Court of International Trade. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2). During an annual review by Commerce, “liquidation” of all entries of merchandise subject to the outstanding countervailing duty order is suspended. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a); Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe v. United States, 748 F.2d 1560, 1565, 3 Fed. Cir. (T) 28, 34 (1984). Suspension of liquidation occurs because the annual review scheme established in 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a) would be frustrated unless the final results of the review applied to the entries covered by the review. See Ambassador, 748 F.2d at 1565, 3 Fed. Cir. (T) at 34. In addition, during judicial review of a countervailing duty determination, the Court of International Trade “may enjoin the liquidation of some or all entries of merchandise covered by [the countervailing duty order].” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2). Liquidation is “the final computation or ascertainment [by Customs] of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.” 19 C.F.R. § 159.1 (1997). Liquidation of an entry is “final and conclusive upon all persons (including the United States and any officer thereof).” 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a). An importer makes an “entry” by filing documentation with Customs, which enables Customs, among other things, to “assess properly the duties [due] on the merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1484. The importer must also deposit estimated duties with Customs. See 19 U.S.C. § 1505(a). After the proper documents are filed and the estimated duties are paid, the imported merchandise can pass into the commerce of the United States. See 19 U.S.C. § 1490. Subsequently, during liquidation, Customs will collect any increased duties due or refund any" }, { "docid": "22259805", "title": "", "text": "effect during the administrative review. Less than six months later, in October of 1996, Customs liquidated the entries and assessed antidumping duties at the rate of 42.31% of the entered value. Id. at 1270-71. International Trading Company (“ITC”), the importer of the merchandise, filed a formal protest. In the protest, it argued that the entries were deemed liquidated by operation of law under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) at the rate asserted at entry, which was the deposit rate of 2.72%. ITC contended that the entries were deemed liquidated because Customs had failed to liquidate them within six months after receiving notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation. Id. at 1271. After Customs denied the protest, ITC filed an action in the Court of International Trade, in which it asserted that the entries should have been deemed liquidated at the deposit rate. The Court of International Trade held that the statutory suspension of liquidation had been removed upon the publication of the final results of the administrative review and that the e-mail message sent to Customs the following day provided notice to Customs that the suspension of liquidation had been lifted. Int’l. Trading Co. v. United States, 110 F.Supp.2d 977, 988 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000). Accordingly, the court concluded that Customs had failed to liquidate the entries within six months after receiving notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation. The court therefore held that the entries were deemed liquidated at the 2.72% deposit rate. Id. The government appealed the ruling to this court. On appeal, we affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade that the entries at issue were deemed liquidated under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). In so doing, we determined that Commerce’s publication of the final results of the administrative review in the Federal Register constituted notice to Customs within the meaning of section 1504(d). Int’l. Trading, 281 F.3d at 1275. We stated: [T]he date of publication provides an unambiguous and public starting point for the six-month liquidation period, and it does not give the government the ability to postpone indefinitely the removal of" }, { "docid": "16959885", "title": "", "text": "explicitly lift the suspension of liquidation. The government claims that the suspension was lifted by unpublished e-mail instructions from Commerce to Customs on January 13, 1995. PL’s Mem. Opp’n Mot. Summary J., Ex. A. That document, among other things, states: “[t]hese instructions constitute the immediate lifting of suspension of liquidation of entries for the merchandise and period listed____” Id. at Par. 2. Thus, it is clear that the Final Results do not contain liquidation instructions from Commerce to Customs. Rather, those instructions were issued two and a half years later. Defendant’s motion seeks to test the legality of that delay. Liquidation is “the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry” of merchandise. 19 C.F.R. § 159.1 (1998). By statute, any entry not liquidated within four years of the date of entry or withdrawal from warehouse is “deemed liquidated” at the amount initially asserted by the importer “unless liquidation continues to be suspended as required by statute or court order.” See Section 504(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d)(1988). Section 1675(a) provides for the retrospective assessment of antidumping duties after an annual administrative review of anti-dumping duty orders. 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1988). To establish harmonious interpretations of section 1675(a) and section 1504(d), this Court has held that because of 1675(a), the suspension of liquidation during the annual review is required by statute. American Permac, Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 535, 538-39, 642 F.Supp. 1187, 1190-91 (1986); see also Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe v. United States, 748 F.2d 1560, 1565, 3 Fed. Cir.(T) 28, 34 (1984). Consequently, the annual review operates to meet the requirements for suspension established by section 1504(d). See American Permac, Inc. v. United States, 16 CIT 672, 678, 800 F.Supp. 952, 958 (1992), aff'd, 996 F.2d 1236, 1993 WL 150624 (Fed.Cir.1993). Here, the Final Results were issued on June 9, 1992, but the liquidation instructions were not issued until January 13, 1995. The government, however, offers no explanation for what appears to be an extraordinary delay in issuing the liquidation instructions. Nevertheless, section 1675" }, { "docid": "16959886", "title": "", "text": "amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d)(1988). Section 1675(a) provides for the retrospective assessment of antidumping duties after an annual administrative review of anti-dumping duty orders. 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1988). To establish harmonious interpretations of section 1675(a) and section 1504(d), this Court has held that because of 1675(a), the suspension of liquidation during the annual review is required by statute. American Permac, Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 535, 538-39, 642 F.Supp. 1187, 1190-91 (1986); see also Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe v. United States, 748 F.2d 1560, 1565, 3 Fed. Cir.(T) 28, 34 (1984). Consequently, the annual review operates to meet the requirements for suspension established by section 1504(d). See American Permac, Inc. v. United States, 16 CIT 672, 678, 800 F.Supp. 952, 958 (1992), aff'd, 996 F.2d 1236, 1993 WL 150624 (Fed.Cir.1993). Here, the Final Results were issued on June 9, 1992, but the liquidation instructions were not issued until January 13, 1995. The government, however, offers no explanation for what appears to be an extraordinary delay in issuing the liquidation instructions. Nevertheless, section 1675 imposes no penalty for such a delay. Commerce completes its administrative review by issuing its liquidation instructions to Customs and by lifting the suspension of liquidation. “When such a suspension of liquidation is removed, the entry shall be liquidated within 90 days therefrom.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Defendant offers no authority for the proposition that the administrative review is terminated before the liquidation instructions are issued. Rather, Defendant argues that “[t]he Government had all the information it needed to liquidate the subject entries on June 9, 1992.” Def.’s Brief at 4. In addition, the Court cannot accord a presumption of good faith to the Government’s unexplained two and a half year delay. Nonetheless, on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court must draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. It appears that Customs could not commence liquidation until the suspension of liquidation was lifted. Accordingly, on this record, the Court cannot test the government’s fidelity to section 1504. Therefore, the Defendant’s motion must be and is hereby denied. . Some of the" }, { "docid": "15201755", "title": "", "text": "been that Customs might delay liquidation as long as it pleased, and with or without a formal suspension notice.” Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe v. United States, 748 F.2d 1560, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1984). “In Ambassador, we noted that Congress enacted the statute because of ‘the uncertainty importers were being kept in, often for years, as to whether they might face further exactions, or when the refunds to which they might be entitled would be paid.’ ” Wolff Shoe, 141 F.3d at 1118-19 (internal citations omitted). Thus, as we have explained, “[t]he primary purpose of section 1504 was to ‘increase certainty in the customs process for importers, surety companies, and other third parties with a potential liability relating to a customs transaction.’ ” Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268, 1272 (Fed.Cir.2002) (quoting Dal-Tile Corp. v. United States, 829 F.Supp. 394, 399 (1993)). Here, the parties agree that Shinyei’s entries were deemed liquidated in 1998 under subsection (d) of the deemed liquidation statute, which applies after liquidation has been suspended pending litigation. In 1998 this subsection read as follows. Except as provided in section 751(a)(3) [19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3) ], when a suspension required by statute or court order is removed, the Customs Service shall liquidate the entry within 6 months after receiving notice of the removal from the Department of Commerce, other agency, or a court with jurisdiction over the entry. Any entry not liquidated by the Customs Service within 6 months after receiving such notice shall be treated as having been liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duty asserted at the time of entry by the importer of record. 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) (1994). This statute does not discuss reliquidation of an entry deemed liquidated — reli-quidation is neither expressly provided for nor expressly prohibited. Yet the Court of International Trade held that judicial review of Shinyei’s APA claim was precluded by this section, reasoning that “[wjhen courts have determined that entries were deemed liquidated under 19 U.S.C. 1504(d), they have previously set aside Customs’ actual liquidation and have treated the deemed liquidation" }, { "docid": "15201737", "title": "", "text": "the dumping has injured or threatens to injure a domestic industry, then Commerce issues an antidumping order, imposing a duty on the good equal to the difference between the foreign market value of the good and its United States price. Zenith Elees. Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1993). When an importer enters goods covered by an antidumping order, the importer generally must make a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a)(3). The final amount owed by the importer is not fixed, however, until the entry is liquidated. See 19 C.F.R § 159.1 (“Liquidation means the final computation or ascertainment of the duties (not including vessel repair duties) or drawback accruing on an entry.”). The final amount may vary from the amount deposited, because an interested party may request an administrative review of Commerce’s antidumping order before liq uidation occurs. See 19 U.S.C § 1675; see also Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997, 1000 (Fed.Cir.2003). Certain interested parties may also challenge Commerce’s antidumping duty determinations in the Court of International Trade, and liquidation may be enjoined pending the outcome of an administrative review and litigation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a; 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Typically, once Commerce has finished its administrative review determination (and once any litigation under section 1516a has concluded), Commerce will send instructions to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) to liquidate the entries made during the period of review covered by the determination. Because the Tariff Act provides that the final determination “shall be the basis for the assessment of ... antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the determination,” 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(C), Commerce’s liquidation instructions “must correctly reflect the final administrative review determination so that the determination is the basis for the assessment at liquidation; if Commerce instructions are inaccurate or incorrect, Customs will liquidate the entries according to the improper instructions and the determination will not be the basis for the assessment of duties.” Shinyei-CAFC(I), 355 F.3d at 1306. If an importer believes that the liquidation instructions issued by" } ]

[ { "docid": "22876482", "title": "", "text": "the exception that proves the rule, as other district courts appear to routinely issue well-articulated dismissal orders. See, e.g., In re LeapFrog Enters., Inc. Sec. Litig., 527 F.Supp.2d 1033 (N.D.Cal.2007); In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 1320466 (N.D.Cal. May 12, 2006); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 572 Pension Fund v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 411 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1178 (N.D.Cal.2005). Based on the extensive record before us, we are nonetheless confident that Metzler was sufficiently well-informed of the deficiencies in the TAC and the prior complaints, and that no harm was suffered as a result of the district court’s failure to provide a reasoned explanation for dismissal. But neither the parties, nor the interests of efficient civil justice, were well-served by the district court in this case. . Despite Corinthian's arguments to the contrary, there is no prohibition against Metzler alleging loss causation through a series of disclosures by the Defendants. Daou, 411 F.3d at 1026. So, the TAC's allegations of loss causation premised on two separate disclosures-one on June 24 and one on August 2 — ture, in theory, a permissible means for alleging loss causation. . Defendants sought judicial notice .for Corinthian's reported stock price history and other publicly available financial documents, including a number of Corinthian’s SEC filings. In its dismissal order, the court granted Defendants’ unopposed requests for judicial notice. Metzler does not contest the propriety of the noticing of these documents on appeal, which in any event was proper. See Dreiling v. Am. Exp. Co., 458 F.3d 942, 946 n. 2 (9th Cir.2006) (SEC filings subject to judicial notice). . Nor do the June 24 and August 2 disclosures become adequate when viewed in tandem. The June 24 Financial Times story discusses impropriety regarding the financial aid practices at one school; the August 2 release contains one reference to attrition. The combined force of these statements does not suggest that the market was alerted to widespread enrollment and admissions fraud at Corinthian schools nationwide. Nor does the TAC allege any genuine causal connection between the August 2 earnings miss and the allegations that Corinthian had manipulated" } ]

[ { "docid": "7232486", "title": "", "text": "defendant’s misrepresentations or omissions.” In re Motorola Sec. Litig, 505 F.Supp.2d 501, 543 (N.D.Ill. 2007); see also In re Bradley Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., 421 F.Supp.2d 822, 829 (D.N.J.2006). The Court finds the stricter interpretation of corrective disclosure to be more consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dura. The Supreme Court specifically recognized there is not necessarily a link between an inflated purchase price and a later economic loss; the subsequent lower price may reflect changed economic circumstances exclusive of the inflated purchase price. Dura, 544 U.S. at 342-43, 125 S.Ct. 1627. A prior misrepresentation my “touch upon” a loss without causing the loss due to the “tangle of factors affecting price.” Id. at 343, 125 S.Ct. 1627. In Dura, the plaintiffs plead misrepresentations which artificially inflated the stock price, a lower than expected earnings statement and subsequent stock price drop, and an announcement the FDA would not approve it’s product, also followed by a stock price drop. Id. at 339, 125 S.Ct. 1627. The Supreme Court found these facts insufficient allegations of loss causation. Id. at 346-47, 125 S.Ct. 1627. Rather, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating loss “after the truth became known.” Id. at 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627. Adopting the more lenient standard for a corrective disclosure, as advocated by the Plaintiff, would violate the principles articulated by Dura by essentially allowing a plaintiff to claim any announcement followed by a stock price drop which occurs after some alleged misrepresentation as a corrective disclosure. See Catogas v. Cyberonics, Inc., 292 Fed.Appx. 311, 314 (5th Cir.2008) (unpublished opinion) (“Plaintiffs must allege, therefore, that the market reacted negatively to a corrective disclosure, which revealed the falsity of [defendant’s] previous representations regarding the accounting for its stock options.”). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege a corrective disclosure. Plaintiffs address loss causation at length in the consolidated amended complaint. Pis.’ Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 754-69. Plaintiffs allege, “but for the Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions ... Lead Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased Dell’s securities or would not have purchased them at the artificially inflated prices at which they" }, { "docid": "22445592", "title": "", "text": "of a single announcement, but rather, can occur through a series of disclosing events.”); In re Motorola Sec. Litig., 505 F.Supp.2d 501, 533 (N.D.Ill.2007); Ong ex rel. Ong v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 459 F.Supp.2d 729, 746 (N.D.Ill.2006); In re Apollo Group Inc. Sec. Litig., 509 F.Supp.2d 837, 845, 847 (D.Ariz.2007); Freeland v. Iridium World Commc'ns, Ltd., 233 F.R.D. 40, 47 & n. 9 (D.D.C.2006) (citing more cases); Greater Penn. Carpenters Pension Fund v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc., No. 04-C-1107, 2005 WL 1563206 (N.D.Ill. June 30, 2005) (crediting as \"partial disclosures of pri- or misrepresentations and omissions” the company's issuance of a press release announcing a lawsuit, a SEC and a DOJ investigation against the defendants); In re Vivendi Universal S.A., 2004 WL 876050, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.22, 2004) (unpublished) (finding loss causation adequately pleaded when a complaint alleged that a series of corrective disclosures was followed by a material price decline, and the price decline was attributable to the series of corrective disclosures). . To require that a plaintiff can successfully allege loss causation only by alleging the fact or evidence of a confession or statement out of the defendant’s own mouth would narrow the pleading requirement for loss causation in a way not authorized by Rule 8(a)(2) or anything contained in Dura pertaining to pleading loss causation. See In re Winstar Commc'ns, No. 01-CV-3014, 2006 WL 473885 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2006) (unpublished) (stating that in Dura, ”[t]he Court did not address the means by which the information is imparted to the public. Specifically, Dura did not set forth any requirements as to who may serve as the source of the information, nor is there any requirement that the disclosure take a particular form or be of a particular quality.”). Dura uses the term \"leak out,” which contemplates the release of information from third-parties outside the company's official lines of communication. See In re Intelligroup Sec. Litig., 527 F.Supp.2d 262, 297 n. 18 (D.N.J.2007). The courts that have addressed this question unanimously reject the district court's approach here. See, e.g., Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 530 F.Supp.2d 580, 597 (S.D.N.Y.2008);" }, { "docid": "22445595", "title": "", "text": "one disclosure was followed immediately by a stock price increase rather than a decrease. This argument deals with the actual timing of the loss, and not whether the plaintiff pleaded a plausible causal relationship between the defendants' fraud and the plaintiff’s economic loss. The market could plausibly have had a delayed reaction; a delayed reaction can still satisfy the pleading requirements for “loss causation” though proof of causation would be more difficult when significant time elapses before the market allegedly reacts. See Dura, 544 U.S. at 343, 125 S.Ct. 1627. The actual timing issue is a factual question, and is not enough to dismiss a complaint that alleges a specific causal link, as is the case here, under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1058 (9th Cir.2008) (\"A limited temporal gap between the time a misrepresentation is publicly revealed and the subsequent decline in stock value does not render a plaintiff's theory of loss causation per se implausible.\"); In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Sec. Litig., 426 F.Supp.2d 688, 760-61 & n. 75 (S.D.Ohio 2006) (\"[T]his Court is convinced that this issue of timing alone is not enough to defeat Plaintiffs’ allegations of loss causation where they have clearly specified causal connections between [the defendants’] misstatements over the four-year Class Period and their resulting damages.”). The plaintiff alleges that the stock dropped after the last disclosure in the series of disclosure events. This is sufficient for pleading purposes here, because increases in stock prices after a partial disclosure that is within a series of disclosures does not preclude a final showing of loss causation. See, e.g., In re Take-Two Interactive Sec. Litig., 551 F.Supp.2d 247, 289-90 (S.D.N.Y.2008); In re Seitel, Inc. Sec. Litig., 447 F.Supp.2d 693, 712-13 (S.D.Tex.2006); see also In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d at 1026-27; In re Apollo Group Inc. Sec. Litig., 509 F.Supp.2d at 845, 847; Ong ex rel. Ong, 459 F.Supp.2d at 746; In re Bristol Myers Squibb Co., 2008 WL 3884384, at *14; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 572 Pension Fund v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 411 F.Supp.2d 1172," }, { "docid": "22445596", "title": "", "text": "760-61 & n. 75 (S.D.Ohio 2006) (\"[T]his Court is convinced that this issue of timing alone is not enough to defeat Plaintiffs’ allegations of loss causation where they have clearly specified causal connections between [the defendants’] misstatements over the four-year Class Period and their resulting damages.”). The plaintiff alleges that the stock dropped after the last disclosure in the series of disclosure events. This is sufficient for pleading purposes here, because increases in stock prices after a partial disclosure that is within a series of disclosures does not preclude a final showing of loss causation. See, e.g., In re Take-Two Interactive Sec. Litig., 551 F.Supp.2d 247, 289-90 (S.D.N.Y.2008); In re Seitel, Inc. Sec. Litig., 447 F.Supp.2d 693, 712-13 (S.D.Tex.2006); see also In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d at 1026-27; In re Apollo Group Inc. Sec. Litig., 509 F.Supp.2d at 845, 847; Ong ex rel. Ong, 459 F.Supp.2d at 746; In re Bristol Myers Squibb Co., 2008 WL 3884384, at *14; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 572 Pension Fund v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 411 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177-78 (N.D.Cal.2005); In re Vivendi Universal S.A., 2004 WL 876050, at *7 (finding loss causation adequately pleaded when a complaint alleged that a series of corrective disclosures was followed by a material price decline, and the price decline was attributable to the series of corrective disclosures); see also In re NAHC, Inc. Sec. Litig., 306 F.3d 1314, 1319 (3d Cir.2002). The plaintiff thereby alleges a plausible causal relationship between the series of disclosure events and this final loss. . In addition, the defendants argue that the March 2002 conference call disclosed the material omissions in full, and therefore subsequent disclosures could not have caused the loss. For similar reasons stated earlier in the safe harbor section, we disagree with the defendants’ characterization of the conference call as a full disclosure of all material risks associated with the no-deposit and ClearPay programs. The conference call continued to tout the benefits of these programs and omitted the serious risk that these programs would be disastrous. Despite some limited disclosures, the defendants arguably skewed the mix of information" }, { "docid": "17263964", "title": "", "text": "Cos., Inc. Sec. Litig., 501 F.Supp.2d 452, 488 (S.D.N.Y.2006). . See Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81, 98 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd., 681 F.2d 111, 120-21 (2d Cir.1982)). See also In re Scottish Re Group Sec. Litig., 524 F.Supp.2d 370, 385 (S.D.N.Y.2007). . In re Scottish Re Group Sec. Litig., 524 F.Supp.2d at 385 (quoting In re Refco, 503 F.Supp.2d at 657). . See In re AOL Time Warner, 381 F.Supp.2d 192, 240 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (\"Allegations of 'red flags,’ when coupled with allegations of GAAP and GAAS violations, are sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter.”). . AU § 312.07 (emphasis added). See also In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 352 F.Supp.2d at 480. . TAC ¶¶ 224-33. . See supra. . TAC ¶ 230. . Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 396 F.3d 161, 172 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 935, 126 S.Ct. 421, 163 L.Ed.2d 321 (2005) (quoting Emergent Capital Investment Management, LLC v. Stonepath Group, Inc., 343 F.3d 189, 192 (2d Cir.2003)); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(4); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005); R.W. Grand Lodge of F. & A.M. of Pa. v. Salomon Bros. All Cap Value Fund, No. 08-0038-CV, 425 Fed.Appx. 25, 29, 2011 WL 2268551, at *2 (2d Cir. June 9, 2011) (\"affirming dismissal of Plaintiffs’ securities fraud claims” because \"Plaintiffs have failed to adequately tie a material misrepresentation or omission to an economic loss”). . Lentell, 396 F.3d at 175 (quoting Suez Equity Investors, L.P., 250 F.3d 87, 95 (2d Cir.2001)). . In re Omnicom Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., 597 F.3d 501, 511 (2d Cir.2010). . Lentell, 396 F.3d at 173; Suez Equity Investors, 250 F.3d at 95. . In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 574 F.3d 29, 40 (2d Cir.2009) (quoting Lentell, 396 F.3d at 173) (emphasis in original). . TAC ¶ 248; PI. Br. at 88-89. . PL Br. at 89. .Id. at 87-96. . Def. Br. at 50-51. . Lentell, 396 F.3d at 175 (emphasis added). . Id. . 375 F.Supp.2d 278" }, { "docid": "22445591", "title": "", "text": "Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 & n. 2 (2d Cir.2007) (applying the \"plausibility” standard to securities fraud cases). . \"Net adds” is defined as \"[t]he number of new subscribers, or gross adds, minus the number of customers that drop service, which is called churn. Though this term can be used in many different contexts, it is frequently used in the telecom industry.” Barbara J. Etzel, Webster’s New World Finance and Investment Dictionary 222 (2003) (emphasis in the original). . The courts that have confronted this issue acknowledge the possibility that loss causation may be pleaded on a theory of partial disclosures. See, e.g., Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1063 n. 6 (9th Cir.2008); In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1026-27 (9th Cir.2005); In re Bradley Pharms. Sec. Litig., 421 F.Supp.2d 822, 828-29 (D.N.J.2006) (citation omitted); In re Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Sec. Litig., 2008 WL 3884384, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2008) (unpublished) (\"It is also clear that a corrective disclosure need not take the form of a single announcement, but rather, can occur through a series of disclosing events.”); In re Motorola Sec. Litig., 505 F.Supp.2d 501, 533 (N.D.Ill.2007); Ong ex rel. Ong v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 459 F.Supp.2d 729, 746 (N.D.Ill.2006); In re Apollo Group Inc. Sec. Litig., 509 F.Supp.2d 837, 845, 847 (D.Ariz.2007); Freeland v. Iridium World Commc'ns, Ltd., 233 F.R.D. 40, 47 & n. 9 (D.D.C.2006) (citing more cases); Greater Penn. Carpenters Pension Fund v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc., No. 04-C-1107, 2005 WL 1563206 (N.D.Ill. June 30, 2005) (crediting as \"partial disclosures of pri- or misrepresentations and omissions” the company's issuance of a press release announcing a lawsuit, a SEC and a DOJ investigation against the defendants); In re Vivendi Universal S.A., 2004 WL 876050, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.22, 2004) (unpublished) (finding loss causation adequately pleaded when a complaint alleged that a series of corrective disclosures was followed by a material price decline, and the price decline was attributable to the series of corrective disclosures). . To require that a plaintiff can successfully allege loss causation only" }, { "docid": "14276131", "title": "", "text": "the defendant. If that relationship is sufficiently direct, loss causation is established, but if the connection is attenuated, or if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate a causal connection between the content of the alleged misstatements or omissions and the harm actually suffered, a fraud claim will not lie.” Lentell, 396 F.3d at 174 (quotations and citations omitted). A decline in stock price following a public announcement of “bad news” does not, by itself, demonstrate loss causation. See Leykin v. AT & T Corp., 423 F.Supp.2d 229, 245 (S.D.N.Y.2006). A plaintiff may, however, “successfully allege loss causation by ... alleging that the market reacted negatively to a ‘corrective disclosure,’ which revealed an alleged misstatement’s falsity or disclosed that allegedly material information had been omitted.” In re Merrill Lynch & Co. Research Reports & Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 9690(JFK), 2008 WL 2324111, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2008). “[A] corrective disclosure need not take the form of a single announcement, but rather, can occur through a series of disclosing events.” In re Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Sec. Litig., 586 F.Supp.2d 148, 165 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (citing cases). Plaintiffs claim to have purchased Goldman stock at inflated values because they purchased stock before Goldman’s practice of making material misstatements and omissions came to light. (Compl. ¶ 329.) They claim that Goldman’s misstatements and conflicts of interest came to light on: (1) April 16, 2010, when the SEC filed fraud charges related to the Abacus transaction, which caused Goldman’s stock to drop from $184.27 per share to $160.70 per share (a 13% drop); (2) April 25-26, 2010, when the Senate released Goldman’s internal emails reflecting its practice of betting against the securities it sold to investors, which caused a stock drop from $157.40 per share to $152.03 per share (a 3% drop); and (3) June 10, 2010, when the SEC announced it was investigating the Hudson CDO transaction, which caused a stock drop from $136.80 per share to $133.77 per share (a 2% drop). (Compl. ¶¶ 329-35.) While Defendants argue that the lawsuits and investigations themselves cause the stock decline, these suits and investigations can" }, { "docid": "8110816", "title": "", "text": "161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005)). A. Misrepresentations of Barclays’s Borrowing Costs The District Court concluded that defendants’ misrepresentations of Barclays’s 2007-2009 borrowing costs plausibly could not have caused plaintiffs’ losses. To plead loss causation, plaintiffs must allege “that the subject of the fraudulent statement or omission was the cause of the actual loss suffered.” Suez Equity Investors, L.P. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 250 F.3d 87, 95 (2d Cir.2001). They may do so either by alleging (a) “the existence of cause-in-fact on the ground that the market reacted negatively to a corrective disclosure of the fraud;” or (b) that “ ‘that the loss was foreseeable and caused by the materialization of the risk concealed by the fraudulent statement.’ ” In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 597 F.3d 501, 511, 513 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 107 (2d Cir.2007)); id. at 511 (“Establishing either theory as applicable would suffice to show loss causation.”); see also Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 396 F.3d 161, 175 n. 4 (2d Cir.2005). In order to plead corrective disclosure, plaintiffs must plausibly allege a disclosure of the fraud by which “the available public information regarding the company’s financial condition [was] corrected,” In re Omnicom, 597 F.3d at 511, and that the market reacted negatively to the corrective disclosure. Lentell, 396 F.3d at 175. Plaintiffs need not demonstrate on a motion to dismiss that the corrective disclosure was the only possible cause for decline in the stock price. See Emergent Capital Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. Stonepath Grp., Inc., 343 F.3d 189, 197 (2d Cir.2003) (“[I]f the loss was caused by an intervening event, ... the chain of causation will not have been established. But such is a matter of proof at trial and not to be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”). This is consistent with the majority of district courts in our Circuit. See, e.g., In re Bear Steams Cos., Inc. Sec., Derivative, & ERISA Litig., 763 F.Supp.2d 423, 507 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (“[A]t the motion to dismiss stage, the [complaint] need not rule out all competing theories" }, { "docid": "14276130", "title": "", "text": "of scienter with respect to Goldman’s con duct in the Hudson, Anderson and Timber-wolf I transactions. C. Loss Causation Allegations of loss causation are not subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA. Rather, a “short and plain statement” — the standard of Rule 8(a) — “is all that is necessary at this stage of the litigation.” CompuDyne Corp. v. Shane, 453 F.Supp.2d 807, 828 (S.D.N.Y.2006). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need only allege either: “(i) facts sufficient to support an inference that it was a defendant’s fraud — rather than other salient factors — that proximately caused plaintiffs loss,” Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 396 F.3d 161, 177 (2d Cir.2005), or (n) “facts that would allow a factfinder to ascribe some rough proportion of the whole loss to ... [the defendant’s fraud].” Lattanzio v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 476 F.3d 147, 158 (2d Cir. 2007). “[L]oss causation has to do with the relationship between the plaintiffs investment loss and the information misstated or concealed by the defendant. If that relationship is sufficiently direct, loss causation is established, but if the connection is attenuated, or if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate a causal connection between the content of the alleged misstatements or omissions and the harm actually suffered, a fraud claim will not lie.” Lentell, 396 F.3d at 174 (quotations and citations omitted). A decline in stock price following a public announcement of “bad news” does not, by itself, demonstrate loss causation. See Leykin v. AT & T Corp., 423 F.Supp.2d 229, 245 (S.D.N.Y.2006). A plaintiff may, however, “successfully allege loss causation by ... alleging that the market reacted negatively to a ‘corrective disclosure,’ which revealed an alleged misstatement’s falsity or disclosed that allegedly material information had been omitted.” In re Merrill Lynch & Co. Research Reports & Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 9690(JFK), 2008 WL 2324111, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2008). “[A] corrective disclosure need not take the form of a single announcement, but rather, can occur through a series of disclosing events.” In re Bristol Myers Squibb Co." }, { "docid": "7232485", "title": "", "text": "‘that it is more probable than not that it was this negative statement, and not other unrelated negative statements, that caused a significant amount of the decline.’ ” Dura, 544 U.S. at 343, 125 S.Ct. 1627 (quoting Greenberg v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., 364 F.3d 657, 666 (5th Cir.2004)). Courts have differed over what constitutes a corrective disclosure. Some courts have interpreted the term strictly, finding a corrective disclosure must “at a minimum ... identify which prior representation is called into question.” In re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. Sec. Litig., 424 F.Supp.2d 880, n. 4 (N.D.Tex.2005); Congregation of Ezra Sholom v. Blockbuster, Inc., 504 F.Supp.2d 151, 167 (N.D.Tex.2007) (“To allege loss causation adequately, Plaintiffs must explicitly allege a corrective disclosure — i.e., a statement that corrects a previous misrepresentation or discloses a prior omission — that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security.”). Other courts interpret Dura more generally, treating “the loss causation requirement as more functional than facial: a disclosure is sufficiently ‘corrective’ if it dissipates the price inflation that had resulted from a defendant’s misrepresentations or omissions.” In re Motorola Sec. Litig, 505 F.Supp.2d 501, 543 (N.D.Ill. 2007); see also In re Bradley Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., 421 F.Supp.2d 822, 829 (D.N.J.2006). The Court finds the stricter interpretation of corrective disclosure to be more consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dura. The Supreme Court specifically recognized there is not necessarily a link between an inflated purchase price and a later economic loss; the subsequent lower price may reflect changed economic circumstances exclusive of the inflated purchase price. Dura, 544 U.S. at 342-43, 125 S.Ct. 1627. A prior misrepresentation my “touch upon” a loss without causing the loss due to the “tangle of factors affecting price.” Id. at 343, 125 S.Ct. 1627. In Dura, the plaintiffs plead misrepresentations which artificially inflated the stock price, a lower than expected earnings statement and subsequent stock price drop, and an announcement the FDA would not approve it’s product, also followed by a stock price drop. Id. at 339, 125 S.Ct. 1627. The Supreme Court found these facts insufficient allegations of loss" }, { "docid": "21447067", "title": "", "text": "that they had been defrauded.”) (footnote omitted). Need to inquire need not be triggered by revelation of all aspects of the alleged fraud or substantiation of all elements of plaintiffs’ claim. See Ohio v. Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross, 651 F.2d 687, 695 (10th Cir.1981). “Inquiry notice is triggered by evidence of the possibility of fraud, not full exposition of the scam itself.” Theoharous v. Fong, 256 F.3d 1219, 1228 (11th Cir.2001) (quoting Sterlin v. Biomune Sys., 154 F.3d 1191, 1203 (10th Cir.1998)) (emphasis in original). Even a single news article can provide sufficiently strong omens to place a plaintiff on notice of the need for investigation. See LC Capital Partners, 318 F.3d at 155 (affirming dismissal because one press article and one lawsuit triggered inquiry notice); In re Global Crossing, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 313 F.Supp.2d 189, 200 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (ruling that a Fortune magazine article was enough to put plaintiff investors on inquiry notice); In re Ultrafem Inc. Sec. Litig., 91 F.Supp.2d at 692 (dismissing complaint as time-barred because one article and one public filing triggered inquiry notice). Vigilance may be particularly necessary in an industry where new developments often turn out to be less favorable than was hoped. See, e.g., Masters v. GlaxoSmithKline, 271 Fed.Appx. at -, 2008 WL 833085, at *1 (Paxil); In re Merck & Co., Inc. Sec., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., 483 F.Supp.2d at 420 (Vioxx); U.S. Asks for Cholesterol Data, N.Y. Times, April 26, 2008, at C3 (mipom-ersen); Editorial, Overpromoted Cholesterol Drugs, N.Y. Times, April 2, 2008, at A26 (Vytorin and Zetia); Law, 113 F.3d 781 (Adenoscan); In re Amgen Inc. Sec. Litig., 544 F.Supp.2d 1009 (C.D.Cal.2008) (Epo-gen and Aranesp); In re Pozen Sec. Litig., 386 F.Supp.2d 641 (M.D.N.C.2005) (MT 300 and MT 100); In re Genta, Inc., Sec. Litig., No. 04-CV-2123 (JAG), 2005 WL 2416970 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2005) (Genasense); Noble Asset Mgmt. v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., No. 04-CV-1030 (RPM), 2005 WL 4161977 (D.Col. Oct. 20, 2005) (efa-proxiral); In re Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04-CV-12581 (GAO), 2007 WL 951695 (D.Mass. March 28, 2007) (Plenax-is); In re GeoPharma, Inc. Sec. Litig., 411 F.Supp.2d" }, { "docid": "22445593", "title": "", "text": "by alleging the fact or evidence of a confession or statement out of the defendant’s own mouth would narrow the pleading requirement for loss causation in a way not authorized by Rule 8(a)(2) or anything contained in Dura pertaining to pleading loss causation. See In re Winstar Commc'ns, No. 01-CV-3014, 2006 WL 473885 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2006) (unpublished) (stating that in Dura, ”[t]he Court did not address the means by which the information is imparted to the public. Specifically, Dura did not set forth any requirements as to who may serve as the source of the information, nor is there any requirement that the disclosure take a particular form or be of a particular quality.”). Dura uses the term \"leak out,” which contemplates the release of information from third-parties outside the company's official lines of communication. See In re Intelligroup Sec. Litig., 527 F.Supp.2d 262, 297 n. 18 (D.N.J.2007). The courts that have addressed this question unanimously reject the district court's approach here. See, e.g., Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 530 F.Supp.2d 580, 597 (S.D.N.Y.2008); In re Williams Sec. Litig., 496 F.Supp.2d 1195, 1265 (N.D.Okla.2007); In re eSpeed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 457 F.Supp.2d 266, 297 & n. 237 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (\"Dura imposed no requirement that corrective disclosures emanate from the company itself, so long as the truth is disclosed in some fashion.\"); In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative and ERISA Litig., No. MDL-1446, 2005 WL 3504860, at *16 (S.D.Tex. Dec. 22, 2005) (\"[B]esides a formal corrective disclosure by a defendant ... the market may learn of possible fraud from a number of sources [such as] whistleblowers, analysts’ questioning financial results, resignations of CFOs or auditors, announcements by the company of changes in accounting treatment going forward, newspapers and journals, etc.”); In re Worldcom, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 3288, 2005 WL 2319118, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2005) (to satisfy loss causation under Dura, plaintiff must ''establish that his losses were attributable to some form of revelation to the market of the wrongfully concealed information”). . The defendants also argue that the plaintiff’s SAC fails to plead loss causation because" }, { "docid": "18207462", "title": "", "text": "Cir.2003). . In re Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig., 597 F.3d 501, 513 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Lentell, 396 F.3d at 173) (emphasis in original). . Lentell, 396 F.3d at 175. . ATSI, 493 F.3d at 108 (citing SEC v. First Jersey Sec., Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1472 (2d Cir.1996)). . In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 414 F.Supp.2d 428, 440 (S.D.N.Y.2006). . In re Scottish Re, 524 F.Supp.2d at 385. Accord In re Converium Holding AG Sec. Litig., No. 04 Civ. 7897, 2006 WL 3804619, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2006) (quoting In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 294 F.Supp.2d 392, 415-16 (S.D.N.Y.2003)). . Slayton v. American Express Co. (\"Slayton I\"), 460 F.3d 215, 226 n. 10 (2d Cir.2006) (quotation marks omitted). . McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir.2007) (quotation marks omitted). . Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Accord Jin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir.2002). . Pl. Opp. at 10. . Id. . Even absent safe harbor protection however, plaintiffs have neither adequately pled the falsity of the statements, nor defendants' scienter. See infra Parts I.B and II.A-B. . Pl. Opp. at 10. . Plaintiffs claim that defendants' statements are not forward-looking because \"mixed statements of present, past and future condition are not entitled to the protections of the safe harbor provision,” but they misstate the case law upon which they rely. See Pl. Opp. at 10; Stone & Webster, Inc. Sec. Litig., 414 F.3d 187, 213 (1st Cir.2005) (\"The safe-harbor ... applies] ... to allegations of falsehood as to the forward-looking aspects of the statement.”). Accord Institutional Investors Group v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d 242, 255 (3d Cir.2009); Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., 513 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir.2008) (\"Tellabs II\") (\"[A] mixed present/future statement is not entitled to the safe harbor with respect to the part of the statement that refers to the present.”) (emphasis added). . Stone & Webster, 414 F.3d at 213. . Pl. Opp. at 9. . Avaya, 564 F.3d at 255." }, { "docid": "22445590", "title": "", "text": "14. Changes to general pleading requirements \"can only be accomplished ‘by the process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation.’ ” Id. (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 515, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002)). Twombly's merger of the “plausibility” standard with the general pleading jurisprudence and the Federal Rules indicates that it is a gloss on Rule 8(a)(2), and therefore generally applies to all complaints. See generally Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2nd Cir.2007) (describing the standard as a \"flexible plausibility standard” of general applicability to all areas of law) (applying Twombly to a Bivens claim). We have applied the “plausibility” standard to many different areas of the law. See, e.g., Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir.2008) (state law fraud and other tort claims); Cuvillier, 503 F.3d at 401 (§ 1983 suit). Other circuits have applied Twombly to securities cases. See, e.g., N.J. Carpenters Pension & Annuity Funds v. Biogen IDEC Inc., 537 F.3d 35, 44 (1st Cir.2008); ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 & n. 2 (2d Cir.2007) (applying the \"plausibility” standard to securities fraud cases). . \"Net adds” is defined as \"[t]he number of new subscribers, or gross adds, minus the number of customers that drop service, which is called churn. Though this term can be used in many different contexts, it is frequently used in the telecom industry.” Barbara J. Etzel, Webster’s New World Finance and Investment Dictionary 222 (2003) (emphasis in the original). . The courts that have confronted this issue acknowledge the possibility that loss causation may be pleaded on a theory of partial disclosures. See, e.g., Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1063 n. 6 (9th Cir.2008); In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1026-27 (9th Cir.2005); In re Bradley Pharms. Sec. Litig., 421 F.Supp.2d 822, 828-29 (D.N.J.2006) (citation omitted); In re Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Sec. Litig., 2008 WL 3884384, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2008) (unpublished) (\"It is also clear that a corrective disclosure need not take the form" }, { "docid": "20912793", "title": "", "text": "(despite plaintiffs' assertion that they \"have alleged a factual link between the decline in the Company's stock and defendants' misconduct,” action dismissed when \"there is no particular allegation in the Complaint directly supporting the theory that the disclosure or the materialization of the concealed risk led to plaintiffs’ loss”). . See Complaint ¶ 81 (extensively quoting article). . Id. . Id. . See In re ICG Commc'ns, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:00 CV 01864, 2006 WL 416622, at *10 (D.Colo. Feb. 7, 2006) (although company’s explanation for lower earnings did not directly relate to alleged fraud, they \"reasonably can be seen as revelation of the negative truth” about defendant’s business); In re Retek Inc. Secs., No. Civ. 02-4209, 2005 WL 3059566, at *4 (D.Minn. Oct. 21, 2005) (citing In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1026 (9th Cir.2005)) (loss causation allegations survived motion for judgment on pleadings where there was \"a possible temporal and subject matter connection between the [alleged corrective disclosure] and the previous alleged misrepresentations ... completely missing in Dura\"); cf. Sekuk Global Enters, v. KVH Indus., Inc., No. Civ.A. 04-306ML, 2005 WL 1924202, at *17 (D.R.I. Aug. 11, 2005) (loss causation adequately pleaded when defendants' comments accompanying disappointing earnings announcement could be read as attributing poor earnings to subject-matter of alleged scheme). . See In re Daou Sys., 411 F.3d at 1025; see also In re GeoPharma, 399 F.Supp.2d at 453 (plaintiff not required to exclude other possible causes of loss at pleading stage). . See In re Winstar Commc'ns, No. 01 Civ. 3014, 2006 WL 473885, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2006) (\"The Supreme Court [merely] spoke in terms of the ‘relevant truth’ and the 'truth' making its way into the market place ... [but] did not address the means by which the information is imparted to the public”); see also In re Enron Corp. Secs., Derivative and Erisa Litig., No. MDL-1446, 2005 WL 3504860, at *16 (S.D.Tex. Dec. 22, 2005) (\"besides a formal corrective disclosure by a defendant ... the market may learn of possible fraud from a number of sources [such as] whistleblowers," }, { "docid": "4121998", "title": "", "text": "In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1026-27 (9th Cir.2005) (holding, post -Dura, that a plaintiff adequately pleads loss and causation by alleging that disclosure of the defendant’s true financial condition resulted in a steep drop in its stock price); In re Sara Lee Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 03 C 2302, 2006 WL 1980199, at *7 (N.D.Ill. July 10, 2006) (“Plaintiffs ... need not meet a heightened pleading standard in making [the] causal allegation” between defendants’ misrepresentations and plaintiffs’ economic losses); In re Silicon Image, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C 05 456 MMC, 2006 WL 1709424, at *3 (N.D.Cal. June 21, 2006) (“ ‘loss causation’ need not be pleaded with specificity”); Lawrence Jaffe Pension v. Household Int’l, Inc., No. 02 C 5893, 2006 WL 1120522, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Apr.24, 2006) (“The Dura Court, in rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s inflated purchase price approach, iterated that notice pleading applies to fraud-on-the-market claims.... ”); In re CMS Energy Sec. Litig., 403 F.Supp.2d 625, 629 (E.D.Mich.2005) (“The Supreme Court’s opinion in Diura clearly explains that it does not modify the pleading requirements of [Rule] 8(a)(2).”); Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc., No. 04 C 1107, 2005 WL 1563206, at *6 (N.D.Ill. June 30, 2005) (“[T]he Supreme Court [in Dura] expressly noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) governs a plaintiff’s allegations of loss causation, not Rule 9(b)”); see also D.E.&J. Ltd. P’ship v. Conaway, 133 Fed.Appx. 994, 999 (6th Cir.2005) (noting that alleging causation and loss requires only Rule 8(a)(2)’s “short and plain statement ... showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”). Defendants have cited no authority suggesting that Dura imposes such heightened pleading requirements, and this court can locate none. The court thus concludes that Plaintiffs in this case are not required to plead facts showing economic loss or causation. Rather, the pleading standard is precisely what the Court set forth in Dura: Plaintiffs must “provide a defendant with some indication of the loss and the causal connection that the plaintiff has in mind.” See 544 U.S. at 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627. Under this notice-pleading standard, the" }, { "docid": "13141493", "title": "", "text": "or be of a particular quality.”). Rather than speaking in terms of a single event in which all is revealed, the Dura court referred to a hypothetical loss that might occur “after the truth makes its way into the market,” and the lack of any such loss if the investor sells “before the relevant truth begins to leak out[J” Dura Pharm., 544 U.S. at 342, 125 S.Ct. 1627. This language suggests that a disclosure sufficient to satisfy loss causation can occur in ways other than an announcement that points directly to a previous representation and proclaims its falsity. See In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC), 2005 WL 2319118, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2005) (noting that to satisfy Dura, plaintiff cannot rely on price inflation alone but must “establish that his losses were attributable to some form of revelation to the market of the wrongfully concealed information”) (emphasis added). Indeed, several courts and commentators have concluded that Dura does not impose a “corrective disclosure” requirement for showing loss causation. See In re Loewen Group, 395 F.Supp.2d at 218 (concluding, post-Dura, that “ ‘loss causation does not ..,. require a corrective disclosure followed by a decline in price.’ ”) (quoting In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 376 F.Supp.2d 472, 510 (S.D.N.Y.2005)); Freeland v. Indium World Communications, Ltd., 233 F.R.D. 40, 47 & n. 9 (D.D.C.2006) {Dura does not require “proof of a complete, corrective disclosure”; and collecting cases observing the lack of such a requirement); see also Fox, supra, at 847 {Dura did not indicate whether “it is necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove a price drop immediately following the public announcement of the truth[,]” or whether proof can “consist of some other kind of indication that the purchase price had been inflated by the misstatement and that the market had later realized the true situation dissipating this inflation[.]”); Madge S. Thor-sen et al., Rediscovering the Economics of Loss Causation, 6 J. Bus. & Sec. L. 93, 118 (2006) (“The Court [in Dura ] did not say (or even imply) that ‘truth, then price drop’ was" }, { "docid": "1245461", "title": "", "text": "Plaintiffs make clear, however, that they do not allege a failure to disclose these facts. Pl. Mem. at 3 n. 2; Tr., Nov. 7, 2007, at 26:19-22. Thus the key to plaintiffs’ allegations is that defendants omitted that the blood pressure increase was \"dangerous” and \"threatened the efficacy and approval of [torcetrapib].” See, e.g., Cpt. ¶¶ 103, 127. . See Cpt. ¶¶ 103, 105; 111; 116; 118; 122; 127; 133; 141; 145; 149 (alleging that statements are misleading for this reason). . See id. ¶¶ 77-87 (citing studies and Pfizer statements made in other contexts); ¶¶ 103; 105; 116; 127; 137; 141; 149; 9; 162 (citing to paragraphs 77-87). . See id. ¶ 44 (reprinting weblog post of RADmanZulu); ¶¶ 85; 103; 105; 111; 116; 118; 122; 127; 133; 141; 145; 149(citingto paragraph 44). . Id. ¶ 44. . Id. . See In re Carter-Wallace, Inc. Sec. Litig., 220 F.3d 36, 41-42 (2d Cir.2000) (\"the eventual linking of [a side effect] to [a drag] cannot relate back to the time of the statements ... and reflect on [defendant’s] reasonable belief”). . Tr., Nov. 7, 2007, at 32:13-14. . Id. at 27:4-7. . 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2). . ATSI Comm’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 99 (2d Cir.2007) (citing Ganino v. Citizens Utils. Co., 228 F.3d 154, 168-69 (2d Cir.2000)). . Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2510, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007). . Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1130 (2d Cir.1994); see also Ganino, 228 F.3d at 170; Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300, 307 (2d. Cir.2000). . Kalnit v. Eichler, 264 F.3d 131, 139 (2d Cir.2001). . Ganino, 228 F.3d at 170. . Pl. Mem. at 21. . In re Bayer AG Sec. Litig., 03 Civ. 2004(WHP), 2004 WL 2190357, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004). . In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Sec. Litig., 312 F.Supp.2d 549, 560-61 (S.D.N.Y.2004). . Id. at 561. . Pl. Mem. at 22; PL Reply at 4. Plaintiffs do not allege motive for the other individual defendants. . In re Bristol-Myers Squibb," }, { "docid": "1245462", "title": "", "text": "reflect on [defendant’s] reasonable belief”). . Tr., Nov. 7, 2007, at 32:13-14. . Id. at 27:4-7. . 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2). . ATSI Comm’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 99 (2d Cir.2007) (citing Ganino v. Citizens Utils. Co., 228 F.3d 154, 168-69 (2d Cir.2000)). . Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2510, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007). . Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1130 (2d Cir.1994); see also Ganino, 228 F.3d at 170; Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300, 307 (2d. Cir.2000). . Kalnit v. Eichler, 264 F.3d 131, 139 (2d Cir.2001). . Ganino, 228 F.3d at 170. . Pl. Mem. at 21. . In re Bayer AG Sec. Litig., 03 Civ. 2004(WHP), 2004 WL 2190357, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004). . In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Sec. Litig., 312 F.Supp.2d 549, 560-61 (S.D.N.Y.2004). . Id. at 561. . Pl. Mem. at 22; PL Reply at 4. Plaintiffs do not allege motive for the other individual defendants. . In re Bristol-Myers Squibb, 312 F.Supp.2d at 561. . Acito v. IMCERA Group, Inc., 47 F.3d 47, 54 (2d Cir.1995). . Pl. Mem. at 22-23. Plaintiffs argue that McKinnell had a motive to commit fraud because he was awarded a severance package \"which was dependent, in part, upon 'Pfizer’s actual [stock] performance relative to the pharmaceutical peer group.’ ” Cpt. ¶ 28. But this portion of McKinnell’s severance package reflects \"McKinnell's outstanding performance-contingent share and performance share awards ... settled in accordance with the original terms and conditions of such awards.” Pfizer’s Dec. 21, 2006 Form 8-K. . Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300, 308 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation omitted). . In re Bayer AG Sec. Litig., 03 Civ. 2004(WHP), 2004 WL 2190357, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004) (quoting Beck v. Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co., 820 F.2d 46, 50 (2d Cir.1987)); see also Kalnit v. Eichler, 264 F.3d 131, 141 (2d Cir.2001); accord Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., -U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2511, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007). . In re Scholastic Corp. Sec. Litig.," }, { "docid": "20263177", "title": "", "text": "investments and losses. ¶¶ 279-87, 314. The market’s reaction to the disclosures evidences Defendants’ concealment of much of the Company’s investment risk up until the end of the Class Period. Plaintiffs here have clearly pleaded that the “share price fell significantly after the truth became known.” Dura, 544 U.S. at 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627. Defendants’ contention that the November 9, 2007 stock price drop was due to “new events” rather than a corrective disclosure, MTD at 39, constitutes an issue of fact at this juncture and is not supported by the allegations of the Complaint. Moreover, according to the Plaintiffs, the circumstances which Defendants characterize “new events” (such as the SEC investigation and ratings downgrades) actually corrected misstatements and/or materialized concealed risks, concerning, e.g., Defendants’ purchase of risky loan pools, inadequate due diligence, and failure to record timely balance sheets adjustments. See In re Bradley Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig., 421 F.Supp.2d 822, 828-29 (D.N.J.2006) (announcement of an informal SEC inquiry.at the end of the class period that did not disclose the reason for the inquiry, but resulted in significant stock price drop, was sufficient to connect that price drop to the improprieties that triggered the SEC inquiry, even though the nature of the improprieties was revealed later). A number of “[ojther courts have found that similar allegations of significant stock drops in response to announced SEC investigations are sufficient to plead loss causation under the framework established by Dura and its progeny.” In re Take-Two Interactive Sec. Litig., 551 F.Supp.2d 247, 287 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (collecting cases). In Take-Two, a 7.5% drop in share price in response to an announcement that the SEC was “conducting an informal nonpublic investigation into certain stock option grants made by the Company” sufficed to plead loss causation. Id. at 282. The price drop here in response to a relevant SEC investigation was eight times larger, and pleads loss causation. Moreover, the SEC investigation was linked to the purportedly fraudulent misconduct, and thus was “akin to a corrective disclosure,” Bristol Myers, 586 F.Supp.2d at 165, and was not merely “ ‘bad news’ followed by a stock price" } ]

[ { "docid": "23485883", "title": "", "text": "7 F.3d 1110 (3d Cir.1993), which involved a similar factual scenario and some of the same parties. In Pritz-ker, the trustees of a pension plan brought claims in federal district court against MLPF&S, a MLPF&S broker, and Merrill Lynch Asset Management (“MLAM”), MLIM’s predecessor in interest. The Merrill Lynch defendants moved to compel arbitration of the entire dispute on the basis of an arbitration clause that, by its terms, applied only to the trustees and MLPF&S. The Third Circuit concluded that the MLPF&S broker could compel arbitration on the ground that the broker acted as an agent of MLPF&S. Also, as Optibase emphasizes, the court permitted MLAM to compel arbitration by applying what the court called “[ajgency logic.” Id. at 1122. Optibase relies heavily on Pritzker to argue that (1) there is an agency relationship between MLPF&S and MLIM, and (2) MLIM is collaterally estopped from arguing in the present action that it is not bound by the arbitration agreement. These arguments fail for the reasons identified by the district court: in Pritzker “it was the non-signatory [MLAM] that sought arbitration ..., and the non-signatory appears to have participated directly in the account management that was at issue there.” Supplemental App. at 112. That first distinction, which Optibase contends is irrelevant, is decisive; it matters whether the party resisting arbitration is a signatory or not. See Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779. “[A] court should be wary of imposing a contractual obligation to arbitrate on a non-contracting party .... ” Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. P’ship, Inc. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l, Inc., 198 F.3d 88, 97 (2d Cir.1999); see Choctaw Generation Ltd. P’ship v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 271 F.3d 403, 406 (2d Cir.2001). Thus a willing non-signatory seeking to arbitrate with a signatory that is unwilling may do so under what has been called an “alternative estoppel theory,” Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779, which takes into consideration “the relationships of persons, wrongs and issues,” Choctaw, 271 F.3d at 406. But a willing signatory (such as Optibase) seeking to arbitrate with a TOW-signatory that is unwilling (such as MLIM) must establish at least" } ]

[ { "docid": "7073821", "title": "", "text": "ordinary contract and agency principles.” Id. at 1187-88. Among these principles are “1) incorporation by reference; 2) assumption; 3) agency; 4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and 5) estoppel.” Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995). In addition, nonsignatories can enforce arbitration agreements as third party beneficiaries. See E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber & Resin Intermediates, 269 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir.2001). Smith Barney argues that Comer is bound by the arbitration clauses as a matter of equitable estoppel and as a third party beneficiary. Equitable estoppel “precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens that contract imposes.” Wash. Mut. Fin. Group, LLC v. Bailey, 364 F.3d 260, 267 (5th Cir.2004). In the arbitration context, this principle has generated two lines of cases. Under the first of these lines, non signatories have been held to arbitration clauses where the nonsignatory “knowingly exploits the agreement containing the arbitration clause despite having never signed the agreement.” DuPont, 269 F.3d at 199 (citing Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 778). Under the second line of cases, signatories have been required to arbitrate claims brought by nonsignatories “at the nonsig-natory’s insistence because of the close relationship between the entities involved.” Id. (quoting Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779 (quoting Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753, 757 (11th Cir.1993))) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Smith Barney is invoking equitable estoppel against a nonsignatory, it is the first line of cases that is relevant. The insurmountable hurdle for Smith Barney, however, is that there is no evidence that Comer “knowingly exploited] the agreements] containing the arbitration clause[s] despite having never signed the agreements].” Id. at 199. Prior to his suit, Comer was simply a participant in trusts managed by others for his benefit. He did not seek to enforce the terms of the management agreements, nor otherwise to take advantage of them. Nor did he do so by bringing this lawsuit, which he bases entirely on ERISA, and not on the investment management agreements. Smith Barney’s attempt to" }, { "docid": "9056574", "title": "", "text": "are individually bound by the arbitration provision in the Agreement are issues I must determine. B. Arbitrability New York courts interpret arbitration agreements in the same way that they do other agreements-to give effect to the parties' intent and reasonable expectations based on the language used in the agreement. See Breed v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 46 N.Y.2d 351, 413 N.Y.S.2d 352, 355, 385 N.E.2d 1280 (1978). Although federal policy generally favors arbitration, \"arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.\" LJL 33rd St. Assocs., LLC v. Pitcairn Props. Inc. , 725 F.3d 184, 192 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. , 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960) ). \"[A]ny silence or ambiguity about whether [an issue] is arbitrable reverses the usual presumption that issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.\" U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co. , 241 F.3d 135, 147 (2d Cir. 2001). In addition, \"a court should be wary of imposing a contractual obligation to arbitrate on a non-contracting party.\" Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. P'ship, Inc. v. Smith Cogeneration Int'l, Inc. , 198 F.3d 88, 97 (2d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the Second Circuit, interpreting New York law, \"has recognized only 'limited theories upon which it is willing to enforce an arbitration agreement against a nonsignatory.' \" Merrill Lynch Inv. Managers v. Optibase, Ltd. , 337 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n , 64 F.3d 773, 780 (2d Cir. 1995) ). \"There are five such theories: '1) incorporation by reference; 2) assumption; 3) agency; 4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and 5) estoppel.' \" Id. (quoting Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 776 ). District courts should narrowly construe these five theories, each of which is governed by ordinary principles of contract and agency law. See Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 776-80 (rejecting district court's adoption of hybrid approach and holding it was an \"improper[ ] exten[sion of] the" }, { "docid": "22359669", "title": "", "text": "F.2d 231, 233 (2d Cir.1960); see also Deloitte Noraudit A/S v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, U.S., 9 F.3d 1060, 1064 (2d Cir.1993). This Court has made clear that a nonsignatory party may be bound to an arbitration agreement if so dictated by the “ordinary principles of contract and agency.” McAllister Bros., Inc. v. A & S Transp. Co., 621 F.2d 519, 524 (2d Cir.1980); see also A/S Custodia v. Lessin Int’l, Inc., 503 F.2d 318, 320 (2d Cir.1974). I. Traditional Bases For Binding Nonsig-natories This Court has recognized a number of theories under which nonsignatories may be bound to the arbitration agreements of others. Those theories arise out of common law principles of contract and agency law. Accordingly, we have recognized five theories for binding nonsignatories to arbitration agreements: 1) incorporation by reference; 2) assumption; 3) agency; 4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and 5) estoppel. The district court properly rejected each of these traditional theories as sufficient justification for binding Thomson to the arbitration agreement of its subsidiary. A. Incorporation by Reference A nonsignatory may compel arbitration against a party to an arbitration agreement when that party has entered into a separate contractual relationship with the nonsignatory which incorporates the existing arbitration clause. See Import Export Steel Corp. v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 351 F.2d 503, 505-506 (2d Cir.1965) (separate agreement with nonsignatory expressly “assuming] all the obligations and privileges of [signatory party] under the ... subcharter” constitutes grounds for enforcement of arbitration clause by nonsignatory); Matter of Arbitration Between Keystone Shipping Co. and Texport Oil Co., 782 F.Supp. 28, 31 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Continental U.K. Ltd. v. Anagel Confidence Compania Naviera, S.A., 658 F.Supp. 809, 813 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (if a “party’s arbitration clause is expressly incorporated into a bill of lading, nonsignatories ... who are linked to that bill through general principles of contract law or agency law may be bound”). As the district court noted, E & S has not attempted to show that the Working Agreement was incorporated into any document which Thomson adopted. Thus, Thomson cannot be bound under an incorporation theory. B. Assumption In the absence of a signature," }, { "docid": "1353810", "title": "", "text": "the parent companies of First USA and BOA, respectively. Defendants argue that plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate the claims against the parent companies as well as those against First USA and BOA. Although “arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit,” Howsam, 123 S.Ct. at 591 (quoting United Steelworkers, 363 U.S. at 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347), an obligation to arbitrate may not be limited to signatories to the agreement containing the arbitration provision. A non-signatory may be. bound to an arbitration agreement under ordinary principles of contract and agency. See Thomson-CSF, S:A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995); Orange Chicken, L.L.C. v. Nambe Mills, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 4730(AGS), 2000 WL 1858556, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec:19, 2000); Fluor Daniel Intercontinental, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 98 Civ. 7181(WHP), 1999 WL 637236, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.20, 1999). The Second Circuit has recognized five theories for binding non-signatories to arbitration agreements: 1) incorporation by reference; 2) assumption; 3) agency; 4) veil-piercing/alter-ego; and 5) estoppel. See Smith/Enron Cogeneration, 198 F.3d at 97; Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 776; Massen v. Cliff, No. 02 Civ. 9282(HBP), 2003 WL 2012404, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2003); Fluor Daniel, 1999 WL 637236, at *6. Defendants argue that the plaintiffs are estopped from avoiding arbitration with Bank One and BOA Corp. Courts have bound non-signatories to arbitration agreements under an estoppel theory. Under one branch of this theory, when a non-signatory receives a direct benefit under the agreement containing the arbitration clause, it cannot avoid arbitration merely because it never signed the agreement. This branch of the estoppel theory is inapplicable here because it is the non-signatory who is trying to compel arbitration from a party. See Fluor Daniel, 1999 WL 637236, at *6. Under an alternative estoppel theory recognized by several circuits, courts have been willing to estop a signatory from avoiding arbitration with a non-signatory when the issues the non-signatory is seeking to arbitrate are intertwined with the contract. See Choctaw Gen." }, { "docid": "9056575", "title": "", "text": "241 F.3d 135, 147 (2d Cir. 2001). In addition, \"a court should be wary of imposing a contractual obligation to arbitrate on a non-contracting party.\" Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. P'ship, Inc. v. Smith Cogeneration Int'l, Inc. , 198 F.3d 88, 97 (2d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the Second Circuit, interpreting New York law, \"has recognized only 'limited theories upon which it is willing to enforce an arbitration agreement against a nonsignatory.' \" Merrill Lynch Inv. Managers v. Optibase, Ltd. , 337 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n , 64 F.3d 773, 780 (2d Cir. 1995) ). \"There are five such theories: '1) incorporation by reference; 2) assumption; 3) agency; 4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and 5) estoppel.' \" Id. (quoting Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 776 ). District courts should narrowly construe these five theories, each of which is governed by ordinary principles of contract and agency law. See Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 776-80 (rejecting district court's adoption of hybrid approach and holding it was an \"improper[ ] exten[sion of] the limited theories upon which [the Second Circuit] is willing to enforce an arbitration agreement against a nonsignatory\"). Of the five theories that could potentially compel a nonsignatory to arbitrate, Respondents assert only that veil piercing and estoppel are relevant here. 1. Veil piercing Under New York law, a court may pierce the corporate veil where (i) \"the owner exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue,\" and (ii) \"such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the veil.\" Am. Fuel Corp. v. Utah Energy Dev. Co. , 122 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 1997). \"A non-signatory 'may be bound to arbitrate where it exercised complete control over a signatory and employed that domination to injure another signatory to the agreement.' \" McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. , No. 14-cv-6633 (KBF), 2015 WL 144190, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2015) (quoting Masefield AG v. Colonial Oil Indus., Inc. , No. 05 Civ. 2231(PKL), 2005 WL 911770, at" }, { "docid": "7410594", "title": "", "text": "claims arising in connection with BDO’s performance under the agreement, even those claims asserted against non-signatories. However, the presumption of arbitrability has never been extended to claims by or against non-signatories. See, e.g., Medtronic Ave Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 100 Fed.Appx. 865, 868 (3rd Cir.2004) (quoting the 7th Circuit’s finding in Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc. v. Dial-A-Mattress International, Ltd., 1 F.8d 639, 642 (7th Cir.1993) that a broad arbitration clause covered “any dispute between the contracting parties that is in any way connected to their contract”) (emphasis added). Because arbitration is a matter of contract, exceptional circumstances must apply before a court will impose a contractual agreement to arbitrate on a non-contracting party. Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 779 (2nd Cir.1995); see also AT & T Tech., 475 U.S. at 650, 106 S.Ct. 1415. There are, however, five established theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreements of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Alcatel Business Systems, 278 F.Supp.2d 519, 521 (E.D.Pa. 2003) (citing Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 776). Furthermore, where the party seeking enforcement of the arbitration clause is a willing non-signatory, as here, an alternative theory of reverse estoppel may apply. Thomsom-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779. The Deutsche Bank Defendants contend that they can enforce the BDO arbitration agreement as to the claims against them under two of these theories — agency and equitable estoppel. Agency logic has been applied by the Third Circuit to bind non-signatories to arbitration agreements. Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 7 F.3d 1110, 1122 (3rd Cir.1993) (binding a non-signatory business entity to the arbitration agreement of it “corporate sister”). The Deutsche Bank Defendants cite a string of non-binding cases to persuade this Court to consider them agents of the BDO Defendants simply because both parties have been accused of civil conspiracy. See Camferdam v. Ernst & Young Intern., Inc., No. 02-10100, 2004 WL 307292 at *6 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (“A civil conspiracy is a kind of partnership, in which each member becomes" }, { "docid": "12871150", "title": "", "text": "519, 524 (2d Cir.1980)), cert. denied, 581 U.S. 815, 121 S.Ct. 51, 148 L.Ed.2d 20 (2000); Deloitte Noraudit A/S v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, U.S., 9 F.3d 1060, 1064 (2d Cir.1993). “These principles include ‘(1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel.’ ” Smith/Enron, 198 F.3d at 97 (quoting Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995)). “[S]uch determinations are often ‘fact specific’ and differ with ‘the circumstances of each case.’ ” Id. (quoting Thomsom-CSF, 64 F.3d at 777-78). In the case at bar, I find that Edwards can seek to enforce the arbitration agreement against plaintiffs under both agency and veil-piercing/alter ego theories. There is no dispute that at the time the Agreements were signed, Edwards was an agent of ETS. Though plaintiffs assert that an agency theory has no application here because their claims against Edwards are based solely on his alleged status as a “control person” (rather than as an agent) with respect to ETS, “this is a distinction without a legal difference.” Roby v. Corporation of Lloyd’s, 996 F.2d 1353, 1360 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 945, 114 S.Ct. 385, 126 L.Ed.2d 333 (1993). In Roby, the Second Circuit held that individual chairs of the governing bodies of Lloyd’s insurance syndicates were entitled to rely on arbitration provisions incorporated into their employers’ agreements in a securities action brought by investors in the syndicates, notwithstanding that the chairs were not signatories to any agreement with the investors. In reaching that holding, the Second Circuit stated that “[c]ourts in this and other circuits consistently have held that employees or disclosed agents of an entity that is a party to an arbitration agreement are protected by that agreement.” Id. (citing Nesslage v. York Securities, Inc., 823 F.2d 231, 233-34 (8th Cir.1987); Scher v. Bear Stearns & Co., 723 F.Supp. 211, 216-17 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Brener v. Becker Paribas, Inc., 628 F.Supp. 442, 451 (S.D.N.Y.1985)). The plaintiffs in Roby had argued that this principle did not apply to their claims against the individual chairs because the chairs had been sued only" }, { "docid": "14642826", "title": "", "text": "terms of the arbitration clause, elected a third. After initial submissions to the arbitrators but before the first hearing, Rover informed the arbitrators that it contested Astra’s standing to arbitrate. Astra then filed a petition to compel arbitration in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the arbitrators suspended further proceedings pending resolution of the standing issue by the district court. The district court held that non-signatory Astra could not enforce the arbitration clause against Rover. Astra Oil Co. v. Rover Navigation, Ltd., No. 01CIV11296, 2002 WL 31465582 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.5, 2002). Although recognizing that “[t]he Second Circuit has ‘been willing to estop a signatory from avoiding arbitration with a nonsig-natory when the issues the nonsignatory is seeking to resolve in arbitration are intertwined with the agreement that the es-topped party has signed,”’ id. at *5 (quoting Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 779 (2d Cir.1995)), the district court rejected Astra’s argument that Rover was estopped from avoiding arbitration because it found that the late delivery claim was not intertwined with the charter party, which contains no provision for damages due to late delivery of cargo. Id. at *6. Astra timely appealed. DISCUSSION We have addressed the issue of the enforceability of an arbitration agreement against a signatory by a non-signatory in two recent decisions. See Choctaw Generation Ltd. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 271 F.3d 403 (2d Cir.2001); Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l, Inc., 198 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.1999). In both cases, we held that the signatory was estopped from avoiding arbitration because “the issues the nonsignatory [was] seeking to resolve in arbitration [were] intertwined with the agreement that the estopped party [had] signed.” Smith/Enron, 198 F.3d at 98; accord Choctaw Generation, 271 F.3d at 406-07. In Choctaw Generation, we allowed enforcement by the non-signatory on an es-toppel theory, based on a finding that the controversy between Choctaw and American Home was closely related to the underlying dispute between Choctaw and the signatory under the agreement containing the arbitration clause. See id. at 407 (“In short, the controversy presented" }, { "docid": "14873358", "title": "", "text": "to arbitrate unless it is bound under traditional principles of contract and agency law to be akin to a signatory of the underlying agreement.” E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediates, S.A.S., 269 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir.2001) (“DuPont ”) (citation omitted). “There are five theories for binding nonsignatories to arbitration agreements: (1) incorporation by reference, (2) assumption, (3) agency, (4) veil-piercing/alter ego, and (5) estoppel.” Trippe Manufacturing Co. v. Niles Audio Corp., 401 F.3d 529, 532 (3d Cir.2005). Rhodia, S.A. claims that estoppel and assumption both apply here and INVISTA should therefore be required to arbitrate even though it is not a signatory to any agreements containing an arbitration clause. Estoppel can bind a non-signatory to an arbitration clause when that non-signatory has reaped the benefits of a contract containing an arbitration clause. See Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Assoc., 64 F.3d 773, 778 (2d Cir.1995). This prevents a non-signatory from “cherry-picking” the provisions of a contract that it will benefit from and ignoring other provisions that don’t benefit it or that it would prefer not to be governed by (such as an arbitration clause). See, e.g., American Bureau of Shipping v. Tencara Shipyard S.P.A., 170 F.3d 349, 353 (2d Cir.1999). In addition, non-signatories may assume the obligations contained in an arbitration clause where there is a sufficiently close relationship to justify doing so, and the circumstances warrant that result. See Thomson-CSF, S.A., 64 F.3d at 779. In Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Assoc., 64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir.1995), the court explained that a non-signatory may be bound by an arbitration clause “if its subsequent conduct indicates that it is assuming the obligation to arbitrate.” See Gvozdenovic v. United Air Lines, Inc., 933 F.2d 1100, 1105 (2d Cir.) (flight attendants manifested a clear intention to arbitrate by sending a representative to act on their behalf in arbitration process), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 910, 112 S.Ct. 305, 116 L.Ed.2d 248 (1991). V. DISCUSSION Rhodia, S.A. contends that three INVISTA entities who are the plaintiffs in this litigation — all of whom are non-signatories to" }, { "docid": "18024524", "title": "", "text": "9 U.S.C. § 3. Donaldson Co. v. Burroughs Diesel, Inc., 581 F.3d 726, 732 (8th Cir.2009). In this case, Doe Run is seeking a stay, not an arbitration with the children. Doe Run therefore believes that the court should be more inclined to grant the stay due to the strong policy favoring arbitration. See Hill v. GE Power Sys., Inc., 282 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir.2002). “Section 3 of the Arbitration Act ... is broad enough to permit the stay of litigation between nonarbitrating parties as long as that lawsuit is based on issues referable to arbitration under an arbitration agreement governed by the Arbitration Act.” Contracting Nw., Inc. v. City of Fredericksburg, Iowa, 713 F.2d 382, 387 (8th Cir.1983). A nonsignatory attempting to bind a signatory to an arbitration agreement is distinct from a signatory attempting to bind a nonsignatory. Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. Alticor, Inc., 453 F.3d 995, 999 (8th Cir.2006). “[A] willing signatory seeking to arbitrate with a non-signatory that is unwilling must establish at least one of the five theories described in Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995).” CD Partners, LLC v. Grizzle, 424 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir.2005), quoting Merrill Lynch Inv. Managers v. Optibase, Ltd., 337 F.3d 125, 131-32 (2d Cir.2003). Those five theories are (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 776. Doe Run primarily argues that an estoppel theory mandates a stay. State contract law determines which claims are enforceable under § 3. Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 630-31, 129 S.Ct. 1896, 173 L.Ed.2d 832 (2009). Missouri recognizes an estoppel theory where the party must directly benefit from the contract. Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 339, 348 (Mo.banc 2006). Nonsignatories can be bound to an arbitration agreement when they directly benefit from the agreement. Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 776. The Fifth Circuit calls this “direct benefits estoppel” — a party can become bound to an agreement “(1) by knowingly seeking and obtaining ‘direct benefits’ from that contract; or (2) by" }, { "docid": "16454737", "title": "", "text": "Assur. Co., 271 F.3d 403, 406-08 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that a non-signatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause can compel a signatory to arbitrate where the non-signatory’s claims are integrally related to the contract). This premise is subject to several exceptions under which “a willing signatory (such as [Local 38]) seeking to arbitrate with a non-signatory that is unwilling (such as [Custom]) must establish at least one of the five theories described in [Thomson-CSF: ],” id. at 131, “1) incorporation by reference; 2) assumption; 3) agency; 4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and 5) estoppel.” Optibase, 337 F.3d at 129, quoting Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995). This case turns on the theory of alter ego, a doctrine that “provides an analytical hook to bind a non-signatory to a collective bargaining agreement.” Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807, I.B.T. v. Regional Imp. & Exp. Trucking Co., 944 F.2d 1037, 1046 (2d Cir.1991). A district court’s independent determination of alter ego signifies that, for all relevant purposes, the non-signatory is legally equivalent to the signatory and is itself a party to the CBA. See id., Southport Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, 315 U.S. 100, 106, 62 S.Ct. 452, 86 L.Ed. 718 (1942); Goodman Piping Prods., Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 741 F.2d 10, 11 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam). Only where this threshold determination has been made would a non-signatory be bound by an arbitral award and time-barred after expiration of the ninety day period from challenging the confirmation of the award. However, where the plaintiff is unable to make a threshold showing that the non-signatory was bound to arbitrate under one of the five theories, the non-signatory is considered a non-party to the CBA and the case against it must be dismissed. In such a situation the statute of limitations issue is not even reached. Whether Custom is an alter ego determines arbitrability as to Custom and arbitrability vis a vis a non-signatory is for the district court to decide. AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415," }, { "docid": "16454736", "title": "", "text": "alter ego of a party to the arbitration agreement. Ordinarily, binding a non-signatory to a CBA runs afoul of the fundamental premise that “a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigator Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960). See also First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). Indeed, we have observed that “absent an agreement to arbitrate, [we] have recognized only limited theories upon which [we are] willing to enforce an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory.” Merrill Lynch Inv. Managers v. Optibase, Ltd., 337 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2003) (per curiam) (citation omitted) (holding that a non-signatory was not bound by an arbi-tral award where the plaintiff failed to adduce facts that would support an alter ego theory or any other theory on which a non-signatory can be forced to arbitrate). Cf. Choctaw Generation Ltd. P’ship v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 271 F.3d 403, 406-08 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that a non-signatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause can compel a signatory to arbitrate where the non-signatory’s claims are integrally related to the contract). This premise is subject to several exceptions under which “a willing signatory (such as [Local 38]) seeking to arbitrate with a non-signatory that is unwilling (such as [Custom]) must establish at least one of the five theories described in [Thomson-CSF: ],” id. at 131, “1) incorporation by reference; 2) assumption; 3) agency; 4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and 5) estoppel.” Optibase, 337 F.3d at 129, quoting Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995). This case turns on the theory of alter ego, a doctrine that “provides an analytical hook to bind a non-signatory to a collective bargaining agreement.” Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807, I.B.T. v. Regional Imp. & Exp. Trucking Co., 944 F.2d 1037, 1046 (2d Cir.1991). A district court’s independent determination of alter ego signifies that, for all relevant purposes, the non-signatory is legally equivalent" }, { "docid": "22116381", "title": "", "text": "1 (Rev. Ed.1993) (citing, inter alia, Dayhoff Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 86 F.3d 1287 (3d Cir.1996); Gingiss Int’l v. Bormet, 58 F.3d 328 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Harkins Builders, Inc., 45 F.3d 830 (4th Cir.1995)) [hereinafter Domke]. The federal policy favoring arbitration is strong, but it alone cannot authorize a non-party to invoke arbitration or require a non-signatory to arbitrate. See id. Nonetheless, a non-signatory may be bound by or acquire rights under an arbitration agreement under ordinary state-law principles of agency or contract. Id.; First Options, 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920. Courts have recognized a number of theories arising out of common law principles of contract and agency law under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreements of others. For example, 1) incorporation by reference; 2) assumption by conduct; 3) agency; 4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and 5) estoppel. See Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776-80 (2d Cir.1995) (citing as examples Matter of Arbitration Between Keystone Shipping Co. & Texport Oil Co., 782 F.Supp. 28, 31 (S.D.N.Y.1992)(incorporation by bill of lading); Gvozdenovic v. United Air Lines, Inc., 933 F.2d 1100, 1105 (2d Cir.)(assumption by conduct), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 910, 112 S.Ct. 305, 116 L.Ed.2d 248 (1991); Interbras Cayman Co. v. Orient Victory Shipping Co., S.A., 663 F.2d 4, 6-7 (2d Cir.1981) (agency); Carte Blanche (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. v. Diners Club Int’l. Inc., 2 F.3d 24, 26 (2d Cir.1993)(veil-piercing); Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers S., Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 138-39 (2d Cir.1991)(same); Deloitte Noraudit A/S v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, U.S., 9 F.3d 1060, 1064 (2d Cir.1993)(non-signatory bound to arbitration contract by estoppel)). In theory, under ordinary state-law principles of equitable and promissory es-toppel, a non-party to a contract containing an arbitration clause may invoke the clause and compel a signatory party to arbitrate when the signatory reasonably should have expected that, because of his statements or conduct, the non-signatory would be induced to rely justifiably on the contract and would be injured thereby if the signatory refused to recognize the non-signatory’s rights or entitlements with respect to the" }, { "docid": "1353809", "title": "", "text": "F.3d at 665; Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840, 844 (2d Cir.1987). There is no dispute about the existence of an arbitration clause in both plaintiffs Ruga and Ross!s cardholder agreements, and that both plaintiffs agreed to it. However, there is a dispute as to who can compel arbitration. Defendants Bank One and BOA Corp. argue that plaintiffs Ruga and Ross’s claims against Bank One and BOA Corp. should be referred to arbitration, despite the fact that neither of them are signatories to the arbitration agreements. Since “whether an entity is a party to the arbitration agreement also is included within the broader issue of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate,” the Court will address the non-signatories issue first. Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. P’ship, Inc. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l, 198 F.3d 88, 95 (2d Cir.1999). A. Non-Signatories The First USA and BOA arbitration agreements are agreements between the cardholders and First USA and BOA, respectively. Plaintiffs however, allege claims against First USA and BOA, as well as Bank One and BOA Corp., the parent companies of First USA and BOA, respectively. Defendants argue that plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate the claims against the parent companies as well as those against First USA and BOA. Although “arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit,” Howsam, 123 S.Ct. at 591 (quoting United Steelworkers, 363 U.S. at 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347), an obligation to arbitrate may not be limited to signatories to the agreement containing the arbitration provision. A non-signatory may be. bound to an arbitration agreement under ordinary principles of contract and agency. See Thomson-CSF, S:A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995); Orange Chicken, L.L.C. v. Nambe Mills, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 4730(AGS), 2000 WL 1858556, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec:19, 2000); Fluor Daniel Intercontinental, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 98 Civ. 7181(WHP), 1999 WL 637236, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.20, 1999). The Second Circuit has recognized five theories for binding non-signatories to arbitration agreements: 1) incorporation" }, { "docid": "23209950", "title": "", "text": "bound to arbitrate under the employment agreement, so is UEDC. All this assumes that the dispute over whether AFC promised to cut UEDC in on the Hiawatha mining operations is within the arbitration clause of Nead’s employment agreement as a “controversy aris[ing] out of events ... related to” that agreement. However, we need not reach that issue. UEDC resists arbitration based on the principle that a party cannot be compelled to arbitrate unless it has agreed to do so. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1352, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960) (“a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit”). Nevertheless, a “nonsignatory party may be bound to an arbitration agreement if so dictated by the ‘ordinary principles of contract and agency.’” Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting McCallister Bros., Inc. v. A & S Transp. Co., 621 F.2d 519, 524 (2d Cir.1980)); see also Interbras Cayman Co. v. Orient Victory Shipping Co., 663 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir.1981) (per curiam) (granting trial on whether alleged principal-agent relationship bound nonsignatory party to arbitration agreement). In Thomson-CSF, we recognized that piercing the corporate veil between a signatory and nonsignatory party may bind the nonsignatory party to an arbitration agreement of its alter ego. 64 F.3d at 776. Amidst their disagreements, the parties agree that UEDC cannot be compelled to arbitrate unless we uphold the district court’s ruling that UEDC was Nead’s alter ego for purposes pertinent to this proceeding. We believe, however, that ruling must be reversed. In a diversity case, we apply the choice of law rules of the forum state — in this case New York — to determine what law governs alter ego or piercing the corporate veil analysis. See Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers S., Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 137 (2d Cir.1991). However, where the parties have agreed to the application of the forum law, their consent concludes the choice of law inquiry. See Tehran-Berkeley Civil & Envtl. Eng’rs v." }, { "docid": "23062375", "title": "", "text": "of the Federal Arbitration Act the issue of enforceability and validity of the arbitration clause is governed by federal law.”) Under the circumstances here, where there is little connection to the forum and the Agreements between the parties state an intention to be governed by the FAA, proceeding otherwise would introduce a degree of parochialism and uncertainty into international arbitration that would subvert the goal of simplifying and unifying international arbitration law. In this case, the 1994 Agreement’s dispute resolution provision provided that arbitration “shall for all purposes be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and matters of interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement shall be governed by Texas law in any such arbitration.” It is thus clear that neither party intended New York law, procedural or otherwise, to govern any aspect of their dispute. As no party is domiciled in New York, and no transactions have taken place here, New York has no connection to this litigation other than it is the location of the arbitration. While the language quoted immediately above might justify looking to Texas law on assignments, neither party argued that it applied. Thus, we will apply the body of federal law under the FAA. 2. Enron’s Right to Compel Arbitration. Having determined that federal law applies, we turn now to the effect of the assignments on the right of the Enron petitioners to compel arbitration under the 1994 Agreement. Even if we accept arguendo SCI’s claim that the Enron petitioners are not signatories to the 1994 Agreement, that does not end the matter. In this circuit, we have repeatedly found that non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may nevertheless be bound according to “ordinary principles of contract and agency.” McAllister Bros., 621 F.2d at 524; Deloitte Noraudit A/S, 9 F.3d at 1064. These principles include “(1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel.” Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995). We believe that a number of these concepts justify allowing the Enron petitioners to compel SCI" }, { "docid": "9056576", "title": "", "text": "limited theories upon which [the Second Circuit] is willing to enforce an arbitration agreement against a nonsignatory\"). Of the five theories that could potentially compel a nonsignatory to arbitrate, Respondents assert only that veil piercing and estoppel are relevant here. 1. Veil piercing Under New York law, a court may pierce the corporate veil where (i) \"the owner exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue,\" and (ii) \"such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the veil.\" Am. Fuel Corp. v. Utah Energy Dev. Co. , 122 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 1997). \"A non-signatory 'may be bound to arbitrate where it exercised complete control over a signatory and employed that domination to injure another signatory to the agreement.' \" McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. , No. 14-cv-6633 (KBF), 2015 WL 144190, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2015) (quoting Masefield AG v. Colonial Oil Indus., Inc. , No. 05 Civ. 2231(PKL), 2005 WL 911770, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2005) ); see also Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 777-78. The conduct at issue must reveal a \"virtual abandonment of separateness.\" Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 777-78 (noting that courts will pierce the corporate veil \"where a parent dominates and controls a subsidiary\" (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Determining that veil-piercing is appropriate is a \"fact specific\" inquiry, and courts consider many factors, including: (1) disregard of corporate formalities; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) intermingling of funds; (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel; (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities; (6) the degree of discretion shown by the allegedly dominated corporation; (7) whether the dealings between the entities are at arms length; (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; (9) payment or guarantee of the corporation's debts by the dominating entity, and (10) intermingling of property between the entities. Freeman v. Complex Computing Co. , 119 F.3d 1044, 1053 (2d Cir. 1997). Respondents argue that Petitioners are bound to arbitrate as BEAW's alter" }, { "docid": "23062376", "title": "", "text": "arbitration. While the language quoted immediately above might justify looking to Texas law on assignments, neither party argued that it applied. Thus, we will apply the body of federal law under the FAA. 2. Enron’s Right to Compel Arbitration. Having determined that federal law applies, we turn now to the effect of the assignments on the right of the Enron petitioners to compel arbitration under the 1994 Agreement. Even if we accept arguendo SCI’s claim that the Enron petitioners are not signatories to the 1994 Agreement, that does not end the matter. In this circuit, we have repeatedly found that non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may nevertheless be bound according to “ordinary principles of contract and agency.” McAllister Bros., 621 F.2d at 524; Deloitte Noraudit A/S, 9 F.3d at 1064. These principles include “(1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel.” Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995). We believe that a number of these concepts justify allowing the Enron petitioners to compel SCI to arbitrate its claims asserted against them in the Dominican Lawsuit. In applying these concepts, we note, as we did in Thomson-CSF with respect to “veil-piercing,” that such determinations are often “fact specific” and differ with “the circumstances of each case.” 64 F.3d at 777-78 (citation omitted). More importantly, while a court should be wary of imposing a contractual obligation to arbitrate on a non-contracting party, we do not face that concern here. SCI is the party trying to escape its obligation to arbitrate, but it (and/or its affiliate SCD) was a signatory to all three arbitration Agreements with Enron-that is, the Project Agreement, the 1993 Agreement and, most importantly, the 1994 Agreement. Normally, it is the signatory to an arbitration agreement that urges us to apply a veil-piercing doctrine, see, e.g., Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 777-78, to require the non-signatory to arbitrate because of the special circumstances that apply. In this case, however, it is the Enron petitioners (the alleged “non-signatories” to the contract) that invite us to pierce their own corporate veil because" }, { "docid": "12871149", "title": "", "text": "the clause. The Agreement states that it is “by and between ETS Payphones, Inc.” and each plaintiff. Although Edwards did sign each Agreement, he did so on behalf of ETS. Plaintiffs contend that because the Agreement provides for arbitration of any claim “asserted by any party against another party ... if requested, by any party,” Edwards, a nonparty to the Agreement, cannot demand arbitration of the instant dispute. Plaintiffs contend that as a general rule, a non-signatory to an agreement cannot enforce the agreement’s arbitration clause. A review of the case law in this area, however, reveals that there are a- number of different situations in which a non-sig natory can both enforce, and be bound by, an arbitration agreement. In fact, the Second Circuit has “repeatedly found that non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may nevertheless be bound according to ‘ordinary principles of contract and agency.’ ” Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. Partnership, Inc. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l, Inc., 198 F.3d 88, 97 (2d Cir.1999) (citing McAllister Bros., Inc. v. A & S Transp. Co., 621 F.2d 519, 524 (2d Cir.1980)), cert. denied, 581 U.S. 815, 121 S.Ct. 51, 148 L.Ed.2d 20 (2000); Deloitte Noraudit A/S v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, U.S., 9 F.3d 1060, 1064 (2d Cir.1993). “These principles include ‘(1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel.’ ” Smith/Enron, 198 F.3d at 97 (quoting Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995)). “[S]uch determinations are often ‘fact specific’ and differ with ‘the circumstances of each case.’ ” Id. (quoting Thomsom-CSF, 64 F.3d at 777-78). In the case at bar, I find that Edwards can seek to enforce the arbitration agreement against plaintiffs under both agency and veil-piercing/alter ego theories. There is no dispute that at the time the Agreements were signed, Edwards was an agent of ETS. Though plaintiffs assert that an agency theory has no application here because their claims against Edwards are based solely on his alleged status as a “control person” (rather than as an agent) with respect to ETS, “this is a distinction without a legal" }, { "docid": "1353811", "title": "", "text": "by reference; 2) assumption; 3) agency; 4) veil-piercing/alter-ego; and 5) estoppel. See Smith/Enron Cogeneration, 198 F.3d at 97; Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 776; Massen v. Cliff, No. 02 Civ. 9282(HBP), 2003 WL 2012404, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2003); Fluor Daniel, 1999 WL 637236, at *6. Defendants argue that the plaintiffs are estopped from avoiding arbitration with Bank One and BOA Corp. Courts have bound non-signatories to arbitration agreements under an estoppel theory. Under one branch of this theory, when a non-signatory receives a direct benefit under the agreement containing the arbitration clause, it cannot avoid arbitration merely because it never signed the agreement. This branch of the estoppel theory is inapplicable here because it is the non-signatory who is trying to compel arbitration from a party. See Fluor Daniel, 1999 WL 637236, at *6. Under an alternative estoppel theory recognized by several circuits, courts have been willing to estop a signatory from avoiding arbitration with a non-signatory when the issues the non-signatory is seeking to arbitrate are intertwined with the contract. See Choctaw Gen. Ltd. P’ship v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 271 F.3d 403, 406 (2d Cir.2001); Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779; Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753, 757-58 (11th Cir.1993); J.J. Ryan & Sons, Inc. v. Rhone Poulenc Textile, S.A, 863 F.2d 315, 320-21 (4th Cir.1988); McBro Planning & Dev. Co. v. Triangle Elec. Constr. Co., 741 F.2d 342, 344 (11th Cir.1984); Massen, 2003 WL 2012404, at *4; Chase Mortgage Co.-West v. Bankers Trust Co., No. 00 Civ. 8150(MBM), 2001 WL 547224, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2001); Fluor Daniel, 1999 WL 637236, at *6. Thus, a signatory can be required to arbitrate with a non-signatory at the non-signatory’s insistence because of “the close relationship between the entities involved, ... [and] the relationship of the alleged wrongs to the non-signatory’s obligations and duties in the contract ... and [the fact that] the claims were ‘intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.’” Sunkist, 10 F.3d at 757-58 (quoting Hughes Masonry Co. v. Greater Clark County School Bldg. Corp., 659 F.2d 836," } ]

[ { "docid": "3781083", "title": "", "text": "that the “systematic and continuous” shipment of orders into the state, which orders had resulted from solicitation within the state by the defendant’s salesmen, together with a liability arising out of those activities (unpaid contributions to the state unemployment compensation fund based on the salesmen’s commissions) provided the necessary “minimum contacts.” Id. at 320, 66 S.Ct. 154. In Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), the Court held that jurisdiction would lie over a foreign corporation, even though the liability sued upon did not arise within the state, where the corporation’s activities within the state included directors’ meetings, business correspondence, banking, stock transfers, payment of salaries, and purchasing of machinery. In McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), the Court, noting the decreased burden in defending a suit away from home, held a corporation amenable to process in a state where it had never conducted business because the contract sued upon “had substantial connection with that State.” Id. at 223, 78 S.Ct. at 201. Finally, in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), after reasserting the “territorial limitations on the power of the respective States” to assert personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants, id. at 251, 78 S.Ct. at 1238, the Court summarized the International Shoe test, as it had developed, as follows: “The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Id. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1239-1240. Professor Currie has generalized this Hanson test as requiring “that the defendant must have taken voluntary action calculated to have an effect in the forum state.” Currie, The Growth of" } ]

[ { "docid": "22192888", "title": "", "text": "Cir. 1959); Blount v. Peerless Chemicals (P.R.), Inc., 316 F.2d 695, 697-98 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Colbert v. Peerless Chemicals (P.R.), Inc., 375 U.S. 831, 84 S.Ct. 76, 11 L.Ed.2d 62 (1963). International Shoe itself required that a non-resident defendant’s “operations establish sufficient contacts or ties with the state of the forum to make it reasonable and just, according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice, to permit the state to enforce the obligations which [defendant] has incurred there,” and that the form of “substitute service adopted there gives reasonable assurance that the notice [to defendant] will be actual.” 326 U.S. at 320, 66 S.Ct. at 160. This “minimum contacts” test was elaborated upon in McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), where a single contact with the forum state was held to be sufficient given the balance of the hardships to the plaintiff and defendant in litigating elsewhere. In Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 254, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), however, the Court cautioned that a court “does not acquire that jurisdiction by being the ‘center of gravity’ of the controversy, or the most convenient location for litigation.” It held that [t]he unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Id. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1239. In a parallel development, the Supreme Court decided Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), holding that, where a corporation carries on “continuous and systematic corporate activities” within a state, due process neither prohibits nor compels a state to accept in personam jurisdiction over it even when" }, { "docid": "22149204", "title": "", "text": "continuous as to support a reasonable exercise of jurisdiction. See Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 104 S.Ct. at 1480-81; Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed.2d 485 (1952). “[T]he constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established ‘minimum contacts’ in the forum State.” Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2183. The due-process test of foreseeability is whether “the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567. Reasonable anticipation of out-of-state litigation is delimited by the “purposeful availment” requirement set out in Hanson v. Denckla. See 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1239-1240. This requirement “ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts ... or of the ‘unilateral activity of another party or a third person’____ Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State.” Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2183-84 (emphasis in original; citations and footnotes omitted); see also Patterson, 764 F.2d at 1147. For example, “with respect to interstate contractual obligations, [the Court has] emphasized that parties who ‘reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state’ are subject to regulations and sanctions for the consequences of their activities.” Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2182 (quoting Travelers Health Ass’n v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643, 647, 70 S.Ct. 927, 929, 94 L.Ed. 1154 (1950)); see also McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. at 222-23, 78 S.Ct. at 200-01. That the defendant refrained from physically entering the forum state is not of itself sufficient to avoid jurisdiction if a substantial connection otherwise exists. See Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2184. After deciding that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state, it must be determined whether maintenance of the suit comports with “ ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International" }, { "docid": "23028371", "title": "", "text": "Rule 4(k)(l)(A) and California’s Long-Arm Statute Where the federal statute or rule on which an action is premised does not authorize service to obtain jurisdiction over a defendant, the starting point is the forum state’s long-arm statute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(l)(A). California’s long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to the limits of due process. See CaLCode of Civ. Pro. § 410.10. Constitutional due process concerns are satisfied when a nonresident defendant has “certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional conceptions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 164, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). Where a defendant deliberately engages in significant activities within a state, purposely availing itself of the privilege of conducting business there, it is presumptively reasonable to require that defendant “submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well.” Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). In such instances, “defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Id. at 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)). Applying the “minimum contacts” analysis, a court may obtain either general or specific jurisdiction over a defendant. If the defendant’s activities in the forum are substantial, continuous and systematic, general jurisdiction is available; in other words, the foreign defendant is subject to suit even on matters unrelated to his or her contacts to the forum. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 446, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952). A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a foreign defendant if his or her less substantial contacts with the forum give rise to the cause of action before the court. The question is “whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). The Ninth Circuit has" }, { "docid": "22727994", "title": "", "text": "States. Thus the statutory limitations upon jurisdiction are “coextensive with the outer limits of due process under the state and federal constitutions, as those limits have been defined by the United States Supreme Court.” Republic International Corp. v. Amco Engineers, Inc., 516 F.2d 161, 167 (9th Cir. 1976), quoting Threlkeld v. Tucker, 496 F.2d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1023, 95 S.Ct. 499, 42 L.Ed.2d 297 (1974). In a line of cases beginning with International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), the Supreme Court has attempted to define the due process limitations upon state power to exercise in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952); Travelers Health Ass’n. v. Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Comm’n, 339 U.S. 643, 70 S.Ct. 927, 94 L.Ed. 1154 (1950). The basic rule is that the defendant must have certain minimal contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154. If the nonresident defendant’s activities within a state are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic,” there is a sufficient relationship between the defendant and the state to support jurisdiction even if the cause of action is unrelated to the defendant’s forum activities. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., supra, 342 U.S. at 446—47, 72 S.Ct. 413; Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Republic International Corp. v. Amco Engineers, Inc., supra, 516 F.2d at 167. If, however, the defendant’s activities are not so pervasive as to subject him to general jurisdiction, the issue whether jurisdiction will lie turns on an evaluation of the nature and quality of the defendant’s contacts in relation to the cause" }, { "docid": "20804164", "title": "", "text": "at 1238. In renewing the holding of International Shoe, Chief Justice Warren stated: [t]he application of that, [minimum contacts] rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Id. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1240 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Applying the concepts of these eases to the facts of the instant matter, it is clear that the exercise of jurisdiction over defendants Jimran, Crossroads and Valencia under the Pennsylvania “long-arm” statute would violate the due process requirements of the Constitution. Specifically, the necessary “minimum contacts”, cannot be established under any of the approaches examined above. In Perkins, the Court concluded that jurisdiction was “fair and reasonable” under the circumstances since the defendant had engaged in substantial business activity within the state. In the instant case, however, there is no evidence of any analogous conduct as the only contact alleged between the defendants and Pennsylvania is the constructive tortious conduct involved in the litigation. Under the McGee test, as stated by the Third Circuit, due process requirements are satisfied if the “cause of action” has a substantial connection with the forum state. In the instant case, the claims against the defendants are conspiracy and intentional interference with contractual relations. In determining whether or not these causes of action have a substantial connection with Pennsylvania, the case of Consolidated Laboratories, Inc. v. Shandon Scientific Company, 384 F.2d 797 (7th Cir. 1967), is relevant. That case similarly involved charges of conspiracy to interfere with contractual relations. The Seventh Circuit, citing McGee, held the contacts between the defendants and the forum state sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. In that case, the tortious conduct, alleged to be the advertisement and solicitation of sales in violation of plaintiff’s contractual rights, actually occurred within the forum state. In addition, the harm to the plaintiff was suffered in that state. In the instant case," }, { "docid": "12278968", "title": "", "text": "U.S. at 91, 98 S.Ct. at 1697.” Energy Reserves, supra, 460 F.Supp. at 502. Judge Theis continued, stating that jurisdiction over a non-resident party may not be acquired by a court where it is merely asserted that the court is the center of gravity of the controversy, rather there must be some act whereby the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the state before due process may be satisfied and jurisdiction may be constitutionally exercised over that non-resident. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253-54, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). These activities, however, need not be conducted personally by the non-resident defendant physically in the forum. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957). The due process requirement may be satisfied and jurisdiction thereby constitutionally exercised over the non-resident who has no physical contacts with the forum. Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643, 70 S.Ct. 927, 94 L.Ed. 1154 (1950). Moreover, jurisdiction may be based on a nonresident’s activities in the forum even when they bear no relation to plaintiff’s claim. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). In considering jurisdictional questions, a two-step analysis is applied. First, it must be determined whether the defendants’ contacts with the forum are sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts test of International Shoe, and, second, the court must determine whether the defendants’ conduct falls within the scope of service authorized by statute. The initial task facing this court, therefore, is the determination of whether or not the Carolina defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state of Kansas such that the exercise of jurisdiction and the maintenance of the present lawsuit are fundamentally fair and do not offend the “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” It must be noted that when the existence of personal jurisdiction is controverted, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate jurisdiction is" }, { "docid": "17687130", "title": "", "text": "154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) formulated these due process standards which must be met in order to acquire such jurisdiction. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 580, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977); Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957). The test established under such standards requires sufficient “minimum contacts” of the non-resident with the forum state as “ ‘not [to] offend “traditional notions” of fair play and substantial justice,’ ” Wood-son, supra, 444 U.S. at 291-92, 100 S.Ct. at 563-64, by providing a “sufficient connection between the [non-resident] defendant and the forum State to make it fair to require defense of the action in the forum,” Kulko, supra, 436 U.S. at 91, 98 S.Ct. at 1696. This burden has been held to be satisfied when there has been “some act [related to the cause of action alleged] by which the [non-resident] defendant purposefully avails [himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State .... ” Hanson v. Denckla, supra, 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1239. As 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 4.41-1[3], pp. 4-477-79 (1983) has put it, “[m]ost courts have held that the commission of a single tortious act is a sufficient contact upon which to base the assertion of in personam jurisdiction.” And this is particularly so where the “tortious act” arises out of a “contact which had substantial connection with that State” such as a contract for the sale of real estate in the forum state. McGee v. International Ins. Co., supra, 355 U.S. at 223, 78 S.Ct. at 201. In such a case the agent has availed himself of “the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State” and by that act he “has clear notice that [he] is subject to suit there .... ” Woodson, supra, 444 U.S." }, { "docid": "20804163", "title": "", "text": "Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), the Court reiterated the International Shoe requirement of “minimum contacts” and held that this requirement could be satisfied, even though the cause of action arose from activities performed by the defendant outside the forum state, if the business done by the defendant within the state was of a sufficiently substantial nature. In McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), the Court, after referring to the International Shoe test, held that “[i]t is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with [the forum] State.” Finally, in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), Chief Justice Warren, noting the exceedingly liberal posture of the courts concerning personal jurisdiction requirements, warned that “it is a mistake to assume that this trend heralds the eventual demise of all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction of state courts.” Id. at 251, 78 S.Ct. at 1238. In renewing the holding of International Shoe, Chief Justice Warren stated: [t]he application of that, [minimum contacts] rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Id. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1240 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Applying the concepts of these eases to the facts of the instant matter, it is clear that the exercise of jurisdiction over defendants Jimran, Crossroads and Valencia under the Pennsylvania “long-arm” statute would violate the due process requirements of the Constitution. Specifically, the necessary “minimum contacts”, cannot be established under any of the approaches examined above. In Perkins, the Court concluded that jurisdiction was “fair and reasonable” under the circumstances since the defendant had engaged in substantial business activity within the state. In the instant case, however, there is no evidence of any analogous conduct" }, { "docid": "20804162", "title": "", "text": "the activities within the state, a procedure which requires the corporation to respond to a suit brought to enforce them can, in most instances, hardly be said to be undue. Id. at 319, 66 S.Ct. at 160. In analyzing the case in view of this standard, the International Shoe Court focused on the systematic and continuous business activities of the defendant within the state. Via these activities, defendant received the benefits and protection of the laws of the state. Consequently, the activities qualified as the type of “minimum contacts” which would “make it reasonable and just according to our traditional, conception of fair play and substantial justice” to subject defendant to the jurisdiction of the state. Id. at 320, 66 S.Ct. at 160. Although the basic rationale of International Shoe has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts, the case was followed by three important Supreme Court decisions analyzing the constitutional question of jurisdiction over nonresidents. These decisions, together with International Shoe, establish the principles which must govern the instant case. In Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), the Court reiterated the International Shoe requirement of “minimum contacts” and held that this requirement could be satisfied, even though the cause of action arose from activities performed by the defendant outside the forum state, if the business done by the defendant within the state was of a sufficiently substantial nature. In McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), the Court, after referring to the International Shoe test, held that “[i]t is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with [the forum] State.” Finally, in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), Chief Justice Warren, noting the exceedingly liberal posture of the courts concerning personal jurisdiction requirements, warned that “it is a mistake to assume that this trend heralds the eventual demise of all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction of state courts.” Id. at 251, 78 S.Ct." }, { "docid": "17060688", "title": "", "text": "provision in the District of Columbia Long Arm Statute). C. Due Process Since the Maryland Long Arm Statute is designed to extend the jurisdiction of Maryland courts to the maximum limit allowed by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Krashes v. White, supra, both the reach of the Maryland statute and the constitutional validity of the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant thereto are measured by the same standard. Krashes v. White, supra; see also Hardy v. Pioneer Parachute Co., Inc., 531 F.2d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 1976). The ultimate test of the validity of the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Massey and Davis pursuant to subsection (b)(4) of the Maryland Long Arm Statute is whether the contacts of those defendants with Maryland are such that requiring them to defend a suit here would offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” See International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952); McGee v. Internationa] Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); Hanson v. Denkla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). In determining whether requirements of fairness and substantial justice have been met, the court should consider the following factors: 1. The nature and quality of the defendants’ contacts with the forum state; 2. The quantity of defendants’ contacts with the forum state; 3. The relationship, if any, of the cause of action to the contacts of the defendants with the forum state; and, to a lesser extent, 4. The legitimacy of the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for the cause of action asserted, and 5. The convenience of the parties. Ratliff v. Cooper Laboratories, Inc., 444 F.2d 745 (4th Cir. 1971); Gkiafis v. Steamship Yiosonas, 342 F.2d 546, 556-57 (4th Cir. 1965); Electrocraft Corp. v. Maxwell Electronics Corp., 417 F.2d 365, 368 (8th Cir. 1969); Johnson v. Helicopter and Airplane Services Corp., 389 F.Supp. 509, 520 (D.Md. 1975); Thompson v. Kiekhaefer, 372" }, { "docid": "20804166", "title": "", "text": "however, the actual tortious conduct took place outside the State of Pennsylvania while only some of the harm to plaintiff occurred here. In this sense, the case is significantly different from Consolidated Laboratories in terms of due process. Moreover, when this contact is assessed in view of the basic due process requirement of reasonableness and fairness “according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice,” I cannot conclude that this single occurrence in Pennsylvania (harm to plaintiff) constitutes a “substantial connection” under McGee sufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction over these defendants. Finally, the necessary “minimum contacts” cannot be established under the tests of International Shoe and Hanson. These cases clearly require the existence of some act “by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson, supra at 253 of 357 U.S., at 1240 of 78 S.Ct. The reason for this requirement is plain. When a nonresident receives the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws, it is fair and reasonable in terms of due process for that nonresident to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of that state. In applying this rule to the instant case, jurisdiction is clearly inappropriate. The only acts performed by defendants within the State of Pennsylvania are the constructive commission of the asserted torts. Defendants are not alleged to have done any other act or acts within this state, whether past or current, business or personal, direct or indirect, constructive or actual by which the benefits and protections of Pennsylvania law were bestowed upon them. Under the facts of this case, it cannot be said that defendants, by this constructive tortious conduct, have “purposefully availed” themselves of the “privilege of conducting activities” in Pennsylvania or received the “benefits or protections” of its laws. Therefore, jurisdiction is not justified under International Shoe and Hanson. By this ruling, I am not unmindful of the Illinois Supreme Court decision in Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation, 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761" }, { "docid": "7491072", "title": "", "text": "imposes on the exercise of jurisdiction by state courts over non-resident defendants. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided five cases which are of significance in delineating the limits placed upon in personam jurisdiction by the Due Process Clause. These cases, sometimes referred to as “the long arm quintet” (see Gelineau v. New York University Hospital, 375 F.Supp. 661 (D.N.J.1974)) include: International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952); Travelers Health Asso. v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643, 70 S.Ct. 927, 94 L.Ed. 1154 (1950); McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); and Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). International Shoe Co., supra, is the leading case in establishing the boundaries within which states may exercise jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. In this case, the Supreme Court set forth the “minimum contacts” test, which embodies the accepted approach to jurisdictional due process questions: “ . . . due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” 326 U.S. 316, 66 S.Ct. 158. This test, while a valuable concept, is incapable of any precise definition. Prior to the addition of subsection (f), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in reference to T. C.A. § 20-235, formulated the following three-pronged test for determining the outer limits of in personam jurisdiction based on a single act: “First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or. causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with" }, { "docid": "20804165", "title": "", "text": "as the only contact alleged between the defendants and Pennsylvania is the constructive tortious conduct involved in the litigation. Under the McGee test, as stated by the Third Circuit, due process requirements are satisfied if the “cause of action” has a substantial connection with the forum state. In the instant case, the claims against the defendants are conspiracy and intentional interference with contractual relations. In determining whether or not these causes of action have a substantial connection with Pennsylvania, the case of Consolidated Laboratories, Inc. v. Shandon Scientific Company, 384 F.2d 797 (7th Cir. 1967), is relevant. That case similarly involved charges of conspiracy to interfere with contractual relations. The Seventh Circuit, citing McGee, held the contacts between the defendants and the forum state sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. In that case, the tortious conduct, alleged to be the advertisement and solicitation of sales in violation of plaintiff’s contractual rights, actually occurred within the forum state. In addition, the harm to the plaintiff was suffered in that state. In the instant case, however, the actual tortious conduct took place outside the State of Pennsylvania while only some of the harm to plaintiff occurred here. In this sense, the case is significantly different from Consolidated Laboratories in terms of due process. Moreover, when this contact is assessed in view of the basic due process requirement of reasonableness and fairness “according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice,” I cannot conclude that this single occurrence in Pennsylvania (harm to plaintiff) constitutes a “substantial connection” under McGee sufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction over these defendants. Finally, the necessary “minimum contacts” cannot be established under the tests of International Shoe and Hanson. These cases clearly require the existence of some act “by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson, supra at 253 of 357 U.S., at 1240 of 78 S.Ct. The reason for this requirement is plain. When a nonresident receives the benefits and protections of the" }, { "docid": "10336807", "title": "", "text": "no agent or employee” in Illinois. 22 Ill.2d at 437, 176 N.E.2d at 763. It is unnecessary to trace the recent extension of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants through substituted service. Suffice it to say that due process implications were settled in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), and Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). The thrust of these decisions is that sufficient “minimum contacts” must exist in the forum state so that jurisdiction over nonresident defendants is reasonable and just according to traditional concepts of fair play and substantial justice. See also National Gas Appliance Corp. v. AB Electrolux, 270 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 959, 80 S.Ct. 584, 4 L.Ed.2d 542 (1960), and Consolidated Laboratories, Inc. v. Shandon Scientific Co., 384 F.2d 797 (7th Cir. 1967). Whether sufficient minimum contacts exist cannot be answered by applying a formula or rule of thumb, but by ascertaining what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the particular situation. In applying this flexible test the relevant inquiry is whether a nonresident has engaged in some act or conduct by which he may be said to have invoked the benefits and protection of the laws of the forum. The Illinois Supreme Court in Gray said that the requirements for jurisdiction “have been further relaxed” since International Shoe and that it is sufficient that the “act or transaction itself” has a substantial connection with the forum state. 22 Ill.2d at 438, 176 N.E.2d 761. Moreover, the legislative intent of the Illinois long-arm statute is to assert jurisdiction over nonresidents to the extent permitted by the due process clause. Koplin v. Thomas, Haab & Botts, 73 Ill.App.2d 242, 249, 219 N.E.2d 646, 649 (1966). The Appellate Court of IIlinois in that case held that physical presence of the defendant within the state, although a factor in the jurisdictional determination, should not be a controlling factor." }, { "docid": "11461642", "title": "", "text": "procedure shall be liberally construed. Under Kansas law, substantial compliance with the requirements for service and awareness of the action are all that is necessary. Briscoe v. Getto, 204 Kan. 254, 462 P.2d 127, 129. Here we have both. Sufficiency of service under state law satisfies the federal rule. P & C says that the application of the single act statute in this action deprives it of its right under the federal Constitution to due process. The problem may be divided into two parts; (1) defendant’s contact with the forum state, and (2) fair play and substantial justice. See e. g. Product Promotions, Inc. v. Cousteau, 5 Cir., 495 F.2d 483, 494, 498, and U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. v. Burt, Texas, 553 S.W.2d 760, 762-763, both of which involved the Texas single act statute. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, established the “minimum contacts” test for jurisdiction. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223, said that the test was satisfied when “the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection” with the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, did not modify the McGee decision but rejected personal jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise “out of an act done or transaction consum mated in the forum State.” Ibid, at 251, 78 S.Ct. at 1238. In the instant ease, the purchase orders were accepted in Kansas. The goods were manufactured in, and shipped from, Kansas. Partial payment was made to Pedi Bares in Kansas. The principal distinction between the present case and McGee is that there the defendant made the initial solicitation while here that was made by the plaintiff. Initial contact is not decisive. The subsequent conduct of P & C shows that it purposely availed itself of the privilege of carrying on activities to secure goods from a Kansas manufacturer and seller. No Kansas or Tenth Circuit decision controls determination of the point at issue. Misco-United Supply, supra, 528" }, { "docid": "21211972", "title": "", "text": "560 (1963). . See generally 1 Barron & Holtzoff, op. cit. supra note 12, § 179 pp. 683-694; 2 Moore, op. cit. supra note 12, §§ 4.25[3]— [5]; Kurland, The Supreme Court, The Due Process Clause and the In Personam Jurisdiction of State Courts, 25 U.Chi. L.Rev. 569 (1958); Reese and Galston, Doing an Act or Causing Consequences as Bases of Judicial Jurisdiction, 44 Iowa L.Rev. 249 (1959); Note, 47 Geo.L.J. 342 (1958). See also authorities cited note 17, supra. . “{D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to judgment in personam, * * * he have certain minimum contacts with it [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does -not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 1945, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95. The Court emphasized that the determination of “minimum contacts” is not simply quantitative, but rather depends on the quality and nature of the activity of the foreign corporation in the forum state, and that an “estimate of the inconveniences” to the parties Is relevant. . See Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 1952, 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485; Travelers Health Ass’n v. Com. of Virginia, 1950, 339 U.S. 643, 70 S.Ct. 927, 94 L.Ed. 1154. . “Looking back over this long history of litigation a trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other non-residents. * * * It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with that [forum] State. * * * ” McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 1957, 355 U.S. 220, 222-223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223. . 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1240. See Dooly v. Payne, 5 Cir., 1964, 326 F.2d 941, 943: “The McGee case was followed * * * by Hanson v. Denckla which teaches that, although the door of nonresident jurisdiction has been opened wider by International Shoe" }, { "docid": "22893979", "title": "", "text": "defendant’s conduct and created a substantial connection with the forum state, even a single act can support jurisdiction. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184 n. 18, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957). When the contact stems from a product, sold or manufactured by the foreign defendant, which has caused harm in the forum state, the court has jurisdiction if it finds that the defendant delivered the product into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be purchased by or used by consumers in the forum state. World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 298, 100 S.Ct. at 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490. When the cause of action does not arise from or relate to the foreign corporation’s purposeful conduct within the forum state, due process requires that there be continuous and systematic contacts between the State and the foreign corporation to support an exercise of “general” personal jurisdiction by that forum. Helicópteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872-73, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). More contact is required with the forum state because the state has no direct interest in the cause of action. In Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 447-48, 72 S.Ct. 413, 419-20, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), the Supreme Court held that a Philippine mining corporation that operated part of its general business out of Ohio during World War II because of the Japanese occupation of the Philippine Islands had continuous and systematic contacts with Ohio. The president of the Philippine corporation kept his wartime office in Ohio. He kept company files there, and held directors’ meetings there. He carried on corporate correspondence from his Ohio office and deposited corporate funds in two Ohio bank accounts. Finally, he engaged an Ohio bank to act as the corporation’s transfer agent, and supervised the rehabilitation of the corporation’s Philippine properties from Ohio. In Hall, the Supreme Court found the defendant’s contacts with the State of Texas insufficient to support" }, { "docid": "2145614", "title": "", "text": "Colorado to owners of realty. Id. The same reasoning applies to the appellants in the instant case. Of further significance, the Dwyer court cited McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), for the proposition that the due process clause was not offended when a California state court exercised in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident Texas corporation in a situation where the out-of-state corporation’s sole contact with the forum state was a single contract. The trial court’s conclusion that the appellants were subject to Colorado’s long-arm statute does not conclude our inquiry. We must yet determine whether the due process clause of the Constitution has been offended, i.e., whether the maintenance of this suit offends “ ‘[traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 343, 85 L.Ed. 278). See also Leney v. Plum Grove Bank, 670 F.2d 878 (10th Gir.1982); Cleverock Energy Corp. v. Trepel, 609 F.2d 1358 (10th Cir. 1979), cert, denied, 446 U.S. 909, 100 S.Ct. 1836, 64 L.Ed.2d 261 (1980). In Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), the Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the United States Constitution was not violated by the State of Ohio reaching out to snare a defendant, which conducted business in Ohio, in a cause of action not arising from acts within the forum. Based on the authorities cited and the pleadings before the trial court when the motion to dismiss was denied, we are satisfied that the district court did not err in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The execution of the promissory notes by the appellants in Idaho constituted sufficient acts to meet the minimum contacts test in Colorado. The promissory notes, given in conjunction with and as part and parcel of the contract for purchase of Colorado real property were executed prior" }, { "docid": "10729540", "title": "", "text": "Inc., 239 Mo. 107, 111, 210 A.2d 390, 392 (1965); Lawson v. Baltimore Paint & Chem. Corp., 298 F.Supp. 373, 377 (D.Md.1969), this case exceeds the limits of the Maryland statute and the Constitution by a considerable margin. Where a defendant has never conducted any business or applied for a license to do business in the forum state; where it has never solicited business or derived substantial revenues from goods or-services within the state; where it has not had a reasonable expectation that its products would be used in the state; where plaintiff is not a resident in the state; and where the injury giving rise to the cause of action occurred outside the state, personal jurisdiction may not be exercised over the defendant under section 6-103(b)(4) of the Maryland Long-Arm statute. In any case, substantially greater contact by the defendant with the forum state would be required to satisfy the “minimum contacts” test of the Constitution, as measured by “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). To achieve “fair play and substantial justice,” due process demands an evaluation of the contacts of the defendant with the forum state, the relationship of the forum to the particular cause of action, the interest of the forum state in protecting its citizens or collecting its fair revenue, and the impact of the proper choice of law on the adjudication. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L. Ed.2d 1283 (1957); McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222-224, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); Perkins v. Benguet Mining Corp., 342 U.S. 437, 444-447 (1952); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 317-319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Ratliff v. Cooper Laboratories, 444 F.2d 745 (4th Cir. 1971). See generally, Von Mehren and Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate; A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 1121 (1966). In Ratliff v. Cooper Laboratories, Inc., 444 F.2d 745 (4th Cir. 1971), Judge Craven, analyzing the South Carolina Long-Arm statute, stated:" }, { "docid": "3296503", "title": "", "text": "providing effective means of redress for its residents.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has identified the purpose of Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute as providing “an appropriate forum for citizens to seek redress.” Image Ten, Inc. v. Walter Reade Organization, Inc., 456 Pa. 485, 322 A.2d 109, 114 (Pa.1974). In the instant case, a foreign corporation is seeking to use Pennsylvania’s long-arm jurisdiction to reach a non-resident individual, so Pennsylvania’s interest is less compelling. However, very minimal contacts are required to satisfy due process, particularly in the jurisdictional context. This court has recently commented upon the due process limitation as applied by the United States Supreme Court in cases involving long-arm jurisdiction: Since McGee v. International Insurance Co., ... it has been clear that the due process clause defines a rather low threshold of state interest sufficient to justify exercise of the state’s sovereign decisional authority with respect to a given transaction. * * * * * * [T]he due process clause requires the identification of any Pennsylvania interest sufficient to justify the exercise of Pennsylvania sovereignty with respect to a given private transaction. Aldens, Inc. v. Packel, 524 F.2d 38, at 42-43, 45 (3d Cir. 1975). Kennedy availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in Pennsylvania when he entered into a sales agreement with Petroni Construction and had merchandise shipped into the Commonwealth. Thus, his activities comport with the due process concern articulated in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958): [I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Indeed, shipping products into a state, coupled with soliciting business and negotiating a contract there, has been held to constitute the minimum contacts necessary for due process. Consolidated Laboratories, Inc. v. Shandon Scientific Co., Ltd., 384 F.2d 797, 801-802 (7th Cir. 1967). Therefore, we find nothing offensive to the due process clause in our holding that Kennedy’s activities in Pennsylvania subject him to its long-arm" } ]

[ { "docid": "22132045", "title": "", "text": "remedies before filing suit. VI. In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), the Supreme Court stated that, generally, courts should review claims challenging an ERISA claims administrator’s denial of benefits under a de novo standard. The Court adopted the de novo standard because the arbitrary and capricious, or abuse of discretion, standard, is too lenient. The Court explained that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review is appropriate, however, when the plan documents at issue explicitly grant the claims administrator discretion to determine eligibility or construe terms of the plan. See id. at 115, 109 S.Ct. at 954-56; see also Florence Nightingale Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 41 F.3d 1476, 1481 (11th Cir.1995). The arbitrary and capricious deference is diminished, though, if the claims administrator was acting under a conflict of interest. Florence Nightingale, 41 F.3d at 1481. If the claims administrator was acting under a conflict of interest, “the burden shifts to the [administrator] to prove that its interpretation of the plan provisions committed to its discretion was not tainted by self interest.” Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 898 F.2d 1556, 1566 (11th Cir.1990). “Accordingly, this court has adopted the following standards for reviewing administrators’ plan interpretations: (1) de novo where the plan does not grant the administrator diseretion[;] (2) arbitrary and capricious [where] the plan grants the administrator discretion; and (3) heightened arbitrary and capricious where there is a conflict of interest.” Buckley v. Metropolitan Life, 115 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir.1997). We hold that heightened arbitrary and capricious review is the appropriate standard because EHI suffers from a conflict of interest. ‘ In reviewing a claims administrator’s benefits determination, the court follows a series of steps. The applicability of heightened arbitrary and capricious review is a result of the court making a specific determination at each step in the analysis. At each step, the court makes a determination that results in either the progression to the next step or the end of the inquiry. For ease of application, we lay out these" } ]

[ { "docid": "12823558", "title": "", "text": "arbitrary and capricious where [the plan grants the administrator such discretion but] ... [he has] ... a conflict of interest. Id. (quoting HCA Health Servs. of Georgia, Inc. v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 982, 993 (11th Cir.2001)). The Policy gave Hartford “full discretion and authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to construe and interpret all terms” of the Policy. (Ex. A. p. 14.) Since Hartford both funded and administered the Policy, the Court will review its decision under a heightened arbitrary and capricious review standard. (Defs’ Stmt of Facts, ¶ 1, 3.) “[T]he distinctions between the heightened arbitrary and capricious, arbitrary and capricious, and de novo standards of review have become difficult to discern over time.” Williams, 373 F.3d at 1137. De novo review affords no deference to the administrator’s decision. Id. The arbitrary and capricious standard is akin to the “abuse of discretion” standard. Id. (citing Shaw v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 1276, 1284-85 n. 6 (11th Cir.2003)). The heightened arbitrary and capricious standard falls “somewhere between” the two. Id. The Eleventh Circuit set forth the analytical framework of the heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review in Williams: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is ‘wrong’ (ie., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision is in fact ‘de novo wrong,’ then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is ‘de novo wrong’ and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether ‘reasonable’ grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (6) If there is a conflict of" }, { "docid": "21045445", "title": "", "text": "standard to be applied by this court. Although ERISA does not provide district courts with a standard by which to review benefits decisions by benefit plan administrators, the United States Supreme Court has stated that a denial of benefits is to be “reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.... ” Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 956-57, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). In discussing the standard of review, the Court also noted that a purported conflict of interest must be weighed as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion. Bruch, 489 U.S. at 115, 109 S.Ct. at 956. In applying Bruch, the Eleventh Circuit has developed three standards of review for plan interpretations: (1) de novo review which applies where the plan administrator is not afforded discretion; (2) arbitrary and capricious review where the plan administrator possesses discretion; and (3) heightened arbitrary and capricious review where the administrator has discretion, but there is also a substantial conflict of interest. See Marecek v. BellSouth Telecommunications; 49 F.3d 702, 704 (11th Cir.1995). The Eleventh Circuit has further interpreted Bruch to mandate de novo review unless the language of the plan expressly provides the administrator with discretionary authority to make eligibility determinations or to construe the plan’s terms. Moon v. American Home Assurance Co., 888 F.2d 86, 88 (11th Cir.1989). The Defendants have argued that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, rather than the de novo standard, should be applied in the instant case because the R & S plan expressly grants discretion to interpret the plan. In support of their argument, the Defendants point to language in the 1993 and 1984 Plan Specifications. Under the 1984 Plan Specifications, the committee “shall have authority to determine all questions arising in connection with the Program, including its interpretation” and “[t]he decision or action of the Committee in respect of all matters within the scope of its authority shall be" }, { "docid": "19770053", "title": "", "text": "an ERISA disability case is permissible on a limited basis, with focus on the claim administrator’s decision-making.” Ricard v. International Business Machines Corp., Slip Copy, 2012 WL 1131996, *1 (M.D.Fla. Apr. 4, 2012). “Rule 26(b)(1) permits parties to a civil case to conduct discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party in the case. Like most discovery disputes, then, in this ERISA case, the scope of discovery will hinge on whether the discovery sought by the plaintiff is relevant to the ‘claim or defense of any party.’ ” Featherston, 228 F.R.D. at 651. “The standard of review in an ERISA case will dictate what facts or evidence the plaintiff must prove in order to successfully claim an entitlement to benefits under the terms of an employee benefit plan. Therefore, the applicable standard of review will also shape the permissible scope of discovery in ERISA cases.” Id. ERISA provides no standard for courts reviewing the benefits decisions of plan administrators or fiduciaries; thus, the Supreme Court established guidance for same in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989) and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008). More recently, the Eleventh Circuit has reiterated a multi-step framework to guide lower courts when reviewing a plan administrator’s benefits decision. This framework consists of the following “six-step expanded Firestone ” test: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard)." }, { "docid": "11287960", "title": "", "text": "12). In Williams v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 373 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir.2004), the Eleventh Circuit outlined a step-by-step analytical process for evaluating ERISA claims. Under this multi-step approach, a district court must (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (6)If there is a conflict of interest, then apply heightened arbitrary and capricious review to the decision to affirm or deny it. 373 F.3d at 1138 (emphasis in original; footnotes omitted). “In an ERISA benefit denial case [subject to deferential review], ... in a very real sense, the district court sits more as an appellate tribunal than as a trial court. It does not take evidence, but, rather, evaluates the reasonableness of an administrative determination in light of the record compiled before the plan fiduciary.” Leahy v. Raytheon Co., 315 F.3d 11, 17-18 (1st Cir.2002) (quoted with approval in Curran v. Kemper Nat. Servs., Inc., No. 04-14097, 2005 WL 894840 *7 (11th Cir. Mar. 16, 2005) (unpublished per curiam opinion)). Accordingly, “[w]here the decision to grant or deny benefits is reviewed for abuse of discretion, a motion for summary judgment is merely the conduit to bring the legal question before the district court and the usual tests of summary judgment, such as whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists," }, { "docid": "22565877", "title": "", "text": "the conflicting interest of the fiduciary at the expense of the affected beneficiary” was arbitrary and capricious, unless the administrator “justifies the interpretation on the ground of its benefit to the class of all participants and beneficiaries.” Id. at 1567. Our more recent cases condense the holdings of Firestone and Brown into a six step analysis to guide district courts in reviewing an administrator’s benefits decision: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (6) If there is a conflict of interest, then apply heightened arbitrary and capricious review to the decision to affirm or deny it. Williams v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 373 F.3d 1132, 1138 (11th Cir.2004) (summarizing analysis set forth in HCA Health Servs. of Ga., Inc. v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 982, 993-95 (11th Cir.2001)) (footnotes omitted). The district court began its discussion in this case by noting that ChoicePoint’s plan vested Liberty Life with discretion in making claims decisions (step 2). The court next found that genuine issues of material fact precluded a determination of whether Liberty Life’s decision was right or wrong; so, for purposes of summary judgment, the court assumed that Liberty Life’s decision was wrong (step 1). Next, the court recited the measures taken by Liberty Life in reviewing Doyle’s claim" }, { "docid": "19770054", "title": "", "text": "guidance for same in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989) and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008). More recently, the Eleventh Circuit has reiterated a multi-step framework to guide lower courts when reviewing a plan administrator’s benefits decision. This framework consists of the following “six-step expanded Firestone ” test: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (6) If there is a conflict, the conflict should merely be a factor for the court to take into account when determining whether an administrator’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 644 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir.2011) (citing Capone v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 592 F.3d 1189, 1195 (11th Cir.2010) and Williams v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 373 F.3d 1132, 1137 (11th Cir.2004), overruled on other grounds by Doyle v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir.2008)). All steps of the analysis are ‘potentially at issue’ where a plan vests discretion to the plan administrator to make benefits determinations. See id. at 1356 n. 7. A. Conflict of Interest Discovery Plaintiff sought discovery due to the presence of a structural conflict, which Defendant" }, { "docid": "14429589", "title": "", "text": "Disabled throughout the Elimination Period; 3. you remain Disabled beyond the Elimination Period; 4. you are, and have been during the Elimination Period, under the Regular Care of a Physician; and 5. you submit Proof of Loss satisfactory to us.” (A.R.404) Standard of Review ERISA does not provide a standard of review for decisions by a plan administrator or fiduciary in actions challenging benefit determinations under § 1132(a)(1)(B). Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 108-09, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989); Paramore v. Delta Air Lines, 129 F.3d 1446, 1449 (11th Cir.1997). The Supreme Court has established that “a denial of benefits challenged under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Bruch, 489 U.S. at 115, 109 S.Ct. 948. Here, the parties agree that the Plan vests discretion in Defendant as the administrator to determine eligibility and interpret the terms and provisions of the Plan. (A.R.404). Accordingly, the arbitrary and capricious standard applies to a review of the administrator’s decision, absent a conflict of interest, whereupon a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard applies. See Williams v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 373 F.3d 1132, (11th Cir.2004). Where, as here, the plan administrator acts as the insurer of the plan, the heightened arbitrary and capricious standard applies. Id. However, the fiduciary’s decision must be ‘wrong’ from the perspective of de novo review before the self interest of the fiduciary is considered. A decision is ‘wrong’, if after reviewing the record and plan documents de novo, the court disagrees with the administrator’s interpretation of the plan. See HCA Health Services of Georgia, Inc. v. Employers Health Insurance Co., 240 F.3d 982, 995 (11th Cir.2001); Williams v. Bell-South Telecommunications, Inc., 373 F.3d at 1137-38. If this court does not disagree with the administrator, the inquiry ends. Id. Discussion While the parties place some emphasis on whether and when Plaintiff was actually diagnosed with fibromyalgia, the operative inquiry is whether Plaintiff was disabled" }, { "docid": "22565876", "title": "", "text": "a ‘facto[r] in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion.’ ” Id. at 115, 109 S.Ct. at 957 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 187 cmt. d (1959)). Following Firestone, we undertook the “task [of] developing] a coherent method for integrating factors such as self-interest into the legal standard for reviewing benefits determinations.” Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 898 F.2d 1556, 1561 (11th Cir.1990). In Brown, we reasoned that trust principles mandated that some deferential level of review applies to benefits decisions, id. at 1568, but refused to apply “highly deferential” review when the administrator operated under a conflict of interest, id. at 1562. We settled on what came to be known as the “heightened arbitrary and capricious standard” (hereinafter the “heightened standard”), the hallmark of which is its burden-shifting requirement. Under this standard, “the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove that its interpretation of plan provisions committed to its discretion was not tainted by self-interest.” Id. at 1566. We said that an administrator’s plan interpretation that “advances the conflicting interest of the fiduciary at the expense of the affected beneficiary” was arbitrary and capricious, unless the administrator “justifies the interpretation on the ground of its benefit to the class of all participants and beneficiaries.” Id. at 1567. Our more recent cases condense the holdings of Firestone and Brown into a six step analysis to guide district courts in reviewing an administrator’s benefits decision: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds" }, { "docid": "23127546", "title": "", "text": "the administrator discretion; and (3) heightened arbitrary and capricious where the plan grants the administrator discretion and the administrator has a conflict of interest. See Buckley v. Metro. Life, 115 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir.1997). Recent cases from this circuit have expanded the Firestone test into a six-step analysis to guide district courts in reviewing an administrator’s benefits decision: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (6) If there is a conflict of interest, then apply heightened arbitrary and capricious review to the decision to affirm or deny it. Williams v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 373 F.3d 1132, 1137 (11th Cir.2004) overruled on other grounds by Doyle v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir.2008). Until recently, the hallmark of the heightened arbitrary and capricious standard was its burden shifting requirement. When a plan administrator had a conflict of interest by both reviewing and paying claims, “the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove that its interpretation of plan provisions committed to its discretion was not tainted by self-interest.” Brown v. Bhie Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. Inc., 898 F.2d 1556, 1566 (11th Cir.1990). However, in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, the Supreme Court called into question the Eleventh Circuit’s heightened arbitrary and capricious" }, { "docid": "6755354", "title": "", "text": "evidence beyond the administrative record. II. Analysis A. Standard of Review Under ERISA The scope of discovery in ERISA cases is integrally linked to the standard of review and the admissibility of additional evidence outside of the administrative record. Scott T. Maker and Theodore D. Willard, Discovery In Health Or Disability Actions Governed BY ERISA; Substantive Law and Strategic Considerations, 29 A.B.A SPG Brief 17, 24 (2000). As a threshold matter in ERISA cases, the court must first determine the appropriate standard of review to assess the denial of Plaintiffs claims. In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), the Supreme Court held that the standard of de novo judicial review applies unless the plan vests discretion in the administrator to determine eligibility for benefits or construe plan terms. Id. at 115, 109 S.Ct. 948. However, if a benefit plan gives discretion to an administrator operating under a conflict of interest, that conflict must be weighed as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion. Id. The Eleventh Circuit subsequently identified three varying standards of review that a court may apply in reviewing a plan administrator’s claims decisions under ERISA: “(1) de novo where the plan does not grant the administrator discretion; (2) arbitrary and capricious [where] the plan grants the administrator discretion; and (3) heightened arbitrary and capricious where there is a conflict of interest.” Buckley v. Metropolitan Life, 115 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir.1997); Marecek v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 49 F.3d 702, 705 (11th Cir.1995). When reviewing a denial of benefits under the de novo standard of review, where the plan does not grant the administrator discretion, the court may examine facts not before the administrator. Kirwan v. Marriott Corp., 10 F.3d 784, 790 n. 31 (11th Cir.1994) (citations omitted) . On the other hand, under the arbitrary and capricious standard, where the plan expressly grants the administrator discretion, the court may consider only the administrative record. Lee v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 10 F.3d 1547, 1550 (11th Cir.1994); Jett v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield" }, { "docid": "11287959", "title": "", "text": "an administrator who has been granted discretion under the plan has a conflict of interest, a “heightened” arbitrary and capricious standard governs. Id. at 1449. Such a conflict of interest exists where a plan is administered by an insurance company which pays benefits out of its own assets. See, e.g., Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 898 F.2d 1556, 1561-68 (11th Cir.1990). Under this heightened arbitrary and capricious standard, “a wrong but apparently reasonable interpretation is arbitrary and capricious if it advances the conflicting interest of the fiduciary at the expense of the affected beneficiary or beneficiaries unless the fiduciary justifies the interpretation on the ground of its benefit to the class of all participants and beneficiaries.” Godfrey v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 89 F.3d 755, 758 (11th Cir.1996) (quoting Brown, 898 F.2d at 1566-67). This principle is limited by an important precondition: “ ‘[t]he fiduciary’s interpretation first must be ‘wrong’ from the perspective of a de novo review[.]’ ” Godfrey, 89 F.3d at 758 (quoting Brown, 898 F.2d at 1566 n. 12). In Williams v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 373 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir.2004), the Eleventh Circuit outlined a step-by-step analytical process for evaluating ERISA claims. Under this multi-step approach, a district court must (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the" }, { "docid": "22139703", "title": "", "text": "EDENFIELD, District Judge: I. Background Claiming debilitating depression, appellant Marcia Williams applied for benefits under her employer's (BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.'s) disability plan. Unconvinced that her impairments completely prevented her from working, Kemper Risk Management Services, Inc. (Kemper)-the company BellSouth hired to administer claims -denied the claim because she did not meet the plan's disability definition. Invoking Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) jurisdiction, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq., Williams challenged that decision in district court. Applying the arbitrary and capricious review standard, the district court found that available medical evidence supported Kem-per’s non-disability determination, so it granted BellSouth summary judgment. Williams appeals, contending that: (1) the district court applied the wrong standard of review and (2) even under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the denial of benefits was improper. II. Analysis A. Standard of Review on Appeal We review the district court’s ruling de novo, applying the same legal standards that governed the district court’s disposition. Carter v. Galloway, 352 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.2003); Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 320 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir.2003). B. ERISA Review Standard ERISA provides no standard for reviewing decisions of plan administrators or fiduciaries. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989); Shaw v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir.2003); Marecek v. Bell-South Telecomms., Inc., 49 F.3d 702, 705 (11th Cir.1995). But Firestone established three distinct standards for reviewing administrators’ plan decisions: “(1) de novo where the plan does not grant the administrator discretion [i.e., does not exercise discretion in deciding claims;] (2) arbitrary and capricious [where] the plan grants the administrator [such] discretion; and (3) heightened arbitrary and capricious where [the plan grants the administrator such discretion but] ... [he has] ... a conflict of interest.” HCA Health Servs. of Geor gia., Inc. v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 982, 993 (11th Cir.2001) (quoting Buckley v. Metro. Life, 115 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir.1997)); Shaw, 353 F.3d. at 1282. Williams contends that, because Bell-South both funded and administered the" }, { "docid": "14924108", "title": "", "text": "Inc., 833 F.2d 1525, 1531 (11th Cir.1987). If the determination of the case rests on which competing version of the facts or events is true, the case should be submitted to the trier of fact. Id. Discussion A. Standard of Review for ERISA claims As an initial matter, the Court must determine the applicable standard of review to use in assessing the denial of Plaintiffs claims because ERISA does not provide the standard to review decisions of a plan administrator or a fiduciary. Marecek v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 49 F.3d 702, 705 (11th Cir.1995) (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989)). In Firestone Tire & Rubber Company v. Bruch, the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of review to be used in ERISA cases to benefit determinations made by claims fiduciaries who have discretionary authority under a plan. 489 U.S. 101, 109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). The Court held that “a denial of benefits challenged under Section 1132(a)(1)(B) is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Id. at 115, 109 S.Ct. 948. Following this, the Eleventh Circuit, in Buckley v. Metropolitan Life, set forth three standards of review that a court may apply in reviewing a plan administrator’s claims decisions: “(1) de novo where the plan does not grant the administrator discretion; (2) arbitrary and capricious [where] the plan grants the administrator discretion; and (3) heightened arbitrary and capricious where there is a conflict of interests.” 115 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir.1997). There is no dispute that Defendant is the claims administrator and the insurer of Plaintiffs policy. Additionally, the plan documents clearly state that NationsBank, and not Defendant, is the plan administrator; however, this fact is not determinative of whether this Court should review Defendant’s denial of Plaintiffs claims de novo. Rather the Court must look at whether either the plan administrator or the plan fiduciary was given" }, { "docid": "22139704", "title": "", "text": "Co., 320 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir.2003). B. ERISA Review Standard ERISA provides no standard for reviewing decisions of plan administrators or fiduciaries. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989); Shaw v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir.2003); Marecek v. Bell-South Telecomms., Inc., 49 F.3d 702, 705 (11th Cir.1995). But Firestone established three distinct standards for reviewing administrators’ plan decisions: “(1) de novo where the plan does not grant the administrator discretion [i.e., does not exercise discretion in deciding claims;] (2) arbitrary and capricious [where] the plan grants the administrator [such] discretion; and (3) heightened arbitrary and capricious where [the plan grants the administrator such discretion but] ... [he has] ... a conflict of interest.” HCA Health Servs. of Geor gia., Inc. v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 982, 993 (11th Cir.2001) (quoting Buckley v. Metro. Life, 115 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir.1997)); Shaw, 353 F.3d. at 1282. Williams contends that, because Bell-South both funded and administered the disability benefits plan, a conflict of interest existed, so the district court erred by not reviewing the denial of benefits using the “heightened” arbitrary and capricious standard. We note that in most cases where .a company .both administers and funds a plan, a conflict of interest arises, thus triggering heightened arbitrary and capricious review. See Brown v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 898 F.2d 1556, 1562 (11th Cir.1990); Yochum v. Barnett Banks, Inc. Severance Pay Plan, 234 F.3d 541, 544 (11th Cir.2000); Levinson v. Reliance Standard Ins. Co., 245 F.3d 1321, 1325-26 (11th Cir.2001) (Where administrator of benefits plan governed by ERISA pays out to participants out of its own assets, a conflict of interest exists between its fiduciary rule and its profit-making role, and accordingly, a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard applies in reviewing administrator’s discretionary denial of benefits under the plan). But here BellSouth — though it retained the role of “plan administrator” — employed Kemper as its “claim administrator.” Kemper processed and decided claims that BellSouth would pay out." }, { "docid": "22140767", "title": "", "text": "itself provides no standard for courts reviewing the benefits decisions of plan administrators or fiduciaries. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 953, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). As a result, and based on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Firestone and Glenn, see Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 2348, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008), we have established a multi-step framework to guide courts in reviewing an ERISA plan administrator’s benefits decisions. The first five steps have remained unchanged since we established the framework in Williams. See Williams v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 373 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (11th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Doyle v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir.2008). But the sixth step listed below reflects a more recent change based on Glenn. See 128 S.Ct. at 2351; Doyle, 542 F.3d at 1359-60 (modifying the sixth step’s “heightened” review and shifting the burden of proof about the influence of a conflict of interest from the administrator to the prospective beneficiary). For a court reviewing a plan administrator’s benefits decision, the present Williams test goes this way: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (6) If there is a conflict, the conflict" }, { "docid": "16434348", "title": "", "text": "the parties agree that there are no disputed issues of material fact. (Joint Trial Br., Doc. 36, at 1). Thus, the Court must determine which party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the undisputed record. B. ERISA In deciding whether an employee has been improperly denied disability benefits under ERISA, it is necessary to first determine what standard of review is to be applied. A standard of review for challenges to benefit eligibility determinations is not prescribed by ERISA itself and has evolved as a matter of federal common law. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). Applying principles of trust law, the United States Supreme Court in Firestone held that a denial of benefits “is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Id. at 115, 109 S.Ct. 948. After Firestone, the Eleventh Circuit adopted three standards for reviewing a plan administrator’s decision: “(1) de novo where the plan does not grant the administrator discretion[;] (2) arbitrary and capricious when the plan grants the administrator discretion; 'and (3) heightened arbitrary and capricious where there is a conflict of interest.” Buckley v. Metro. Life, 115 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir.1997). The standard of review that is found to be applicable in a particular case applies equally to both legal and factual determinations. E.g., Shaw v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 1276, 1285 (Uth Cir.2003) (“[Ojur Court has already declined to draw a distinction between law and fact in choosing the standard of review for denial of ERISA benefits.”), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, Table 99 Fed.Appx. 884, 2004 WL 503608 (11th Cir.2004). In the present case, the parties agree that the arbitrary and capricious standard applies to Harris’s termination decision because the LTD Plan grants Harris discretion in making benefits determinations and Harris does not suffer from a conflict of interest. (Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of" }, { "docid": "7818730", "title": "", "text": "for Dr. Mitten-berg’s conclusion that Plaintiff was malingering. (Id) He further concluded that he “did not see from Dr. McCarthy’s neurop-sychological evaluation findings adequate plausible support that [Plaintiff] had cognitive difficulties sufficient to subvert her occupational capacity.” (Id) On October 19, 2005, Defendant denied Plaintiffs appeal and upheld the termination of benefits (A.R.H-342^15), stating that upon review of Plaintiff s appeal, Defendant “concludes that the weight of the information and medical opinions in our file, viewed as a whole, supports that [Plaintiff] is capable of performing full time sedentary work.” (Id) The present lawsuit followed. III. Standard of Review for ERISA Claims When a court reviews a denial of an ERISA-plan benefit, the court follows the following steps: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (ie., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then de termine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (6) If there is a conflict of interest, then apply heightened arbitrary and capricious review to the decision to affirm or deny it. Williams v. BellSouth, 373 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (11th Cir.2004)(footnotes and citations omitted). In plan interpretation cases, when there is a conflict of interest, the court employs a two-step, burden-shifting approach: (1) The claimant shows that the administrator of a discretion-vesting plan is conflicted. (2) The administrator then proves that his plan interpretation was not tainted by self-interest. A wrong but" }, { "docid": "23127545", "title": "", "text": "the first step of ERISA’s arbitrary and capricious standard, the district court concluded that Aetna’s claim decision was correct and granted Aetna’s motion for summary judgment. Capone argues that the district court erred by: (1) applying the incorrect standard of review under ERISA in reviewing his claims; (2) denying his claim under Georgia’s “accidental means” standard; and (3) applying the insurance plan’s alcohol exclusion as an alternative, independent ground for denial. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, applying the same legal standards governing the district court’s decision. Sierra Club, Inc. v. Leavitt, 488 F.3d 904, 911 (11th Cir. 2007). ERISA provides no standard for reviewing decisions of plan administrators or fiduciaries. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 953,103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). However, the Supreme Court in Firestone established three distinct standards for reviewing an ERISA plan administrator’s decision: (1) de novo where the plan does not grant the administrator discretion; (2) arbitrary and capricious where the plan grants the administrator discretion; and (3) heightened arbitrary and capricious where the plan grants the administrator discretion and the administrator has a conflict of interest. See Buckley v. Metro. Life, 115 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir.1997). Recent cases from this circuit have expanded the Firestone test into a six-step analysis to guide district courts in reviewing an administrator’s benefits decision: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (i.e., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse" }, { "docid": "11447457", "title": "", "text": "1132, 1137-38 (11th Cir.2004), which provides a six-step process “for use in judicially reviewing virtually all ERISA-plan benefit denials”: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is “wrong” (ie., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then de termine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (6) If there is a conflict of interest, then apply heightened arbitrary and capricious review to the decision to affirm or deny it. Id. (footnotes omitted). Recently, in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, the Supreme Court cast doubt on the sixth step of this procedure. — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 2350-51, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008). After the Court determined that the administrator of an ERISA plan operated under a conflict, it considered “ ‘how’ [a] conflict ... should ‘be taken into account on judicial review of a discretionary benefit determination.’ ” Id. at 2350 (quoting MetLife v. Glenn, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1117, 169 L.Ed.2d 845 (2008) (mem.)). The Court concluded “that a conflict should ‘be weighed as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion.’ ” Id. (quoting Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 957, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court explained that the consideration of a conflict as a factor did not require “a change in the standard of review” and criticized “special burden-of-proof" }, { "docid": "12823559", "title": "", "text": "two. Id. The Eleventh Circuit set forth the analytical framework of the heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review in Williams: (1) Apply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is ‘wrong’ (ie., the court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (2) If the administrator’s decision is in fact ‘de novo wrong,’ then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision. (3) If the administrator’s decision is ‘de novo wrong’ and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether ‘reasonable’ grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard). (4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest. (5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision. (6) If there is a conflict of interest, then apply heightened arbitrary and capricious review to the decision to affirm or deny it. 373 F.3d at 1138. In other words, if the Court, applying the de novo standard, concludes that the denial was not “wrong,” the inquiry ends. See id. (concluding that decision to deny benefits was not “wrong” under de novo standard, thereby obviating need to perform heightened arbitrary and capricious review); HCA, 240 F.3d at 993 (“Regardless of whether arbitrary and capricious or heightened arbitrary and capricious review applies, the court evaluates the claim administrator’s interpretation of the plan to determine whether it is ‘wrong.’ ”). See also id. citing (Godfrey v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 89 F.3d 755, 758 (11th Cir.1996) (“we first conduct a de novo review to decide if the [claims administrator’s] determination was wrong.”); Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 898 F.2d 1556, 1566 n. 12 (11th Cir.1990) (“[i]t is fundamental that the fiduciary’s interpretation first must be ‘wrong’ from the perspective of de novo review before a reviewing court is concerned with" } ]

[ { "docid": "22406500", "title": "", "text": "transacted the dominator’s business rather than its own and can be called the other’s alter ego.”); cf. Kirno Hill Corp. v. Holt, 618 F.2d 982, 985 (2d Cir.1980) (in federal maritime law “The prerequisites for piercing a corporate veil are ... clear ...: [the defendant] must have used [the corporation] to perpetrate a fraud or have so dominated and disregarded [the corporation’s] corporate form that [the corporation] primarily transacted [the defendant’s] personal business rather than its own corporate business.”) Plaintiffs assert that the Resnick corporations were one whole entity — that is, Developers was dominated by the other corporations — and that Developers was really the agent of the Resnick family members who used it to pursue their own ends. To determine whether these assertions are valid, the triers of fact are entitled to consider factors that would tend to show that defendant was a dominated corporation, such as: (1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own. See generally, Barber, Piercing the Corporate Veil, 17 Willamette L.Rev. 371, 398 (1981); Director’s Guild of America v. Garrison Prod., 733 F.Supp. 755, 760-61 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); United States Barite Corp. v. M.V. Haris, 534 F.Supp. 328, 330 (S.D.N.Y.1982). Applying these — or any other pertinent factors — to the infinite variety of situations that might" } ]

[ { "docid": "5170222", "title": "", "text": "Passalacqua court set forth ten factors to consider in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil: (1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap ,in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporations at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own. 933 F.2d at 139. Consideration of these factors is a fact specific inquiry that necessarily “differs with the circumstances of each case.” American Protein, 844 F.2d at 60 (citing FMC Fin. Corp. v. Murphree, 632 F.2d 413, 422 (5th Cir.1980)). Ultimately, “the general principle followed by the courts has been that liability is imposed when doing so would achieve an equitable result.” AJS Domino Mobler v. Braverman, 669 F.Supp. 592, 594 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (citing Brunswick Corp., 599 F.2d at 35). See also William Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Waters, 890 F.2d 594, 600-01 (2d Cir.1989); Citicorp Int’l Trading Co. v. Western Oil & Refining Co., 790 F.Supp. 428, 437 (S.D.N.Y.1992). Cf. Kinetic Instruments, Inc. v. Lares, 802 F.Supp. 976, 985 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (citations omitted) (existence of post-tort activity, “together with substantial ownership of stock of a corporation by one individual will support piercing the corporate veil for jurisdictional purposes on grounds of equity and fairness”). Piercing the corporate veil is appropriate in this case. The evidence demonstrates that Sandhaus was always in total control of both defendants DSPI and SFC. Moreover, if Weinreich could only pursue DSPI under this cause of" }, { "docid": "21622276", "title": "", "text": "impose liability on a parent company, the plaintiff must make a two-part showing: “(i) that the owner exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue; and (ii) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the veil.” Amer. Fuel Corp. v. Utah Energy Devel. Co., Inc., 122 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir.1997) accord Thrift Drug, Inc. v. Univ. Prescription Adm’rs, 131 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.1997). To determine whether the parent company has exercised “complete domination” over its subsidiary, the Court considers: (1) disregard of corporate formalities; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) intermingling of funds; (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel; (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities; (6) the degree of discretion shown by the allegedly dominated corporation; (7) whether the dealings between the entities are at arms length; (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; (9) payment or guarantee of the corporation’s debts by the dominating entity [or individual], and (10) intermingling of property between the entities. Rays Trading (H.K.) Co., Ltd. v. Judy-Philippine, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 0170, 1998 WL 355422, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (citing Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1053 (2d Cir.1997)). Here, the plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts demonstrating that Verizon Wireless’ corporate identity should be disregarded. Rather, the plaintiffs allegations, taken as true for the purposes of this motion, are couched in conclusory statements. In particular, the plaintiff alleges that Verizon Communications and Voda-fone are liable because of (1) their complete “dominion and control” over Verizon Wireless, (2) “the closeness of the relationship” between Verizon Wireless and its parent companies, (3) the fact that all assets and liabilities of the company are reflected on the balance sheets of its parent companies, and (4) as parent companies, Verizon Communications and Vodafone failed to fulfill their duty of establishing managerial or quality policies, procedures, or controls to ensure that Verizon Wireless did not violate any laws in the performance of its duties. None of the allegations sufficiently set" }, { "docid": "4351884", "title": "", "text": "pierce the corporate veil, a party must demonstrate that (1) the owner has exercised such control that the corporation has become a mere instrumentality of the owner, which is the real actor; (2) such control has been used to commit a fraud or other wrong; and (3) the fraud or wrong results in an unjust loss or injury to the plaintiff. Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir.1991). In addition, New York law provides for piercing the corporate veil when the corporation has been so dominated by an individual and its separate entity so disregarded, that it primarily transacted the dominator’s business rather than its own and can be called the other’s alter ego. William Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Waters, 890 F.2d 594, 600 (2d Cir.1989). 45. Courts will find liability when doing so would achieve an equitable result. Brunswick Corp. v. Waxman, 599 F.2d 34, 35 (2d Cir.1979). Considering all the variables that must be factored into a decision to pierce the corporate veil, the Second Circuit has declared that the determination must be based on the specific facts of the case. Mag Portfolio Consult, GmbH v. Merlin Biomed Group LLC, 268 F.3d 58, 63 (2d Cir.2001). 46. Factors to be considered in the determination of control or domination sufficient to pierce the corporate veil include: (1) the absence of corporate formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping corporate records; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes; (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel; (5) common office space, address and telephone number; (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation; (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length; (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group; and (10) whether the corporation in question had property" }, { "docid": "14884260", "title": "", "text": "166. Generally, piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that the parent corporation dominates the subsidiary to such an extent that the latter is really an agent for or instrumentality of the former and the parent corporation used that control to commit fraud or some other wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the veil. See American Fuel, 122 F.3d at 134; Passalacqua, 933 F.2d at 137-38 (holding that to pierce the corporate veil (1) the parent must have exercised such control that the subsidiary had become a mere instrumentality of the parent, which is the real actor; (2) such control has been used to commit fraud or other wrong; and (3) the fraud or wrong results in an unjust loss or injury to plaintiff); Morris, 82 N.Y.2d at 141, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157 (holding that piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that (1) the owners exercised complete control of the corporation with respect to the transaction attacked and (2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in the plaintiffs injury). Domination of the subsidiary by the parent is the key. See American Fuel, 122 F.3d at 134; Passalacqua, 933 F.2d at 138; Morris, 82 N.Y.2d at 141, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157 (while complete domination is the key, standing alone, it is not enough; a showing of a wrongful or unjust act toward the plaintiff is required). The Second Circuit suggests consideration of the following factors to determine whether disregarding corporate separateness is an appropriate remedy: (1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with" }, { "docid": "7221366", "title": "", "text": ". The bankruptcy court made the following findings of fact. . The district court erroneously found that debtor created this trust on March 4, 1987. . Under the alter ego theory of piercing, the element of control is established by factors indicating that the corporation is the mere alter ego of another corporation or an individual, such as: “(1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own.” Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir.1991). . The federal tax cases the appellees cite do not justify piercing in this context, as they also involve allegations that the trusts at issue were used to conceal or to shield assets owned by the taxpayer. See, e.g., United States v. Letscher, 83 F.Supp.2d 367, 373-74 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). . The bankruptcy court found that debtor pledged Lattingtown Estate “as if it were his own” on his appearance bond and declared the property \"to be a personal asset” on his affidavit of confession of judgment. These findings of fact are clearly erroneous, as debt- or never represented on either document that he owned Lattingtown Estate, and he pledged the property only in connection with his wife acting as a surety. . The appellees proffer no evidence to establish that the bankruptcy" }, { "docid": "4351885", "title": "", "text": "Circuit has declared that the determination must be based on the specific facts of the case. Mag Portfolio Consult, GmbH v. Merlin Biomed Group LLC, 268 F.3d 58, 63 (2d Cir.2001). 46. Factors to be considered in the determination of control or domination sufficient to pierce the corporate veil include: (1) the absence of corporate formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping corporate records; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes; (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel; (5) common office space, address and telephone number; (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation; (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length; (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group; and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if were its own. Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc., 933 F.2d at 139. 47. To assert a claim for individual liability under an alter ego theory one must plead two elements: (1) that the person exercises such complete domination and control with respect to the transaction attacked that the corporation had, at the time, no separate will of its own, and (2) that this domination was used to commit fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which caused the plaintiffs injury. Leykis v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 899 F.Supp. 986, 991 (E.D.N.Y.1995). 48. Here, the elements present warrant a finding of individual liability under an alter ego theory against Michael Flutie. Evidence reflects that Michael Flutie was using Flutie N.Y. and then later Flutie Media, to suit his own needs, and was using corporate funds for his own personal use. It is clear that Michael Flu-tie had exclusive control over the operations of Flutie N.Y., and with this control he committed wrongful acts which resulted in significant losses by" }, { "docid": "5170221", "title": "", "text": "102 L.Ed.2d 109 (1988). The party seeking to pierce thus bears the burden of putting forward evidence that there is a basis to disregard the corporate form. Brunswick Corp. v. Waxman, 459 F.Supp. 1222, 1229 (E.D.N.Y.1978), aff'd, 599 F.2d 34 (2d Cir.1979). To overcome the presumption of separateness and pierce the corporate veil, there must be a showing that “(1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiffs injury.” Morris v. Dep’t of Taxation and Finance, 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 810-11, 623 N.E.2d 1157, 1160-62 (1993). Cf. Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 138 (2d Cir.1991) (“[ljiability ... may be predicated either upon a showing of fraud or upon complete control by the dominating corporation that leads to a wrong against third parties”); Carte Blanche (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. v. Diners Club Int’l, Inc., 2 F.3d 24, 26 (2d Cir.1993). The Passalacqua court set forth ten factors to consider in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil: (1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap ,in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporations at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own. 933 F.2d at 139. Consideration of these factors is a fact specific inquiry that" }, { "docid": "4334846", "title": "", "text": "of Taxation and Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157, 1160 (1993). “Generally, however, piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in the plaintiffs injury.” Id. at 1160-61. Courts will consider a lengthy list of factors when determining whether it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, including: “(1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in' question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own.” Passalacqua, 933 F.2d at 139. The plaintiff has alleged a number of these factors that courts routinely consider when deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil. For example, the Complaint alleges that Reich and Jossem dominated and controlled IDTS, made all decisions on its behalf, and used their power over the corporation to further their own personal interests. (Comply 32.) The alleged domination and control is substantiated by factual allegations that Reich and Jossem misappropriated IDTS’s funds and diverted those funds to their personal use. (Compl.1ffl 34-36.) The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to observe required corporate formalities and that IDTS was undercapitalized. (Compl.lffl 29, 33.) The Complaint also alleges that the domination of IDTS exercised by Reich" }, { "docid": "22966227", "title": "", "text": "been exploited by Weisbrod to the disadvantage of MAG. The -benefit to Weisbrod would not flow, in such a case, from the agreement itself, but from his ability to evade the intent of the agreement through the creation of alter egos. B. Veil-Piercing Under New York law, a court may pierce the corporate veil where 1) “the owner exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue,” and 2) “such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the veil.” Am. Fuel Corp. v. Utah Energy Dev. Co., 122 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir.1997). Determining that veil-piercing is appropriate is a “fact specific” inquiry, and courts consider many factors, including: (1) disregard of corporate formalities; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) intermingling of funds; (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel; (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities; (6) the degree of discretion shown by the allegedly dominated corporation; (7) whether the dealings between the entities are at arms length; (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; (9) payment or guarantee of the corporation’s debts by the dominating entity, and (10) intermingling of property between the entities. Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., 119 F.3d 1044, 1053 (2d Cir.1997). During the hearing below, the district court’s questions focused on the relation between the old Merlins and the new Merlins. While the Merlin attorney was evasive, what the district court could ascertain allowed it to conclude that there were “no facts to show independence ... no facts to show separate ownership .... no facts to show an independent commercial basis for resignation and appointment and all that appears is that this is another effort that you started before to avoid the clear intentment [sic] of the contract and arbitration.” Thus it appears that the court concluded that the new Merlins were dominated by Weisbrod and the old Mer-lins, thereby fulfilling the first prong of a corporate veil-piercing analysis. The district court also, arguably, found the second prong satisfied as well: the wrong here would" }, { "docid": "9056577", "title": "", "text": "*6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2005) ); see also Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 777-78. The conduct at issue must reveal a \"virtual abandonment of separateness.\" Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 777-78 (noting that courts will pierce the corporate veil \"where a parent dominates and controls a subsidiary\" (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Determining that veil-piercing is appropriate is a \"fact specific\" inquiry, and courts consider many factors, including: (1) disregard of corporate formalities; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) intermingling of funds; (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel; (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities; (6) the degree of discretion shown by the allegedly dominated corporation; (7) whether the dealings between the entities are at arms length; (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; (9) payment or guarantee of the corporation's debts by the dominating entity, and (10) intermingling of property between the entities. Freeman v. Complex Computing Co. , 119 F.3d 1044, 1053 (2d Cir. 1997). Respondents argue that Petitioners are bound to arbitrate as BEAW's alter ego because Petitioners dominated BEAW and misused Respondents' proprietary information, tradename, and trademark. (Resp'ts Br. 8-9.) In support of their alter ego argument, Respondents point to the fact that during the pendency of the Agreement OAWD and BEAW shared a phone number, business address, and operated out of the same location. (Id. ; see also Luys Aff. ¶ 6.) Respondents also assert that Petitioners solicited customers through BEAW using Respondents' trademark but later supplied those customers through OAWD with products of Respondents' competitor. (Resp'ts Br. 9; Luys Aff. ¶¶ 7-8.) In response, Petitioners point to the undisputed fact that OAWD did not even come into existence until May 31, 2016, after the Agreement expired. (See Luys Aff. Ex. D.) Petitioners also state that during the term of the Agreement they were not involved in the marketing, selling, or installing of windows or doors except through BEAW. (Boroditskiy Aff. ¶ 2; Koval Aff. ¶ 2; Nester Aff. ¶ 2.) Accepting Respondents' version of the facts as true, I find that Respondents' alter ego argument falls well" }, { "docid": "9056576", "title": "", "text": "limited theories upon which [the Second Circuit] is willing to enforce an arbitration agreement against a nonsignatory\"). Of the five theories that could potentially compel a nonsignatory to arbitrate, Respondents assert only that veil piercing and estoppel are relevant here. 1. Veil piercing Under New York law, a court may pierce the corporate veil where (i) \"the owner exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue,\" and (ii) \"such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the veil.\" Am. Fuel Corp. v. Utah Energy Dev. Co. , 122 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 1997). \"A non-signatory 'may be bound to arbitrate where it exercised complete control over a signatory and employed that domination to injure another signatory to the agreement.' \" McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. , No. 14-cv-6633 (KBF), 2015 WL 144190, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2015) (quoting Masefield AG v. Colonial Oil Indus., Inc. , No. 05 Civ. 2231(PKL), 2005 WL 911770, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2005) ); see also Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 777-78. The conduct at issue must reveal a \"virtual abandonment of separateness.\" Thomson-CSF , 64 F.3d at 777-78 (noting that courts will pierce the corporate veil \"where a parent dominates and controls a subsidiary\" (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Determining that veil-piercing is appropriate is a \"fact specific\" inquiry, and courts consider many factors, including: (1) disregard of corporate formalities; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) intermingling of funds; (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel; (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities; (6) the degree of discretion shown by the allegedly dominated corporation; (7) whether the dealings between the entities are at arms length; (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; (9) payment or guarantee of the corporation's debts by the dominating entity, and (10) intermingling of property between the entities. Freeman v. Complex Computing Co. , 119 F.3d 1044, 1053 (2d Cir. 1997). Respondents argue that Petitioners are bound to arbitrate as BEAW's alter" }, { "docid": "23209953", "title": "", "text": "a wrongful or unjust act toward [the party seeking piercing] is required.” Id. at 811, 623 N.E.2d at 1161 (citing Walkovszky v. Carlton, 18 N.Y.2d 414, 276 N.Y.S.2d 585, 587, 223 N.E.2d 6, 8 (1966); Guptill Holding Corp. v. State, 33 A.D.2d 362, 307 N.Y.S.2d 970, 972-73 (1970), aff'd, 31 N.Y.2d 897, 340 N.Y.S.2d 638, 292 N.E.2d 782 (1972)). Typically, piercing analysis is used to hold individuals liable for the actions of a corporation they control. However, New York law recognizes “reverse” piercing, which, as here, seeks to hold a corporation accountable for actions of its shareholders. See State v. Easton, 169 Misc.2d 282, 647 N.Y.S.2d 904, 908-09 (Sup.Ct.1995). The district court found that AFC met both prongs of the test for piercing the corporate veil by showing that UEDC did not “function as a distinct entity” from Nead and that Nead used UEDC’s corporate form to wrongfully evade his arbitration agreement. We disagree. The evidence AFC presented in support of the first prong of the veil-piercing test — Nead’s domination of UEDC — is not sufficient. In Passalacqua, 933 F.2d 131, we enunciated a list of factors that tend to identify a dominated corporation: (1) whether corporate formalities are observed, (2) whether the capitalization is adequate, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) whether there is overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) whether the corporate entities share common office space, address and telephone numbers, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the alleged dominator deals with the dominated corporation at arms length, (8) whether the corporation is treated as an independent profit center, (9) whether others pay or guarantee debts of the dominated corporation, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by the alleged dominator as if it were the dominator’s own. Id. at 139. The district court based its finding of domination primarily on UEDC’s failure to observe corporate formalities and on Nead’s role as UEDC’s President in pursuing the Kentucky action." }, { "docid": "15674718", "title": "", "text": "Morris v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Taxation & Finance, 82 N.Y.2d at 141, 623 N.E.2d at 1160, 603 N.Y.S.2d at 810. An attempt to invoke alter ego liability, therefore, “does not constitute a cause of action independent of that against the corporation; rather it is an assertion of facts and circumstances which will persuade the court to impose the corporate obligation on its owners.” Id. The court in Passalacqua enumerated a variety of “factors that would tend to show that defendant was a dominated corporation,” under the control of either an individual or another corporation, Wm. Passalacqua Builders v. Resnick Developers South, 933 F.2d at 139, and these factors remain useful in determining whether the first requirement of Morris has been established. See American Fuel Corp. v. Utah Energy Dev. Co., Inc., 122 F.3d at 134. The factors listed in Passalacqua are: (1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, ie., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own. Wm. Passalacqua Builders v. Resnick Developers S., 933 F.2d at 139. Here, plaintiffs allege that there is “a unity of interest and ownership” among the defendants, such that any individuality of separateness between the individual defendants and each of the aforesaid corporations ceased to exist and they are each the alter-egos of the others, in that said corporations were or are mere" }, { "docid": "13945761", "title": "", "text": "to the policy is also not known. . The Court notes that any possible confusion arising about the identity of the insured is not the result of the contract's actual language, but rather from outside evidence, such as accompanying documents (the congratulatory letter) and AIG’s conduct in administering the policy. Such parol evidence is not considered when construing the terms of an insurance policy as a question of law. . A federal court sitting in diversity applies the substantive law of the forum state on outcome determinative issues. Thrift Drug, Inc. v. Universal Prescription Adm’rs 131 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.1997); Travelers Ins. Co. v. 633 Third Assocs., 14 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir.1994). The Court thus concurs with the parties that it shall apply the law of Connecticut to determine whether it is proper to pierce the corporate veil of AIG in this case. . To determine whether a parent corporation has an identity of interest with its subsidiary under the test, courts examine factors such as: \"(1) the absence of corporate formalities; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes; (4) overlapping ownership, officers, directors, personnel; (5) common office space, address, phones; (6) the amount of business discretion by the allegedly dominated corporation; (7) whether the corporations dealt with each other at arm's length; (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; (9) payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation; and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own.” Naples, 295 Conn, at 233, 990 A.2d 326 (citing Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn.App. 133, 152-53, 799 A.2d 298 (Conn. App.Ct.2002), cert, denied, 261 Conn. 911, 806 A.2d 49 (2002). Accord William Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir.1991)); see also Hale Propeller, L.L.C. v. Ryan Marine Prod. Pty., Ltd., 98 F.Supp.2d 260, 264-65 (D.Conn.2000). . In fact, Plaintiff makes no specific suggestion that National Union took any" }, { "docid": "10982364", "title": "", "text": "did not pay for the television stations it owns, but instead “received its funding and financing from the New York-based parent corporations.” Pl.’s Reply Mem. at 7-8; see also Santangelo Aff. at ¶ 43. Plaintiff also makes several claims in support of his argument that the New York parents control the operation of Defendant’s television stations. In addition to asserting that the parent companies financed the Defendant’s purchase of the stations, Plaintiff claims that the parents pay the salaries of many of Defendant’s officers and directors. See Santangelo Aff. at ¶ 44. He also points out that Defendant and its parents have a number of officers and directors in common, and share a variety of corporate services. Finally, he claims that Defendant’s parents have guaranteed some of its contracts, and made debt service payments on its behalf since 1986. See id. at ¶49. In evaluating Plaintiffs claim, a number of factors are relevant in determining whether a subsidiary is merely the “alter ego” of its parents. These include: (1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e. issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own. Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir.1991). An examination of these factors indicates that Plaintiff has not proven that Defendant is the “alter ego” of its parents. Plaintiff" }, { "docid": "20402813", "title": "", "text": "individual liable for corporate action: “1) the owner exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue, and 2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the veil.” MAG Portfolio Consultant, GMBH v. Merlin Biomed Group LLC, 268 F.3d 58, 63 (2d Cir.2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Factors that courts consider when determining whether it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil include: (1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, ie., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own. William Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir.1991) (citations omitted). Cañizales argues that the Cornelia Cross-Claimants cannot show the “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify piercing the corporate veil. Murray v. Miner, 74 F.3d 402, 404 (2d Cir.1996). In response to Cañizales’ arguments, the Cornelia Cross-Claimants offer only vague assertions that “Michael Cañizales was the de facto entity negotiating this agreement and handling the assets of the Purchaser which were turned over in connection with the sale,” and that because it was “his role to determine whether those assets were used as agreed to or diverted to other areas,” “he should be held liable under the Buyer’s indemnity obligation as the primary representative of the Buyer as its Chief" }, { "docid": "14884261", "title": "", "text": "the plaintiff which resulted in the plaintiffs injury). Domination of the subsidiary by the parent is the key. See American Fuel, 122 F.3d at 134; Passalacqua, 933 F.2d at 138; Morris, 82 N.Y.2d at 141, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157 (while complete domination is the key, standing alone, it is not enough; a showing of a wrongful or unjust act toward the plaintiff is required). The Second Circuit suggests consideration of the following factors to determine whether disregarding corporate separateness is an appropriate remedy: (1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own. Passalacqua, 933 F.2d at 138 (citing Directors Guild of America v. Garrison Prod., 733 F.Supp. 755, 760-61 (S.D.N.Y.1990)). iii. Reverse Veil Piercing in the Present Case Judge Learned Hand in Kingston Dry Dock, Co. v. Lake Champlain Transp. Co., 31 F.2d 265 (2d Cir.1929), applied the traditional veil piercing or alter ego test to a non-traditional situation, such as this one, where a subsidiary was sought to be held hable for an obligation incurred by its parent. See id. at 267. Although the court determined not to pierce the veil, Judge Hand noted that applying the traditional test to the reverse situation was problematic because it is factually difficult for a subsidiary to act for the parent or control" }, { "docid": "20631444", "title": "", "text": "not state the legal theory underlying the claim in most instances). In New York, to pierce the corporate veil, plaintiffs must generally show two things: “(1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked, and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiffs injury.” See Astroworks, Inc. v. Astroexhibit, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 609, 614 n. 8 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (quoting Morris v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation and Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157 (1993)). Factors to be considered in the determination of control or domination sufficient to pierce the veil include: “(1) the absence of the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence ... (2) inadequate capitalization, ... (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, [and] (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length....”. Network Enters, v. APBA Offshore Prods., 01 Civ. 11765, 2002 WL 31050846 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. September 12, 2002) (quoting Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir.1991)). Furthermore, in light of the breadth of factors that inform the decision, the Second Circuit has emphasized that the determination of whether to pierce the corporate veil is a “fact specific inquiry.” Id. (quoting MAG Portfolio Consult, GMBH v. Merlin Biomed Group, 268 F.3d 58, 63 (2d Cir.2001)). The proper pleading standard for a claim of alter ego liability has been a “knotty question” in this district. In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 375 F.Supp.2d at 292 (internal citations omitted). However, as was outlined in Parmalat, which also addressed veil-piercing in the context of a securities claim, in such cases “the fraud allegations therefore are governed by Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA,” while “the domination and control elements of the claim ... need comply only with Rule 8.” Id.; see also Sofi Classic S.A. DE C.V. v. Hurowitz," }, { "docid": "10982365", "title": "", "text": "paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e. issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arms length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own. Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir.1991). An examination of these factors indicates that Plaintiff has not proven that Defendant is the “alter ego” of its parents. Plaintiff has only shown that three of the ten factors articulated in Passalacqua weigh in favor .of his claim. He has demonstrated only that Defendant and its parents do not always deal with each other at arms length, that Defendant and its parents have some common directors, and that Defendant’s parents have guaranteed some of its debts. See Santange-1 o Aff. at ¶¶45, 49. This is not enough to establish that Defendant is the “alter ego” of its parents. Plaintiff is not required to show that all ten of the Passalacqua factors weigh in favor of his claim. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs failure to establish seven of them is telling. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the absence of corporate formalities. He has not shown that Defendant is inadequately capitalized, nor that its corporate funds are being put to personal use. He has also failed to produce any evidence that Defendant lacks business discretion over its own affairs, or that its parents have used its property as their own. Plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption that Defendant has its" }, { "docid": "10750850", "title": "", "text": "claim solely under New York law or otherwise, to apply New York law to the claim. Under New York law, courts may pierce the corporate veil either in the event of a fraud or “where the corporation has been so dominated by an individual or corporate parent that the subsidiary is relegated to the status of a mere shell, instrumentality, or alter ego,” Wausau Business Ins. Co., 141 F.Supp.2d at 417; accord, Passalacqua, 933 F.2d at 138; but see Stratton Oakmont, Inc., 234 B.R. at 322 (stating that piercing the corporate veil requires “a showing that the parent corporation dominates the subsidiary to such an extent that the latter is really an agent for or instrumentality of the former and the parent corporation used that control to commit fraud or some other wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the veil”) (emphasis added) (citing, inter alia, Passalacqua, 933 F.2d at 137-38). Ten factors may be considered in determining the sufficiency of parent domination over the subsidiary: (1) absence of corporate formalities and paraphernalia; (2) inadequate capitalization; (3) movement of funds for personal rather than corporate purposes; (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel; (5) common office space and contact information; (6) limited amount of business discretion exercised by the subsidiary; (7) lack of arms’ length dealings between the parent and the subsidiary; (8) failure to treat the relevant entities as independent profit centers; (9) payment or guarantee of the subsidiary’s debts by the parent; and (10) use by the parent of the subsidiary’s property as if the property were owned by the parent. See Passalacqua, 933 F.2d at 139; Wausau Business Ins. Co., 141 F.Supp.2d at 418. The analysis of parent domination is a fact-intensive inquiry, and no one factor listed above is dispositive. Ibid. Under Colorado law, in contrast, a three-prong analysis applies to a corporate veil piercing claim. First, it must be determined whether the corporation in question is a mere alter ego of the shareholder/parent. An alter ego relationship exists when the corporation is a “mere instrumentality for the transaction of the shareholder’s own affairs," } ]

[ { "docid": "22650234", "title": "", "text": "more likely than not, she would be tortured if returned to China. Weng appealed and the BIA dismissed the appeal. Adopting and affirming the IJ’s decision (except with respect to the adverse credibility finding), the BIA found that Weng was subject to the persecutor bar and, as a result, was ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Adverting to our decision in Zhang Jian Xie v. INS, 434 F.3d 136, 143 (2d Cir.2006), the BIA characterized Weng’s conduct as “active and [as having] direct consequences for the victims” of China’s family planning policy. The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of Weng’s application for CAT relief. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, we review the two decisions in tandem. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The “substantial evidence” standard of review applies, Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir.2006), and we uphold the IJ’s factual findings if they are supported by “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record,” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, “[w]e review de novo questions of law and the [BIA’s] application of law to undisputed fact.” Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). We therefore review de novo the BIA’s conclusion that Weng is subject to the persecutor bar of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must establish her status as a “refugee” under the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). The applicant may do so by demonstrating either that she has suffered “persecution” or that she has “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.... ” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The statutory definition of “refugee,” however, incorporates the “persecutor bar”: the definition ex- eludes “any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of’ a protected ground. Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i). Consequently, if Weng is a persecutor," } ]

[ { "docid": "22245028", "title": "", "text": "DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge: Petitioner Ying Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of the oral decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”), which denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Li, Ying, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 20, 2007), aff'g No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. New York City, Aug. 9, 2005). Li’s asylum application is premised on her claim that the Chinese government persecuted her for supporting Falun Gong. The IJ determined that Li was not credible, chiefly on the ground that her account is implausible, and denied her applications on that basis. We conclude that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ relied on several “valid” and “cogent” reasons for rejecting Li’s testimony as implausible. See Ming Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.2006). While explanations are available for features of petitioner’s account that were found implausible, we review the entire record, not whether each unusual feature of the account can be explained or rationalized. See Borovikova v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 435 F.3d 151, 161 (2d Cir.2006). The IJ could conclude that Li’s account, taken all in all, is implausible; and so we cannot say that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that she testified credibly. Accordingly, the petition is denied. I. Ying Li was placed in removal proceedings in January 2005 when she attempted to enter the United States without valid travel documents. Li applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT, claiming that the Chinese government persecuted her for her involvement with Falun Gong. Li’s account — as set forth in her asylum application and at her merits hearing — is as follows: Her uncle’s friend, a practitioner, introduced her to Falun Gong. Although Li had only a “basic understanding” of Falun Gong, she was “very interested” in it because “it [is] a good practice” and is" }, { "docid": "20206590", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: This case calls upon us in principal part to determine whether the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in In re M-F-W & L-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 633 (BIA 2008), describing when forced insertion of an intrauterine device (“IUD”) constitutes persecution, is a permissible interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Petitioner Xia Fan Huang seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the May 24, 2005 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas Schoppert, denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xia Fan Huang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 24, 2005). We hold that the agency’s interpretation is entitled to deference, and therefore deny the petition for review. BACKGROUND Xia Fan Huang is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”) who entered the United States in June 2004 without valid entry documents and was placed in removal proceedings. In December 2004, Huang submitted applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. In the statement attached to her application, Huang claimed that (1) she feared persecution because her father is wanted by the local public security bureau because he practices Falun Gong, (2) she had an IUD inserted following the birth of her only child, but fears persecution because she had it removed by a doctor in the United States, (3) although she is divorced and her husband has custody of their only son, she will be unable to have children if she remarries (which she desires), (4) she will be forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization if she becomes pregnant, and (5) she will be tortured if returned to China because she departed China illegally. In May 2005, at the conclusion of a hearing on the merits of Huang’s claims, the IJ found that she had not demonstrated eligibility for relief. The IJ concluded, inter alia, that a forced IUD insertion" }, { "docid": "22792936", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM. Petitioner Ilir Hoxhallari, a native and citizen of Albania, challenges the May 6, 2004 final decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that sum- manly affirmed the December 3, 2002 oral decision of immigration judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn that [i] denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and [ii] directed his removal to Albania. In re llir Hoxhallari No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (BIA May 6, 2004), aff'g No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. New York, N.Y. Dec. 3, 2002). Hoxhallari claims past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his political affiliation with, and support of, the Albanian Democratic Party since 1991. For the reasons to follow, we deny the petition, and hold that where (as here) country conditions are sufficiently evident and concern a country that is the subject of an appreciable proportion of asylum claims, an immigration judge need not recite robotic findings when relying on changed country conditions under the INA. BACKGROUND Hoxhallari, who has conceded his remov-ability, entered the United States from Mexico without inspection in July 2001, and was promptly placed into removal proceedings. In February 2002, he made a defensive application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT, claiming that [i] his family had been interned under the Communist regime; [ii] he was an active supporter of the Albanian Democratic Party after 1991; and [iii] he had been harassed and beaten by the Albanian police on six separate occasions on account of both his own and his family’s political activities. At his December 3, 2002 hearing before the IJ, Hoxhallari testified as follows: • The Communist regime seized the property of his once well-to-do family, and interned them for a decade ending in 1988. • After 1988, his family suffered discrimination on account of the role of his father and uncle as founders of the local Democratic Party. • In 1991, Hoxhallari’s father was arrested, detained, beaten and threatened. • During" }, { "docid": "22768088", "title": "", "text": "As to Liu’s application for CAT relief (denied on the ground that Liu failed to show that it was more likely than not he would be tortured if removed to China), Liu’s brief on appeal makes no reference to his CAT application (or to torture generally), so that argument is deemed forfeited. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005) (stating that where petitioner “devotes only a single eonclusory sentence to the argument” in support of a claim for relief, “we ... deem his petition for review of the IJ’s finding as to [that] claim abandoned and do not consider it”). When, as here, the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision in all respects but one, the Court reviews the IJ’s decision “as modified by the BIA’s decision — that is, minus the single argument for denying relief that was rejected by the BIA.” Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). We review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, including those “underlying the immigration court’s determination that an alien has failed to satisfy his burden of proof,” Wu Biao Chen v. INS, 344 F.3d 272, 275 (2d Cir.2003) (per curiam), treating the findings as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The BIA’s conclusion — that Liu failed to establish that it is “more likely than not” that he would be persecuted on account of his involvement in the June Fourth Movement — is supported by substantial evidence. Liu testified that after he was released from detention in 1991, he left and returned to China numerous times, and that the Chinese government issued a passport to him in 2002 because he had been out of detention “for many, many years.” Thus any presumption of future persecution that might be based on Liu’s detention in connection with the June Fourth Movement would be rebutted by a fundamental change in circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(l)(i)(A) (presumption of a future risk of persecution may be rebutted by showing a" }, { "docid": "19802029", "title": "", "text": "denied Nako’s application in an oral decision at the end of the December 17, 2007, hearing. The IJ deemed Nako credible, but found he had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution and was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal because he had repeatedly returned to Albania after his move to Italy, demonstrating an apparent lack of fear of future persecution. The IJ also concluded that even assuming Nako had suffered past persecution and received the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), this presumption had been rebutted. Nako had not shown a well-founded fear of future persecution “based significantly in part on the fact that there ha[ve] been compelling changes in the government of Albania.” The IJ supported this conclusion by citing details from the State Department’s 2006 Country Report on Human Rights Practices and 2006 Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions for Albania (the most recent reports). These reports indicated that there were no major outbreaks of political violence in Albania since 1998, that peaceful elections had been held in 2005, that the leader of the Democratic Party had become prime minister, that the Democratic Party controlled parliament with 81 of 140 seats, and that the political parties had ceased abuse or coercion of political opponents. The reports provided no evidence of present systemic political persecution in Albania. Because Nako had not met the lesser burden for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed. The IJ also denied CAT protection after finding that Nako had failed to show a likelihood he would be tortured in Albania, and ordered petitioners removed to Albania. On August 27, 2009, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum on the basis of changed country conditions in Albania. The BIA rejected Nako’s claim on appeal that the IJ failed to give sufficient weight to record evidence of country conditions, finding that the 2006 State Department Country Report and Asylum Profile were “probative evidence” of changed conditions. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s rejection of withholding of removal and also affirmed the" }, { "docid": "22298384", "title": "", "text": "claim to the BIA. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum, but on different grounds. In re Sylvestre Passi, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 19, 2007). The BIA assumed that his asylum application was timely filed and that he had testified credibly about his past persecution, but explained in a short per curiam decision: [W]e concur with the Immigration Judge’s ultimate decision that conditions in the Republic of Congo have changed to the extent that there is no evidence in the record that [Passi] would face persecution there. In that regard, we find no indication in the most recent objective evidence of record that [Passi,] who was beaten into unconsciousness during a 1997 raid by Cobra militia, presently has an objectively reasonable fear of persecution in the Republic of Congo based on any past persecution. Further, we find no evidence that [Passi] has an independent well-founded fear of future persecution by Cobra militiamen on account of his Lari ethnicity, his imputed political support of former President Pascal Lissouba, or any other protected ground under [8 U.S.C. § 1158], if he is removed to the Republic of Congo. Id. (citations omitted). Passi timely petitioned this Court for review, again only challenging the denial of his asylum claim. II When the BIA affirms an IJ’s decision on different grounds, we review only the BIA’s decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). As we have explained on several occasions, however, when the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision in some respects, but not others, we may also review the IJ’s decision, although our review is confined to those reasons for denying relief that were adopted by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). See generally Ming Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006). In this case, the BIA assumed that Passi’s asylum application was timely filed and that he had testified credibly, so we may not rest on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding or her ruling pretermitting Passi’s asylum claim. See" }, { "docid": "19802032", "title": "", "text": "by a preponderance of the evidence, that “[tjhere has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s country of nationality.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(A). The government must present more than generalized evidence, but a country report that “demonstrates fundamental changes in the specific circumstances that form the basis of a petitioner’s presumptive fear of future persecution ... may be sufficient, in and of itself, to rebut that presumption.” Chreng v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 14, 22 (1st Cir.2006) (quoting Palma-Mazariegos v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 30, 36 (1st Cir.2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether such a change in country conditions has occurred is a question of fact we review under the deferential “substantial evidence” standard, asking only whether “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Bollanos v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 82, 85 (1st Cir.2006) (quoting Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 120,123 (1st Cir.2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s and IJ’s conclusion that fundamental changes in the Albanian political situation since 2001, when Nako was last in Albania, rebutted the presumption that Nako had a well-founded fear of future persecution by his Socialist Party adversaries. The BIA and IJ considered Nako’s claim of political persecution in the specific context of his membership in the Democratic Party, his fear of persecution by the Socialist Party, and his absence from Albania since 2001 when drawing conclusions from the 2006 State Department Country Report and Asylum Profile. Those reports not only indicated that the Democratic Party now controls Albania, but also thoroughly documented the cessation of politically motivated violence and persecution by either party as well as a decline in police misconduct. This court has previously deemed these particular facts fatal to nearly identical petitions for review by other Albanian Democratic Party members who have claimed a fear of political persecution by the Socialist Party. See Uruci v. Holder, 558 F.3d 14, 19-20 (1st Cir.2009); Alibeaj v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 188, 193 (1st Cir.2006); Bollanos, 461 F.3d at 86; Tota v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 161," }, { "docid": "23259834", "title": "", "text": "IJ denied CAT relief, finding in a cursory manner that Kone failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if she returned to Cote d’Ivoire or that she could not receive protection from the government there. On February 27, 2008, the BIA, in a short two-paragraph opinion, adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. In re Kone, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2008). The BIA specifically concurred in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, finding that Kone failed to offer a credible explanation for returning to Cote d’Ivoire on multiple occasions after the events giving rise to her persecution claims. The BIA further held that “[t]he Immigration Judge also correctly concluded that [Kone’s] fear that her United States citizen daughters will be subjected to female genital mutilation is not a legally valid basis for the respondent’s persecution claim.” Id. This petition for review followed. Kone argues that substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination, and that she has established eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the CAT because she was subjected to genital mutilation as a child, fears that her daughters would similarly be forcibly mutilated if she were removed, and because of the ongoing polit ical and ethnic conflict in which she fears for herself as a Diolua in Cote d’Ivoire. DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards “Where, as here, the BIA has adopted and supplemented the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Delgado v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 702, 705 (2d Cir.2007). Legal issues, and the application of law to fact, are reviewed de novo. Roman v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 184, 186 (2d Cir.2009). An agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is accorded “ ‘substantial deference’ unless that interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the regulation.” Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008), quoting Zhen Nan Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 459 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir.2006). The agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings, are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude" }, { "docid": "23081846", "title": "", "text": "Leone war crimes tribunal, against RUF leaders, including those responsible for the RUF’s January 1999 attack on Freetown. The IJ denied the application and ordered Jalloh removed. The BIA, assuming that Jalloh had established past persecution, concluded that the government’s evidence of changed country conditions rebutted the resulting presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. It then reasoned that “the severity of any persecution which the respondent may have endured does not rise to a level warranting a grant of asylum based on such past persecution alone.” In re Omaro Jal-loh, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 13, 2006). Jalloh petitions this court for review. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review “Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the decision of the IJ, and supplements the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir.2006). We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that findings “be supported by reasonable, substantial[,] and probative evidence in the record.” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir.2007) (quotation marks omitted). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, as are mixed questions of law and fact, including the “proper application of legal principles to the facts and circumstances of the individual case at hand.” Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003). II. Asylum Based on Past Persecution An alien is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution— and is thereby eligible for asylum—if he can show that he “has suffered persecution in the past ... on account of ... membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself ... of the protection of, that country owing to such persecution.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The government may rebut that presumption, however, if it can demonstrate that conditions in the country have changed such that the alien no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)®. Nevertheless, if the alien “has demonstrated" }, { "docid": "22305556", "title": "", "text": "GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge: In September 2005, Milton Ronaldo Rodas Castro (“Rodas”), a native and citizen of Guatemala and a former police officer there, applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3), and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-18 (implementing the CAT), alleging retaliation and threats on his life by the Guatemalan police following his reports of official corruption to an international human rights organization. Rodas’s wife, Maria Luis Carranza-Fuentes (“Carranza”), also a native and citizen of Guatemala, independently applied for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the CAT based on the same factual predicate, and their cases were consolidated in the Immigration Court. Carranza is also listed as a derivative applicant on Rodas’s application. On September 10, 2008 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirmed a January 8, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa, granting Rodas and Carranza relief under the CAT, but denying their requests for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA. In re Caranza & Rodas, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] & [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2008), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] & [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 8, 2007). At issue in this appeal is the portion of the BIA’s order holding petitioners ineligible for asylum upon a finding that Rodas failed to establish a sufficient nexus between a protected ground and the harm he encountered and will encounter if removed to Guatemala. We find that the agency erred in concluding that the danger Rodas encountered lacked any political dimension, because the agency failed to properly consider the relevant context in which Rodas’s claim arises and, in so doing, misconstrued the concept of political opposition. Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand the case for further consideration. BACKGROUND I. Rodas’s Claim of Persecution In 1996, with the" }, { "docid": "23115656", "title": "", "text": "B.D. PARKER, JR., Circuit Judge. Petitioner Mahamed Ayenul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a 34 February 14, 2005, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the May 18, 1998, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jeffrey S. Chase, which denied Islam’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on the basis that Islam’s testimony and documents lacked credibility. See In re Mahamed Ayenul Islam, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 14, 2005), aff'g No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 1998). Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the decision of the IJ, and supplements the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). We review the factual findings of the BIA and IJ for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir.2004). We review de novo the IJ’s determination of mixed questions of law and fact, as well as the IJ’s application of law to facts. See Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003). I. The Asylum Hearing During immigration proceedings, an IJ has the authority to “administer oaths, receive evidence, and interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(l). Unlike an Article III judge, an IJ is not merely the fact finder and adjudicator, but also has an obligation to establish and develop the record. See Qun Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir.2002). At the same time, as a judicial officer, an immigration judge has a responsibility to function as a neutral, impartial arbiter and must be careful to refrain from assuming the role of advocate for either party. See Qun Wang v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 423 F.3d 260, 261 (3d Cir.2005). During the course of developing a sound and useful record, an IJ must, when appropriate, question an applicant in order, for example, to probe" }, { "docid": "22541041", "title": "", "text": "Yang’s application based on his findings that Yang’s asylum application was time-barred, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), and that Yang lacked credibility. The IJ also concluded that petitioner’s application was frivolous under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(d)(4), (6). The decision was affirmed by the BIA on May 10, 2006, “except insofar as [the IJ] found that [Yang] had not established extraordinary circumstances for failing to meet the 1-year deadline for filing an asylum application.” In re Biao Yang, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 10, 2006), ajfg No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 7, 2005). Petitioner Ming Liang Lin, also a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in March 2001. In December 2004, IJ Noel Ferris denied Lin’s claims on adverse credibility grounds. The IJ also concluded that petitioner’s application was frivolous. Both of these determinations were affirmed, without opinion, by the BIA on June 12, 2006. In re Ming Liang Lin, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 12, 2006), ajfg No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 20, 2004). Petitioners timely appealed the BIA decisions to this Court. Because the separate appeals involve common issues of law and fact, we consolidate the cases for disposition. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the credibility rulings; however, we vacate the findings of frivolousness and remand the cases in order to give the BIA the opportunity to interpret and apply the relevant statutes and regulations governing frivolousness under the standards the BIA recently set forth in YL- 24 I. & N. Dec. 151. I. Adverse Credibility Determinations In Yang’s case, the BIA adopted and affirmed, then modified, the IJ’s decision. In such circumstances, we review the IJ’s decision minus the ground for denying relief that was rejected by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). Accordingly, we will address Yang’s asylum claim as if it were not barred by the one-year filing deadline, as did the BIA. In" }, { "docid": "19984984", "title": "", "text": "justified a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ also ruled that any fear that Baba may have about future persecution was undermined by changed country circumstances, as President Eyadéma had since died, the UTD no longer existed, and elections had taken place. For the same reasons, the IJ denied Baba’s demand for withholding of removal based on the CAT. Baba appealed to the BIA, which, on December 14, 2007, dismissed the appeal. The BIA noted its agreement with the IJ that the incidents complained of did not rise to the level of persecution, noting especially that Baba had been able to return to his government job after each alleged arrest. The BIA further determined that even if Baba had successfully established past persecution, denial of his application was proper because the IJ’s “uncontested finding of changed country conditions” prevented Baba from establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA also determined that Baba’s past mistreatment was not of the severity warranting a grant of humanitarian parole notwithstanding the IJ’s finding of changed country conditions. The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT. DISCUSSION “When the BIA briefly affirms the decision of an IJ and adopts the IJ’s reasoning in doing so, we review the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions together.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the BIA’s factual findings, including the agency’s consideration of relevant evidence of country conditions, under the substantial evidence standard. See Dong Gao v. BIA, 482 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir.2007). However, “when the situation presented is the BIA’s application of legal principles to undisputed facts, ... our review is de novo.” Monter v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 546, 553 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). I. Past Persecution Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), a petitioner is eligible for asylum at the discretion of the Attorney General if he demonstrates that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily-protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158; see" }, { "docid": "22846704", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM. We consider here whether we have jurisdiction to review a decision by a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”) unilaterally to affirm without opinion a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) pursuant to the BIA’s “streamlining” procedures codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) rather than to refer the case to a three-member panel of the BIA. Petitioner Mirdash Kambolli, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a July 29, 2003 decision of the BIA affirming without opinion a November 15, 2001 decision of IJ Michael W. Straus denying Kambolli’s request for asylum, as well as for withholding of removal under Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (“INA”), as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Kambolli, File No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (BIA June 29, 2003); See In re Kambolli, File No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct., Hartford, Nov. 15, 2001). On appeal, Kambolli argues that (1) the IJ erred in finding that Kambolli neither suffered past persecution nor possessed a well-founded fear of future persecution and therefore was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal under the INA; (2) the IJ erred in denying Kambolli’s CAT claim; and (3) the Board member who reviewed the IJ’s decision erred in unilaterally affirming it without opinion, rather than referring it to a three-member panel of the BIA. We first address the merits of Kambolli’s asylum, INA withholding, and CAT claims and then examine whether we have jurisdiction to review the Board member’s streamlining decision, which is a question of first impression in this Circuit. I. The IJ’s Decision To Deny Asylum and Withholding of Removal Under the INA When the BIA affirms an IJ’s decision without opinion pursuant to the “streamlining” provision codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See, e.g., Yu Sheng Zhang v. DOJ, 362 F.3d 155, 158-59 (2d Cir.2004). We first address Kambolli’s challenge to the IJ’s denial of his application for" }, { "docid": "22305568", "title": "", "text": "1988). Finally, the IJ concluded that because Rodas’s past experience lacked a nexus to a protected ground, so too did Rodas’s fear of future persecution. Id. at 15. Accordingly, the IJ found Rodas ineligible for either asylum or withholding of removal under the INA. On September 10, 2008, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. In re Carranza & Rodas, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] & [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2008). The BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Rodas failed to “demonstrate[ ] that any harm he encountered or may encounter is ... on account of his political opinion.” Id. The BIA also addressed Rodas’s claim of persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group, an issue the IJ did not address. The BIA rejected that argument, however, finding that the social group on account of which Rodas claimed persecution — defined as “Guatemalan policemen who have registered complaints against official corruption” — lacked the requisite social visibility. Id. Additionally, noting that the REAL ID Act’s “one central reason” standard governs Rodas’s case, the BIA held that Rodas had not demonstrated that membership in any social group was “one central reason” for Rodas’s fear of persecution. Id. DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards “Where, as here, the BIA has adopted and supplemented the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Delgado v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 702, 705 (2d Cir.2007). Legal issues, and the application of law to fact, are reviewed de novo. Roman v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 184, 186 (2d Cir.2009). “[B]ecause the IJ found [Rodas] to be credible, we treat the events [ ]he experienced in the past as undisputed facts.” Delgado, 508 F.3d at 705. The agency’s findings of fact are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xu Duan Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 111 (2d Cir.2005). Accordingly, we review such findings under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that they be supported by “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence" }, { "docid": "23259826", "title": "", "text": "GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Nan Marie Kone, a native and citizen of Cote d’Ivoire, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying Kone’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on female genital mutilation, religious, ethnic and political persecution, and Kone’s fear that her daughters would be forcibly subjected to genital mutilation against Kone’s wishes if she were removed. See In re Kone, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2008), aff'g [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 11, 2006). We find that the agency doubly erred in its treatment of Kone’s voluntary return trips to Cote d’Ivoire and that these errors compel a remand. First, the agency inappropriately rebutted the presumption of future persecution to which Kone was entitled based solely on Kone’s voluntary return trips to her native country. Second, even if the burden were on Kone to prove a likelihood of future persecution, the agency’s adverse credibility determination on this point is corrupted by reliance upon an erroneous factual finding and the failure to adequately consider the relevant circumstances. Because we cannot predict with confidence that the agency would reach the same result on remand absent these errors, we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision of the BIA, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Additionally, we note that on remand, the parties and the agency may wish to consider Kone’s eligibility for asylum without regard to a well-founded fear of future persecution under the portion of the asylum statute frequently referred to as “humanitarian asylum.” See Jalloh v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 148, 151 (2d Cir.2007). BACKGROUND Kone last entered the United States on January 15, 2005, on a non-immigrant tourist visa, with permission to remain for six months. In May 2005, Kone applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. In July 2005, upon the expiration of her tourist visa, Kone was charged as removable from the" }, { "docid": "22083460", "title": "", "text": "JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Julian Belortaja, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) made after a stipulated remand from this Court. The BIA affirmed a decision by Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Strauss denying petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and ordering him removed to Albania. In re Belortaja, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 5, 2004), aff'g No. A. 77 750 000 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Dec. 6, 2001). Petitioner argues, inter alia, (1) that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination was improper because the IJ’s decision (which had been adopted by the earlier, vacated decision of the BIA) did not contain an explicit credibility determination, and (2) that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is, in any event, not supported by substantial evidence. We reject both of these arguments. BACKGROUND We recount here only those elements of the factual and procedural background necessary to resolve the instant petition. Petitioner attempted to enter the United States illegally in August 2000 and was issued a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings in September 2000. He conceded removability, and, in July 2001, he filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. In his application, petitioner alleged that his family had been “politically persecuted by the Communist dictatorship” in Albania and that, more recently, he and his father had been persecuted by the Socialist Party, and by “new Communists,” because of their support for the Legality Movement Party (“LMP”), “a party that [seeks] the restoration of a Democratic Constitu[tion]al Monarchy.” Following a hearing on December 6, 2001, at which petitioner testified, the IJ denied petitioner’s application. In his oral decision, the IJ noted two discrepancies between petitioner’s asylum application and his hearing testimony. First, petitioner testified at the hearing that, in April 1999, a friend and “well-known activist” in the LMP was shot and killed while sitting with petitioner in a restaurant. Petitioner stated that he believes “Communists” were responsible for the shooting, and that this incident" }, { "docid": "19984978", "title": "", "text": "LEVAL, Circuit Judge: Biyalo Watara Baba, a citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Biyalo Watara Baba, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 14, 2007), aff’g In re Biyalo Watara Baba, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 7, 2005). Baba testified that on account of his membership in a Togolese opposition party and his participation in political demonstrations, he was arrested and detained by Togolese police in harsh prison conditions on two occasions. During one of these detentions, he was allowed only a near-starvation diet, beaten daily for a week, and threatened with death. The IJ found, and the BIA agreed, that this treatment did not amount to persecution, in light of the fact that Baba was permitted to keep his government job as a preschool inspector. The IJ further determined, and the BIA agreed, that even if Baba had suffered past persecution, by reason of changed country circumstances, he no longer had a well-founded fear of future persecution. We cannot agree with the IJ’s and the BIA’s analysis. Baba’s evidence, if believed, established past persecution on account of his political opinion. Daily beatings, a near-starvation diet, and a death threat, administered by the national police during a week-long detention in harsh prison conditions and inflicted by reason of one’s membership in an opposition political party, satisfy the standard for persecution on account of political opinion, regardless of whether the victim is permitted to retain his employment in a government post. Because Baba demonstrated past persecution, he was entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. The agency erred in failing to place the burden on the government to demonstrate that, by reason of changed country circumstances, any fear that Baba had of future persecution was not well-founded. Furthermore, the evidence of changed country circumstances advanced by the government and" }, { "docid": "19984985", "title": "", "text": "conditions. The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT. DISCUSSION “When the BIA briefly affirms the decision of an IJ and adopts the IJ’s reasoning in doing so, we review the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions together.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the BIA’s factual findings, including the agency’s consideration of relevant evidence of country conditions, under the substantial evidence standard. See Dong Gao v. BIA, 482 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir.2007). However, “when the situation presented is the BIA’s application of legal principles to undisputed facts, ... our review is de novo.” Monter v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 546, 553 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). I. Past Persecution Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), a petitioner is eligible for asylum at the discretion of the Attorney General if he demonstrates that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily-protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158; see also Xiu Fen Xia v. Mukasey, 510 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir.2007). A petitioner is also eligible for withholding of removal if he demonstrates a clear probability of persecution on account of a statutorily-protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Statutorily-protected grounds include “political opinion” and “membership in a particular social group.” In dismissing Baba’s appeal, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s finding that “the incidents complained of did not rise to the level of persecution.” In re Biyalo Watara Baba, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ], at 1 (B.I.A. Dec. 14, 2007). Baba contends that this ruling was in error. We agree. The term persecution is not defined in the INA. The BIA has defined persecution as “a threat to the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as offensive.” Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir.2008) (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 222-23 (B.I.A. 1985)). This court has on several occasions considered the question" }, { "docid": "22541042", "title": "", "text": "] (B.I.A. June 12, 2006), ajfg No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 20, 2004). Petitioners timely appealed the BIA decisions to this Court. Because the separate appeals involve common issues of law and fact, we consolidate the cases for disposition. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the credibility rulings; however, we vacate the findings of frivolousness and remand the cases in order to give the BIA the opportunity to interpret and apply the relevant statutes and regulations governing frivolousness under the standards the BIA recently set forth in YL- 24 I. & N. Dec. 151. I. Adverse Credibility Determinations In Yang’s case, the BIA adopted and affirmed, then modified, the IJ’s decision. In such circumstances, we review the IJ’s decision minus the ground for denying relief that was rejected by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). Accordingly, we will address Yang’s asylum claim as if it were not barred by the one-year filing deadline, as did the BIA. In cases such as Lin’s where the BIA summarily affirms an IJ’s decision without issuing an opinion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we review the reasoning and decision of the IJ directly, treating it as the final agency determination. See Ming Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141,144 (2d Cir.2006). We owe “particular deference” to an IJ’s credibility finding, “mindful that the law must entrust some official with responsibility to hear an applicant’s asylum claim, and the IJ has the unique advantage among all officials involved in the process of having heard directly from the applicant.” Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir.2004), overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2nd Cir.2007) (en banc). Hence, our review of an IJ’s credibility assessment is an “exceedingly narrow inquiry to ensure that the IJ’s conclusions were not reached arbitrarily or capriciously ... [and] that credibility findings are based upon neither a misstatement of the facts in the record nor bald speculation or caprice.” Id. at" } ]

[ { "docid": "22646552", "title": "", "text": "§ 1915. Rules Applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) Section 1915(g), the “three strikes” provision of the informa pauperis statute, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26,1996), provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This provision requires so-called ‘frequent filer’ prisoners to prepay the entire filing fee before federal courts may consider their civil actions and appeals.” White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1150, 143 L.Ed.2d 216 (1999). It does not prevent prisoners with three strikes from filing civil actions; it merely prohibits them the privilege of in forma pauperis status. Id. at 1233. At issue here is whether Mr. Jennings has three or more qualifying dismissals under § 1915(g) and hence must pay up front for the privilege of filing or appealing these or any additional civil actions. In counting Mr. Jennings’ prior occasions (or strikes), the district court included the case before it (10th Cir. No. 98-8035), and the action against the Natrona County Detention Center Medical Facility (10th Cir. No. 98-8032). To reach strike three, the court added an earlier habeas corpus action, Jennings v. Wyoming Attorney General, No. 96-CV-181-D (D.Wyo. Feb. 28, 1997), which was dismissed without prejudice both for failure to exhaust state court remedies and for failure to state a claim. We first address the propriety of counting a habeas corpus action as a prior occasion under § 1915(g). We then address the issue of how to count strikes when a case or cases dismissed by the district court" } ]

[ { "docid": "22304158", "title": "", "text": "“a financial inability to pay the required [filing] fees and the existence of a reasoned, non-frivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir.1991)). Though we dismiss Mr. Watkins’s appeal for failure to timely file a notice of appeal and application for COA, we nonetheless conclude that the arguments he raised in support of his appeal are not frivolous. Therefore, we GRANT Mr. Watkins leave to proceed IFP subject to the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). This appeal is DISMISSED. This Order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th CIR. R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th CIR. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. . Because Mr. Watkins is proceeding pro se, we review his pleadings and filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808, 815 (10th Cir.2007). . March 25, 2006, thirty days after February 23, 2006, marked the end of the court-ordered filing period. That date fell on a Saturday. Therefore, by operation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), Mr. Watkins’s curative pleadings were due on Monday, March 27, 2006. . Rule 4(a)(4) provides that certain motions filed within ten days of the entry of judgment toll the time to file a notice of appeal. Notably, he filed nothing within the operative period. Also absent from the record is any suggestion that Mr. Watkins sought to reopen the time in which to file an appeal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c), \"the district court may, upon motion filed" }, { "docid": "23388153", "title": "", "text": "for Leave to Amend We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Mr. Fields’s motions to amend his complaint. See Grossman v. Novell, Inc., 120 F.3d 1112, 1126 (10th Cir.1997). We discern no error by the court. The court characterized the proposed pleading as not really an amended complaint but an effort to show exhaustion. Mr. Fields does not dispute this characterization. Because Mr. Fields was given an additional opportunity to file such support, he suffered no prejudice. Of course, we could also reject the appeal of this ruling on the ground that Mr. Fields has not provided an adequate record on appeal. See Taylor v. Phelan, 9 F.3d 882, 884 n. 4 (10th Cir.1993) (declining to address an issue when evidentiary materials necessary for proper consideration of the issue are not included in the record on appeal). D. State-Law Claims Because we affirm the dismissal of all Mr. Fields’s federal-law claims, dismissal of his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) was proper. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. We DENY Mr. Fields’s Motion for Reconsideration filed in this court on December 26, 2006; to the extent that it seeks relief on appeal, Mr. Fields had the opportunity to address the issues in his later briefs to this court. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. . Section 1997e(a) states: No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal Law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." }, { "docid": "10623523", "title": "", "text": "because Mr. Parker has failed to demonstrate the existence of “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and the facts in support of the issues raised on appeal,” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812-13 (10th Cir. 1997), we deny his request to proceed IFP. Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Parker’s IFP motion and his COA application, and we DISMISS this appeal. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. . Because Mr. Parker is proceeding pro se, we review his pleadings and filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808, 815 (10th Cir.2007). . Even if we were to reach a contrary conclusion and determine that Mr. Parker had properly invoked § 2241, it would not alter the outcome of this case. Section 2241 petitions are governed by the same one-year statute of limitations as § 2254 petitions. See, e.g., May v. Workman, 339 F.3d 1236, 1237 (10th Cir. 2003) (applying the § 2244(d) one-year limitalions period to a § 2254 habeas petition); Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133, 1138 (10th Cir.2003) (applying the § 2244(d) one-year limitations period to a § 2241 habeas petition). And, as we demonstrate below, Mr. Parker’s action is time-barred under that limitations statute. . Mr. Parker's first application tolled the limitations period for forty-eight days—eighteen days between filing and denial, plus thirty days to file an appeal—and his second tolled the limitations period for forty-nine days— seventeen days between filing and denial, plus thirty-two days for an appeal (adding two days because the" }, { "docid": "19268813", "title": "", "text": "is, a viable argument. Rather than advancing any substantive argument, however, the Win-slows consistently turn to the same allegations of fraud, criminal conduct, and conspiracy. In addition, despite numerous admonitions from this court, they consistently commit wholesale violations of this court’s local rules. This abuse of the judicial process must cease. “[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.” Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir.1989) (citation omitted). Although the Winslows have been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, the Supreme Court has recognized that abuses of this privilege may give rise to the imposition of filing restrictions. In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 180, 111 S.Ct. 596, 597-98, 112 L.Ed.2d 599 (1991). “The goal of fairly dispensing justice ... is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous [claims].” Id. We recognize that filing restrictions are a harsh sanction, and that litigiousness alone is not a sufficient reason to restrict access to the court. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353. However, where, as here, a party has “engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive,” restrictions are appropriate. Johnson v. Cowley, 872 F.2d 342, 344 (10th Cir.1989). The Winslows’ abusive and repetitive filings have strained the resources of this court. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184, 109 S.Ct. 993, 996, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989). We will, therefore, impose restrictions commensurate with our inherent power to enter orders “necessary or appropriate” in aid of our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Accordingly, the Winslows are hereby ENJOINED from proceeding as appellants or petitioners in an original proceeding without the representation of a licensed attorney admitted to practice in this'court, unless they first obtain permission to proceed pro se. To do so, they must take the following steps: 1. File a petition with the clerk of this court requesting leave to file a pro se action; 2. Include in the petition the" }, { "docid": "22263433", "title": "", "text": "BRORBY, Circuit Judge. Richard C. White, and six of his fellow state inmates, filed a pro se petition for human rights relief in federal district court naming the State of Colorado, the City and County of Denver, Arapahoe County, and numerous individuals as defendants. After granting a series of motions to dismiss on behalf of most of the defendants, the district court dismissed the case against all remaining defendants for want of jurisdiction. Mr. White'filed a pro se notice of appeal, and a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Fed. R.App. P. 24. Having satisfied itself Mr. White was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury, the district court, in reliance on the so-called “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, denied Mr. White’s motion to proceed without paying a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Again acting pro se, Mr, White appealed the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, alleging he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, and challenging the constitutionality of the Prison Litigation Reform Act on equal protection grounds. He also appealed the underlying dismissal of his self-styled human rights action. We appointed counsel to address the issues Mr. White raised on appeal. See 10th Cir. Rules, Add. II, Plan for Appointment of Counsel in Special Civil Appeals. Counsel was ordered to address specifically the constitutional implications of the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We deny Mr. White’s motion to proceed informa pauperis and dismiss his appeal. In so doing, we reject Mr. White’s challenge to the constitutionality of the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Background On June 13, 1996, Mr. White and six other named inmates of the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility (collectively, the Petitioners) filed a pro se Petition for Human Rights Relief Under United Nations Resolution 1503 (1970) of the United Nations General Assembly, Economic, and Social Counsel [sic], Commission on Human Rights, seeking injunctive and monetary relief from the State of" }, { "docid": "6935078", "title": "", "text": "to fully brief the question of judicial immunity. Their claim for declaratory relief (to the extent it exists at all) was properly dismissed, as was the rest of their complaint. AFFIRMED. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. . The record does not contain any pleadings or other documents from the state court action. Thus, we rely on the parties' description of the relevant events. . Because Lawrence and Greenstreet filed their complaint while proceeding pro se, we review their pleadings liberally. See Beedle v. Wilson, 422 F.3d 1059, 1063 (10th Cir.2005). We note that Lawrence and Greenstreet’s position has been substantially refined by their appellate counsel, though they still have not explained what effect the default judgment had on their rights or on the rights of the Red River Trust. . The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is based on Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). It \"prohibits federal suits that amount to appeals of state-court judgments.” Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan., 441 F.3d 1129, 1139 (10th Cir.2006). . In Lance, the Supreme Court reiterated Rooker-Feldman \"is a narrow doctrine” that has been applied by the lower courts \"far beyond the contours of the Rooker and Feld-man cases.” 546 U.S. at 464, 126 S.Ct. 1198 (quotations omitted). The Court explained it had previously \"held Rooker-Feldman inapplicable where the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was not a party to the underlying state-court proceeding.\" Id. (citing Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1006, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994)). The Court clarified: \"The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar actions by nonparties to the earlier state-court judgment simply because, for purposes of preclusion law, they could be considered in privity with a party to the judgment.” Id." }, { "docid": "10371488", "title": "", "text": "“The rule that only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment, is well settled.” Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304, 108 S.Ct. 586, 98 L.Ed.2d 629 (1988). Mitchell’s attempt to participate in the motion to reopen cannot cure her failure to appeal the denial of her motions to intervene. Mitchell is not an appropriate party to the appeal, and therefore the appellees’ Motion to Dismiss is granted. We deny Mitchell’s Motion for Summary Disposition as procedurally improper. IV For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the bankruptcy court’s judgments in appeal number 13-1013 and DISMISS appeal number 13-1014. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. . Mitchell also argues for the first time on appeal that Stern v. Marshall, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011), rendered 28 U.S.C. § 1334, which provides for federal-court jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and proceedings, unconstitutional when applied to an involuntary petition. See Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir.1988) (\"[L]ack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a federal court by consent, inaction or stipulation.” (quotation omitted)). As our sibling circuits have recognized, however, Stem was a limited holding regarding a counterclaim by an estate against a person filing a claim against the estate. See First Nat’l Bank v. Crescent Elec. Supply Co. (In re Renaissance Hosp. Grand Prairie Inc.), 713 F.3d 285, 294 n. 12 (5th Cir.2013); Quigley Co. v. Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos (In re Quigley Co.), 676 F.3d 45, 52 (2d Cir.2012); see also Stern, 131 S.Ct. at 2620 (stating that" }, { "docid": "22709543", "title": "", "text": "BRORBY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Marcus A. McIntosh, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenges the decision of the United States Parole Commission (USPC) revoking his parole. He also seeks to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We grant the petition to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, and we affirm. Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to 28 U.S.C. § 224.1 Habeas Corpus Petitioner seeks to prosecute his appeal of the denial of his § 2241 petition in forma pauperis. We first consider whether the in forma pauperis filing fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996), apply. The PLRA amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to impose filing fee obligations on a “prisoner” who “brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). We begin with an analysis of the nature and purpose of § 2241 proceedings. We have previously concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, and appeals of those proceedings, are not “civil actions” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(2) and (b). See United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 744 (10th Cir.1997). We identified several reasons for this conclusion. We noted that habeas corpus proceedings have not consistently been treated as civil actions. Id. at 742. We observed that habeas actions are not the type of abusive, prison condition litigation that Congress sought to curtail in enacting the PLRA. Id. at 743. We also noted that applying the PLRA to § 2254 and § 2255 proceedings would be contrary to a long tradition of permitting ready access to habeas by prisoners. Id. The factors identified in Simmonds that led us to conclude § 2254 and § 2255 proceedings are not “civil actions” under the PLRA apply with equal force to § 2241 proceedings. Habeas corpus review is available under § 2241 if one is “in custody in violation of the" }, { "docid": "1287416", "title": "", "text": "232 F.3d at 808. III. Conclusion Because no jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling, we deny Roderick’s application for a COA and dismiss this appeal. Roderick’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. . Because Roderick proceeds pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir.2005). . We conclude Roderick timely filed his notice of appeal under the applicable rules. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1); see also Price, 420 F.3d at 1164-67. . To the extent Roderick complains that he could not afford counsel to assist him, we note that he has no constitutional right to counsel for habeas appeals. See Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212, 1218 (10th Cir.2008), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 134, 172 L.Ed.2d 102 (2008); United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1229 (10th Cir.2006)." }, { "docid": "20959482", "title": "", "text": "(internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with the district court that Mr. Gregory’s allegations related to the conflicting evidence regarding custody of the gun do not present a basis to set aside the order denying habeas relief to cure fraud on the court. Significantly, Mr. Gregory identifies no misrepresentations or fraudulent conduct in the habeas proceedings. Amd in any event, the status of the gun — whether destroyed or in the custody of the state — is irrelevant to the question that was before the district court: whether § 2255 was inadequate or ineffecfive to test the legality of Mr. Gregory’s detention. For this reason, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Gregory’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion and was under no obligation to reconsider its ruling in this respect. Accordingly, Mr. Gregory is not entitled to a COA to appeal this issue. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Mr. Gregory a COA, DENY him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISS the matter. This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 32.1 and 10th Circuit Rule 32.1. . Because Mr. Gregory is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). But we will not undertake the role of advocate. See United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir.2009) (\"[W]e must construe [a pro se litigant’s] arguments liberally; this rule of liberal construction stops, however, at the point at which we begin to serve as his advocate.”). . Although federal prisoners asserting claims under § 2241 need not obtain a COA to appeal the denial of their claims, see McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 810 n. 1 (10th Cir.1997), federal prisoners are required to obtain a COA to appeal the denial of a § 2255 petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Likewise, federal prisoners must obtain" }, { "docid": "20959483", "title": "", "text": "except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 32.1 and 10th Circuit Rule 32.1. . Because Mr. Gregory is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). But we will not undertake the role of advocate. See United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir.2009) (\"[W]e must construe [a pro se litigant’s] arguments liberally; this rule of liberal construction stops, however, at the point at which we begin to serve as his advocate.”). . Although federal prisoners asserting claims under § 2241 need not obtain a COA to appeal the denial of their claims, see McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 810 n. 1 (10th Cir.1997), federal prisoners are required to obtain a COA to appeal the denial of a § 2255 petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Likewise, federal prisoners must obtain a COA to appeal a district court's denial of a Rule 60 motion attacking the denial of a § 2255 petition. See Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.2006) (holding a COA is required to appeal from an order denying Rule 60(b) relief from dismissal of a § 2254 petition). As explained, we previously held Mr. Gregory’s habeas petition asserted claims properly brought in a § 2255 petition. See Gregory v. Denham, 581 Fed.Appx. 728, 728 (10th Cir.2014). Accordingly, Mr. Gregory must obtain a COA to challenge the district court’s rejection of his Rule 60(d)(3) motion. . Mr. Gregory also asserts the district court judge — Senior Judge Lewis T. Babcock— should have recused himself because of Judge Boland’s alleged racial bias and because Judge Babcock “intentionally violated the automatic stay.” We need not consider this argument because it was not raised in Mr. Gregory’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion or motion to reconsider. See United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir.2002) (recognizing that in general, “we do not address arguments presented" }, { "docid": "22304157", "title": "", "text": "a year after the district court entered its April 3, 2006 order denying the habeas petition and dismissing the action without prejudice. Our review of the record reveals that Mr. Watkins filed no motion which would toll the running of the statutory thirty-day period. See Feb. R.App. P. 4(a)(4). Thus, his time to appeal the April 3, 2006 order expired on May 3, 2006. Because he failed to file a notice of appeal or to seek a COA before that date, he cannot now appeal the order. The record indicates that Mr. Watkins may not have immediately received notice of the district court’s April 3, 2006 order. Nevertheless, we are not situated to consider this as a ground for excusing his failure to timely file a notice of appeal. As previously explained, timely filing of a civil appeal is jurisdictional; Courts have “no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.” Bowles, 127 S.Ct. at 2366. Mr. Watkins also seeks to proceed IFP. To do so, he must comply with the filing requirements and demonstrate “a financial inability to pay the required [filing] fees and the existence of a reasoned, non-frivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir.1991)). Though we dismiss Mr. Watkins’s appeal for failure to timely file a notice of appeal and application for COA, we nonetheless conclude that the arguments he raised in support of his appeal are not frivolous. Therefore, we GRANT Mr. Watkins leave to proceed IFP subject to the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). This appeal is DISMISSED. This Order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th CIR. R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance" }, { "docid": "6390624", "title": "", "text": "district court explained, Colorado may set rational limits on its newly authorized judicial remedy for the loss or destruction of biological evidence. These statutory limits precluded Mr. Dawson from obtaining a judicial remedy because he did not claim actual innocence in his state-court criminal proceedings, and his blood and urine samples did not involve DNA evidence. As the distinct court explained, Mr. Dawson’s inability to obtain a judicial remedy did not result in a denial of due process or equal protection. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal. The parties have not requested oral argument, and it would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs. Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). . Mr. Dawson also argues that the district court erred by (1) recharacterizing his claims as challenges to the state court judgment, (2) recharacterizing his § 1983 suit as an application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and (3) holding that his claims were time barred. The district court did none of these things. The district court • expressly declined to construe Mr. Dawson's claims as ’ challenges to the state-court judgment, • held that § 1983, rather than § 2254, was the proper vehicle for Mr. Dawson's claims, and • declined to decide whether the claims were time barred. . As a prisoner, Mr. Dawson is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Aet. This statute restricts relief from the prepayment obligation when a prisoner has. brought at least three \"prior” suits that had been dismissed based on frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a valid claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). Before filing this appeal, Mr. Dawson brought two suits that had been dismissed for frivolousness or failure to state a valid claim. This appeal involves Mr. Dawson’s third dismissal for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a valid claim. The Supreme" }, { "docid": "22327722", "title": "", "text": "ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DISMISSING APPLICATION TERRENCE L. O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Dennis Neal Clark, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The district court dismissed the motion, concluding it was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) which contains a one-year statute of limitations. Clark then filed a notice of appeal and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ifp). The court denied his motion to proceed ifp, certifying the appeal was not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) because his application to appeal failed to give a reasoned nonfrivolous argument on the law and supporting facts as to why the dismissal of his habeas petition was incorrect. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(3). In this Court, Clark requests a Certificate of Appealability (COA) and again seeks leave to proceed ifp. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b)(1), 24(a)(5). Background Clark’s habeas petition stems from four state cases. In one case, a jury convicted Clark of two counts. He then pled guilty to three other pending cases pursuant to a plea agreement. On December 20, 2002, he was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for the charges on which the jury found him guilty. At the same time, pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced him on the remaining charges, running all sentences concurrently. Clark did not move to withdraw his guilty pleas, file a direct appeal, or seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. As a result, the judgments on Clark’s convictions became final ten days later, December 30, 2002. Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1501; Okla.Crim.App. R. 2.5(A) & 4.2(A). Clark filed his habeas petition in federal court on November" }, { "docid": "1287415", "title": "", "text": "v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir.1998) (“[Petitioner] has provided no specificity regarding the alleged lack of access and the steps he took to diligently pursue his federal [habeas] claims. It is not enough to say that the [state prison] facility lacked all relevant statutes and case law.... It is apparent that [petitioner] simply did not know about the limitation in the AEDPA until it was too late.” (citations omitted)). “[A] petitioner must diligently pursue his federal habeas claims; a claim of insufficient access to relevant law, such as AED-PA, is not enough to support equitable tolling.” Gibson, 232 F.3d at 808; see also Yang, 525 F.3d at 930; cf. Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir.2009). Consequently, Roderick’s failure to timely pursue his claims is not excused by excusable neglect, his ignorance of the law, or alleged deficiencies in the prison law libraries. Accordingly, this case does not present one of those “rare and exceptional circumstances” in which the untimely filing of a federal habeas petition should be equitably excused. Gibson, 232 F.3d at 808. III. Conclusion Because no jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling, we deny Roderick’s application for a COA and dismiss this appeal. Roderick’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. . Because Roderick proceeds pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir.2005). . We conclude Roderick timely filed his notice of appeal under the applicable rules. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1); see also Price, 420 F.3d at 1164-67. . To the extent Roderick complains that he could not afford counsel to assist him, we note that he has no constitutional right to counsel for habeas appeals. See Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212, 1218 (10th Cir.2008), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 129" }, { "docid": "22263448", "title": "", "text": "[state authorities] have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. White v. Colorado, 1998 WL 339655 at *1, 149 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir.1998) (unpublished disposition); see St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1979) (noting that a federal court may take notice of proceedings in other federal courts when those proceedings are relevant to matters at issue). Like the district court, we conclude Mr. White has failed to raise a credible allegation that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm, and, therefore, he does not come under the exception to § 1915(g). Cf. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3rd Cir.1997) (granting eviden-tiary hearing on question of “imminent physical danger” under § 1915(g) where prisoner made credible, uncontroverted allegations of physical threats and attacks). Because Mr. White does not fall under the imminent danger of serious physical harm exception, we reach his constitutional challenge to the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C.1915(g). Constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) Mr. White contends the district court’s denial of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was erroneous because 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the basis of the district court’s decision, is unconstitutional. Mr. White argues that because § 1915(g) substantially burdens indigent prisoners’ right of access to the courts to litigate claims, it violates both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. See U.S. Const, amend. V, amend. XIV. These are questions of law we review de novo. Stephens v. Thomas, 19 F.3d 498, 500 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1002, 115 S.Ct. 516, 130 L.Ed.2d 422 (1994). At issue here is § 1915(g), the “three strikes” provision- of the in forma pauperis statute as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, §§ 804-810, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996). This provision requires so-called “frequent filer” prisoners to prepay the entire filing fee before federal courts may consider their civil actions and appeals. See" }, { "docid": "5410537", "title": "", "text": "that I enter an injunction against Winslow to prevent him from filing further actions in this court without the representation of an attorney. They additionally request attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Federal courts are vested with the inherent and statutory authority to enter orders “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651; Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir.1989). This includes the power to issue an injunction to restrain the filing of meritless pleadings, id.; In re Packer Ave. Assocs., 884 F.2d 745, 747 (3d Cir.1989); Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir.1987), and to limit a plaintiff’s ability to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis. See, e.g., In re Sindram, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed.2d 599 (1991); Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329, 332 (3d Cir.1990). This power is to be used sparingly, and litigiousness alone will not support its invocation. See Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353; Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d at 332; In re Packer Ave. Assocs., 884 F.2d at 747. Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court has recently noted, The goal of fairly dispensing justice, however, is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests. Pro se petitions have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources because they are not subject to the financial considerations—filing fees and attorney’s fees—that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions. In re Sindram, 111 S.Ct. at 597. Orders restraining the filing of litigation must be narrowly tailored. See Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir.1986). The defendants request that I enter an order requiring Winslow to be represented by an attorney in all future proceedings in this court. While representation by an attorney would no doubt prove beneficial to the court and to the litigants involved in Winslow’s ongoing attempt to avoid the judgments in the Morgan County case, similar relief was struck down by the Tenth Circuit" }, { "docid": "10623522", "title": "", "text": "standing alone, it is beyond peradventure that such vague allegations will not justify equitably tolling the limitations period. See Miller, 141 F.3d at 978 (noting that petitioner “has provided no specificity regarding the alleged lack of access [to legal materials] and the steps he took to diligently pursue his federal claims”). Furthermore, as the district court noted, an unsworn statement of a former prison official that Mr. Parker used to support his argument actually indicated that the prison staff had taken meaningful steps to rectify the access problem. Mr. Parker’s equitable-tolling argument also is undermined by the fact that he managed to file two applications for post-conviction relief during the periods when he allegedly lacked access to legal materials and assistance. In any event, the periods Mr. Parker has identified for equitable tolling (at most) amount to only a little more than six months; they could not possibly excuse his almost eight-year delay in filing his habeas petition. Therefore, like the district court, we conclude that Mr. Parker’s habeas petition was untimely and time-barred. Moreover, because Mr. Parker has failed to demonstrate the existence of “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and the facts in support of the issues raised on appeal,” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812-13 (10th Cir. 1997), we deny his request to proceed IFP. Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Parker’s IFP motion and his COA application, and we DISMISS this appeal. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. . Because Mr. Parker is proceeding pro se, we review his pleadings and filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21," }, { "docid": "16824118", "title": "", "text": "local rule. See E.D. Okla. LCvR 7.1(o). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend for failure to comply with local rules. See Lambertsen v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 79 F.3d 1024, 1029-30 (10th Cir.1996). We AFFIRM the grant of Defendant Williams’s motion to dismiss, AFFIRM the denial of Plaintiffs motion to amend, and REVERSE the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss by Defendants Orman, Workman, and Morton. We GRANT appellant’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and remind appellant that he is obligated to continue to make partial payments until the filing fee is paid in full. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. . Randall Workman, the current warden of OSP, has been automatically substituted for Mr. Sirmons as the correct party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). . “A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991). If the district court “can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim,” the court should excuse such deficiencies as “the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” Id. \"In addition, pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings.” Id. at 1110 n. 3. Nonetheless, the district court need not “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant” nor relieve the pro se plaintiff of his basic obligation to provide sufficient facts on which to base a claim. Id. atlllO. . Allhough Mr. Barrett’s prison grievances focused on violations of prison regulations and not constitutional claims, Defendants have not asserted the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216, 127 S.Ct." }, { "docid": "6390623", "title": "", "text": "will entertain an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 3(e).. An exception exists for indigent litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (2012). This exception applies because Mr. Dawson is indigent, preventing him from prepaying the filing fee. As a result, we grant relief from the prepayment obligation. IV, Dismissal of the Due Process and Equal Protection Claims The district court concluded that the statutory limitations on relief did not violate Mr. Dawson’s right to due process or equal protection. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a valid claim. We review this dismissal de novo. Janke v. Price, 43 F.3d 1390, 1391 (10th Cir. 1994). In conducting de novo review, we accept as true all of Mr. Dawson’s well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to Mr. Dawson. See Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1097 (10th Cir. 2009), The resulting question is whether the complaint contains facts stating a plausible claim for relief. Id. The district court’s explanation for the dismissal .is thorough and persuasive. As the district court explained, Colorado may set rational limits on its newly authorized judicial remedy for the loss or destruction of biological evidence. These statutory limits precluded Mr. Dawson from obtaining a judicial remedy because he did not claim actual innocence in his state-court criminal proceedings, and his blood and urine samples did not involve DNA evidence. As the distinct court explained, Mr. Dawson’s inability to obtain a judicial remedy did not result in a denial of due process or equal protection. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal. The parties have not requested oral argument, and it would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs. Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). . Mr. Dawson also argues that the district court erred by (1) recharacterizing his claims as challenges to the" } ]

[ { "docid": "18537536", "title": "", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court. The question here is whether Section 811 (g) (2) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 is constitutional as applied in this case. That section, the “payment of premiums” provision in the 1939 Code, requires inclusion of insurance proceeds in the gross estate of an insured where the proceeds are receivable by beneficiaries other than the executor but are attributable to premiums paid by the insured. Inclusion is required regardless of whether the insured retained any policy rights. However, if the insured possessed no “incidents of ownership” after January 10, 1941, the premiums paid by him before that date are excluded in determining the portion of the proceeds for which he paid the premiums. The facts in the case are stipulated. The insured died testate on July 15, 1954. The taxpayer is his executor. On the estate tax return, the taxpayer included, as part of the gross estate, the proceeds of four insurance policies payable to the wife of the insured. These policies were originally issued to the insured, but he divested himself of the policy rights by assigning them to his wife on December 18, 1936. However, he continued to pay the premiums on the policies until he died. After his death, the proceeds were retained by the insurer-for the benefit of the family, pursuant to the provisions of a settlement option selected by the wife. In auditing the return, the Revenue Service determined that only the portion of the proceeds attributable to premiums paid by the insured after January 10, 1941, should be included in his estate. Accordingly, the tax was adjusted and a refund was made. The executor then filed a claim for refund of the rest of the tax attributable to the inclusion of the proceeds. The executor claimed that because the decedent had divested himself of all interest in the policies in 1936, the tax constituted an unapportioned direct tax on property, invalid under Article I, Sections 2 and 9, of the Constitution. However, the Commissioner refused to allow the claim, and the present" } ]

[ { "docid": "11875136", "title": "", "text": "income for life within the meaning of § 2036 of the Internal Revenue Code in one-half of the proceeds of the insurance policies in the trust. The district court further found that this transfer was made for a valuable consideration within the contemplation of § 2043 and that such consideration was the right to income for life from the entire proceeds of the insurance policies. As the life estate in the entire proceeds had a fair market value of $36,975.23, the amount held to be taxable in Daisy Wright’s gross estate as a result of her transfer of April 12, 1947, was $5,155.-82. II. TRANSFER WITH RETAINED LIFE INTEREST The executors of the estate of Daisy Wright argue that the district court erred when it concluded that Daisy Wright, at the death of her husband in 1947, made a transfer of her community half interest in the proceeds from the community owned policies while retaining an interest for life in the income from those proceeds. The transfer con cept is of critical importance for if Daisy Wright made no transfer, § 2036 would not be triggered and none of the proceeds in the Martin Wright*Insurance Trust would be brought back into the gross estate of Daisy Wright at the date of her death in 1961. The executor’s assertion that the district court erred in holding that Daisy Wright made a transfer in 1947 has a two-fold predicate: (1) there could be no transfer because under Texas law life insurance proceeds were not property prior to the 1957 amendment to Article 23(1) of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes, and (2) even if the proceeds were property prior to 1957, she had no managerial or possessory interest in the proceeds which would enable her to make the alleged transfer. The executors have raised a difficult and quite perplexing problem — how can a wife be held to have made a transfer of property, if indeed insurance proceeds constituted property at that time, when her husband had complete management and control of the policies and of the designation of how the proceeds would" }, { "docid": "11875127", "title": "", "text": "decided that the value of the consideration received was the value of the life estate in all of the insurance proceeds in the trust computed as of the time of the death of Martin Wright in 1947. We affirm the district court on the first two questions. On the third issue, however, we reverse and remand as we find that the consideration received was only the value of a life estate in her husband’s community half of the insurance proceeds in the trust. I. The material facts, all of which were stipulated, were summarized by the district court as follows: “On October 15, 1937, Martin Wright, joined by the decedent, established the Martin Wright Insurance Trust. After the death of Martin Wright, the life insurance proceeds were paid over to the trustees named in the instrument by the insuring company. The proceeds received by the trustees were administered by them in accordance with the terms and provisions of the trust instrument from the date of Martin Wright’s death to decedent’s death and to the present time. The amount paid to the trustees by the company was $106,670.59. “Premiums on the policies of insurance described in the trust instrument were paid by Martin Wright with community funds. No agreements existed between Martin Wright and Daisy Wright at any time prior to April 12, 1947, touching on or concerning the policies of insurance placed in the trust, other than that agreement evidenced by the written instrument creating the trust. During the period between April 12, 1947 and May 31, 1961, Daisy Wright made no conveyance, relinquishment, or other disposition of her right under the trust. No actions taken by Martin Wright during the period October 15, 1937, through and including the date of his death, April 12, 1947, with respect to the trust and the insurance policies therein were in fraud of any rights, legal or equitable, of his wife, Daisy Wright. “Decedent was 64 years of age on the date of her husband’s death. The value of a life estate for a 64 year old person in the sum of $106,670.59," }, { "docid": "11875135", "title": "", "text": "15th day of October, 1937. Martin Wright Daisy Wright” In this factual context the district court determined that one-half of the proceeds in the Martin Wright Insurance Trust, $42,131.05, should be included in the gross estate of Daisy Wright. The court below reasoned that the life insurance policies forming the corpus of the trust were community property and Martin Wright was acting as manager of the community when he set up the trust. When Martin Wright died on April 12, 1947, the trust became irrevocable and a transfer by Daisy of her community one-half of the proceeds to the trust resulted. Under the terms of the trust instrument, Daisy Wright had a life estate in the income from all of the proceeds. Thus the district court, relying on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 5 Cir. 1958, 259 F.2d 231, cert. den. 359 U.S. 913, 79 S.Ct. 589, 3 L.Ed.2d 575, held that the transfer made by Daisy Wright at the death of Martin Wright was a transfer with a retained right to income for life within the meaning of § 2036 of the Internal Revenue Code in one-half of the proceeds of the insurance policies in the trust. The district court further found that this transfer was made for a valuable consideration within the contemplation of § 2043 and that such consideration was the right to income for life from the entire proceeds of the insurance policies. As the life estate in the entire proceeds had a fair market value of $36,975.23, the amount held to be taxable in Daisy Wright’s gross estate as a result of her transfer of April 12, 1947, was $5,155.-82. II. TRANSFER WITH RETAINED LIFE INTEREST The executors of the estate of Daisy Wright argue that the district court erred when it concluded that Daisy Wright, at the death of her husband in 1947, made a transfer of her community half interest in the proceeds from the community owned policies while retaining an interest for life in the income from those proceeds. The transfer con cept is of critical importance for if" }, { "docid": "11875142", "title": "", "text": "Marie’s half to a gift tax. ■Jf ■X' •Jr * *}fr “In a community property state where insurance on the husband’s life is purchased with community funds, payable revocably to a third person beneficiary, the husband’s right to change the beneficiary \" and all other control over the property are held as agent of the community. The bundle of rights in the policy is owned by the community. Something happens to this bundle when the insured dies, thereby terminating his control over the property and bringing the community to an end. What happens is, that the community's property interests in the policy-rights are transformed into the beneficiary’s right to the proceeds. It is a shift in control and a shift of beneficial interest. This is the transfer that is taxed.” [Emphasis added.] 259 F.2d at 244-255. Following the mandate and teaching of Commissioner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, we find that the district court correctly held that Daisy Wright at the date of her husband’s death in 1947 made a transfer of one-half of the life insurance proceeds to the Martin Wright Insurance Trust. Because she retained an income interest for life in the transferred property, the value of the property she transferred is brought back into her gross estate by § 2036. III. THE TRANSFER WAS MADE FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION The government argues that the district court erred in finding that Daisy Wright’s transfer of her one-half interest in the insurance proceeds was made for a valuable consideration rather than as a donation. The government recognizes that § 2043(a) embraces a hybrid transaction which is partly a gift and partly a sale — -a metaphysical creation unique to estate and gift taxes, see Lowdnes & Kramer, Federal Estate and Gift Taxes (2nd ed. 1962) pp. 297-298 - — but it nevertheless argues that Daisy Wright’s motive for making the transfer was purely donative — to keep and pass the family wealth on to other family members — and that such intent removes the transfer from the purview of § 2043 (a). Estate of Fannie Bomash, 1968, 50 T.C. No." }, { "docid": "6968963", "title": "", "text": "ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. In 1977, Richard Fein gave an insurance policy on his own life to his wife. He died about three months later. The Internal Revenue Service applied a provision of the Revenue Act of 1978 to this gift and included the proceeds of the policy in Mr. Fein’s estate for tax purposes. The issue in this case is the constitutionality of this retroactive application of the 1978 Act to the 1977 transfer. The District Court 565 F.Supp. 41 found this application constitutional. We affirm. I. On January 4, 1977, the decedent took out a policy on his own life. He gave the policy to his wife, effective March 22, 1977. The parties agree that at the time of the transfer the policy was worth less than $3,000. Further, the parties agree that at that time the transfer would have been effective to remove the policy and its proceeds from the donor’s estate. Section 2035(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 2035(b)(2), as it was written at the time, excluded all transfers of less than $3,000 in value from a decedent’s gross estate. Mr. Fein died on June 13, 1977. Following his death, on November 6, 1978, the Revenue Act of 1978 became law. Among other things, it took life-insurance policies out of § 2035(b)(2) altogether. The new law also provided that it would be effective with respect to transfers made after January 1, 1977, by decedents dying after December 31, 1976. Revenue Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-600, § 702(f)(2), 92 Stat. 2763, 2930. Thus, if the 1978 amendments apply, the proceeds of the decedent’s life-insurance policy are includible in his estate. II. There is nothing unusual about retroactive tax laws. “Congress almost without exception has given each such statute an effective date prior to the date of actual enactment____ Usually the ‘retroactive’ feature has application only to that portion of the current calendar year preceding the date of enactment, but each of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1926 was applicable to an entire calendar year that had expired preceding enactment.” United States" }, { "docid": "11875137", "title": "", "text": "Daisy Wright made no transfer, § 2036 would not be triggered and none of the proceeds in the Martin Wright*Insurance Trust would be brought back into the gross estate of Daisy Wright at the date of her death in 1961. The executor’s assertion that the district court erred in holding that Daisy Wright made a transfer in 1947 has a two-fold predicate: (1) there could be no transfer because under Texas law life insurance proceeds were not property prior to the 1957 amendment to Article 23(1) of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes, and (2) even if the proceeds were property prior to 1957, she had no managerial or possessory interest in the proceeds which would enable her to make the alleged transfer. The executors have raised a difficult and quite perplexing problem — how can a wife be held to have made a transfer of property, if indeed insurance proceeds constituted property at that time, when her husband had complete management and control of the policies and of the designation of how the proceeds would be paid with only two limitations: (1) he could not create an illusory trust, Land v. Marshall, Tex.1968, 426 S.W.2d 841, and (2) he could not dispose of the proceeds in fraud of the wife’s interest, Krueger v. Williams, 1962, 163 Tex. 545, 359 S.W.2d 48. If this were our first encounter with the transfer issue, we would have to resolve these fundamental inconsistencies which are inherent in the theory of community property. In this Herculean task we would have to analyze both the Texas eases and the federal estate gift tax cases arising out of other community property states which were cited by the executors. This, however, is not our first encounter with the transfer question. Judge Wisdom in his very thorough and scholarly opinion in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 5 Cir. 1958, 259 F.2d 231, cert. den., 359 913, 79 S.Ct. 589, 3 L.Ed.2d 575, gave careful consideration to the bulk of this authority and concluded that in 1948 (one year after Martin Wright’s death) life insurance proceeds were" }, { "docid": "11875162", "title": "", "text": "Revenue, 3 Cir. 1947, 164 F.2d 966, 969; cf. Fernandez v. Wiener, 1945, 326 U.S. 340, 66 S.Ct. 178, 90 L.Ed. 116. Thus the determining factor is what Congress intended, and here that intention is easily discerned. For such Congressional purpose, we look to a report prepared by the Senate Committee of Finance at the time the amendment in question was made: “This section, which is unchanged from the bill as passed by the House, repeals, effective with respect to decedents dying after the date of enactment of this bill, section 811(d) (5) [the section which caused the inclusion of the entire proceeds in the gross estate of Martin Wright] of the Code, relating to transfers during life of community property includable in the gross estate under section 811(c) or (d) [section 811(c) of the 1939 Code contained the predecessor to Section 2036 of the 1954 Code] of the Internal Revenue Code (such as transfers in contemplation of death, etc.). The extent to which any such transfer of community property is in-cludible in the gross estate of the trans-feror is determined under the laxo at the date of his death (that is, with x’e-spect to decedents dying after the date of the enactment of this bill withoxit regard to section 811(d) (5). [Emphasis added.] S.Rep. No. 1013 (Part 2), 80th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1; 1948-1 Cum.Bull. 331, 332. Section 2013 of the 1954 Code and its predecessor under the 1939 Code were attempts by Congress to reduce the possible inequities of double taxation that might result because of the dates on which the deaths of the respective members of the marital community might occur. However, since Daisy Wright survived her husband by approximately fourteen years, her estate was not benefited by § 2013 or its predecessors. See 26 U.S.C.A. § 2013. It can, therefore, be said that Congress has foreseen and sanctioned double counting of the kind herein involved. We follow the manifest intentions of Congress. . § 2043(a) provides : “§ 2043. Transfers for insufficient consideration (a) In general. — If any one of the transfers, trusts, interests, rights," }, { "docid": "11875158", "title": "", "text": "Life Ins. Co. v. Hardin, 1946, 145 Tex. 245, 197 S.W.2d 105, 168 A.L.R. 337; Martin v. McAllister, 1901, 94 Tex. 567, 63 S.W. 624, 56 L.R.A. 585. . See, e. g., National City Bank of Cleveland v. United States, 6 Cir. 1966, 371 F.2d 13; Goodnow v. United States, 1962, 302 F.2d 516, 157 Ct.Cl. 526; Estate of Gray v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1950, 14 T.C. 390. . In both cases the policies insured the husband’s life and the premiums were paid with community funds ; the husband retained the right to change the beneficiaries of the policies; and he retained the right to modify or revoke the trust. In both cases the proceeds were payable to the trustees who were directed to pay the income to the wife for life and the remainder to the settlor’s descendants. In Chase Manhattan, the transfer was made when the taxpayer’s husband died in 1948; here the husband died in 1947. . The executors would have us distinguish the Chase Manhattan case on two grounds : (1) Chase Manhattan was a gift tax case whereas this case involves federal estate taxes ;■ and (2) that to follow the Chase Manhattan case here would result in a double taxation of Daisy Wright’s community half of the proceeds, which was not intended by Congress. We find neither distinction to be persuasive. In regard to the first distinction, the close relationship between federal estate and gift taxes has long been recognized. In Sanford’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1939, 308 U.S. 39, 44, 60 S.Ct. 51, 56, 84 L.Ed. 20, 23, we read: “The gift tax was supplementary to the estate tax. The two are in pari materia and must he construed together. [Case cited.] An important, if not the main purpose of the gift tax was to prevent or compensate for avoidance of death taxes by taxing the gifts of property inter vivos which, but for the gifts, would be subject in its original or converted form to the tax laid upon transfers at death.” [Emphasis added.] This court has recognized the" }, { "docid": "11875151", "title": "", "text": "of the entire life estate in the proceeds in the Martin Wright Insurance Trust, but rather could be only the fair market value of the husband’s half interest in the proceeds at the time of the transfer. We find support for this conclusion in Vardell’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra: “Stated differently, Mrs. Vardell exchanged the remainder interest in her one-half of the community for a life estate in the one-half interest of her husband in the community * * 307 F.2d at 690. In Estate of Lillian B. Gregory, 1963, 50 T.C. 1012, 1017, we read: “Lillian transferred outright property valued at $65,925.08 to a trust created by her predeceased husband. She received the right to income from $126,-560.39, the corpus of the entire trust at the time of transfer. It is clear that retention of a life estate in one’s own property cannot be consideration for a transfer. Sec. 2036(a) (1); Helvering v. Bullard, supra. Indeed, it was stated in Lillian’s estate tax return that: ‘Our decedent exchanged her community share in return for a life interest in her husband’s community.’ Hence, only her life estate in the portion of the trust corpus which her predeceased husband contributed was consideration. * * * ” On the basis of these authorities, we hold that the district court should have found that Daisy received only an income interest for life in Martin Wright’s community half of the insurance proceeds as the consideration for her transfer of the remainder after her life interest in the income from her half of the proceeds. In terms of dollars and cents, the consideration Daisy Wright received was $18,487.61 rather than $36,975.23, which the district court found. The judgment of the district court is Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. . The district court’s opinion is reported at 263 F.Supp. 768. . 26 U.S.C.A. § 2036. Transfers with retained life estate (a). General rule. — The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property to the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has" }, { "docid": "11875128", "title": "", "text": "time. The amount paid to the trustees by the company was $106,670.59. “Premiums on the policies of insurance described in the trust instrument were paid by Martin Wright with community funds. No agreements existed between Martin Wright and Daisy Wright at any time prior to April 12, 1947, touching on or concerning the policies of insurance placed in the trust, other than that agreement evidenced by the written instrument creating the trust. During the period between April 12, 1947 and May 31, 1961, Daisy Wright made no conveyance, relinquishment, or other disposition of her right under the trust. No actions taken by Martin Wright during the period October 15, 1937, through and including the date of his death, April 12, 1947, with respect to the trust and the insurance policies therein were in fraud of any rights, legal or equitable, of his wife, Daisy Wright. “Decedent was 64 years of age on the date of her husband’s death. The value of a life estate for a 64 year old person in the sum of $106,670.59, is and was the sum of $36,975.23. On April 12, 1947, the value of an income interest for life in $53,335.29 (one-half of $106,670.59) for a person 64 years of age was $18,-487.61. As of the date of death of Daisy Wright, on May 31, 1961, one-half of the net assets of the trust had a fair market value of $42,131.05. “Within the time required by law, there was filed an estate tax return on behalf of the decedent. Upon auditing that return, the Internal Revenue Service made an additional assessment by including in the decedent’s estate one-half of the fair market value of the net assets of the trust. The additional tax amounted to $12,133.75, which, together with interest thereon, making a total of $14,-074.32, was paid on May 7, 1965. On May 18, 1965, decedent’s representatives filed a claim for refund with the District Director.” The relevant provisions of the Martin Wright Insurance Trust are as follows: “That I, MARTIN WRIGHT, of Bex-ar County, Texas, joined by my wife DAISY WRIGHT, for and" }, { "docid": "11875161", "title": "", "text": "§§ 811(g) (2) (A) and 811(g) (4), as amended by § 404, Int.Rev.Act of 1942, c. 619, 56 Stat. 798. This law was changed to its present form by § 353 of Int.Rev.Act of 1948, c. 168, 62 Stat. 110, effective for decedents dying after December 31, 1947. Thus, the entire proceeds from the community owned life insurance policies on the life of Martin Wright were taxed in the estate of Martin Wright. When Daisy Wright died in 1961, one-half of these life insurance proceeds were brought back into her estate by § 2036. Consequently her community half of the proceeds was taxed twice because of the change in the law, whereas under the present tax structure they would be taxed only once — when she died. Equities aside, Congress has the power to change the estate tax laws and to make such changes applicable to the estates of all dying subsequently. See United States v. Manufacturers National Bank, 1960, 363 U.S. 194, 80 S.Ct. 1103, 4 L.Ed.2d 1158; Thorp’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 3 Cir. 1947, 164 F.2d 966, 969; cf. Fernandez v. Wiener, 1945, 326 U.S. 340, 66 S.Ct. 178, 90 L.Ed. 116. Thus the determining factor is what Congress intended, and here that intention is easily discerned. For such Congressional purpose, we look to a report prepared by the Senate Committee of Finance at the time the amendment in question was made: “This section, which is unchanged from the bill as passed by the House, repeals, effective with respect to decedents dying after the date of enactment of this bill, section 811(d) (5) [the section which caused the inclusion of the entire proceeds in the gross estate of Martin Wright] of the Code, relating to transfers during life of community property includable in the gross estate under section 811(c) or (d) [section 811(c) of the 1939 Code contained the predecessor to Section 2036 of the 1954 Code] of the Internal Revenue Code (such as transfers in contemplation of death, etc.). The extent to which any such transfer of community property is in-cludible in the gross" }, { "docid": "11875154", "title": "", "text": "in the gross estate only the excess of the fair market value at the time of death of the property otherwise to be included on account of such transaction, over the value of the consideration received therefor by the decedent. . In general, see Morrison, The Widow’s Election: The Issue of Consideration, 44 Texas L.Rev. 223 (1965) ; Lowndes, Consideration and the Federal Estate and Gift Taxes: Transfers for Partial Consideration, Relinquishment of Marital Rights, Family Annuities, the Widow’s Election, and Reciprocal Trusts, 35 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 50 (1966). . Arranged in mathematical form, the district court’s computation was as follows: $42,131.05 Value of one-half of the net assets of the trust as of the date of the death of Daisy Wright, May 31, 1961. $36,975.23. Value of income interest for life in the entire proceeds from life insurance policies as of the date of the death of Martin Wright, April 12, 1947. $5,155.82 Amount taxable in estate of Daisy Wright as a result of her transfer with retained life interest at death of Martin Wright. . The government argues that the executors should not now be allowed to challenge the district court’s determination that there was a transfer at the time of Martin Wright’s death because the executors failed to perfect a cross-appeal from that portion of the lower court’s judgment which was against them and which they now seek to have modified. We find this contention to be without merit. We acknowledge the general rule to be that a cross-appeal is generally necessary to enable an appellee to ask the appellate court to reverse the part of a decree which is unfavorable to him. Browne v. Makin, 5 Cir. 1949, 177 F.2d 753, 756; see Tilley v. United States, 4 Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 678; United States ex rel. Carter-Schneider-Nelson, Inc. v. Campbell Const. & Equipment Co., 9 Cir. 1961, 293 F.2d 816, 822, cert. den., 368 U.S. 987, 82 S.Ct. 601, 7 L.Ed.2d 524. This Court has on occasion taken exception to that rule and has considered the unperfected issue where to do otherwise would cause the Court to" }, { "docid": "11875150", "title": "", "text": "fair market value of the property transferred, we find that the district court erred when it held that the value of the consideration which Daisy Wright received for her transfer of April 12, 1947, was the value of the right to receive the income for life from the entire proceeds of the insurance policies. We hold that the value “in mon ey or money’s worth” of that consideration was the fair market value of the right to receive the income for life from the one-half of the trust corpus attributable to Martin Wright’s community interest in the proceeds. See Vardell’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir. 1962, 307 F.2d 688, 690;, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Siegel, 9 Cir., 1957, 250 F.2d 339. By definition, the consideration which under § 2043(a) is credited against the value of the property transferred must be the value of the property received in exchange. The logical corollary is that the consideration cannot include the value of the property retained. Thus, the consideration could not be the value of the entire life estate in the proceeds in the Martin Wright Insurance Trust, but rather could be only the fair market value of the husband’s half interest in the proceeds at the time of the transfer. We find support for this conclusion in Vardell’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra: “Stated differently, Mrs. Vardell exchanged the remainder interest in her one-half of the community for a life estate in the one-half interest of her husband in the community * * 307 F.2d at 690. In Estate of Lillian B. Gregory, 1963, 50 T.C. 1012, 1017, we read: “Lillian transferred outright property valued at $65,925.08 to a trust created by her predeceased husband. She received the right to income from $126,-560.39, the corpus of the entire trust at the time of transfer. It is clear that retention of a life estate in one’s own property cannot be consideration for a transfer. Sec. 2036(a) (1); Helvering v. Bullard, supra. Indeed, it was stated in Lillian’s estate tax return that: ‘Our decedent exchanged her community share" }, { "docid": "11875125", "title": "", "text": "GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge: We are again presented with a question of the relationship between the Estate Tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the community property laws of Texas. This appeal by the government from the district court’s judgment in this tax refund suit involves the interrelationship between Sections 2036(a) and 2043(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the characterization of the proceeds from life insurance policies under the Texas law of community property. This confrontation of the retained interest provisions of the estate tax sections of the Code with the community property laws of the State of Texas requires that we accommodate the one to the other and seek a confluence even though they emerged from different law makers, arose at different times, and served different functions. Daisy Wright, the decedent whose estate is the taxpayer here, and Martin Wright, her husband who predeceased her, were residents of Texas at all relevant times. Several years prior to his death, Martin Wright transferred several policies of insurance on his life to trustees of a life insurance trust, reserving incidents of ownership including the powers of revocation, withdrawal, and substitution. Upon the death of Martin Wright, the insurance proceeds were paid to the trustees who were required to hold the proceeds for the benefit of Daisy Wright for life, with the remainder interest to go to the children of Daisy and Martin. All premiums were paid with community funds. The precise questions before this Court are: (1) Whether, when the insurance trust became irrevocable by reason of Martin Wright’s death, there was a transfer by Daisy Wright of one-half of the insurance proceeds with the right to the income from the proceeds reserved to her for her life? (2) Whether, if there was such a transfer, it was made for a consideration in money or money’s worth ? (3) Assuming that both of the above questions are answered in the affirmative, what is the measure of the consideration which Daisy received for making the transfer? The district court answered the first two questions in the affirmative, and then" }, { "docid": "18399797", "title": "", "text": "had participated in the Knight case. In his dissenting opinion in the Leuthold case, he said in part: ***** “The Knight case did not hold that a wife had no community interest in the cash surrender value of life insurance policies. It held, and I believe properly, that the interest, whatever its character, did not pass by will or by the statute of inheritance, but that it passed to her husband by the contract of insurance; and there was nothing in our inheritance tax law that made such a transfer of interest taxable.” Appellee’s petition for rehearing relies strongly upon the opinion of the trial judge in the Waechter case, which in turn was predicated largely upon the holding of the Washington Court in the Knight case. The decedent in the Waechter case died when the Revenue Act of 1942 was in effect. Section 811(e) (2) relating to community interest contained the following provision: “In no case shall such interest included in the gross estate of the decedent be less than the value of such part of the community property as was subject to the decedent’s power of testamentary disposition.” The community property provisions of the 1942 Act were repealed by Section 351 of the Revenue Act of 1948, c. 168, 62 Stat. 110, effective with respect to estates of decedent dying after December 31, 1947. The decedent in this case died in 1951. Any requirement of testamentary disposition under the 1942 Act accordingly would not be applicable in this case. We find nothing in the Mendenhall decision or other California cases to justify a conclusion that the decedent did not have a property interest in her husband’s insurance policies at the time of her death. This interest was taxable as a transfer to her husband. In other words, there was a transfer to the husband within the meaning of Section 810 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 810, even though it was not effected by will or inheritance. We see no reason accordingly for deferring action on appellee’s petition for rehearing pending appellate review of" }, { "docid": "11875143", "title": "", "text": "insurance proceeds to the Martin Wright Insurance Trust. Because she retained an income interest for life in the transferred property, the value of the property she transferred is brought back into her gross estate by § 2036. III. THE TRANSFER WAS MADE FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION The government argues that the district court erred in finding that Daisy Wright’s transfer of her one-half interest in the insurance proceeds was made for a valuable consideration rather than as a donation. The government recognizes that § 2043(a) embraces a hybrid transaction which is partly a gift and partly a sale — -a metaphysical creation unique to estate and gift taxes, see Lowdnes & Kramer, Federal Estate and Gift Taxes (2nd ed. 1962) pp. 297-298 - — but it nevertheless argues that Daisy Wright’s motive for making the transfer was purely donative — to keep and pass the family wealth on to other family members — and that such intent removes the transfer from the purview of § 2043 (a). Estate of Fannie Bomash, 1968, 50 T.C. No. 64. We hold that the district court correctly determined that the transfer was made for a valuable consideration. The transfer was made pursuant to an estate plan designed to cause the assets of the marital community to pass to the offspring of that community with a minimum estate tax burden, but that alone does not remove the transaction from the coverage of § 2043(a). The presence of donative intent will not remove a transaction from the ambit of § 2043 where a consideration “in money or money’s worth” is received by the transferor in exchange for the property transferred. This conclusion is clearly called for by the language of § 2043(a) which provides in effect that the mere inadequacy of consideration does not make the transfer donative. Instead, the inadequacy of consideration means only that the entire transferred property is brought back into the decedent’s gross estate under § 2036 and then that part of the transfer which was made for a consideration “in money or money’s worth” is subtracted out of the gross estate" }, { "docid": "11875134", "title": "", "text": "said policies, and to surrender any of them for its cash surrender value; provided however, that I may assign and relinquish to my wife Daisy Wright, or to any other person, any or all of the rights hereby reserved, and should I assign or relinquish the same to the said Daisy Wright, or any other person, she or such person shall have and possess all the rights and powers hereby reserved. XIV. “I may at any time, and from time to time, by an instrument in writing, delivered to the Trustees, during my lifetime terminate this declaration and agreement in whole or in part or modify or amend it. I shall have the right to make additional insurance policies subject to the terms of this agreement by making said Trustees the beneficiary in said policies or to withdraw any policy or policies from the provisions hereof. The Trustees agree to execute any and all instruments necessary and to permit me to exercise any and all rights reserved by me herein. “EXECUTED in quadruplicate this the 15th day of October, 1937. Martin Wright Daisy Wright” In this factual context the district court determined that one-half of the proceeds in the Martin Wright Insurance Trust, $42,131.05, should be included in the gross estate of Daisy Wright. The court below reasoned that the life insurance policies forming the corpus of the trust were community property and Martin Wright was acting as manager of the community when he set up the trust. When Martin Wright died on April 12, 1947, the trust became irrevocable and a transfer by Daisy of her community one-half of the proceeds to the trust resulted. Under the terms of the trust instrument, Daisy Wright had a life estate in the income from all of the proceeds. Thus the district court, relying on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 5 Cir. 1958, 259 F.2d 231, cert. den. 359 U.S. 913, 79 S.Ct. 589, 3 L.Ed.2d 575, held that the transfer made by Daisy Wright at the death of Martin Wright was a transfer with a retained right to" }, { "docid": "6968964", "title": "", "text": "all transfers of less than $3,000 in value from a decedent’s gross estate. Mr. Fein died on June 13, 1977. Following his death, on November 6, 1978, the Revenue Act of 1978 became law. Among other things, it took life-insurance policies out of § 2035(b)(2) altogether. The new law also provided that it would be effective with respect to transfers made after January 1, 1977, by decedents dying after December 31, 1976. Revenue Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-600, § 702(f)(2), 92 Stat. 2763, 2930. Thus, if the 1978 amendments apply, the proceeds of the decedent’s life-insurance policy are includible in his estate. II. There is nothing unusual about retroactive tax laws. “Congress almost without exception has given each such statute an effective date prior to the date of actual enactment____ Usually the ‘retroactive’ feature has application only to that portion of the current calendar year preceding the date of enactment, but each of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1926 was applicable to an entire calendar year that had expired preceding enactment.” United States v. Darusmont, 449 U.S. 292, 296, 101 S.Ct. 549, 551-52, 66 L.Ed.2d 513 (1981) (per curiam). Most such retroactive enactments have been upheld as against due-process challenges, on the theory that some limited retroactivity is necessary as a practical matter to prevent the revenue loss that would result if taxpayers, aware of a likely impending change in the law, were permitted to order their affairs freely to avoid the effect of the change. The retroactive application of a tax statute may still, in a given case, be so unreasonable as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. In determining whether a tax meets this threshold, the Supreme Court has looked to two main considerations: whether the change in the tax law was reasonably foreseeable, see Darusmont, supra, 449 U.S. at 299, 101 S.Ct. at 553 (assuming arguendo relevance of foreseeability of tax change); Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 147, 59 S.Ct. 121, 125-26, 83 L.Ed. 87 (1938); Milliken v. United States, 283 U.S. 15, 23-24, 51 S.Ct. 324, 327-28," }, { "docid": "11875159", "title": "", "text": "(1) Chase Manhattan was a gift tax case whereas this case involves federal estate taxes ;■ and (2) that to follow the Chase Manhattan case here would result in a double taxation of Daisy Wright’s community half of the proceeds, which was not intended by Congress. We find neither distinction to be persuasive. In regard to the first distinction, the close relationship between federal estate and gift taxes has long been recognized. In Sanford’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1939, 308 U.S. 39, 44, 60 S.Ct. 51, 56, 84 L.Ed. 20, 23, we read: “The gift tax was supplementary to the estate tax. The two are in pari materia and must he construed together. [Case cited.] An important, if not the main purpose of the gift tax was to prevent or compensate for avoidance of death taxes by taxing the gifts of property inter vivos which, but for the gifts, would be subject in its original or converted form to the tax laid upon transfers at death.” [Emphasis added.] This court has recognized the interrelationship between the estate and gift taxes and has found gift tax cases to be authoritative in estate tax cases. See, e. g., Vardell’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir. 1962, 307 F.2d 688, 693, wherein this Court cited the Chase Manhattan case as authority for an estate tax proposition. The executors also argue that the Chase Manhattan case should be distinguished on the ground that its application here would result in the subjection of Daisy Wright’s community property interest in the insurance proceeds to double estate taxation. The double counting here is an unfortunate side effect of the amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in 1948. At the date of the husband’s death, April 12, 1947, the revenue laws then in effect provided a rebuttable presumption that the insured spouse paid all of the policy premiums and, in such instance, required that the insurance proceeds be included in the gross estate of the premium-paying decedent irrespective of the half ownership of the other spouse under state community property laws. Int.Rev.Code of 1939," }, { "docid": "11875160", "title": "", "text": "interrelationship between the estate and gift taxes and has found gift tax cases to be authoritative in estate tax cases. See, e. g., Vardell’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir. 1962, 307 F.2d 688, 693, wherein this Court cited the Chase Manhattan case as authority for an estate tax proposition. The executors also argue that the Chase Manhattan case should be distinguished on the ground that its application here would result in the subjection of Daisy Wright’s community property interest in the insurance proceeds to double estate taxation. The double counting here is an unfortunate side effect of the amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in 1948. At the date of the husband’s death, April 12, 1947, the revenue laws then in effect provided a rebuttable presumption that the insured spouse paid all of the policy premiums and, in such instance, required that the insurance proceeds be included in the gross estate of the premium-paying decedent irrespective of the half ownership of the other spouse under state community property laws. Int.Rev.Code of 1939, §§ 811(g) (2) (A) and 811(g) (4), as amended by § 404, Int.Rev.Act of 1942, c. 619, 56 Stat. 798. This law was changed to its present form by § 353 of Int.Rev.Act of 1948, c. 168, 62 Stat. 110, effective for decedents dying after December 31, 1947. Thus, the entire proceeds from the community owned life insurance policies on the life of Martin Wright were taxed in the estate of Martin Wright. When Daisy Wright died in 1961, one-half of these life insurance proceeds were brought back into her estate by § 2036. Consequently her community half of the proceeds was taxed twice because of the change in the law, whereas under the present tax structure they would be taxed only once — when she died. Equities aside, Congress has the power to change the estate tax laws and to make such changes applicable to the estates of all dying subsequently. See United States v. Manufacturers National Bank, 1960, 363 U.S. 194, 80 S.Ct. 1103, 4 L.Ed.2d 1158; Thorp’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal" } ]

[ { "docid": "18932612", "title": "", "text": "error of fact judicially to be noticed, the doctrine of stare decisis cannot apply. We have considered “the inferences to be derived from the fact that the Quileute [Quillayute] Indians for whom the reservation was set apart” in view of the fact that the state was admitted to the Union after the land was set apart to the Indians, and have come to the above conclusion. Appellants rely on United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 46 S.Ct. 197, 200, 70 L.Ed. 465, where navigable Mud Lake of 5,000 acres, in a large reservation of 400 square miles, also including Red Lake and a part of the Lake of the Woods, was held “not intended to effect such a disposal” as making the lands under it a part of the reservation. There, as in the Annette Islands case and the instant appeal, the question was one of intent. Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, supra, is not mentioned and we cannot regard it as overruled sub silentio. In the Holt State Bank case there is no evidence of the use of the navigable waters with reference to established industries of the Indians, as in the Annette Island and instant case, which were operated in part on a portion of the river inside the lands reserved, with the uselessness of the sandspit save to enclose the river and to facilitate fishing therein. If the Circuit Court decision of United States v. Ashton, 170 F. 509, also relied upon by appellants, contains language contrary to the above it is not in accord with our views. United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089, also relied upon by appellants, is a case where the fishing territory was not in a reservation. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 14 S. Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331, concerns only a donation grant to an American citizen of lands on the Oregon side of the Columbia River. Its holding that the title ran only to the high water mark has nc relevance to thé title to tide lands enclosed by" } ]

[ { "docid": "10773402", "title": "", "text": "Treaty] the United States undertook to hold title to the reserved area, including the bed of the southerly half of the lake [Flathead Lake], in trust for the confederated tribes.” Rochester has been followed by this and other courts in subsequent decisions. Defendant argues, however, that while the south half of Flathead Lake is within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation, it is not a part of the reservation and that Rochester was in error in holding that the tribes are the owners of the bed of the lake. It is true, as defendant contends, that the United States is deemed to have held title to submerged lands below navigable waters in trust for the future states in which the water lay, unless the Congress expressly granted title to another. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48-49, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894). On the other hand, it is also well settled that Congress has the power to include ownership of the beds of navigable waters as a part of an Indian reservation, United States v. Romaine, 255 F. 253, 259 (9 Cir. 1919) relying upon Shively v. Bowlby, supra; Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 174 F.Supp. 500, 503 (D. Alaska 1959); and that whether or not Congress has done so is a matter of Congressional intent. Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620, 633, 90 S.Ct. 1328, 25 L.Ed.2d 615 (1970). The defendant relies upon United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 57-58, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926) which found that the title to the bed of Mud Lake, a navigable waterway within the Red Lake Reservation, had not been granted by treaty or by Act of Congress to the Chippewa Indians, and so title passed to the state of Minnesota upon her entry into the Union. The Court recognized, however, that where the intent is clear (and it may not lightly be inferred) the United States may by treaty or Act of Congress grant Indians title in river beds. In other words, Holt did not involve the express treaty provisions" }, { "docid": "10351985", "title": "", "text": "at 551, 101 S.Ct. at 1251. The Court, however, has recognized that Congress may convey lands underlying navigable waters and defeat the equal footing doctrine if the conveyances were necessary to satisfy international obligations, to promote or facilitate commerce among the States or with foreign nations, or to carry out other appropriate public purposes. United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 54-55, 46 S.Ct. 197, 199, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1925); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48, 14 S.Ct. 548, 566, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894). The Montana decision forecloses any argument that Congress intended to convey lands underlying navigable waters unless an express reference to the bed beneath the waters can be found in the grants establishing the reservation. See 450 U.S., at 544, 101 S.Ct. at 1245. For example, an implied conveyance cannot be upheld on the grounds that the navigable water lay wholly within the boundaries of a reservation, id. at 552, 101 S.Ct. at 1251; see United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. at 57-58, 46 S.Ct. at 199-200, or that treaties creating the reservation contain a right of exclusive tribal occupancy. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. at 554-55, 101 S.Ct. at 1251-52. Turning to the facts in the present case, even the strongest language in the various official documents defining the reservation’s western boundary falls short of the specificity required by Montana. We conceded in our earlier opinion (subsequently withdrawn by the panel for reconsideration in light of Montana) that the first executive order issued in 1873 delineating the bounds of the Reservation was ambiguous. It established the western boundary of the Reservation only vaguely as “bounded on the west by the Colorado River.” We nevertheless construed the ambiguity in favor of the Tribes — an approach Montana rejects. We next examined Order of May 15, 1876, which established the metes and bounds of the Reservation. This order set as part of the western boundary “a direct line toward the place of beginning to the west bank of the Colorado River; thence down said west bank to a point opposite the place" }, { "docid": "5239437", "title": "", "text": "S.Ct. at 1250-54. The Court’s analysis of this issue starts from the premise that “[a] court deciding a question of title to the bed of a navigable water must ... begin with a strong presumption against conveyance by the United States, ... and must not infer such a conveyance ‘unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain.’ ” Id. at 552, 101 S.Ct. at 1251 (quoting United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55, 46 S.Ct. 197, 199, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926)). At the same time, the Court did not reject the analysis of Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620, 90 S.Ct. 1328, 25 L.Ed.2d 615 (1970), in which the “Court did construe a reservation grant as including the bed of a navigable water.” See Montana, 450 U.S. at 555-56 n. 5, 101 S.Ct. at 1253-54 n. 5. Nor did it gainsay the equally important proposition set forth in Choctaw Nation that “treaties with the Indians must be interpreted as they would have understood them, ... and any doubtful expressions in them should be resolved in the Indians’ favor.” 397 U.S. at 631, 90 S.Ct. at 1334. Thus, when faced with a claim by an Indian tribe that it owns the bed of a navigable stream that flows through its reservation, we must accord appropriate weight to both the principle of construction favoring Indians and the presumption that the United States will not ordinarily convey title to the bed of a navigable river. See Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 665 F.2d 951, 961-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 314, 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982). The Supreme Court’s opinion in Montana provides considerable guidance as to how a court can give proper effect to both the presumption against conveyance and the principle of construction favoring Indians. First, the Court recognized that “establishment of an Indian reservation can be an ‘appropriate public purpose’ within the meaning of Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. [1, 48, 14 S.Ct. 548, 566, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894) ], justifying a congressional conveyance of a riverbed ...." }, { "docid": "10351991", "title": "", "text": "a riverbed, see, e.g., Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. 78, 85 [39 S.Ct. 40, 63 L.Ed. 138], the situation of the Crow Indians at the time of the treaties presented no ‘public exigency’ which would have required Congress to depart from its policy of reserving ownership of beds under navigable water for the future States. See Shively v. Bowlby, supra [152 U.S.], at 48 [14 S.Ct. at 566]. As the record in this case shows, at the time of the treaty the Crows were a nomadic tribe dependent chiefly on buffalo, and fishing was not important to their diet or way of life. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. at 556, 101 S.Ct. at 1253. Thus, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s decision in Montana permits a court to infer congressional intent to convey the bed beneath navigable waters if the Indians can prove they depended heavily on the particular body of water. See Puyallup Tribe of Indians v. Port of Tacoma, 525 F.Supp. 65 (W.D.Wash.1981). Unlike Alaska Pacific Fisheries, the Tribes’ history and lifestyle in this case do not provide grounds for an exception to the equal footing doctrine. The record does not reflect that the Indians were so dependent on the river that Congress would have intended to depart from the equal footing doctrine and convey the river bed. The Tribes have submitted considerable scholarly documentation to support a finding that a “public exigency” existed to justify a grant of the riverbed. We find this authority unpersuasive. The issue of aboriginal title was presented to this court on rehearing. Unfortunately the record from the district court does not allow us to make a determination on this issue. However, we do feel the issue is of sufficient import to allow the parties to address it on remand. IV. Although it is true that conveyances by the United States during a state’s territorial period are not lightly to be inferred, United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55, 46 S.Ct. 197, 199, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926), it is nevertheless within the power of the United" }, { "docid": "14798868", "title": "", "text": "in the opinion in United States v. Ben Ruby, infra. When it decided Thomas, the Supreme Court of the United States was unaware of the existence of the President’s 1850 removal order. See 151 U.S. at 582, 584, 14 S.Ct. 426. . See a more extended discussion of Thomas in my opinion in United States v. Ben Ruby, et al., infra. Essentially the same claim was raised in Wisconsin v. Hitchcock, 201 U.S. 202, 26 S.Ct. 498, 50 L.Ed. 727 (1906), with regard to lands within the Bad River Reservation. The court dealt with the case summarily, relying upon the reasoning of Thomas. . The opinion of the Court in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963) includes language which could be construed in support of plaintiff’s position in this case. The issue in Arizona was proper allocation of the water in the Colorado River for irrigation, drinking, and other purposes. Arizona challenged the validity of a master’s allocation of some of the water to an Indian reservation in Arizona. The Court held at 597-598, 83 S.Ct. at 1496: Arizona’s contention that the Federal Government had no power, after Arizona became a State, to reserve waters for the use and benefit of federally reserved lands rests largely upon statements in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, [11 L.Ed. 565] (1845) and Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, [14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331] (1894). Those cases and others that followed them gave rise to the doctrine that lands underlying navigable waters within territory acquired by the Government are held in trust for future States and that title to such lands is automatically vested in the States upon admission to the Union. But those cases involved only the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters. They do not determine the problem before us and cannot be accepted as limiting the broad powers of the United States to regulate navigable waters under the Commerce Clause and to regulate government lands under Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution. We have no doubt about the power" }, { "docid": "14798732", "title": "", "text": "as trustee for the public; and that any purported grant of navigable waterways to the Chippewa in 1854 by the United States was without authority and a nullity. Plaintiff responds with two contentions: first, that the Chippewa retained beneficial ownership of the land ceded to the United States by the treaty of 1842 and thus the State did not take title to the waterway at issue upon statehood; second, that even if the State did acquire title to the waterway at issue, the United States had sufficient treaty authority to grant exclusive use of the waterway to the Chippewa in 1854. Wisconsin entered the Union “on an equal footing with the original States,” and the original States possessed “. . . the absolute right to all their navigable waters and the soils under them, for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the constitution to the general government.” Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. (16 Ped.) 366, at 410, 10 L.Ed. 997 (1842). Assuming that the Chippewa ceded all their rights in the navigable waterways within the boundaries of the ceded area to the United States by the 1842 treaty, it is well settled that the government’s title to the beds of navigable waterways was held in trust for the future State, and upon statehood passed to Wisconsin in trust for the public. Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 56 S.Ct. 23, 80 L.Ed. 9 (1935); Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 33 S.Ct. 449, 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 at 49, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894). This principle was explained in United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926). The United States had brought suit to clear title to the bed of a lake which had been a navigable body of water in an Indian reservation. After the reservation was terminated and the lands around the lake sold to various settlers, the lake was drained. The issue was whether the bed of the lake belonged to the" }, { "docid": "19333187", "title": "", "text": "submerged lands beneath inland navigable waters is pending in Federal District Court, Alaska v. United States, Nos. A83-343, A84-435, A86-191 (D. Alaska), and has been stayed until resolution of the present case, see Report 347, n. 4. The parties no longer dispute the location of the Reserve’s boundary. Accordingly, we consider only the Master’s recommendation concerning the ownership of submerged lands beneath certain coastal features within that boundary. The Master concluded that the United States retained ownership of the submerged lands in question at Alaska’s statehood. That conclusion rested principally on three premises: first, that the United States can prevent lands beneath navigable waters from passing to a State upon admission to the Union by reserving those lands in federal ownership (as opposed to conveying them to a third party); second, that Congress had authorized the President to reserve submerged lands with a 1910 statute known as the Pickett Act; and third, that the 1923 Executive Order creating the Reserve reflected a clear intent to reserve all submerged lands within the boundaries of the Reserve and to defeat the State’s title to the submerged lands in question. Alaska excepts to the Master’s conclusion on several grounds, arguing that the Government did not show a sufficiently clear intent to reserve submerged lands or to defeat state title and that the 1923 Executive Order was promulgated without proper authority. We discuss some background principles and then consider these arguments in turn. A The Property Clause, Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, provides that “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” In Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 48 (1894), the Court concluded that this power extended to granting submerged lands to private parties, and thereby defeating a future State’s equal footing title, “to carry out . . . public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the United States hold the Territory.” We agree with the Special Master that Congress can also reserve submerged lands under federal control for an appropriate public purpose," }, { "docid": "10351992", "title": "", "text": "history and lifestyle in this case do not provide grounds for an exception to the equal footing doctrine. The record does not reflect that the Indians were so dependent on the river that Congress would have intended to depart from the equal footing doctrine and convey the river bed. The Tribes have submitted considerable scholarly documentation to support a finding that a “public exigency” existed to justify a grant of the riverbed. We find this authority unpersuasive. The issue of aboriginal title was presented to this court on rehearing. Unfortunately the record from the district court does not allow us to make a determination on this issue. However, we do feel the issue is of sufficient import to allow the parties to address it on remand. IV. Although it is true that conveyances by the United States during a state’s territorial period are not lightly to be inferred, United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55, 46 S.Ct. 197, 199, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926), it is nevertheless within the power of the United States to make such conveyances if it so desires, Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48, 14 S.Ct. 548, 566, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894). We find the evidence in this case insufficient to enable us to conclude that the government intended to convey the eastern half of the riverbed to the Indians when it formed the Reservation. Accordingly, we hold that the eastern half of the river bed was not conveyed by the government to the Indians as part of the Reservation. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. On remand the district court should determine the issue of aboriginal title and the correct boundary of the Reservation. APPENDIX A Channel of the Colorado River in 1908 APPENDIX B Channel of the Colorado River in 1915 APPENDIX C Channel of the Colorado River in 1919 APPENDIX D Channel of the Colorado River in 1919-1920 APPENDIX E Proposed Location of Olive Lake Cut, 1920 APPENDIX F. Channel of the Colorado River in 1925 . The course of the" }, { "docid": "15697954", "title": "", "text": "United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. at 14, 55 S.Ct. at 615. 6. This court cannot infer such a conveyance “unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made plain”. United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, at 55, 46 S.Ct. 197, at 199, 70 L.Ed. 465. Montana v. U. S., supra. It is established, however, that congress may sometimes convey lands below the high water mark of a navigable water. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48, 14 S.Ct. 548, 566, 38 L.Ed. 331; Montana v. U.S., supra. 7. But, because control over the property underlying navigable waters is so strongly identified with the sovereign power of government, United States v. Oregon, supra, it will not be held that the United States has conveyed such land “except because of some special duty or exigency”. United States v. Holt, 270 U.S. 49, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 supra. 8. Whether a grant or reservation included the bed of a navigable river depends on whether there was demonstrated an intention to do so. That intent is to be determined from the documents which created the reservation and from other available documents and surrounding circumstances which reflect the intention of the parties. Montana v. United States, supra; Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. 78, 87, 39 S.Ct. 40, 41, 63 L.Ed. 138 (1918). 9. In order to find that a riverbed was included within a reservation, there must have been a public exigency to justify a departure from the normal rule. The Supreme Court has defined “public exigency” to include three kinds of situations: (1) performance of international obligations; (2) improvement of commerce; or (3) “carrying out other public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the territory was held...” United States v. Holt State Bank, supra; Shively v. Bowlby, supra. 10. The establishment of an Indian Tribe can be an “appropriate public purpose” within the meaning of Shively v. Bowlby supra, 152 U.S. at 48, 14 S.Ct. at 566, justifying a congressional conveyance of a riverbed, see e. g., Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, supra;" }, { "docid": "18483075", "title": "", "text": "if married to her before December 31, 1851. Despite this specific restriction of the legislation to the relatively few whites and half-breed Indians in Oregon in 1851, the Supreme Court states that the Oregon Donation Act is “general legislation” by which cannot be granted navigable waters adjoining such “public lands.” It is thus apparent that whether the Act of 1936 be regarded as general legislation for all the Indians in Alaska or special legislation for their benefit, the phrase “public lands” does not include ocean waters any more than in the special legislation for Valentine or the general legislation for the Oregon whites and half-breeds there in 1851. Nor is the rule of Shively v. Bowlby confined to legislation for grants of land. In the case of United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465, its principle was applied in determining that a reservation of the Chippewa Indians surrounding navigable Mud Lake, whose area of 5,000 acres is comparable to the area of navigable waters here involved, did not include that lake. This court in Heckman v. Sutter, 9 Cir., 128 F. 393, 394, 395, 2 Alaska Fed. 264, expressly distinguishes between the limited meaning of the phrase “public lands” as excluding ocean lands and distinguished that phrase from the phrase “any lands” of the Act of May 17, 1884, which it held included Alaska tidelands under the rule of Shively v. Bowlby, stating: “Nor is it reasonable to suppose that Congress intended the broad and comprehensive terms thus used by it to be lim •ited by the interpretation put upon the term 'public lands’ in the general land laws, which it expressly provided should not be in force in Alaska. * *, * ” Despite the holding of the limiting meaning of the word “public” before the word “lands” in the Borax, Ltd. case, decided shortly before the Act of 1936, and our decision in Heckman v. Sutter, last cited, it is claimed that Congress intended that the latter Act must be construed as if the all-inclusive word “lands” alone were used." }, { "docid": "15697929", "title": "", "text": "the riverbed as public land which then passed to the State of Washington upon its admission to the Union. Montana v. U.S., - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 and Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620, 627-628, 90 S.Ct. 1328, 1332-33, 25 L.Ed.2d 615. As a general principle the federal government holds lands under navigable waters in trust for future states, to grant to such states when they enter the Union. There is a strong presumption against conveyance of such lands by the United States. Montana v. U.S., supra; U.S. v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1 at 14, 55 S.Ct. 610 at 615, 79 L.Ed. 1267. This court cannot infer such a conveyance “unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made plain”. U.S. v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, at 55, 46 S.Ct. 197, at 199, 70 L.Ed. 465; Montana v. U.S., supra. It has been determined, however, that congress may sometimes convey lands below the high water mark of a navigable water. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331; Montana v. U.S., supra. Whether a grant or reservation included the bed of a navigable river depends upon whether there was demonstrated an intention to do so. That intent is to be determined from the documents which created the reservation and from other available documents and surrounding circumstances which reflect the intention of the parties. Montana v. U.S., supra; Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. U.S., 248 U.S. 78, 87, 39 S.Ct. 40, 41, 63 L.Ed. 138. In order to find that a riverbed was included within a reservation there must have been a public exigency to justify a departure from the normal rule. The Supreme Court has defined “public exigency” to include three kinds of situations. They are as follows: (1) performance of international obligations; (2) improvement of commerce, or (3) “carrying out other public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the territory was held”. U.S. v. Holt State Bank, supra; Shively v. Bowlby, supra. The establishment of an Indian Tribe can be an “appropriate public purpose” within the meaning of" }, { "docid": "14798733", "title": "", "text": "in the navigable waterways within the boundaries of the ceded area to the United States by the 1842 treaty, it is well settled that the government’s title to the beds of navigable waterways was held in trust for the future State, and upon statehood passed to Wisconsin in trust for the public. Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 56 S.Ct. 23, 80 L.Ed. 9 (1935); Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 33 S.Ct. 449, 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 at 49, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894). This principle was explained in United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926). The United States had brought suit to clear title to the bed of a lake which had been a navigable body of water in an Indian reservation. After the reservation was terminated and the lands around the lake sold to various settlers, the lake was drained. The issue was whether the bed of the lake belonged to the state or the federal government. The court held (270 U.S. at 54-55, 46 S.Ct. at 198-199): It is settled law in this country that lands underlying navigable waters within a state belong to the state in its sovereign capacity . . . subject to the qualification that where the United States, after acquiring a territory and before the creation of the state, has granted rights in such lands . . . such rights are not cut off by the subsequent creation of the state, but remain unimpaired, and the rights which otherwise would pass to the state in virtue of its admission into the Union are restricted or qualified accordingly. . . . The state of Minnesota was admitted to the Union in 1858 . . and under the constitutional principle of equality among the several states, the title to the bed of Mud Lake then passed to the state, if the lake was navigable, and if the bed had not already been disposed of by the United States. The “disposal” of a navigable waterway" }, { "docid": "14798869", "title": "", "text": "Arizona. The Court held at 597-598, 83 S.Ct. at 1496: Arizona’s contention that the Federal Government had no power, after Arizona became a State, to reserve waters for the use and benefit of federally reserved lands rests largely upon statements in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, [11 L.Ed. 565] (1845) and Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, [14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331] (1894). Those cases and others that followed them gave rise to the doctrine that lands underlying navigable waters within territory acquired by the Government are held in trust for future States and that title to such lands is automatically vested in the States upon admission to the Union. But those cases involved only the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters. They do not determine the problem before us and cannot be accepted as limiting the broad powers of the United States to regulate navigable waters under the Commerce Clause and to regulate government lands under Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution. We have no doubt about the power of the United States under these clauses to reserve water rights for its reservations and its property. From the statement limiting Pollard’s Lessee and Shively as relevant only to title to the shores and beds of navigable waters, it might be inferred that title to navigable waters is not held by the state. But see Port of Seattle v. Oregon & W. R.R., 255 U.S. 56 at 63, 41 S.Ct. 237, 65 L.Ed. 500 (1921); Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 at 260, 33 S.Ct. 449, 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913). But the context of that statement shows that title was not an issue in Arizona ; rather the issue was the federal government’s power to regulate and use navigable waters for a federal reservation. Thus a holding in this case that the federal government had the authority to grant exclusive use of the Kagagon Slough to the Indians, but did not have the authority to divest the state of its title to that waterway without compensation, is consistent with the Arizona decision. . Defendant" }, { "docid": "18483074", "title": "", "text": "Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761, [763, 23 L.Ed. 769]: ‘The words “public lands” are habitually used in our legislation to describe such as are subject to sale or other disposal under general laws.’ See also Leavenworth, etc., Railroad v. United States, 92 U.S. 733, [23 L.Ed. 634]; Doolanv. Carr, 125 U.S. 618, 8 S.Ct. 1228 [31 L.Ed. 844].” The “general rule” referred to was that of Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331. Unlike the use of the phrase “public lands” in the special legislation creating the Valentine script, the phrase was used in the “general legislation” of September 27, 1850, 9 Stat. 496, providing for a donation claim of “public lands” which the Supreme Court held did not include lands below high water mark. That Act provided for a grant to “every white settler or occupant of the public lands, American half-breed Indians included,” on certain conditions of occupancy and cultivation of the lands, of 320 acres if unmarried and an additional 320 acres to his wife if married to her before December 31, 1851. Despite this specific restriction of the legislation to the relatively few whites and half-breed Indians in Oregon in 1851, the Supreme Court states that the Oregon Donation Act is “general legislation” by which cannot be granted navigable waters adjoining such “public lands.” It is thus apparent that whether the Act of 1936 be regarded as general legislation for all the Indians in Alaska or special legislation for their benefit, the phrase “public lands” does not include ocean waters any more than in the special legislation for Valentine or the general legislation for the Oregon whites and half-breeds there in 1851. Nor is the rule of Shively v. Bowlby confined to legislation for grants of land. In the case of United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465, its principle was applied in determining that a reservation of the Chippewa Indians surrounding navigable Mud Lake, whose area of 5,000 acres is comparable to the area of navigable waters here involved, did" }, { "docid": "11120564", "title": "", "text": "Treaties 594 (hereinafter cited as Kapp.). The Treaty with the Crows of 1868, 15 Stat. 649, 2 Kapp. 1008, carved out from the 1851 territory a reservation of some 8,000,000 acres for the Crow Indians. Subsequent acts further reduced the size of the reservation. The Big Horn River is a navigable watercourse which flows through the heart of the Crow Indian Reservation from south to north. Prior to 1851, the United States owned the bed of the Big Horn River. Cf. United States v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 543 F.2d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 1976). The United States either transferred beneficial ownership of the bed to the Crow Tribe by the treaties of 1851 and 1868 or retained ownership of the bed as public lands, which passed to the State of Montana upon its admission to the Union. Our disposition of this case depends on which alternative the Government followed when it signed the treaties. Our examination is controlled by the opinions of the Supreme Court in two cases ruling on title to lands underlying navigable waters situated in Indian territory: United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926) and Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620, 90 S.Ct. 1328, 25 L.Ed.2d 615 (1969). Correct application of these precedents is a delicate matter, as the two cases seem to fall on either side of the present controversy- It was early determined, before the Holt and Choctaw cases arose, that a disposition by the United States of public lands bordering on navigable waters, as a general rule, does not convey title or dominion to the lands situated below high water mark. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1893). In Shively the United States had granted land adjacent to the Columbia River to a private party pursuant to the Oregon Donation Act, 9 Stat. 496. The Supreme Court held that absent the clearest expression of intent to the contrary, it would not presume that the United States intended to divest itself of part of the riverbed. The Court" }, { "docid": "10351984", "title": "", "text": "at 14 [55 S.Ct. at 615], it will not be held that the United States has conveyed such land except because of “some international duty or public exigency.” United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S., at 55 [46 S.Ct. at 199]. See also Shively v. Bowlby, supra [152 U.S.], at 48 [14 S.Ct. at 566]. A court deciding a question of title to the bed of a navigable water must, therefore, begin with a strong presumption against conveyance by the United States, United States v. Oregon, supra [295 U.S.], at 14 [55 S.Ct. at 615], and must not infer such a conveyance “unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made plain,” United States v. Holt State Bank, supra [270 U.S.], at 55 [46 S.Ct. at 199], or was rendered “in clear and especial words,” Martin v. Waddell, supra [41 U.S.], at 411, or “unless the claim con firmed in terms embraces the land under the waters of the stream,” Packer v. Bird, supra [137 U.S.] at 672 [11 S.Ct. at 212]. 450 U.S. at 551, 101 S.Ct. at 1251. The Court, however, has recognized that Congress may convey lands underlying navigable waters and defeat the equal footing doctrine if the conveyances were necessary to satisfy international obligations, to promote or facilitate commerce among the States or with foreign nations, or to carry out other appropriate public purposes. United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 54-55, 46 S.Ct. 197, 199, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1925); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48, 14 S.Ct. 548, 566, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894). The Montana decision forecloses any argument that Congress intended to convey lands underlying navigable waters unless an express reference to the bed beneath the waters can be found in the grants establishing the reservation. See 450 U.S., at 544, 101 S.Ct. at 1245. For example, an implied conveyance cannot be upheld on the grounds that the navigable water lay wholly within the boundaries of a reservation, id. at 552, 101 S.Ct. at 1251; see United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. at 57-58, 46 S.Ct. at 199-200," }, { "docid": "11125788", "title": "", "text": "necessarily a federal question. It is a question which concerns the validity and effect of an act done by the United States; it involves the ascertainment of the essential basis of a right asserted under federal law. Packer v. Bird, 187 U.S. 661, 669, 670 [11 S.Ct. 210, 34 L.Ed. 819]; Brewer-Elliott Oil [& Gas] Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 77, 87 [43 S.Ct. 60, 67 L.Ed. 140]; United States v. Holt [State] Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55, 56 [46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465]; United States v. [State of] Utah, 283 U.S. 64, 75 [51 S.Ct. 438, 75 L.Ed. 844]. Rights and interests in the tideland, which is subject to the sovereignty of the State, are matters of local law. Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324, 338 [24 L.Ed. 224]; Shively v. Bowlby, supra [152 U.S. 1], [at] p. 40 [14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331]; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 382 [11 S.Ct. 808, 35 L.Ed. 428]; Port of Seattle v. Oregon & Washington R. Co., 255 U.S. 56, 63 [41 S.Ct. 237, 65 L.Ed. 500].” 296 U.S. at page 22, 56 S.Ct. at page 29. No question of accretions was involved in Borax, the problem being the ascertainment of the boundary between the upland and tideland as it existed at the time the company received its patent. But the principle there announced is equally applicable where the problem is one of determining whether imperceptible accretions go with the upland. If the upland owner is entitled to the imperceptible accretions it is because this is an attribute of title reserved to or obtained by grant from the Government. Thus the determination of the attributes of an underlying federal title, quite as much as the determination of the boundaries of the land reserved or acquired under such a title, “involves the ascertainment of the essential basis of a right asserted under federal law.” Appellee cites a number of decisions which in its opinion call for the conclusion that state law governs under the circumstances of this case. One of these is Barney v. City of Keokuk, 94" }, { "docid": "20368421", "title": "", "text": "the tranquil waters of their natural habitat. President Roosevelt never intended such a result, nor did he envision the bulls and cows of this noble group standing on the shores of streams and lakes and there extending their necks to giraffelike proportions in order to enjoy the aquatic vegetation so essential to their continued existence. Water, in other words, is just as essential to the continued existence of the moose as it is to any other semi-aquatic animal in Alaska. If the Order failed to withdraw the navigable water in the designated area, it amounted to nothing more than an impotent gesture. If it failed to withdraw the land under the water, it would be just as sterile. In neither case would this magnificent animal be the beneficiary of the declared design Of the Order. Appellees argue that United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926), supports the trial court’s conclusion that the submerged land here in question passed to Alaska on its admission to the Union. Holt State Bank employs the principle that where the United States, after acquiring the territory and before the creation of the state, has granted rights in lands, in carrying out public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the Territory was held, such rights are not impaired by the subsequent creation of a state, and the rights which otherwise would pass to the state by virtue of its admission to the Union, are restricted and qualified accordingly. As an appendix to this general principle, Holt State Bank points to Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 47-48, 57-58, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894), for use of the precept that land under navigable waters in acquired territory is generally held for the ultimate benefit of future states and that disposals by the United States during the territorial period are not lightly to be inferred and should not be regarded as intended unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain. We have no difficulty in placing the language of the withdrawal Order within" }, { "docid": "20368422", "title": "", "text": "Holt State Bank employs the principle that where the United States, after acquiring the territory and before the creation of the state, has granted rights in lands, in carrying out public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the Territory was held, such rights are not impaired by the subsequent creation of a state, and the rights which otherwise would pass to the state by virtue of its admission to the Union, are restricted and qualified accordingly. As an appendix to this general principle, Holt State Bank points to Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 47-48, 57-58, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894), for use of the precept that land under navigable waters in acquired territory is generally held for the ultimate benefit of future states and that disposals by the United States during the territorial period are not lightly to be inferred and should not be regarded as intended unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain. We have no difficulty in placing the language of the withdrawal Order within the meaning of “or otherwise made very plain”. Although the precise question was not involved, the United States Supreme Court in Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 4-5, 85 S.Ct. 792, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965), clearly recognizes that the land in the Kenai Moose Range was specifically reserved to the United States at the time of passage of the Alaska Statehood Act. The factual background in Cherokee Nation or Tribe of Indians v. State of Oklahoma, 402 F.2d 739 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. granted 394 U.S. 972, 89 S.Ct. 1455, 22 L.Ed.2d 752, relied on by appellees, in no way parallels the one before us. The issue before that court was whether the provisions of certain Indian Treaties were sufficiently clear to indicate an intent to reserve, in favor of the Indian Nation, the land under the navigable waters of the Arkansas River. The court held that there was nothing in the pertinent treaties, statutes and conveyances which indicated an intent of the United States, as trustee for the states to be formed, to convey" }, { "docid": "15697953", "title": "", "text": "the right to file suit independently of the United States, where the United States holds the land in trust, and the Indian Tribe is the beneficial owner of the property. Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co., 390 U.S. 365, 88 S.Ct. 982, 19 L.Ed.2d 1238; Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Helix Irrigation District, 514 F.2d 465 (9th Cir.), cert. denied. 4. The Plaintiff Puyallup Tribe is the political successor in interest to the Puyallup Indians who signed the Treaty of Medicine Creek (10 Stat. 1132, December 26, 1854). United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 370 (W.D.Wash.1974), aff’d sub nom. Washington v. Fishing Vessel Ass’n., 443 U.S. 658, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979). 5. As a general principle, the Federal Government holds lands under navigable waters in trust for future states, to grant to such states when they enter the Union, and there is a strong presumption against conveyance of such lands by the United States. Montana v. U. S., 450 U.S. at 551-558, 101 S.Ct. at 1251-54, 67 L.Ed.2d at 502-505, United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. at 14, 55 S.Ct. at 615. 6. This court cannot infer such a conveyance “unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made plain”. United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, at 55, 46 S.Ct. 197, at 199, 70 L.Ed. 465. Montana v. U. S., supra. It is established, however, that congress may sometimes convey lands below the high water mark of a navigable water. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48, 14 S.Ct. 548, 566, 38 L.Ed. 331; Montana v. U.S., supra. 7. But, because control over the property underlying navigable waters is so strongly identified with the sovereign power of government, United States v. Oregon, supra, it will not be held that the United States has conveyed such land “except because of some special duty or exigency”. United States v. Holt, 270 U.S. 49, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 supra. 8. Whether a grant or reservation included the bed of a navigable river depends on whether there was demonstrated an intention to do so." } ]

[ { "docid": "24565", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: This case comes to us on appeal from a district court decision which reviewed and affirmed the discharge of appellant from his Civil Service position as a Post Office Department employee. We affirm. Appellant Taffel was arrested and booked for shoplifting on April 6, 1968. On April 10 and 15, the postmaster notified Taffel of proposed adverse action arising out of the alleged shoplifting incident and gave him an opportunity to reply to the charge. On April 26, 1968, Taffel was discharged. He exhausted his administrative appeals and then sued in federal district court for reinstatement and back pay. That court upheld the decision of the Civil Service Commission and Taffel appeals. Taffel argues that his dismissal should be reversed because (1) it was arbitrary and capricious, and (2) the charge was so vague as to deny him a fair opportunity to respond to it. We see no merit in either argument. The Civil Service Commission complied with all statutorily required procedures, and Taffel was afforded every opportunity to reply. The evidence was sufficient to support the Commission’s determination that Taffel should be discharged to “promote the efficiency of the service.” As to the argument that the charge was so vague as to deny him a fair opportunity to respond to it, we find that it was clearly sufficient to apprise him of the facts and reasons for the action being taken against him. There is no indication in the record that he was in any way confused about the situation with which he was being confronted. Affirmed. . Taffel was never convicted of the state shoplifting charge. The criminal charge of petit larceny was first dismissed by a municipal judge for lack of jurisdiction (municipal court jurisdiction at the time did not extend to criminal cases involving more than $100.00 and the wholesale price of the saw was $100.97). Subsequently, Taffel was charged with grand larceny (theft of goods of more than $100.00 in value), but for reasons not clear from the record this charge was then reduced to petit larceny and was thereupon dismissed on the" } ]

[ { "docid": "8882867", "title": "", "text": "OPINION SNEED, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellant was suspended and subsequently discharged from his position with the United States Postal Service. After the Regional Postmaster General and Assistant Postmaster General affirmed the suspension and discharge, appellant filed suit in the District Court, seeking reinstatement, back pay, and other appropriate relief. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants-appellees. We affirm. A brief discussion of facts is helpful in understanding appellant’s arguments on appeal. Appellant removed several items of postal property from the Mojave, California Post Office when his employment was transferred from that office to the Santa Barbara Post Office. He was subsequently charged with theft of postal property, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1707. Appellant was then suspended from employment, effective September 22, 1973, by the Officer-in-Charge of the Santa Barbara Post Office. The suspension was in compliance with Postal Service regulations allowing immediate suspension of an employee when there is reasonable cause to believe he is guilty of a crime for which imprisonment will result. Appellant was subsequently discharged from employment, effective November 16, 1973, by the Officer-in-Charge. Appellant filed admin istrative appeals from the suspension and discharge decisions. As a result of a jury trial held on December 19-20, 1973, appellant was acquitted of the criminal charges against him. Appellant’s appeals to postal authorities were consolidated, and an evi-dentiary hearing was held on January 3-4, 1974. The Hearing Officer prepared findings of fact and recommendations, and forwarded these items to the Regional Postmaster General of the Western Region. The Regional Postmaster General, on March 25, 1974, affirmed the Hearing Officer’s findings and upheld appellant’s suspension and removal. Appellant appealed this decision, and the suspension and discharge were again affirmed by the Assistant Postmaster General on May 10, 1974. Appellant then sought judicial review of his dismissal. We previously have held that judicial review of dismissal from federal employment is limited to a determination that the applicable procedures have been complied with and that the dismissal was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious. Taylor v. United States Civil Service Commission, 374 F.2d 466 (9th Cir." }, { "docid": "10768600", "title": "", "text": "circumstances — a position of trust, conviction for theft, public knowledge of the conviction, evidence of public reluctance or refusal to continue to deal with the Morrisville Post Office if plaintiff remained as Postmaster— we cannot conclude that the decision of the agency to accord the pardon only limited weight was arbitrary or capricious. III. CONCLUSION The district court’s “forward-looking analysis” does not accurately state the law as to the required nexus between removal and the efficiency of the service. We believe that use of the proper analysis reveals that the Postal Service was not arbitrary or capricious in its conclusion that the required nexus exists. Moreover, plaintiff’s contention that his reinstatement is required in order that “full faith and credit” be given to his state pardon is without merit. The decision of the district court is, therefore, reversed, and the removal by the Postal Service is upheld. It is so ordered. . 5 U.S.C.A. § 7513(a) (1980) was enacted as § 204(a) of Pub.L. No. 95^154, Title II, 92 Stat. 1136, which effected a reorganization of the Civil Service. The requirement as applied to preference eligible employees, to which class plaintiff belonged, J.A. at 24, was found previously at § 7512, Pub.L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 528 (1966). . We have discussed elsewhere the nature of the review called for by the application of the arbitrary or capricious standard to employee dismissal cases. See Doe v. Hampton, 566 F.2d 265, 271 n.15 (D.C.Cir.1977).. . See, e. g., this court’s opinion in Gueory v. Hampton, 510 F.2d 1222, 1226 (D.C.Cir. 1974), where we emphasized that conviction for “activities of a minor nature, such as a traffic citation” might call for a more searching nexus analysis than was required in that case, which involved a manslaughter conviction. Such an analysis was made in this case. In addition, we emphasize that the fact that plaintiff occupied a position of authority with fiduciary responsibilities plays a central part in our decision today. We believe that Taffell v. Hampton, 463 F.2d 251 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) and Marsden v. United States, 410 F.Supp." }, { "docid": "22986017", "title": "", "text": "efficiency of the service], the mere fact of a criminal conviction for possession of a “controlled sub-stance” and unlawful possession of cannabis (marijuana) does not, without more, prove impairment to the efficiency of the service sufficient to justify the dismissal of a Government employee. Accordingly, in order that the district court may take appropriate action in the areas of reinstatement and back pay, or institute other additional relief not inconsistent with the above opinion, we REVERSE AND REMAND. . The “controlled substances” in Young’s possession were amphetamines, barbiturates, and MDA, an amphetamine derivative. . Young’s misconduct in this personnel action involved the same offense for which he had been sentenced to 90 days confinement. . See note 9, infra. . 5 U.S.C. § 7501(a) (1970) states: An individual in the competitive service may be removed or suspended without pay only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service. . In Wood, a post office foreman was dismissed for participation in the falsification of employees’ time records (including his own) in the very office which he supervised. In Wroblaski, an employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service was dismissed for employing aliens subject to deportation as domestics in her home. We affirmed both of these dismissals. Since 5 U.S.C. § 7501(a) permits discharge. of a federal employee only if such action will “promote the efficiency of the service,” a necessary implication of these affirmances is that we found each of the dismissals to “promote the efficiency of the service.” . 416 F.2d at 1377, 189 Ct.Cl. at 39, quoting applicable Army regulations, CPR S1.3-3 (February 1961) Guidelines § c(2). . The Schlegel court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff, but only upon reviewing the evidence produced at the Commission’s hearing and concluding that the evidence supported the finding that the plaintiff’s removal promoted the efficiency of the service. Although Schlegel was a Veterans Preference eligible employee, the effective language of 5 U.S.C. § 7512(a) (a section of the Veterans Preference Act), requiring that certain adverse action “promote the efficiency of the service,” is the same as the effective language" }, { "docid": "22997386", "title": "", "text": "WATERMAN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, granting, upon cross-motions for summary judgment, a judgment in favor of the defendants in a suit brought by a dismissed postal employee against the Postmaster General and the three members of the United States Civil Service Commission wherein appellant sought a declaration that certain acts of the Post Office Department and of the Civil Service Commission were invalid, and sought an order directing the Postmaster General to reinstate appellant as Postmaster of the Central Islip, New York, Post Office, the position he had held until his dismissal. Following an examination of the operation of his post office by two postal inspectors, written charges were filed against appellant, a veteran of the armed services, alleging, among other allegations, a failure by appellant “to conduct the post office at Central Islip, N. Y., in accordance with the instructions of the Post Office Department as evidenced by the inspection of your office starting on February 6, 1959, which disclosed 82 irregularities, two of which were recurrent from the previous inspection.” After appellant was given an opportunity to reply to the charges orally and in writing, the Post Office Department, on July 23, 1959, ruled that appellant was to be removed from office. Thereafter an appeal by appellant to the Civil Service Commission proved unsuccessful, and the proceedings before that agency finally terminating on February 9, 1961, on May 19,1961 appellant was removed from office. More than two years later, on May 21, 1963, appellant commenced this action in the district court to secure reinstatement, alleging that his removal from office had been effected as a result of proceedings which had failed to comply with the provisions and enabling regulations of the Veterans’ Preference Act, 5 U.S.C. § 851 et seq., a statute which ■grants to a qualifying veteran such as appellant certain procedural rights in administrative proceedings involving disciplinary action against federally employed veterans. Inasmuch as our examination of the record convinces us that appellant’s numerous claims of procedural irregularity" }, { "docid": "12743188", "title": "", "text": "his attendance. That the Postal Service considered both those absences due to illness and those for which no substantiation was provided troublesome is an insufficient basis for concluding, as the presiding official apparently did, that an employee could reasonably believe it pointless to avoid AWOL’s; rather, the employee might also reasonably have concluded he should make every effort to avoid both types of absences. . Plaintiff, citing Rolles v. Civil Service Commission, 512 F.2d 1319 (D.C.Cir.1975), contends he could not properly be discharged for absences which were due to factors beyond his control such as sickness. Rolles, involving a specific Air Force regulation which provided that technicians who failed to meet their obligation of active membership for reasons within their control would be separated, id at 1325, does not support the broad position plaintiff advances. It need not be decided whether an employee who had recovered from an illness and was able to perform his duties could be discharged for absences based solely on said illness, for that is not this case since a significant number of plaintiffs absences were not due to illness. . Section 7703(c) reads, in material part, “[T]he court shall review the record and hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions found to be— (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. ...” . The presiding officer separated the agency’s decision into two components — whether the employee was guilty of the wrongdoing charged, and what penalty should be imposed for that wrongdoing. In fact, there appear to be three components to the agency’s decision, the third being whether the employee’s wrongdoing sufficiently impaired the efficiency of the service to satisfy § 7513. See Phillips v. Berg-land 586 F.2d 1007 (4th Cir.1978). Although the appropriateness of the penalty imposed for disciplinary infractions is certainly an important component of the agency’s determination, it is not specifically addressed by § 7513 and, in contrast to the other' two components," }, { "docid": "23084654", "title": "", "text": "the penalty of removal was in any event too severe. Because we have put aside all but two of the charges originally levied, we need not consider whether discharge would be appropriate for the grounds (or any of them) no longer in the case as we shape it. The issue is, rather, whether removal was a proper sanction for the first two grounds relating to plaintiff’s absence from Toronto over the Thanksgiving weekend of 1972. On that we have no qualms on this record. The employee was found to have deliberately and intentionally falsified travel, work, and per diem records in an effort to obtain a distinct and substantial advantage from the Government. There is little doubt, as we have said, that this determination was fully supported. The two charges were not trivial or even minor. We have consistently ruled that deliberate falsifications of this character bear on the “efficiency of the Service” and, once proved, warrant separation (if that is an authorized sanction). See Birnholz v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 532 (1972); Grover v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 337, 353-54 (1973); Hoover v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 640, 648-49, 513 F. 2d 603, 607-08 (1975); Rifkin v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 566, 585 (1976) Here, removal iwas within the range of permitted penalties. Neither the agency nor the Civil Service Commission abused its discretion. Contrast Boyce v. United States, ante at 57. It is immaterial that others would not have imposed the extreme sanction. See Rifkin v. United States, supra. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the defendant’s motion is granted. The petition is dismissed. A11 the charges concerned Pascal’s trip to Toronto, Canada, to audit the books of the Canada Life Assurance Company. Of the four charges we lay aside, the Commission upheld a count that Pascal had failed to maintain proper dress and grooming while conducting the audit in Toronto and another accusation that he had failed to perform adequate duty hours while on that assignment. Two counts were rejected by the Commission as unproved. One was that" }, { "docid": "10081484", "title": "", "text": "that the administrative record evidences the necessary procedural steps for the removal of plaintiff. Fineman v. United States Postal Service, 555 F.Supp. 1336, 1341 (S.D.New York 1983). The First Circuit has recently held that because the Postal Service is imbued with the public trust, it has a legitimate interest in being able to easily examine the conduct of its employees in order to ensure their honesty and trustworthiness. For this reason, a Postal Service employee can be dismissed based on inferences of serious untrustworthiness. Kissinger v. United States Postal Service, 801 F.2d 551 (1st Cir.1986) (upholding dismissal of employee who was convicted of failure to disclose material facts in required union reports and willfully concealing or destroying union records). See also Weston v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 724 F.2d 943 (Fed.Cir.1983) (upholding dismissal of employee who had refused to cooperate in internal agency investigation of activities far removed in function and place from her present position). When an agency offers substantial evidence and adequate justification for a removal action, there is a strong presumption that the discharge was for good cause. Doe v. Hampton, supra, at 271; Phillips v. Bergland, 586 F.2d 1007 (4th Cir.1978). In Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607, 619-20, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 1026, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966), the Supreme Court defined substantial evidence as follows: ... as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U.S. 197, 229 [59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938) ] ... This is something less that the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent any administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence. The transcript of administrative hearing held on December 18, 1984 reveals that plaintiff’s counsel stipulated that his client placed a parcel that he found at the postal station in the trunk of his privately owned motor vehicle, and that the parcel was later recovered from the trunk of the car at plaintiff’s residence. (Tr. 6, 26.)" }, { "docid": "10081483", "title": "", "text": "the court held that review of an agency decision discharging an employee, being a matter of discretion, is “subject to judicial supervision only to the extent required to insure substantial compliance with the pertinent statutory procedures provided by Congress ... and to guard against arbitrary or capricious action”. United States v. Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), 438 F.2d 79, 80-81 (2nd Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 915, 91 S.Ct. 1373, 28 L.Ed.2d 661 (1971). Accordingly, the reviewing courts should not substitute their own judgment for that of the agency or inquire into the wisdom of personnel decisions, since such decisions are typically within the particular competence and discretion of executive officials. Donovan v. United States, 433 F.2d 522 (D.C.Cir.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 944, 91 S.Ct. 955, 28 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971); Studemeyer v. Macy, 321 F.2d 386 (D.C.Cir.1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 337, 11 L.Ed.2d 265 (1963). Our review must be based solely upon the administrative record. No de novo review can be had in this proceeding. We need only determine that the administrative record evidences the necessary procedural steps for the removal of plaintiff. Fineman v. United States Postal Service, 555 F.Supp. 1336, 1341 (S.D.New York 1983). The First Circuit has recently held that because the Postal Service is imbued with the public trust, it has a legitimate interest in being able to easily examine the conduct of its employees in order to ensure their honesty and trustworthiness. For this reason, a Postal Service employee can be dismissed based on inferences of serious untrustworthiness. Kissinger v. United States Postal Service, 801 F.2d 551 (1st Cir.1986) (upholding dismissal of employee who was convicted of failure to disclose material facts in required union reports and willfully concealing or destroying union records). See also Weston v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 724 F.2d 943 (Fed.Cir.1983) (upholding dismissal of employee who had refused to cooperate in internal agency investigation of activities far removed in function and place from her present position). When an agency offers substantial evidence and adequate justification for a removal action, there is a strong" }, { "docid": "6789820", "title": "", "text": "efficiency of the service. The Board may not shift the burden of proof by presumption or application of the per se rule. Those pre-Act cases recognizing that certain employee misconduct on its face establishes the requisite nexus can generally be distinguished as involving work-related activities easily identifiable with and directly connected to employee performance and agency efficiency. Thus, the following misconduct has been considered to have a bearing “on its face” on the efficiency of the service: insubordination, falsification of official time reports, and misuse of official funds. Similarly, certain misconduct, although taking place away from the workplace, has been found to be so closely associated with the type of work performed by the employee that the nexus can be presumed. In Hoover v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 640, 513 F.2d 603 (Ct.Cl.1975), the removal of an IRS tax technician responsible for overseeing taxpayer returns, who himself falsified his personal tax returns, was upheld. However, when the employee misconduct is off-duty and non-work related, even before the 1978 Act, the courts have been generally unwilling to presume that the discharge will promote the efficiency of the service. Therefore, the courts have re versed employee discharges founded on the following conduct: homosexual advances, physical attack of a fellow employee, and conviction for possession of marijuana. The general thrust of these cases is that in situations involving off-duty activities, the reviewing court will require the agency to demonstrate that removal will promote the efficiency of the service. Identification of the cause for removal is not sufficient; the agency must also establish the relationship between the employee misconduct and the adverse effect on its abilities to perform successfully its assigned functions. In the instant case, the Postal Service admitted that Bonet’s employment record was satisfactory throughout his 21 year tenure and that he was considered a good station manager. The agency considered that Bonet’s work record was not at issue. Rather, the issue was whether Bonet’s private immoral conduct was unacceptable conduct for a postal employee. We agree that Bonet’s misconduct may be unacceptable for a postal employee, or at least for a" }, { "docid": "6789810", "title": "", "text": "v. United States, 639 F.2d at 729; Phillips v. Bergland, 586 F.2d at 1011; Young v. Hampton, 568 F.2d 1253 (7th Cir. 1977); Doe v. Hampton, 566 F.2d 265 (D.C.Cir.1977). The Standard of Judicial Review With the enactment of the civil service reform legislation in 1978, Congress supplied the courts of appeals with a specific standard of review applicable in federal employee appeals from adverse agency action. The reviewing court is directed to set aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions found to be: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). The essence of Bonet’s complaint on appeal is that the agency decision is arbitrary and capricious because it is not based on specific findings of a “nexus” between the charged misconduct and the efficiency of the service, and that the record would not support such findings. We find no evidence exists in the administrative record to support the conclusion that Bonet’s removal will promote the efficiency of the service. The administrative finding rests on the assumption that the retention of an employee who commits sexually indecent conduct with minors, regardless of any circumstances and without regard to whether this conduct is a matter of public knowledge or not, necessarily reflects adversely on the image of the service, and the further assumption that sanctions against an employee who violates a general standard of off-duty conduct expected of employees necessarily promotes the efficiency of the service. The Agency Record and the Administrative Findings Bonet’s discharge is based upon his off-duty conduct constituting a violation of section 661.53 of the Code of Ethical Conduct, Employee and Labor Relations Manual of the United States Postal Service. Section 661.53, entitled “Unacceptable Conduct,” provides: No employee will engage in criminal, dishonest, notoriously disgraceful or immoral conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the Postal Service. Conviction of a violation of any criminal statute may be grounds for disciplinary action by the Postal Service, in addition to" }, { "docid": "19691618", "title": "", "text": "for rehabilitation. Considering plaintiffs stellar record and his many contributions as a employee, it would not have been unreasonable if the Postal Service had elected to retain plaintiff as an employee and encourage him in his rehabilitation efforts. These mitigating factors do not negate the seriousness of plaintiffs misconduct; nor do they indicate that retention was the only appropriate option. Plaintiffs misconduct was ongoing. Plaintiff used marijuana every day for over twenty years. Plaintiff held a supervisory role that required him to monitor the performance of his staff members. Plaintiff had extensive contact with the public. His misconduct garnered negative publicity and reflected poorly on the reputation of the Postal Service. The MSPB properly considered many of the factors enunciated in Douglas and found that the Grimes’s dismissal was not inappropriate. Plaintiff cites cases in which the MSPB reviewed the Postal Service’s decision to discharge employees for drug-related offenses, and determined that suspension, rather than discharge was appropriate. See Tucker v. United States Postal Serv., 43 M.S.P.R. 515 (1990) and Schaffer v. United States Postal Serv., 39 M.S.P.R. 153 (1988). The actions reviewed in those decisions involved employees who, unlike this plaintiff, did not hold positions of special trust or interact with the public extensively. Plaintiff was not an entry level employee. He was a postmaster, charged with responsibilities of leadership. The MSPB appropriately considered plaintiffs position in evaluating the appropriateness of dismissal. When reviewing the MSPB’s decision, a court must determine whether the MSPB acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. Id. The Postal Service terminated plaintiff because his conduct violated the law and the Code of Ethical Conduct, and consequently undermined the agency’s trust and confidence in his ability to properly perform the duties of postmaster. This Court finds substantial evidence to support the MSPB’s decision and that the decision is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law or procedure. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). This Court af firms the MSPB’s decision to discharge plaintiff. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. It is further" }, { "docid": "10081486", "title": "", "text": "Plaintiff testified that on March 14, 1984 at 5:25 p.m. he found the parcel containing a telephone and that the same had no address label or return instructions and no meter slip. (Tr. 194, 195, 196.) Postal Inspector Frederick Baraga testified that there was an address on the parcel and a return address (Tr. 55). He further testified that plaintiff prior to his arrest, denied taking any parcel out of the post office (Tr. 24, 25). Two other Postal Service employees, María Hernández and David Sotomayor, testified that there was an address on the parcel. (Tr. 58-59, 64-66, 76). Horacio Clavell, a manager in the Delivery and Collections Department of the Postal Service, testified that a postal employee, including a postmaster, may not place mail in his own car or in his own home in order to carry out his duties (Tr. 112). Furthermore, plaintiff’s expert witness, a postmaster for 36 years, testified that he would not have taken the parcel home (Tr. 161, 162). Plaintiff was administratively charged with removing mail from the mail stream. We find from our review of the administrative record that the agency’s determination that plaintiff removed mail from the mail stream was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious . Furthermore, our review of the administrative records reveals that the required administrative procedural steps have been substantially complied with. Brown v. Zukert, 349 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 998, 86 S.Ct. 588, 15 L.Ed.2d 486 (1966). 2. Constitutionality of Postal Service Manual In his petition for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment plaintiff further re quests that Sections 661.3(f) and 661.53 of the Code of Ethical Conduct in the Employees and Labor Relations Manual of the United States Postal Service be declared unconstitutional. Plaintiff contends that since the administrative charges under these two sections of the manual refer to the alleged adverse publicity received by the Postal Service when they charged plaintiff with wrong doing, the sections discriminate against employees by making them responsible for any adverse media coverage involving any allegations the Postal Service itself institutes. In" }, { "docid": "8882868", "title": "", "text": "1973, by the Officer-in-Charge. Appellant filed admin istrative appeals from the suspension and discharge decisions. As a result of a jury trial held on December 19-20, 1973, appellant was acquitted of the criminal charges against him. Appellant’s appeals to postal authorities were consolidated, and an evi-dentiary hearing was held on January 3-4, 1974. The Hearing Officer prepared findings of fact and recommendations, and forwarded these items to the Regional Postmaster General of the Western Region. The Regional Postmaster General, on March 25, 1974, affirmed the Hearing Officer’s findings and upheld appellant’s suspension and removal. Appellant appealed this decision, and the suspension and discharge were again affirmed by the Assistant Postmaster General on May 10, 1974. Appellant then sought judicial review of his dismissal. We previously have held that judicial review of dismissal from federal employment is limited to a determination that the applicable procedures have been complied with and that the dismissal was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious. Taylor v. United States Civil Service Commission, 374 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1967); Seebach v. Cullen, 338 F.2d 663 (9th Cir. 1964). These limits are applicable to our review of a discharge from the Postal Service. See Vigil v. Post Office Department of the United States, 406 F.2d 921 (10th Cir. 1969). No contention has been made that transformation of the Department to the Postal Service alters these limits. Appellant directs most of his fire towards the alleged failure of the Postal Service to comply with proper procedures in effectuating his suspension and discharge. He also contends that the decisions to suspend and subsequently to discharge were improper because they were made by a person so involved in the case as to be incapable of impartiality. We believe these contentions are foreclosed by Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15, reh. den., 417 U.S. 977, 94 S.Ct. 3187, 41 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1974), which held procedures similar to those employed here not violative of a federal employee’s due process rights. The Supreme Court ex pressly held that a pre-dismissal trial-type hearing was not" }, { "docid": "22924095", "title": "", "text": "honesty and integrity of the petitioner. The board noted that the Postal Service’s deciding official testified that he considered the “mitigating factors such as years of service and absence of prior disciplinary record but found that they could not reduce the penalty when balanced against a serious charge for which a sentence of imprisonment might be imposed.” The board also said the Postal Service established that it had a serious drug problem at the facility where petitioner was employed and that all of the other nine employees who were apprehended in the undercover investigation were removed or resigned in the face of removal. It concluded that petitioner’s misconduct was sufficiently similar to the conduct of the other employees in that petitioner was directly involved in the sale of drugs, the transaction was initiated at work, involved several telephone conversations in arranging for the transaction and terminated at petitioner’s home, that it was not outweighed by the mitigating factors mentioned by the presiding official. The board therefore sustained the removal of petitioner as a reasonable penalty in view of the agency’s legitimate concern about drug trafficking. OPINION Petitioner argues on appeal that the Postal Service failed to establish a reasonable nexus between petitioner’s misconduct and the efficiency of the service, stating that criminal actions alone do not automatically supply the nexus. Petitioner also contends that the penalty of removal in this case was disproportionate to the employee’s misconduct and therefore arbitrary and capricious. The scope of review in an appeal of a decision of the MSPB is contained in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) and requires this court to sustain the decision of the board unless it is found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. In determining whether the board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, the standard is not what the court would decide in a de novo appraisal, but whether the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record" }, { "docid": "13781675", "title": "", "text": ". . .in removal cases there are two grounds on which the discretionary decision of an executive may be reviewed; the removal must comply with the procedure set out in the statutes and the decision to remove must not be arbitrary or capricious, McTiernan v. Gronouski, 337 F.2d 31 (2nd Cir. 1964).” The Postal Service cites Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974), asserting that it bars Marsden’s request for relief. In Sampson, a probationary employee filed an action with the District Court seeking a temporary injunction against her dismissal pending an administrative appeal to the Civil Service Commission. Murray sought judicial review over the apparent failure of the government agency to follow the appropriate procedures in dismissing her. The District Court granted the temporary relief requested and the Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the Government’s contention that the District Court had no authority to grant temporary injunctive relief in this class of cases. The Supreme Court reversed, stating that while the District Court is not totally without authority to grant interim injunctive relief to a discharged govern ment employee, in this ease the relief was not proper. The Court stated: V,. “The authority of the District Court to review agency action under Service v. Dulles, supra, [354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957)] does not come into play until it may be authoritatively said that the administrative decision to discharge an employee does in fact fail to conform to applicable regulations (footnote omitted).” 415 U.S. at 74, 94 S.Ct. p. 945. Sampson can be distinguished from the case at bar in several ways. First, the petitioner in Sampson was a probationary employee while plaintiff Mars-den is a veteran and thereby a “preference eligible” employee. The Supreme Court in Sampson observed: “The procedural protections which the regulations accord to most dismissed probationary employees are limited.” Ibid, at 64, 94 S.Ct. at 941. and recognized the addition protections afforded a “preference eligible” employee : “We are dealing in this case not with a permanent Government employee, a class for which Congress has" }, { "docid": "10768590", "title": "", "text": "court in Norton stated that: if [an employee’s] conduct is notorious, the reactions of other employees and of the public with whom he comes in contact in the performance of his official functions may be taken into account. Whether or not such potential consequences would justify removal, they are at least broadly relevant to “the efficiency of the service.” 417 F.2d at 1166. There is, thus, little support in Norton for the “forward-looking analysis” of the district court. The post-Norton cases, such as Doe v. Hampton, 566 F.2d 265 (D.C.Cir.1977), and Gueory v. Hampton, 510 F.2d 1222 (D.C.Cir.1974), also do not support the district court. This is not to say that this court is insensitive to the problem that the district court’s standard seems designed to guard against: primarily, the reflex dismissal of federal employees for “minor” criminal conduct, in circumstances in which the removal seems a more severe sentence than was handed down by the court. The law requires us, however, to apply a different standard. Convinced, as we are, that the Postal Service was not arbitrary or capricious in its conclusion that plaintiff’s dismissal would promote the efficiency of the service, we must uphold its action. B. Pardon On January 13, 1976, approximately two months after the effective date of plaintiff's removal as Postmaster of Morrisville, Vermont, and two days before the hearing on appeal of the dismissal before the F.E. A.A., the Governor of Vermont granted plaintiff a “Full and Unconditional Pardon from the ... judgment and sentence” of September 15th. At the F.E.A.A. hearing, plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the pardon “... wipes out totally the conviction, the sentence, the entire procedure.” J.A. at 27. Aware that the reason given by the Postal Service for removal was “conviction of a crime for which a ninety (90) day suspended sentence was imposed,” the F.E.A.A. sought the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, Civil Service Commission, as to the effect of the pardon on this use of the conviction. The Office of the General Counsel, after reviewing the case law on the question, concluded that the [pardon]" }, { "docid": "10768591", "title": "", "text": "was not arbitrary or capricious in its conclusion that plaintiff’s dismissal would promote the efficiency of the service, we must uphold its action. B. Pardon On January 13, 1976, approximately two months after the effective date of plaintiff's removal as Postmaster of Morrisville, Vermont, and two days before the hearing on appeal of the dismissal before the F.E. A.A., the Governor of Vermont granted plaintiff a “Full and Unconditional Pardon from the ... judgment and sentence” of September 15th. At the F.E.A.A. hearing, plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the pardon “... wipes out totally the conviction, the sentence, the entire procedure.” J.A. at 27. Aware that the reason given by the Postal Service for removal was “conviction of a crime for which a ninety (90) day suspended sentence was imposed,” the F.E.A.A. sought the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, Civil Service Commission, as to the effect of the pardon on this use of the conviction. The Office of the General Counsel, after reviewing the case law on the question, concluded that the [pardon] does not ... wipe out the conviction for purposes of Federal employment. A State pardon, just as any other act of a different sovereign, is not normally binding upon the Federal Government. In determining employee suitability or cause for removal, the Federal agency must evaluate the effect of the pardon or other State act for itself. It may choose to ignore the pardon .... It is not an abuse of discretion for an agency to base a removal action on a conviction that is no longer of record when the act of removing it from the record is a State act. See, for example, Taylor v. United States Civil Service Commission, 374 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1967), where the original notice seemed to be based on arrests, pleadings and convictions which were expunged under State law. J.A. at 28. The F.E.A.A. adopted this conclusion, although it seemed to limit its decision to cases in which the pardon was granted subsequent to the decision to remove. [W]e find that the conviction of September 15, 1975, was" }, { "docid": "22997387", "title": "", "text": "6, 1959, which disclosed 82 irregularities, two of which were recurrent from the previous inspection.” After appellant was given an opportunity to reply to the charges orally and in writing, the Post Office Department, on July 23, 1959, ruled that appellant was to be removed from office. Thereafter an appeal by appellant to the Civil Service Commission proved unsuccessful, and the proceedings before that agency finally terminating on February 9, 1961, on May 19,1961 appellant was removed from office. More than two years later, on May 21, 1963, appellant commenced this action in the district court to secure reinstatement, alleging that his removal from office had been effected as a result of proceedings which had failed to comply with the provisions and enabling regulations of the Veterans’ Preference Act, 5 U.S.C. § 851 et seq., a statute which ■grants to a qualifying veteran such as appellant certain procedural rights in administrative proceedings involving disciplinary action against federally employed veterans. Inasmuch as our examination of the record convinces us that appellant’s numerous claims of procedural irregularity are groundless, we affirm the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees. We approach the issues raised upon this appeal mindful of the limited permissible scope of judicial review in this area. The taking of disciplinary action against government employees, including the invocation of the sanction of dismissal, is a matter of executive discretion, and is subject to judicial supervision only to the extent required to insure “substantial compliance with the pertinent statutory procedures provided by Congress,” Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29, 32 (D.C.Cir. 1959), and to guard against arbitrary or capricious action, Pelicone v. Hodges, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 320 F.2d 754, 755 (1963). See also Wallace v. Day, 328 F.2d 565 (D.C.Cir. 1964) (per curiam); Studemeyer v. Macy, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 321 F.2d 386, 387, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 337, 11 L.Ed.2d 265 (1963). Appellant’s first claim of procedural irregularity relates to certain affidavits which one of the postal inspectors who initiated the charges against appellant obtained from three employees of the Central Islip" }, { "docid": "19691619", "title": "", "text": "Serv., 39 M.S.P.R. 153 (1988). The actions reviewed in those decisions involved employees who, unlike this plaintiff, did not hold positions of special trust or interact with the public extensively. Plaintiff was not an entry level employee. He was a postmaster, charged with responsibilities of leadership. The MSPB appropriately considered plaintiffs position in evaluating the appropriateness of dismissal. When reviewing the MSPB’s decision, a court must determine whether the MSPB acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. Id. The Postal Service terminated plaintiff because his conduct violated the law and the Code of Ethical Conduct, and consequently undermined the agency’s trust and confidence in his ability to properly perform the duties of postmaster. This Court finds substantial evidence to support the MSPB’s decision and that the decision is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law or procedure. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). This Court af firms the MSPB’s decision to discharge plaintiff. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. .This code provides: 666.53 Unacceptable conduct. No employee will engage in criminally dishonest, notoriously disgraceful or immoral conduct or other conduct prejudicial to the Postal Service. Conviction of a violation of any criminal statute may be grounds for disciplinary action by the Postal Service, in addition to any other penalty by or pursuant to statute. 661.55 Illegal Drug Use. Illegal use of drugs may be grounds for removal from the Postal Service. 666.2 Behavior and Personal Habits, employees are expected to conduct themselves during and outside of working hours in a manner which reflects favorably upon the Postal Service. Administrative Record Vol. 1 at 12-15. . In a letter from Norma J. Costa, an Employee Assistance Program (\"EAP”) specialist with the Postal Service, to Sandra L. Williams. Labor Relations Representative, dated May 22, 1989, Ms. Costa states that Grimes enrolled in the EAP on January 19, 1989. In his Suggestions in Support of Summary Judgment, Mr. Grimes likewise claims that he entered the EAP on January" }, { "docid": "8882873", "title": "", "text": "(which was considered by the district court and is a part of the record of this case) does not constitute “a genuine issue of material fact” which serves to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See Mann v. Klassen, 480 F.2d 159, 161 (5th Cir. 1973); DeLong v. Hampton, 422 F.2d 21, 26 (3rd Cir. 1970). These conclusions and our review of the record convince us that the appellant’s dismissal was supported by substantial evidence and thus was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Moreover, the applicable procedures were complied with and are not contrary to the Fifth Amendment. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. . Postal Service Manual § 444.221e. . Although the issue was not specifically argued on appeal, we note that the abolition of the Post Office Department and the creation of the Postal Service apparently did not alter the legal standards under which discharge proceedings are to be evaluated. 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a)(1) provides that: “Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the provisions of chapter 75 of title 5 [5 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7533] shall apply to officers and employees of the Postal Service except to the extent of any [discrepancy] with — (A) the provisions of any collective-bargaining agreement negotiated on behalf of and applicable to them; or (B) procedures established by the Postal Service and approved by the Civil Service Commission.” The standards for discharge and the existing case law associated with 5 U.S.C. § 7501 thus form an appropriate basis upon which this case may be decided. 5 U.S.C. § 7501 provides in part that discharge may be “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” . The Postal Service regulations found in Part 444 of the Postal Service Manual provide that an employee shall receive 30 days’ notice of any adverse action against him, along with instructions for responding to the notice. (Postal Service Manual § 444.221a; similar Civil Service regulation found at 5 CFR § 752. 202(a) and cited in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 143, n. 9, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 1639, 40 L.Ed.2d" } ]

[ { "docid": "22710108", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: Kossi Thomas Soadjede challenges a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on April 2, 2002. Soadjede applied for political asylum under § 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), withholding of removal under § 241(b) of the INA, withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and in the alternative, voluntary departure. On November 17, 2000, an immigration judge denied Soadjede’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the CAT. The immigration judge found Soadjede statutorily ineligible for asylum because he failed to file his asylum application within one year after his arrival in the United States. With respect to Soadjede’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection, the immigration judge found that Soadjede failed to meet his burden of proof. The immigration judge granted Soadjede’s request for voluntary departure from the United States. The BIA summarily affirmed the immigration judge’s decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7). Soadjede argues that the BIA’s issuance of an order summarily affirming the decision of the immigration judge provides an inadequate basis for judicial review by this court. In arguing that he received less than a “full and fair trial,” his argument implicates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, we construe Soadjede’s argument as a claim that the BIA’s affirmance without opinion procedure is unconstitutional because it violates due process. This Court reviews constitutional challenges de novo. Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir.1997). At issue in this case is the “streamlining” regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7), which authorizes a single Board member to: affirm the decision of the Service or the Immigration Judge, without opinion, if the Board Member determines that the result reached in the decision under review was correct; that any errors in the decision under review were harmless or nonmaterial; and that (A) the issue on appeal is squarely controlled by existing Board or federal court precedent and does not involve the application of precedent to a novel fact situation; or (B) the factual and legal questions" } ]

[ { "docid": "23690215", "title": "", "text": "citizens). Adjustment of status is a matter of grace, not of right, and the evaluation of such applications is left to the discretion of the Attorney General. See, e.g., Bugayong v. INS, 442 F.3d 67, 71 (2d Cir.2006). The IJ determined that Wallace met the statutory requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1255 and then, as an exercise of discretion, chose to grant Wallace’s application for adjustment of status. When deciding whether to grant the application, the IJ identified the following positive factors that, in his view, outweighed the negative factors in Wallace’s criminal record. First, Wallace has “strong family ties” in this country to, among others, his step-father and his mother, who is a lawful permanent resident and a member of the United States Army Reserve. Second, Wallace and his family will suffer hardship if he is removed to Trinidad. Third, the IJ found that Wallace showed “evidence of genuine rehabilitation.” The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appealed the IJ’s order to the BIA. The BIA reversed the IJ, concluding that because of Wallace’s “criminal history, which indicates a propensity to violate the law, he is not desirable as an alien resident in the United States and that, notwithstanding the obvious familial support which he enjoys here, this factor cannot outweigh the negative factor of criminal history.” In addition, the Board concluded that the IJ “erred in finding adequate evidence of rehabilitation which would outweigh the negative criminal history,” stating that although “the evidence does suggest that [Wallace] has attempted to rehabilitate himself while incarcerated, we cannot find that this outweighs the seriousness of his conviction for robbery and other indications of criminal activity.” Accordingly, the BIA vacated the order of the IJ and ordered Wallace removed to Trinidad. This petition for review followed. Discussion Wallace raises two claims on appeal. First, he argues that the BIA violated his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment when it considered his Youthful Offender Adjudication as a factor relevant to Wallace’s application for adjustment of status. Second, he argues that the BIA exceeded its authority under federal regulations when it rejected" }, { "docid": "23401395", "title": "", "text": "of a child in Texas state court. He received ten years of probation, which he successfully completed in 2004. On December 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a Notice to Appear charging Avilez with removability from the United States as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Avilez sought a waiver of deportation under former INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). The IJ found Avilez to be statutorily eligible for waiver of deportation because he had over seven years of continuous lawful residence and he did not serve more than five years in jail or prison. The IJ found that Avilez had presented evidence of unusual or outstanding equities to justify his exercise of discretion in granting a waiver. Among the equities the IJ cited were Avilez’s long residence in the United States, his citizen wife’s serious health problems, and the fact that his citizen children do not speak Spanish. The court also noted that Avilez successfully completed probation, accepted responsibility, and won his victim’s forgiveness. DHS appealed to the BIA, arguing both that Avilez was statutorily ineligible for § 212(c) relief and that he was not deserving of relief as a matter of discretion. The BIA reversed the IJ’s decision, finding Avilez statutorily ineligible for § 212(c) relief under its recent decision Matter of Blake, which held that the offense that rendered Avilez removable (sexual abuse of a minor) has no “statutory counterpart” in the grounds of inadmissibility under § 212(a). See Matter of Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 2005). The BIA granted Avilez voluntary departure and issued an alternative order for removal from the United States. Avilez timely filed a petition for review in this court. On March 3, 2006, the court denied Avilez’s motion for a stay of removal pending review, and he subsequently was removed to Mexico. II. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction Although the REAL ID Act limits this court’s jurisdiction to review Avilez’s conviction for an aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied," }, { "docid": "20383078", "title": "", "text": "became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1989. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him in 2004 based on, among other things, two state convictions for possession of steroids. After an administrative hearing, an immigration judge (IJ) ruled Petitioner removable and ordered him removed to Peru. Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. The BIA affirmed. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with us, which we denied. Mendiola v. Gonzales, 189 Fed.Appx. 810 (10th Cir.2006) (unpublished). While his petition for review was pending, Petitioner was removed from the United States in March 2005. He returned illegally, however, and was detained on a charge of Reentry after Removal for an Aggravated Felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. After he returned to the United States illegally and while in federal custody, Petitioner in 2007 filed his first motion to reopen with the BIA. The BIA determined that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) deprived it of jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s motion to reopen because the regulation prohibits a person who is the subject of removal proceedings from filing a motion to reopen subsequent to his departure from the country. The BIA also noted that his motion, aside from being jurisdictionally barred, was untimely because Petitioner, contrary to § 1003.2(c)(2), filed it well beyond 90 days after the final 2004 administrative order that made him removable. Petitioner in 2007 filed another petition for review in our court. In his opening brief, Petitioner failed to argue that § 1003.2(d) did not apply to him. We, therefore, refused to consider this argument and deemed Petitioner’s motion barred. Mendiola v. Mukasey, 280 Fed.Appx. 719, 722 (10th Cir.2008) (unpublished). At some point after our denial of Petitioner’s second petition for review, he obtained new counsel. New counsel in 2008 filed a second motion to reopen Petitioner’s case with the BIA. Petitioner based his second motion to reopen upon his former attorney’s ineffectiveness and a California court’s reduction of his second steroid possession conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor in 2007. DHS opposed Petitioner’s motion. The BIA ultimately" }, { "docid": "7469380", "title": "", "text": "171 F.3d 994, 1009 (5th Cir.1999) (“There is no indication that the finality requirement ... survives’the new definition of ‘conviction’ found in IIRI-RA.”). In any event, in an order -dated March 22, 2005, the IJ reported that Mr. Abiodun’s direct appeal had been decided, and only the government’s petition for cer-tiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court (which related to other charges against him) had been granted. He therefore denied the motion. On May 4, 2005, the IJ issued an oral decision ordering that Mr. Abiodun be removed to Nigeria. After noting that Mr. Abiodun “had stated that he wish[ed] to be considered for naturalization and have this hearing held in abeyance,” the IJ responded that “a person who is convicted of an aggravated felony cannot show good moral character for the purposes of naturalization and is permanently ineligible.” R. at 208. On September 21, 2005, the BIA dismissed Mr. Abiodun’s appeal of the IJ’s decision. The BIA stated: The [IJ]’s decision finding [Mr. Abiodun] removable as charged and denying his motion to hold his case in abeyance while he seeks naturalization is amply supported by the record. In particular, the record establishes the finality of the respondent’s May 28, 2002, conviction for distribution of a controlled substance. Further, as noted by the [IJ], the respondent, whose naturalization application has already been denied by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is ineligible for naturalization due to his drug conviction which occurred during the 5 years in which he must show good moral character. Id. at 2 (internal citation omitted). Mr. Abiodun filed a timely petition with this court for review of the BIA order. On October 21, 2005, Mr. Abiodun filed with the BIA a motion to reconsider, challenging the denial of his application for naturalization. He asserted that he had “met all his statutory eligibility requirement[s] for naturalization preceding January 17, 2002, the date his Application for Naturalization was filed,” R. Supp. at 32, and that the “decision to deny naturalization based on the appealed jury conviction of May 28, 2002, was a procedural error by the agency which violated" }, { "docid": "16840057", "title": "", "text": "denied that claim as well. Antia-Perea petitioned for review of the BIA’s decision (No. 13-1895). E. Second Motion for Reconsideration. On May 9, 2013, Antia-Perea filed with the BIA a motion to reconsider its denial of his motion requesting relief from removal. He argued that “the evidence he provided the BIA was sufficient to demonstrate that his fear of persecution is both subjectively genuine and grounded in an objectively reasonable basis.” He also claimed that the BIA’s failure to grant him a hearing infringed his due process rights and “that to remove him to Colombia would be violative of the International obligations of the United States.” Antia-Perea added for the BIA’s consideration two news articles about ICE agents and informants getting killed by Mexican drug cartels in East El Paso, Texas. The BIA denied Antia-Perea’s motion, which it treated as a motion to reopen in light of the newly appended articles. It concluded that there was “little commonality” between Antia-Perea’s fear and the fear expressed by one of the subjects in the 60 Minutes segment. The BIA considered Antia-Perea’s two news articles and concluded that he was “not similarly situated to ICE agents, Texas Rangers, or informants for ICE.” Antia-Perea filed a fourth petition seeking review of this decision (No. 13-2737). II. There is no dispute that all four of Antia-Perea’s petitions for review concern final decisions, were timely submitted, and are properly before this Court. See El-Gazawy v. Holder, 690 F.3d 852, 857 (7th Cir.2012). Our jurisdiction to review the petitions, which assert legal and constitutional claims, is secure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Accordingly, we address in turn the arguments that Antia-Perea has properly presented and preserved throughout the administrative process. A. Antia-Perea first contends that the IJ and BIA violated his due process rights by denying him an opportunity to cross-examine the DHS agent who drafted the 1-213. Aliens in removal proceedings are entitled to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). Statutory provisions also impose procedural requirements on removal proceedings. See" }, { "docid": "22890618", "title": "", "text": "Because the petitioner challenged the BIA’s discretionary decision under § 1158(a)(2) — but did not raise constitutional claims or questions of law — we relied on § 1158(a)(3) and Mendoza to dismiss his petition for lack of jurisdiction. Similarly, Petitioner asks us to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that he failed to establish § 1229b(b)(l)(D)’s “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement; he does not, however, raise constitutional claims or questions of law. Applying § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), Gonzalez-Oropeza, and Chacon-Botero, we hold his petition for review continues to fall outside our jurisdiction. In reaching this holding, we join at least four other circuits, which have concluded § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore the federal courts’ .ability to review the BIA’s § 1229b(b)(l)(D) “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determinations. See Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006); De La Vega v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2006); Míreles v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 965, 968-69 (7th Cir.2006); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). We accordingly dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. IV. CONCLUSION Notwithstanding Congress’s enactment of § 1252(a)(2)(D), we continue to lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s purely discretion ary decision that a petitioner did not meet § 1229b(b)(l)(D)’s “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard. PETITION DISMISSED. . On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002(HSA), Pub.L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, which established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), abolished the INS, and transferred the INS's functions to the DHS. . The IJ also determined Petitioner failed to satisfy § 1229b(b)(l)(B)'s “good moral character” requirement. On appeal, the BIA expressly declined to address this alternative holding. Therefore, the IJ's \"good moral character” decision is not an issue in this petition for review. . Before the BIA, Petitioner argued the IJ violated his procedural due process rights by failing to act as an impartial and neutral fact-finder. The BIA rejected his procedural due process argument, however, and Petitioner does not challenge this holding in his petition for review. . The First Circuit has also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a petitioner's" }, { "docid": "10917444", "title": "", "text": "(holding that state court's decision to exclude execution impact testimony by defendant’s family and friends did not contradict Supreme Court governing law and was not unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent). . He was held on unrelated matters, including an arrest for bank robbery. . See, e.g., United States v. Maizumi, 526 F.2d 848, 851 (5th Cir.1976) (finding that a delay of 1 Old months was not presumptively prejudicial). .Jackson appears to raise a third argument that the due process clause is violated where aggravating factors are treated differently from elements of a crime. He neither explains that contention nor cites any law but instead attempts to incorporate arguments made to the district court \"by reference as if fully set out for this Court's consideration.” Argument by reference is not permitted; an appellant who requests \"the adoption of previously filed legal and factual arguments ... abandon[s those] arguments by failing to argue them in the body of his brief.” Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993) (citing Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(4), now Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9), which requires a brief to contain \"appellant's contentions and the reasons for them”). This argument — if it even is a separate argument — is waived. . See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 132 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir.1998) (\"We are bound by Supreme Court precedent which forecloses any argument that the death penalty violates the Constitution under all circumstances.”). . The government disputes whether this issue was raised in the district court. If it was raised and preserved, we would review the legal question de novo; otherwise, we would review only for plain error. United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1089-90 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc). We need not decide whether the issue was adequately raised, however, because we affirm even under de novo review. . See United States v. Bernard, 299 F.3d 467, 474-75 (5th Cir.2002) (affirming dismissal of potential juror who indicated on her questionnaire that she did \"not feel [she] ha[d] the right to judge whether a person lives or dies” and then wavered during questioning). . As" }, { "docid": "23707469", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: Roseller Osicos Nolos (“Nolos”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) decision to uphold the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and the BIA’s subsequent denial of his separate motions to reconsider and to reopen. Nolos argues that he is not removable because (1) he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims acquired United States citizenship by virtue of their births in the Philippine Islands (“Philippines”) while the country was a United States territory, and (2) the Nevada theft conviction that forms the basis of the removal order does not qualify as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). For the following reasons, we DENY the petition for review. I. Nolos was admitted to the United States in 1983 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2003, he pleaded guilty to a theft offense pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes § 205.0832 (2003) in Nevada state court and received a suspended prison sentence of between 18 and 48 months. In July 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued an order to show cause and notice of hearing, charging that Nolos’s conviction constituted an aggravated felony pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and rendered him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Nolos, proceeding pro se, admitted the DHS’s allegations and conceded his removability. In August 2006, the IJ determined that Nolos was removable because his Nevada conviction constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and ordered him removed to the Philippines. Nolos timely appealed the IJ’s order to the BIA. After an initial dismissal and a subsequent grant of Nolos’s motion to reopen in light of newly discovered evidence, the BIA determined that not all of the subsections of Nevada Revised Statutes § 205.0832 constituted aggravated felonies and that the judgment of conviction — the record of conviction the Government submitted to prove Nolos was convicted of a theft offense — did not specify which provision of Nevada Revised Statutes § 205.0832 Nolos was convicted of violating. As a result, it vacated its initial dismissal of Nolos’s appeal and remanded the" }, { "docid": "22696415", "title": "", "text": "its hardship standard to her case. Thus, we reject Ramirez-Perez’s due process challenge to the BIA’s interpretation of the hardship standard. III. THE BIA’S STREAMLINING PROCEDURES DO NOT VIOLATE RAMIREZ-PEREZ’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS We rejected an identical claim to Ramirez-Perez’s second due process challenge in Falcon Carriche, v. Asheroft. Ramirez-Perez raises no new arguments. Thus, Falcon Carriche governs and Ramirez-Perez’s due process challenge to the streamlining procedures fails. IV. CONCLUSION We deny the petition. We retain jurisdiction to review whether the BIA’s interpretation of the hardship standard violates due process. However, our review is limited to assuring that the BIA’s interpretation falls within the broad range the statutory language authorizes. Because the BIA’s interpretation is well within those limits and she failed to show prejudice, we reject Ramirez-Perez’s first due process claim. Consistent with our conclusion in Falcon Carriche, we likewise reject Ramirez-Perez’s second claim that the streamlining procedures violate her procedural due process rights. PETITION DENIED. . As of March 1, 2003, the INS has been abolished and its functions transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. Ciorba v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 539, 539 n. 1 (7th Cir.2003). We refer to it as the INS in this opinion. . Because proceedings against Ramirez-Perez commenced after April 1, 1997, the final rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 apply to this case. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). . Cancellation of removal is a discretionary form of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). An alien must establish four statutory prerequisites to be eligible for cancellation of removal: (1) that the alien has been in the United States for ten years; (2) that the alien is of good moral character; (3) that the alien has not been convicted of any enumerated offenses; and (4) that \"exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” would result to a qualifying United States citizen or lawfully admitted alien relative. Id. § 1229b(b)(l)(A)-(D). . The \"house” is a duplex. Each of the two houses has two bedrooms, one living room, and one kitchen. Thus, the total number (counting both" }, { "docid": "17910413", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: Jesus De La Paz Sanchez (Sanchez) petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Sanchez contends that the BIA erred when it found him removable based on his Texas conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUMV). Sanchez contends that his UUMV offense was not an aggravated felony because it does not constitute a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). He also asserts that the BIA erred when it denied his request for a waiver of removal under former § 212(c) of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). As a threshold matter, we have jurisdiction to review Sanchez’s constitutional claims and questions of law pursuant to the REAL ID Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516, 518 (5th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 40, 166 L.Ed.2d 18 (2006). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994). The substantial evidence standard requires that the decision be based on the evidence presented and that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996). Although questions of law are reviewed de novo, courts should defer to the BIA’s interpretations of statutes and regulations that the BIA administers. Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992). Sanchez’s argument that Texas’s UUMV offense does not constitute a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is foreclosed by United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217, 219 (5th Cir.1999). See also In re Brieva-Perez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 766, 767-70, 2005 WL 1352038 (BIA 2005) (Texas UUMV conviction was a crime of violence under § 16(b) and therefore an aggravated felony). Our decision in United States v. Charles, 301 F.3d 309, 314 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc), expressly limited Galvan-Rodriguez’s holding to its property aspects and to § 16(b) cases; thus Galvan-Rodriguez remains applicable to Sanchez. We also reject Sanchez’s argument that he is entitled to seek discretionary relief pursuant to former § 212(c) of the INA. Deportable" }, { "docid": "22664590", "title": "", "text": "this requirement. She does not contend that she was prevented from presenting her case before the IJ, denied a full and fair hearing before an impartial adjudicator, or otherwise denied a basic due process right. Rather, she contends that the IJ erred in finding that she did not meet the requirement of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” Such an assertion is nothing more than an argument that the IJ abused his discretion, a matter over which we have no jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®. Therefore, we dismiss this claim. See Torres-Aguilar, 246 F.3d at 1271. Martinez-Rosas also argues that the BIA denied her right to due process by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)®. In Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003), we held that the BIA does not deny a petitioner’s right to due process by summarily affirming an IJ’s decision that he does not meet the statutory requirements for cancellation of removal, including the requirement that a qualifying United States citizen or lawfully admitted alien relative would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if the petitioner were removed. Id. at 848. Therefore, Martinez-Rosas’ claim that the BIA denied her right to due process lacks merit. V. In summary, habeas appeals challenging final removal orders that were pending on the date the REAL ID Act of 2005 became effective shall be treated as petitions for review. Although we have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law presented in petitions for review of final removal orders, we lack jurisdiction to review the subjective, discretionary determination that an alien failed to satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement for cancellation of removal. Furthermore, traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction. Finally, our bold- ing in Falcon Carricke forecloses Martinez-Rosas’ challenge to the summary af-firmance procedure adopted by the BIA. Therefore, we dismiss the petition in part and deny the petition in part. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART." }, { "docid": "11416016", "title": "", "text": "Petition for review granted and order of removal vacated by published opinion. Chief Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Judge HARRIS joined. GREGORY, Chief Judge: Rafael Antonio Larios-Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the decisión of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) finding him removable based on his conviction for “Third Degree Sex Offense” under Maryland Criminal Law Article § 3-307. The BIA determined that Larios-Reyes’s state conviction qualifies as the aggravated felony of “sexual abuse of a minor” under § 1101(a)(43)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and affirmed the immigration judge’s finding that Larios-Reyes is therefore removable. We find that the BIA erred as a matter of law and hold that Larios-Reyes’s conviction does not constitute the aggravated felony of “sexual abuse of a minor” under the INA because Maryland Criminal Law Article § 3-307 proscribes more conduct than does the generic federal offense. We therefore grant Larios-Reyes’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and order his immediate release from Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) custody. I. Larios-Reyes entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1999, when he was four years old. Administrative Record (“A.R.”) 450. On August 5, 2013, Larios-Reyes was charged with “Sex Offense Second Degree” in violation of Maryland Criminal Law Article § 3-306 and “Sex Abuse Minor” in violation of § 3-602(b)(1). Id. at 765. On September 13, 2013, Larios-Reyes was indicted on both counts. Id. at 762-63. In May 2014, Larios-Reyes and the State of Maryland reached .a plea agreement. The State dismissed the “Sex Abuse Minor” charge and amended the “Sex Offense Second Degree” charge to the lesser charge of “Third Degree Sex Offense” under § 3-307. Id. at 756, 769. Larios-Reyes pleaded guilty to the amended second charge, which states that RAFAEL ANTONIO REYES (date of birth 09/16/94), on or about and between .November 1, 2012, and November 30, -2012[,] ... in Montgomery County, Maryland, did commit a sexual offense in the third degree on [victim] (date of birth 05/23/08), to wit: fellacio, in violation of" }, { "docid": "22926039", "title": "", "text": "as a result, expired before Mapes filed his complaint on January 27, 2003. Mapes’s sole argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in dismissing the false arrest claim against these defendants because his false arrest claim did not accrue until the prosecution terminated in his favor on January 25, 2002. Neither the District Court nor Mapes were correct. The “statute of limitations upon a § 1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 884, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1100, 166 L.Ed.2d 978 (2007). To the extent that Wallace conflicts with our decision in Brandley v. Keeshan, 64 F.3d 196 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that a false arrest cause of action accrues when the criminal prosecution terminates in favor of the accused), Wallace abrogates Brandley. Mapes filed his § 1983 complaint exactly one year after the criminal prosecution terminated in his favor. The date on which Mapes became detained pursuant to legal process does not appear in the record. It is difficult to see how Mapes’s complaint could be timely because the date on which he was detained pursuant to legal process must have preceded the date on which proceedings terminated. Nevertheless, we vacate and remand to the District Court to determine the date on which Mapes was detained pursuant to legal process. Mapes briefs no argument concerning the claims that were dismissed in No. 3:04-CV-443. He also fails to brief any claim in No. 3:03-CV-67 other than his false arrest claim. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). Accordingly, Mapes’s remaining claims are effectively abandoned. Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25. VACATED AND REMANDED AS TO FALSE-ARREST CLAIM IN NO. 3:03-CV-67; AFFIRMED AS TO ALL OTHER" }, { "docid": "10917443", "title": "", "text": "properly denied the motion to hold an evidentiary hearing. For the reasons stated, we AFFIRM the conviction and sentence. . A shank is a homemade knife. . Jackson gives no citations to this information in the trial record. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (noting need to include \"contentions and the reason for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”). . Jackson's mother presumably would have testified regarding Jackson's background and upbringing, but Jackson presented other witnesses on that same topic, including a childhood friend who had personally witnessed much of the abuse Jackson suffered. And although Jackson suggests that his mother could have effectively pleaded for her son’s life, the district court properly ruled that general pleas for mercy would not be permitted. See Kelly v. Lynaugh, 862 F.2d 1126, 1133 n. 12 (5th Cir.1988) (noting that stepfather’s request that jury spare defendant's life is not mitigating evidence required to be admitted under Eighth Amendment); see also Jackson v. Dretke, 450 F.3d 614, 617-18 (5th Cir.2006) (holding that state court's decision to exclude execution impact testimony by defendant’s family and friends did not contradict Supreme Court governing law and was not unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent). . He was held on unrelated matters, including an arrest for bank robbery. . See, e.g., United States v. Maizumi, 526 F.2d 848, 851 (5th Cir.1976) (finding that a delay of 1 Old months was not presumptively prejudicial). .Jackson appears to raise a third argument that the due process clause is violated where aggravating factors are treated differently from elements of a crime. He neither explains that contention nor cites any law but instead attempts to incorporate arguments made to the district court \"by reference as if fully set out for this Court's consideration.” Argument by reference is not permitted; an appellant who requests \"the adoption of previously filed legal and factual arguments ... abandon[s those] arguments by failing to argue them in the body of his brief.” Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993) (citing Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(4), now Fed." }, { "docid": "20383077", "title": "", "text": "attorney’s alleged ineffectiveness, the BIA erred in declining to equitably toll the time and numerical limits on his motion to reopen his removal proceedings found in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Section 1003.2(c)(2) provides: “[A]n alien may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings (whether before the Board or the Immigration Judge) and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” We have jurisdiction over the petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which preserves our power to decide “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review.” The questions Petitioner raises in this petition are purely legal in nature and, therefore, fit comfortably within the confines of § 1252(a)(2)(D). Our review is de novo. Lorenzo v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1278, 1282 (10th Cir.2007). We conclude that we are bound by our recent precedent in Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.2009), and we therefore deny the petition for review. I. Petitioner became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1989. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him in 2004 based on, among other things, two state convictions for possession of steroids. After an administrative hearing, an immigration judge (IJ) ruled Petitioner removable and ordered him removed to Peru. Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. The BIA affirmed. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with us, which we denied. Mendiola v. Gonzales, 189 Fed.Appx. 810 (10th Cir.2006) (unpublished). While his petition for review was pending, Petitioner was removed from the United States in March 2005. He returned illegally, however, and was detained on a charge of Reentry after Removal for an Aggravated Felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. After he returned to the United States illegally and while in federal custody, Petitioner in 2007 filed his first motion to reopen with the BIA. The BIA determined that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) deprived it of jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s motion to reopen because the regulation prohibits a" }, { "docid": "20763881", "title": "", "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT GARTH, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Omar Abd Gomaa Orabi, appeals from an order of removability, entered by the Honorable Walter Durling, U.S. Immigration Judge (“IJ”), on May 22, 2012, and approved by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on September 18, 2012. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). For the reasons that follow, we will reverse the decision of the IJ and BIA. I Orabi, an Egyptian citizen, was admitted to the United States in 1990 and became a lawful permanent resident without conditions in 1996. In 2010, he was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“S.D.N.Y.”) for the offenses of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud in connection with Access Devices, Possession of Counterfeit Access Devices, Possession of Counterfeit and Forged Checks, and Aggravated Identity theft. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 70 months. In November 2011, the District Court amended its judgment and recalculated Orabi’s sentence; however, Orabi was still sentenced to a term of 70 months. He appealed that order to the Second Circuit in December 2011, and that appeal remains pending. See United States v. Ibrahim, (Orabi), C.A. No. 12-0044 (2d Cir., filed Dec. 29, 2011). In February 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings against Orabi. Among other things, DHS charged that Orabi was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his S.D.N.Y. conviction was for an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R). Orabi notified DHS and the Immigration Court that he was appealing the S.D.N.Y. conviction, and DHS moved to withdraw the aggravated felony removal charge. At a subsequent removal hearing, Orabi appeared pro se and took part in an ambiguous exchange with the IJ regarding the status of the Second Circuit appeal. At the IJ’s request, Orabi also agreed to provide a letter that ostensibly withdrew his Second Circuit appeal. DHS therefore moved to reinstate the removal charge, and the IJ sustained it. The appellate record of the Second Circuit reveals neither the letter, which ostensibly withdrew Orabi’s appeal, nor any motion by Orabi to" }, { "docid": "11235140", "title": "", "text": "May 29, 1992. On June 6, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a notice to appear alleging that on April 1, 2011, Franco-Casasola was convicted of the fraudulent purchase of firearms for export in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a). The notice alleged he was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, namely “illicit trafficking in firearms.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(C). Franco-Casasola denied the charges of removability and filed an application for cancellation of removal. DHS responded by contending he was ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his conviction for an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) held an evidentiary hearing. DHS submitted the indictment charging Franco-Casasola with conspiracy to purchase and export firearms and ammunition to drug cartels in Guatemala in violation of Section 554(a). Franco-Casasola pled guilty to buying five semi-automatic pistols knowing they were intended for export to Guatemala. The IJ decided that Franco-Casasola’s conviction under Section 554(a) did not constitute the aggravated felony of illicit trafficking in firearms, making him eligible for discretionary relief from removal. It then determined, after having also heard testimony of Franco-Casasola’s permanent resident status, work history, and family ties to the United States, that his case merited a favorable exercise of discretion and granted his application for cancellation of removal. DHS appealed to the BIA. The BIA disagreed with the IJ. It concluded that Franco-Casasola’s conviction under Section 554(a) did constitute the aggravated felony of illicit trafficking in firearms, thereby making cancellation of removal unavailable. Franco-Casasola timely petitioned for review, and we denied his petition, agreeing with the conclusion of the BIA. We now consider FrancoCasasola’s petition for rehearing of our prior opinion. DISCUSSION Generally, this court reviews only the final decision of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir.2007). The BIA’s determination that an alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal is a question of law we review de novo. Vasquez-Martinez v. Holder, 564 F.3d 712, 715 (5th Cir.2009). While we give deference to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration statutes," }, { "docid": "23707470", "title": "", "text": "issued an order to show cause and notice of hearing, charging that Nolos’s conviction constituted an aggravated felony pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and rendered him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Nolos, proceeding pro se, admitted the DHS’s allegations and conceded his removability. In August 2006, the IJ determined that Nolos was removable because his Nevada conviction constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and ordered him removed to the Philippines. Nolos timely appealed the IJ’s order to the BIA. After an initial dismissal and a subsequent grant of Nolos’s motion to reopen in light of newly discovered evidence, the BIA determined that not all of the subsections of Nevada Revised Statutes § 205.0832 constituted aggravated felonies and that the judgment of conviction — the record of conviction the Government submitted to prove Nolos was convicted of a theft offense — did not specify which provision of Nevada Revised Statutes § 205.0832 Nolos was convicted of violating. As a result, it vacated its initial dismissal of Nolos’s appeal and remanded the case to the IJ. On remand, the DHS submitted the Nevada information charging Nolos with theft under Nevada Revised Statutes § 205.0832. After a review of this additional material, the IJ determined that Noios was convicted under § 205.0832(l)(b); § 205.0832(l)(b) met the requirements of theft under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”); and Nolos was removable as an aggravated felon. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination and dismissed Nolos’s appeal. Nolos filed a timely petition for review and also filed with the BIA a timely motion for reconsideration and a motion to reopen, asserting in part that he was a citizen of the United States. After the BIA’s denial of those motions, Nolos filed an additional timely petition for review of this BIA decision. II. Although our review of a final order of removal is limited under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Marquez-Marquez v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 548, 553-54 (5th Cir.2006), we have jurisdiction to consider the purely legal questions of whether Nolos is a United States citizen and whether he was convicted of" }, { "docid": "23401396", "title": "", "text": "DHS appealed to the BIA, arguing both that Avilez was statutorily ineligible for § 212(c) relief and that he was not deserving of relief as a matter of discretion. The BIA reversed the IJ’s decision, finding Avilez statutorily ineligible for § 212(c) relief under its recent decision Matter of Blake, which held that the offense that rendered Avilez removable (sexual abuse of a minor) has no “statutory counterpart” in the grounds of inadmissibility under § 212(a). See Matter of Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 2005). The BIA granted Avilez voluntary departure and issued an alternative order for removal from the United States. Avilez timely filed a petition for review in this court. On March 3, 2006, the court denied Avilez’s motion for a stay of removal pending review, and he subsequently was removed to Mexico. II. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction Although the REAL ID Act limits this court’s jurisdiction to review Avilez’s conviction for an aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 40, 166 L.Ed.2d 18 (2006), we retain jurisdiction to review the constitutional claims and questions of law raised by Avilez under § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1055, 163 L.Ed.2d 882 (2006). We review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo, according deference to the BIA’s interpretations of ambiguous provisions of the INA. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996). B. Availability of § 212(c) Relief Avilez contends the BIA erred by finding him statutorily ineligible to apply for a waiver of deportation under former INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c), because his conviction of sexual assault of a child does not have a statutory counterpart ground of inadmissibility under § 212(a). Avilez argues that the BIA’s interpretation of § 212(c), as expressed in its regulations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5), and opinions, see Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722, impermissi-bly contradicts prior agency practice; is an irrational" }, { "docid": "6511407", "title": "", "text": "OPINION COWEN, Circuit Judge. In this petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order of removability, we must decide whether a conviction for indecent assault under 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 3126(a)(8), a strict liability offense, is a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the offense combines a reprehensible act with deliberate conduct, we conclude that indecent assault under Pennsylvania law is a crime involving moral turpitude, and consequently, the petition for review will be denied. I. Petitioner, Ghulam Mehboob, is seeking review of the BIA’s final order of removal and denial of his application for termination of removal proceedings. Mehboob, a native and citizen of Pakistan, was lawfully admitted to the United States as an immigrant in December, 1997. On December 7, 2001, Mehboob was convicted of a misdemeanor, indecent assault, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 3126(a), for touching the breast of a 15 year old girl, who was a customer in his store. He was sentenced to two years of probation and fined $146. The record of conviction, however, did not specify the sub-section of § 3126(a) under which Mehboob was convicted. Following the conviction, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings against Meh-boob under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(¿), which provides for the deportation of aliens who commit crimes involving moral turpitude. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that Mehboob was removable for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude, and the BIA affirmed. Mehboob then petitioned this Court for review. The panel vacated the decision because the BIA had not sufficiently explained its reasoning and remanded the case to the BIA for reconsideration and fuller explanation. Mehboob v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 175 Fed.Appx. 559 (3d Cir.2006). On remand, the BIA affirmed its previous conclusion that Mehboob had committed a crime involving moral turpitude and dismissed the appeal. Mehboob petitioned this Court for review of the BIA’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction over Meh-boob’s petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). II. This Court reviews the BIA’s legal determinations de novo, except when Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council," } ]

[ { "docid": "23125390", "title": "", "text": "he had been provided with inadequate discovery. The District Court found that Brooks’s claims of being violently beaten by three correctional officers were unsupported by the medical evidence: Although there are material facts in dispute regarding the underlying cause and events at issue, it is apparent that the type of vicious, prolonged attack alleged by Brooks would have resulted in far greater injuries than those which he indisputably sustained. Accordingly, the Court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Brooks now appeals. The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We set forth the familiar standard of review in the margin. II. A. After conviction, the Eighth Amendment serves as the primary source of substantive protection in cases where an inmate challenges a prison official’s use of force as excessive and unjustified. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986). In an excessive force claim, the central question is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). Summary judgment in favor of a defendant is not appropriate if “it appears that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, will support a reliable inference of wantonness in the infliction of pain.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 1078; see also Sampley v. Ruettgers, 704 F.2d 491, 495 (10th Cir.1983) (holding that wantonness exists when a prison guard intends to harm an inmate). In determining whether a correctional officer has used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, courts look to several factors including: (1) “the need for the application of force”; (2) “the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used”; (3) “the extent of injury inflicted”; (4) “the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by responsible officials on the basis of the facts known" } ]

[ { "docid": "7645793", "title": "", "text": "This court, under Rule 52(c), then reviews the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its fact-findings for clear error. Hess v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 274 F.3d 456, 461 (7th Cir.2001). Applying that standard of review, we now turn to the merits of Fillmore’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Henderson, Jack, and Higgins. The central question is “ ‘whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’ ” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)). In making that determination, several factors are relevant, including the need for the application of the force, the amount of force applied, the threat an officer reasonably perceived, the effort made to temper the severity of the force used, and the extent of the injury that force caused to an inmate. DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 619 (7th Cir.1999). Such a claim cannot be predicated on a de minimis use of force. Id. at 620. Instead, the quantum of force required for a constitutional violation is that which is “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 10, 112 S.Ct. 995 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 327, 106 S.Ct. 1078). In addition, in order to survive a motion for summary judgment, the prisoner must have evidence that “will support a reliable inference of wantonness in the infliction of pain.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 1078. Infliction of pain that is “totally without penological justification” is per se malicious. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)). Two questions are thus important: first, whether the force that Fillmore describes rose above the de minimis level and thus potentially amounted to an Eighth Amendment violation, and second, whether the actions of any of the three defendants were designed expressly" }, { "docid": "419464", "title": "", "text": "unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. John v. Johnson, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973). Here, no one contests the objective element of Romano’s Eighth Amendment claim, and indeed, there can be no question that the beating Romano described was more than de minimis. The subjective element of an Eighth Amendment claim plunges us into the state of mind of the defendant. See Wilson, U.S. at-, 111 S.Ct. at 2324-26. Specifically, the jury must be persuaded that the defendant acted wantonly. Id. “[W]an-tonness does not have a fixed meaning but must be determined with ‘due regard for differences in the kind of conduct against which an Eighth Amendment objection is lodged.’ ” Id. - U.S. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2326 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1084, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)). Compare Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S.Ct. at 291 (wantonness in challenge to inadequate medical treatment is “deliberate indifference\" by prison officials); and Wilson, - U.S at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2326-27 (wantonness in challenge to prison conditions is “deliberate indifference”); with Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21, 106 S.Ct. at 1084-85 (wantonness in challenge to force used during a prison riot is “malicious and sadistic” behavior). Romano’s complaint is that the defendants used'-excessive force when they restrained him to allow a nurse to administer a sedative. Whenever an inmate’s Eighth Amendment claim alleges excessive force, wantonness turns upon “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, - U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 999. To determine whether the defendants acted maliciously, a jury should consider the following factors: the extent of the plaintiffs injuries; the need for the application of force; the correlation between that need and the amount of force used; the threat reasonably perceived by the defendants; and any efforts made by the defendants to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id." }, { "docid": "17768481", "title": "", "text": "In Hudson v. McMillian, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), the Supreme Court clarified the standards for determining whether Eighth Amendment violations have occurred: [W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley [v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) ]: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Id. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 999; see also id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 998-99 (indicating that the Whitley standard was derived from Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973)). More specifically, a court should consider both the “objective” and “subjective” components of an alleged violation when examining an Eighth Amendment claim. See Hudson, — U.S. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 999. The objective component relates to the seriousness of the injury; however, “the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment [even] when the inmate does not suffer serious injury.” Id. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 997. The subjective component relates to whether the defendants had a “wanton” state of mind when they were engaging in the alleged misconduct. See id. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 999; Wilson v. Setter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2326, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). The Court indicated in Hudson that where an inmate has alleged that an improper motive led to the use of excessive force by correctional officers, an examination of the particular circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct may be warranted: In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may ... be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat “reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,” and “any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Hudson, — U.S. at-, 112" }, { "docid": "23433048", "title": "", "text": "context of an inmate altercation does not defeat his claim because he “offered] no resistance to [the] staff during inmate Harrises] assault.” R.28 at 5. The defendants submit that the district court properly dismissed Count Two. They observe that Mr. Santiago admitted in his grievance report that Sergeant Suemnicht did not use mace until Mr. Santiago hit Harris. See R.l (5/21/2002 Grievance Report). They contend that their reaction to the fight was not excessive force under Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995. In Hudson, the Supreme Court held that, when prison officials are accused of using excessive force, the key inquiry is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Id. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995. To determine whether force was applied in good faith, we consider several factors, “including the need for the application of the force, the amount of force applied, the threat an officer reasonably perceived, the effort made to temper the severity of the force used, and the extent of the injury that force caused to an inmate.” Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496, 504 (7th Cir.2004). We have noted, in the context of surviving summary judgment, that “the prisoner must have evidence that ‘will support a reliable inference of wantonness in the infliction of pain.’” Id. (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 322, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)). The allegations in Mr. Santiago’s complaint will not support an inference of excessive force on the part of Sergeant Suemnicht and C.O. John Doe 1. Mr. Santiago’s grievance report establishes that both he and Harris were fighting and therefore supports the defendants’ position that there was a need for the officers to use force. We have held that the use of mace is appropriate “when reasonably necessary ... to subdue recalcitrant prisoners.” Soto v. Dickey, 744 F.2d 1260, 1270 (7th Cir.1984) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). Given the threat to the safety of the officers and the threat to the maintenance of good order and discipline in" }, { "docid": "22218566", "title": "", "text": "exclusively on “the lack of a serious physical injury....” Smith II, 1999 WL 178539, at *4, quoting Eppers v. Dragovich, No. 95-7673, 1996 WL 420830, at * 4 (E.D.Pa. July 24, 1996). It is now clear that the district court erred in focusing so narrowly on the absence of serious injuries in deciding if Smith could establish a claim based upon excessive force. As we clearly stated in Brooks, the Eighth Amendment analysis must be driven by the extent of the force and the circumstances in which it is applied; not by the resulting injuries. Requiring objective or independent proof of minor or significant injury, would ignore this teaching and place protection from injury, instead of protection from wanton force, at the hub of the Eighth Amendment. Brooks, 204 F.3d at 108, citing Moore v. Holbrook, 2 F.3d 697, 700 (6th Cir.1993). Nevertheless, it is true that the Eighth Amendment does not protect an inmate against an objectively de minimis use of force. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 995. Rather, as noted above, the pivotal inquiry in reviewing an inmate’s § 1983 claim for excessive force is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Brooks, 204 F.3d at 106, citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995. However, injuries are only one of several factors that a court must consider in answering that question. In determining whether a correctional officer has used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, courts look to several factors including: (1) the need for the application of force; (2) the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used; (3) the extent of the injury inflicted; (4) the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by responsible officials on the basis of facts known to them; and (5) any efforts made to temper the severity of the forceful response. Brooks, 204 F.3d at 106, citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995. Therefore, de minimis injuries" }, { "docid": "16117598", "title": "", "text": "well as Dr. W.F. Mathews reported “that the shoe impressions on inmate Skrtich were probably made from a stomping motion as opposed to merely holding him down.” Dr. Selyutin further told the Inspector General that, in his opinion, Mr. Skrtich’s injuries were consistent with “physical abuse.” Under the Eighth Amendment, force is deemed legitimate in a custodial setting as long as it is applied “in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline [and not] maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.1973)); see also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). To determine if an application of force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, a variety of factors are considered including: “the need for the application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Hudson, at 7-8, 112 S.Ct. 995; see also Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. 1078; Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499, 505 (11th Cir.1996). From consideration of such factors, “inferences may be drawn as to whether the use of force could plausi bly have been thought necessary, or instead evinced such wantonness with respect to the unjustified infliction of harm as is tantamount to a knowing willingness that it occur.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (quoting Johnson, 481 F.2d at 1033). Moreover, an officer who is present at the scene and who fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim of another officer’s use of excessive force can be held personally liable for his nonfeasance. See Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1560 (11th Cir.1993), as amended, 14 F.3d 583 (11th Cir.1994) (“A police officer has a duty to intervene when another officer uses excessive force.”); Byrd v. Clark, 783 F.2d 1002, 1007 (11th Cir.1986) (“if a police officer, whether" }, { "docid": "16109539", "title": "", "text": "320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (citation omitted): “ ‘whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’ ” Quoted in Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6, 112 S.Ct. 995. “When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated.” Id. at 9[, 112 S.Ct. 995]. In such cases, a prisoner may prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim even in the absence of a serious injury, the objective component, so long as there is some pain or injury and something more than de minimis force is used. Id. at 9-10[, 112 S.Ct. 995] (finding that blows which caused bruises, swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate were not de minimis for Eighth Amendment purposes). To determine whether force was used in “good faith” or “maliciously and sadistically,” courts have identified several factors, including: (1) “the need of the application of force”; (2) “the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used”; (3) “the extent of injury inflicted”; (4) “the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by responsible officials on the basis of the facts known to them”; and (5) “any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 102, 106 (3d Cir.2000) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. at 321 [, 106 S.Ct. 1078]). Thus, not all use of force is “excessive,” the level of a constitutional violation. Id. at *7-8. In considering whether Plaintiff has met his burden of setting forth sufficient facts to establish a genuine issue of material fact on Plaintiffs excessive force claim, Defendants argue that the Court may only consider those facts which do not contradict the prison’s disciplinary hearing regarding the incident in question. When addressing a similar scenario, the Court in Giudice v. County of Atl., No. 07-1143, 2008 WL 4934040, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92930 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2008) stated: In determining whether the evidence supports Defendants’" }, { "docid": "22464043", "title": "", "text": "held, at best redundant of that provided by the Eighth Amendment”) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1088, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)). The Supreme Court recently defined the inquiry for Eighth Amendment excessive force claims by convicted prisoners: whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley [v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078]: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Hudson v. McMillian, — U.S.-,-, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). The “malicious and sadistic” requirement applies regardless of whether the corrections officers are quelling a prison disturbance or merely trying to maintain order. Id. Moreover, the standard applies regardless of whether the plaintiff has alleged significant physical injury, for the ultimate constitutional inquiry is directed at whether an “ ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ ” has occurred. Id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 998-999 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. at 319, 106 S.Ct. at 1084). The extent of injury may be relevant in determining whether corrections officers unnecessarily and wantonly inflicted pain; however, its absence does not end the inquiry. Id. — U.S. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 999. The court should also consider “the relationship between [the need for applica tion of force] and the amount of force used, the threat ‘reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,’ and ‘any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.' ” Id. (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. at 1085). De minimis applications of force are necessarily excluded from the cruel and unusual punishment inquiry. Id. — U.S. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 1000 (citing Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. John v. Johnson, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973), wherein Judge Friendly wrote that “[n]ot every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers," }, { "docid": "4078601", "title": "", "text": "or her to cruel and unusual punishment by using excessive force is whether-the prison officials acted “in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore prison discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). An inmate claiming that prison officials subjected him or her to cruel and unusual punishment by the use of excessive force has the burden of establishing both an objective and a subjective component. Romano v. Howarth, supra, 998 F.2d at 105. Objectively, the plaintiff must establish that the deprivation alleged is sufficiently serious or harmful enough to reach constitutional dimensions. Id.; see also Wilson v. Seiter, supra. This component is “contextual and responsive to ‘contemporary standards of de cency.’ ” Hudson v. McMillian, supra, 503 U.S. at 8 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, supra, 429 U.S. at 103). Thus, while a de minimis use of force will rarely suffice to state a constitutional claim, the plaintiff is not required to show that the application of force resulted in serious injury. Id. at 9-10. Subjectively, the plaintiff must Show that the defendants acted “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm____” Hudson v. McMiUian, supra, 503 U.S. at 7; Romano v. Howarth, supra, 998 F.2d at 105. To determine whether the defendants acted maliciously, the trier of fact should consider the following factors: the extent of the plaintiffs injuries, the need for the application of force, the correlation between the need for force and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the defendants, and any efforts made by the defendants to temper the severity of a forceful response. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1085, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986). As stated by the Second Circuit in Romano v. Howarth: If an evaluation of these factors leads the [trier of fact] to conclude that the defendants acted maliciously, wantonness has been established. And an Eighth Amendment violation has occurred. If, on the other hand, reflection upon these factors leads the [trier of fact] to find that the defendants acted in" }, { "docid": "2638435", "title": "", "text": "202 (1986). Plaintiff has stated claims of deliberate indifference and excessive force in his complaint. A claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need requires proof of an objective and a subjective component. The objective component is met if the deprivation of an inmate’s medical needs is “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S.Ct. at 1977. The subjective component is met if a prison official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837, 114 S.Ct. at 1979; see also Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164 (4th Cir.1998). In an excessive force claim, the Supreme Court has held that the use of physical force which constitutes “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” by a prison guard upon an inmate violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986). When officials stand accused of the excessive use of force, the key inquiry is “whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. at 320-21, 106 S.Ct. at 1085. In making this determination, the court must balance such factors as the need for the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force actually applied, and the extent of injury inflicted. Id. De minimis injury can be conclusive evidence that the force used was also de minimis and, therefore, not violative of constitutional protections. See Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir.1994). In their affidavits in support of summary judgment, Defendants Short and Anderson argue that there was no medical waiver form on the door of the Plaintiffs cell at the time they performed the routine cell search, and they claim that they were unaware that the Plaintiff had any particular medical requirements. Plaintiff vigorously disputes this claim in his affidavit, stating that on September 3, 2001," }, { "docid": "15210540", "title": "", "text": "action. IV. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT Having determined that we have jurisdiction over the claims of the appellant and that the issue is ripe for our consideration, we next turn to the determination of whether the acts complained of amount to cruel and unusual punishment. In doing so, we are aware that a serviceman is entitled to protection from cruel and unusual punishment under both statute as well as the Eighth Amendment and thus, in the absence of military case law, seek guidance from Supreme Court precedent. United States v. Matthews, 16 M.J. 354, 368 (C.M.A.1983). Article 55, UCMJ, provides that “cruel and unusual punishment[ ] may not be ... inflicted upon any person subject to this chapter.” (Emphasis added). Likewise, the Supreme Court has held that “ ‘the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ ... constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977)). In determining whether unnecessary and wanton pain has been inflicted, we must determine “whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.1973)); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (holding that the post-trial beatings of a prisoner by prison guards a violation of. the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause). In determining whether the force used was necessary or unjustified, we consider several factors including the extent of the injuries suffered by an inmate, the need for the force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force applied, the threat reasonably perceived by responsible officials, and efforts to temper the severity of the force. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 11-12,112 S.Ct. 995. Additionally, Eighth Amendment claims must be analyzed subjectively (did officials act with a sufficiently culpable state of mind?) and objectively" }, { "docid": "12092636", "title": "", "text": "In reversing us the Supreme Court held that “whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is ... whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” — U.S. at —-—, 112 S.Ct. at 999, 117 L.Ed.2d at 165-166 (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-321, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1084-1085, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)). The Court further held that a prisoner need not show serious or significant injury in an excessive force claim against prison officers where the force used was unnecessary and wanton. Analysis On remand we must determine whether the force used against Hudson was applied maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. In that review we accept all factual findings of the magistrate judge not found to be clearly erroneous, giving due regard to his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. Several factors are relevant in the inquiry whether unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain was used in violation of a prisoner’s eighth amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. These include: 1. the extent of the injury suffered; 2. the need for the application of force; 3. the relationship between the need and the amount of force used; 4. the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials; and 5. any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, — U.S. at —, 112 S.Ct. at 999, 117 L.Ed.2d at 166. The magistrate judge found that “Woods and McMillian used force on the plaintiff when there was no need to use any force at all, and that Mezo expressly condoned the use of force.” Even though the injuries Hudson suffered were minor, the magistrate judge held that “defendants’ conduct can only be seen as motivated by malice” and that the force used by them was “unnecessary and excessive.” Finally, Mezo made no effort to prevent the unwarranted use of force or to temper its severity. We conclude that the factual" }, { "docid": "22866116", "title": "", "text": "above the level of de minimus harm. Accepting as we must that Plaintiffs might be able to prove that Iko’s death resulted from the excessive use of pepper spray, we easily conclude that Plaintiffs satisfy the objective component of their excessive force claim at this stage in the litigation. Plaintiffs must also show that Lt. Shreve acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind” (the subjective component). Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321. The state of mind required in excessive force claims is “wantonness in the infliction of pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 322, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986). Put differently, the “core judicial inquiry” regarding the subjective component of an excessive force claim is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995. The Supreme Court has set forth four non-exclusive factors to assist courts in assessing whether an officer has acted with “wantonness”: (1) “the need for the application of force”; (2) “the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used”; (3) the extent of any reasonably perceived threat that the application of force was intended to quell; and (4) “any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (internal quotations omitted) (applying these factors in a prison riot case); see Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995 (extending the Whitley standard “to all allegations of excessive force”). We now consider those factors in light of the circumstances before us. With respect to the first criterion, there is no question that some dispersal of pepper spray was warranted in carrying out the cell extraction. The Maryland Division of Corrections Directive governing the use of force, DCD 110-23 (the “Use of Force Directive”), permits the use of pepper spray in a cell extraction “to incapacitate the inmate prior to committing staff’ to the procedure. J.A. 588. Plaintiffs concede that pepper spray is a commonly used method of incapacitating inmates" }, { "docid": "22243866", "title": "", "text": "the district court correctly held that Cockrell’s motion to amend was futile. III. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment using the same legal standards that the district court was required to apply in its decision. Lancaster v. Monroe County, Ala., 116 F.3d 1419, 1424 (11th Cir.1997). Government action, including the use of force by prison guards, will only violate substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when it is so egregious that it shocks the conscience. See Carr v. Tatangelo, 338 F.3d 1259, 1271 (11th Cir.2003). In both Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment excessive force claims, whether the use of force violates an inmate’s constitutional rights “ultimately turns on ‘whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’ ” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1085, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.1973)) (establishing the standard for an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim); see Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir.2005) (applying the Whitley test in a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force case). If force is used “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm,” then it necessarily shocks the conscience. See Brown v. Smith, 813 F.2d 1187, 1188 (11th Cir.1987) (stating that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments give equivalent protections against excessive force). If not, then it does not. Under this standard, we look at “the need for the application of force; the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used; and the extent of the injury inflicted upon the prisoner.” Id. (citing Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. at 1085). Additionally, we consider “the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the responsible officials on the basis of the facts known to them, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. at 1085. Not only that, but we must also give" }, { "docid": "6491464", "title": "", "text": "DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM THAT THE UNNAMED ERT OFFICERS USED EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF HIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. When a prison official stands accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, it must be shown that the official applied force “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). No liability arises when the force was applied in “ ‘a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). When determining whether the force used was excessive, a court considers (1) the extent of the injury suffered, (2) the need for the applicable force, (3) the relationship between that need and the force used, (4) the threat to the safety of staff and inmates reasonably perceived by responsible officials, and (5) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. See id. at 7, 112 S.Ct. at 999. In reviewing these factors, a court should recognize that, in the context of force used to quell a prison disturbance, prison officials must often act “ ‘in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance.’ ” Id. at 6,112 S.Ct. at 999 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1084-85, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)). Thus, “ ‘[p]rison administrators ... should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.’ ” Id. (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321-22, 106 S.Ct. at 1085-86 (citation omitted)). In considering whether an Eighth Amendment violation has occurred, courts examine both objective and subjective components of the above factors. See Duamutef v. Fial, 922 F.Supp. 807, 815 (W.D.N.Y.1996). The objective component of the alleged violation relates to the seriousness of the injury. See Branham v. Meachum 77 F.3d 626, 630 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 1, 112 S.Ct. at 995-96). The subjective component relates to whether the defendants had a sufficiently culpable state of mind" }, { "docid": "8291685", "title": "", "text": "“shocks the conscience.” Danley, 540 F.3d at 1307 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The use of force does not “shock the conscience” if it is applied “in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). However, if the force is applied “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm,” then it does “shock the conscience,” and is excessive under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. Id.; see Danley, 540 F.3d at 1306 (Eighth Amendment decisional law applicable to Fourteenth Amendment claims). The standard for showing excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, is higher than that required to show excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And, indeed, it is higher than that required to show excessive force in violation of Bartow County Sheriffs Office’s policies. Here, the Bartow County Sheriffs Office, after an internal investigation, concluded that Gilstrap’s use of force was both excessive and unnecessary. That conclusion, even if correct, does not answer the question of whether Gilstrap maliciously and sadistically used force to cause Fennell harm, and thus violated Fennell’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. We consider the following factors in determining whether the force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment: a) the need for the application of force; b) the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used; c) the extent of the injury inflicted upon the prisoner; d) the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates; and e) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.2007) (citations omitted). When considering these factors, we “give a wide range of deference to prison officials acting to preserve discipline and security, including when considering decisions made at the scene of a disturbance.” Id. (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). We examine the facts as reasonably perceived by Gilstrap on the basis of the facts known to him at the time. See Whitley v. Albers, 475" }, { "docid": "19151805", "title": "", "text": "cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated ... [w]hether or not significant injury is evident.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S.Ct. 995. “Otherwise, the Eighth Amendment would permit any physical punishment, no matter how diabolic or inhuman, inflicting less than some arbitrary quantity of injury.” Id. The district court determined that Cor-dell failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material facts with regard to both components. In reaching this conclusion, however, the district court improperly weighed the evidence in the record. Viewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to [Cordell],” as we must, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Cor-dell has demonstrated that Deputy McKinney violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Scott, 550 U.S. at 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769. 1. Subjective Component We begin with the subjective component. In determining whether a prison official had a culpable state of mind, we have found it helpful to consider “such factors as the need for the application of force, the relationship between the heed and the amount of force that was used, [and] the extent of injury inflicted,” as well as “the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the responsible officials on the basis of the facts known to them, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). Considering these factors and the record in Cordell’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Deputy McKinney acted with malicious and sadistic intent to cause harm. To start, there is a question of whether Deputy McKinney had a plausible justification for applying any force to Cor-dell. In evaluating this factor, we recognize that “prison officials ‘must make their decisions in haste under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance.’ ” Combs, 315 F.3d at 557 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6, 112 S.Ct. 995). Therefore, “[t]he issue is ... not whether the" }, { "docid": "12247069", "title": "", "text": "the application of force, [B] the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, [C] the extent of injury inflicted, and [D] whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d at 1033; accord, e.g., Tierney v. Davidson, 133 F.3d at 199; Rivera v. New York, 1999 WL 13240 at *10; Santiago v. Semenza, 965 F.Supp. at 471; Cuoco v. Hershberger, 1996 WL 648963 at *5; Pristell v. County of Sullivan, 1996 WL 11210 at *5; Rahman v. Philip, 1995 WL 679251 at *4. Judge Friendly’s Johnson v. Glick factors are quite similar to the standards set out by the Supreme Court for Eighth Amendment analysis of excessive force claims by convicted prisoners. See, e.g., Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (To determine whether a prison official’s use of force was unconstitutionally excessive, the Court should “evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat ‘reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,’ and ‘any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response,’ ” as well as “the extent of injury suffered by an inmate.”); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. at 396-97 & n. 11, 109 S.Ct. at 1872-73 & n. 11 (“We also suggested [in Whitley ] that the ... prongs of the Johnson v. dick test might be useful in analyzing excessive force claims brought under the Eighth Amendment ... because its four factors help to focus the central inquiry in the Eighth Amendment context, which is whether the particular use of force amounts to the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’ ”); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. at 1085; Davidson v. Flynn, 32 F.3d 27, 30 (2d Cir.1994); Romano v. Howarth, 998 F.2d 101, 105 (2d Cir.1993); Malloy v. DeFrank, 1996 WL 631725 at *4. The parallel between the Due Process Clause excessive force standard applicable to pretrial" }, { "docid": "23633917", "title": "", "text": "320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (quoting Johnson, 481 F.2d at 1033). Subsequently, in Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), the Supreme Court extended Whitley ’s holding outside the prison-riot context and applied the same heightened intent requirement to force used as a prophylactic, preventive measure. See Whitley, 475 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (acknowledging the distinction). The Hudson Court held that “whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Id. at 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995. The Court reasoned that even absent the exigency present during a riot-like disturbance, “ ‘ “[p]ris-on administrators ... should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” ’ ” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321-22, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979))). Thus, Hudson dictates that Whitley’s standard — force applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm — applies to all claims that prison officials used excessive force against convicted prisoners. In addition to defining the mental state required, Hudson and Whitley outline five distinct factors relevant to ascertaining whether force was used “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm”: (1) “the extent of injury”; (2) “the need for application of force”; (3) “the relationship between that need and the amount of force used”; (4) “any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response”; and (5) “the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the responsible officials on the basis of facts known to them.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. 1078; see also Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995." }, { "docid": "5941825", "title": "", "text": "the district court erred when it answered the constitutional question in the affirmative. Jones argues the pain Shields experienced was de min-imis for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, and further claims his actions were neither repugnant to the conscience of mankind, nor malicious or sadistic. Shields maintains he suffered extreme pain, and the application of capstun in this case was malicious, sadistic, and served no useful purpose. We agree with Jones, and hold Shields has failed to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. The Eighth Amendment protects incarcerated prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment, and this protection is grounded upon their right to be free from unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain at the hands of correctional officers. Parkus v. Delo, 135 F.3d 1232, 1234 (8th Cir.1998)(citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992)). Not every governmental action affecting the interests or well-being of a prisoner is subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny, however. Only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the “core judicial inquiry” is whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995 (citing Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078). Factors which inform this inquiry include the need for the application of physical force; the relationship between the need for physical force and the amount of force applied; and the extent of injury suffered by the inmate. Id. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995 (citing Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320, 106 S.Ct. 1078). Not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. Id. at 9, 112 S.Ct. 995 (citations omitted). “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of" } ]

[ { "docid": "18853812", "title": "", "text": "RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT EGINTON, District Judge. Plaintiffs, inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution [“FCI”] in Danbury, Connecticut, have brought this action pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-20 [“Title III”], on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of “all others similarly situated at the [FCI]” to enjoin prison officials from routinely and randomly monitoring their personal and legal telephone calls. The matter is presently before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In accordance with 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.-100-.105 and Policy Statement DAN 5264.1, the FCI has established and presently maintains guidelines for the use of institution telephones by inmates. Under these guide lines, inmates are permitted, subject to certain limitations and restrictions, to make unlimited long distance telephone calls. These calls are randomly and routinely monitored by FCI officials, a procedure specifically sanctioned by 28 C.F.R. § 540.101 and Policy Statement DAN 5264.1 ¶ 11. The stated purpose of this monitoring is “to preserve the security and orderly management of the institution and to protect the public.” 28 C.F.R. § 540.101. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101 expressly provides that the warden “must provide notice to [an] inmate of the potential for monitoring where it exists.” Officials at the FCI have attempted to comply with this requirement through the issuance and dissemination of Policy Statement DAN 5264.1 and the placement of stickers on or adjacent to institution telephones stating that calls from those telephones might be monitored. These stickers also contain a statement that “use of the institutional telephones constitutes consent to this monitoring.” Although there is some question whether all inmates had actual notice of the monitoring capacity of the institution telephone system, it is clear that the telephone rules were posted and that the prison officials made good faith efforts to ensure that the inmates had reasonable notice that monitoring of telephone calls might occur. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101 also provides that prison officials “may not monitor an inmate’s properly placed call to an attorney,” and that the warden must notify" } ]

[ { "docid": "18853818", "title": "", "text": "that the plenary responsibility of the Bureau of Prisons for the management and .regulation of all federal penal institutions, cf. 18 U.S.C. § 4042, includes the responsibility to conduct investigations of such offenses as extortion or dealing in drugs (offenses enumerated in section 2516). Although defendants are unable to cite any authority for their position, common sense dictates this result. It is beyond question that as a part of managing and regulating the day-to-day activities of a correctional institution, prison officials must be empowered to investigate potential criminal violations in order to preserve the security and orderly management of the institution; in fact, the Bureau of Prisons’ regulations expressly provide specific procedures for investigating suspected criminal activity. 28 C.F.R. § 541.12(b). The Court finds, therefore, that defendants fall within the definition of “investigative or law enforcement officer[s].” Having determined that defendants are investigative or law enforcement officers, the question remains whether they are engaging in monitoring activities “in the ordinary course of [their] duties.” With respect to personal calls (i. e., calls to persons other than attorneys), the monitoring is authorized by and undertaken pursuant to a Bureau of Prisons’ regulation (28 C.F.R. § 540.101) and a local FCI regulation (Policy Statement DAN 5264.1). These regulations are posted and the inmates have reasonable notice that monitoring of telephone conversations might occur. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record, nor any allegation in the complaint, that the monitoring of calls is anything but routine and random and for the sole purpose of ensuring the security and orderly management of the institution. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the telephone monitoring of personal calls is in the ordinary course of the prison officials’ duties and is thus permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a)(ii). The practice, engaged in at least until very recently, of routinely and randomly monitoring inmate/attorney calls involves different considerations. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101 is explicit that properly placed calls to attorneys may not be monitored. Unfortunately, the FCI did not adopt written procedures whereby inmates could have unmonitored telephone conversations with attorneys until May 28, 1980, and" }, { "docid": "9807523", "title": "", "text": "the prison officials argue that they did not violate Danser’s constitutional rights because the record lacks any evidence that they had the “culpable state of mind” necessary to establish a deliberate indifference claim. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). In response, Danser argues that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and, alternatively, maintains that the district court correctly concludéd that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings. Upon our review, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to decide this issue of law, and that the district court erred in denying the prison officials’ motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand the matter with instructions that the court enter judgment in favor of the prison officials. I. Danser is a federal inmate serving a 370-month sentence for convictions of sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), sexual abuse of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a), and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). At the time of the incident at issue in this civil action, Danser was housed in the “low” security facility at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina (FCI-Butner). On August 21, 2005, Danser was assigned to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) within FCI-Butner, after he engaged in a verbal altercation with another inmate. The SHU is a secure, closely supervised facility within FCI-Butner that houses iniriates whom prison officials have determined need separation from the general inmate population, either because the inmate violated prison rules or because the inmate requires protective custody. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.21-541.23. Inmates in the SHU are allowed only five hours of outdoor recreation per week. About 100 inmates were housed in the SHU when Danser was assigned to that unit. Theron Boyd is a correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons who worked in the SHU at FCIButner. On August 22, 2005, Boyd reported to the SHU and was assigned" }, { "docid": "1702299", "title": "", "text": "was transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution of Oxford, Wisconsin (FCI Oxford), to serve part of a federal sentence he had received in 1985. At that time, FCI Oxford correctional officials discovered an on-going conspiracy to smuggle methamphetamine into the prison. In March 1987, FBI Special Agent Richard Staedtler, of the Madison, Wisconsin office of the FBI, joined FCI Oxford officials in their investigation of the smuggling scheme. They monitored and tape-recorded phone calls made by Mr. Ingram and several other inmates suspected as participants in the scheme. Seeking to identify subscribers to Colorado telephone numbers that Mr. Ingram had called, Agent Staed-tler contacted FBI agents in Colorado in early April 1987. Agent Staedtler learned that several of the subscribers were suspected members of a methamphetamine trafficking organization led by Steven “Harpo” Miller (“the Miller Organization”), which was at that time being investigated in Colorado by the Mountain States Task Force. Agent Staedtler informed the task force of the activities that had been uncovered at FCI Oxford. Soon thereafter, in early April 1987, Bernard Hobson, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) for the District of Colorado, called Agent Sta-rtler to ask about the FCI Oxford investigation. Mr. Ingram was scheduled for release from FCI Oxford near the end of May 1987. On April 27,1987, Mr. Ingram called Danny Hockersmith in Colorado and said: “George says he’s gonna do one more deal before he goes. Says ‘Missouri this time.’ ” On May 3, 1987, Mr. Ingram called Mr. Hockersmith again and told him to mail “the package” on Tuesday to Terri Coyle, at an address in Raytown, Missouri. The following day, May 4, Patrick Coyle, an inmate at FCI Oxford, called Terri Coyle and told her to watch her mailbox on Wednesday or Thursday. On May 10, Terri Coyle visited Patrick Coyle at FCI Oxford. Correctional officers who videotaped the visit suspected that Terri Coyle had given small balloons to Patrick Coyle along with some food. Immediately after the visit, Patrick Coyle was placed into a “dry cell.” The same day, Mr. Ingram called another associate from the Miller Organization and said:" }, { "docid": "22739565", "title": "", "text": "that the Government seeks forfeiture of their property, the Court condones a procedure too lax to reliably ensure that a prisoner will receive a legal notice sent to him. The Court does so despite the Government’s total control of a prison inmate’s location, and the evident feasibility of tightening the notice procedure “as [would] one desirous of actually informing [the prisoner].” Id., at 315. Because the Court, without, warrant in fact or law, approves a procedure “less likely to bring home notice” than a feasible alternative, ibid., I dissent. I The Court correctly identifies the foundational case on reasonable notice as a due process requirement, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., and the core instruction: “[Deprivation of... property by adjudication [must] be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” Id., at 313. Further, the Court recognizes that petitioner Dusenbery’s complaint does not rest on the Government’s use of the postal service to dispatch, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Milan, Michigan, notice of an impending forfeiture. Ante, at 169. Were this case about the adequacy of the transmission of information from the FBI to the FCI, swift summary judgment for the Government, I agree, would be in order. But the case we confront is not about notice to the prison, the warden, or the prison mailroom personnel. It is about the adequacy of notice to an individual held in the Government’s custody, a prisoner whose location the Government at all times knows and tightly controls. What process did the Government provide for getting the FBI’s forfeiture notice from the FCI’s mailroom to prisoner Busenbery’s cell? On that key transmission the record is bare. It contains no statement by FCI Milan’s warden concerning any set of safeguards routinely employed. The Government presented only the affidavit and telephone deposition of James Curtis Lawson, an “Inmate Systems Officer” assigned to FCI Milan’s mailroom. App. 36-37, 46-53. On the mailroom to prisoner transmission, Lawson said simply this: “The [Housing] Unit Team member or a correctional staff member" }, { "docid": "788204", "title": "", "text": "cert. den. 446 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 2165, 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980) (monitoring of prison inmate calls for security reasons pursuant to federal policy statement and local prison rules, with posted notice to inmates, was within ordinary course of duties of correctional officer); James v. Newspaper Agency, 591 F.2d 579 (10th Cir. 1979) (company’s use of telephone monitoring system to allow supervisors to monitor business calls and thereby protect against abusive calls and better train employees, with notice, was within ordinary course of business); Crooker v. United States Department of Justice, 497 F.Supp. 500 (D.Conn.1980) (routine and random monitoring of prison inmate calls for security and management purposes pursuant to published regulations and reasonable notice was within ordinary course of duties); Simmons v. Southwestern Bell, 452 F.Supp. 392 (W.D.Okl. 1978), aff'd 611 F.2d 342 (10th Cir. 1979) (telephone company monitoring of testboard calls, for various proper business reasons, including preventing employees from using lines for private calls, and with full notice to employees, was in ordinary course of business); with Campiti v. Walonis, 611 F.2d 387 (1st Cir. 1979) (monitoring of specific prison inmate call, without regulations or notice and not routinely done, was prohibited by statute); United States v. Harpel, 493 F.2d 346 (10th Cir. 1974) (surreptitious recording of particular phone conversation not ordinary course of business); Gerrard v. Blackman, 401 F.Supp. 1189 (N.D.Ill.1975) (hospital’s surreptitious monitoring of psychiatric patient’s call to attorney not within ordinary course of business); United States v. Banks, 374 F.Supp. 321 (D.S.D.1974) (monitoring without notice of party line at Wounded Knee not for purpose of negotiating or any other legitimate purpose not within ordinary course of business). . Defendants have informed the court that the recorded line is no longer used for prisoners or other non-official parties." }, { "docid": "18853819", "title": "", "text": "than attorneys), the monitoring is authorized by and undertaken pursuant to a Bureau of Prisons’ regulation (28 C.F.R. § 540.101) and a local FCI regulation (Policy Statement DAN 5264.1). These regulations are posted and the inmates have reasonable notice that monitoring of telephone conversations might occur. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record, nor any allegation in the complaint, that the monitoring of calls is anything but routine and random and for the sole purpose of ensuring the security and orderly management of the institution. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the telephone monitoring of personal calls is in the ordinary course of the prison officials’ duties and is thus permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a)(ii). The practice, engaged in at least until very recently, of routinely and randomly monitoring inmate/attorney calls involves different considerations. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101 is explicit that properly placed calls to attorneys may not be monitored. Unfortunately, the FCI did not adopt written procedures whereby inmates could have unmonitored telephone conversations with attorneys until May 28, 1980, and inmate/attorney calls made prior to that date were routinely monitored. This routine monitoring of possibly confidential calls was not only unwarranted, it was in clear violation of the Bureau of Prisons’ own regulations. As such, it cannot realistically be argued that such monitoring fell within the ordinary course of the prison officials’ duties. However, because plaintiffs are seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief and because the recent amendment to Policy Statement DAN 5264.1 now provides procedures for unmonitored calls to attorneys, this aspect of plaintiffs’ complaint is moot. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. It is So Ordered. . 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides in pertinent part that: Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall (1) have a civil cause of action, against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications. . In United States v. Paul, supra, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit assumed, without discussion, that a" }, { "docid": "18853814", "title": "", "text": "“an inmate of the proper procedures to have an unmonitored telephone conversation with an attorney.” On the record that has been developed to date, it appears that, until very recently, officials at the FCI had not adopted such procedures, and inmate/attorney telephone calls were routinely monitored in the same manner as all other calls. In apparent response to the instant suit, Policy Statement DAN 5264.1 was amended on May 28, 1980 to include a provision setting forth procedures whereby an inmate would be able to have an unmonitored telephone conversation with an attorney. Policy Statement DAN 5264.1 ¶ 8. Plaintiffs argue that the routine and random monitoring of their telephone calls by prison officials violates Title III, which provides a civil remedy when wire communications are unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used. Defendants do not deny that they engage in the monitoring activities alleged by plaintiffs. Rather, they argue that Title III does not apply in the prison context, and that, even if it does, defendants come under one or more of the exclusions to the statute. Defendants claim initially that Congress did not intend Title III to apply to monitoring of prison telephones. This argument ignores the plain language of the statute. By its express terms, Title III prohibits, with certain narrowly drawn exclusions, the unauthorized interception of “any wire or oral communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). The statute contains no specific exclusion for monitoring prison telephones. Defendants nevertheless contend that the legislative history to Title III evinces Congress’ intent that Title III not apply to prison monitoring. The Court finds no merit in such a contention. The relevant legislative history is plainly to the contrary. See S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 2177-97, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1968, p. 2112. Moreover, the two courts that have considered the issue have both squarely rejected this argument. United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 116 n.2 (6th Cir. 1980); Campiti v. Walonis, 453 F.Supp. 819, 823 (D.Mass.1978), aff’d, 611 F.2d 387 (1st Cir. 1979). 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c) provides in relevant part that “[i]t shall not be unlawful under this chapter" }, { "docid": "1519160", "title": "", "text": "487 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 932, 84 S.Ct. 702, 11 L.Ed.2d 652 (1964). . FCI-Milan Policy Statement at 19: 6. MISCONDUCT: A. Major Misconduct: Major misconduct is a serious violation and will be reported formally to the Adjustment Committee on the misconduct report form. A detailed narrative may be attached. B. Minor Misconduct: Minor misconducts are less serious violations which may be resolved immediately and informally by the Inmate’s supervisor or formally reported on the misconduct report form. . Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement at 7: (c) Procedural Requirements: The Adjustment Committee and/or Treatment Team handling inmate discipline will adopt the following practices: (1) All inmates charged with misconduct or violation of a rule or regulation of the institution will be informed of the specific charges and will be given an opportunity to answer. FCI-Milan Policy Statement at 7: The inmate will be given a a copy of the incident report. Ordinarily, this will be done by the investigator at the beginning of the investigation. This will be recorded in the space provided on the original misconduct report form. If the investigation is delayed for any reason, any designated employee will deliver the charges to the inmate. This will be done within eight (8) hours of the time of the incident, unless there are exceptional circumstances which prevent it. . FCI-Milan Policy Statement, pp. 1-9. . Justice Douglas dissented in Wolff on, among other things, this point. Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 418 U.S. 539, 593, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (Douglas, J., dissenting). The Wolff Court was aware of the issue and did not accept the position of Justice Douglas. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Respectfully I dissent. This is a class action brought by certain federal prisoners at the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan, alleging that they had been denied due process in various aspects of the prison’s disciplinary procedures. Much water has flowed under many bridges since the action was originally filed. Initially, after the District Court granted relief by Opinion and Order dated January 24, 1974, this court remanded the case for reconsideration" }, { "docid": "909003", "title": "", "text": "amended by Pub.L.No. 94-233, Sec. 14 (Mar. 15, 1976); 18 USC 4203(a)(4) (Mar. 15, 1976), the preparation of presentence reports is not one of those duties. Presentence reports are used by the Bureau of Prisons and Parole Commission because the courts have permitted such use. The reports are not converted, however, by such use into documents of “agencies” subject to the prescriptions of the FOIA. Access to such reports at the time of parole release hearings, when available to the Parole Commission, has recently been given inmates by the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, 18 USC 4207, 4208 (Mar. 15, 1976). Nothing in that Act, however, alters the fact that the presentence report is a court document which is not within the purview of the FOIA. It cannot be obtained under the FOIA by an inmate or parolee from the Parole Commission. Division of Probation, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Pub.No. 105, The Presentence Investigation Report 27 (1978). . United States v. Dingle, 546 F.2d 1378, 1381 (10th Cir. 1976) (Jencks Act disclosure). . Smith v. Flaherty, 465 F.Supp. 815, 819 (M.D. Pa.1978) (alternate holding); Blue v. Bureau of Prisons, 570 F.2d 529 at 532-33 (5th Cir. 1976). In a recently issued decision holding that the Office of the Pardon Attorney is an “agency” . for purposes of the FOIA, Crooker v. Office of the Pardon Attorney, 614 F.2d 825, 828 (2d Cir. 1980), the Second Circuit expressly reserved to the district court on remand the question of presentence report disclosure under the FOIA: We do not decide at this point whether plaintiff’s FOIA claim can be defeated by an opportunity to inspect the documents from the Bureau of Prisons at FCI, Danbury, or whether the pre-sentence report is exempt as a court document, despite its availability pri- or to sentencing, Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3), and its disclosure to agencies of the executive branch. Id. at 828 n.4. .Id. at 346-47. See Ryan v. Dep’t of Justice, 617 F.2d 781, 785-86 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (applying the Goland standard). . Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3). . Id. 32(c)(3)(A). . Id. 32(c)(3)(B). . See, e." }, { "docid": "4786918", "title": "", "text": "see also United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 117-20 (6th Cir.) (Phillips, J., concurring in the result), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 2165, 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980). However, even if, as some courts have found, prisoners’ communications generally fall within the scope of Title III, see United States v. Paul, supra, 614 F.2d at 116-17; Campiti v. Walonis, 453 F.Supp. 819, 823 (D.Mass.1978), aff'd, 611 F.2d 387 (1st Cir.1979), the recorded conversations in this case do not. Title III is expressly inapplicable to communications intercepted by any device that is operated “by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a)(ii). The correctional officers who conduct the recording and monitoring of inmate conversations at Lewisburg act pursuant to a thoroughly institutionalized, ongoing policy at the prison. Telephone calls are comprehensively recorded and randomly monitored for the purpose of maintaining prison security. The policy is announced in orientation lectures to inmates and in the prison’s “Inmate Informational Handbook.” The policy is also posted on the telephones themselves. In short, the correctional officers at Lewisburg are unquestionably investigative or law enforcement officers acting in the course of their duties. See United States v. Paul, supra, 614 F.2d at 117; United States v. Clark, 651 F.Supp. 76, 78-80 (M.D.Pa.1986); United States v. Rantz, No. 85-40036-04, slip op. at 8 (D.Kan. Sept. 30, 1985) [Available on WEST- LAW, DCTU database]; Crooker v. United States Department of Justice, 497 F.Supp. 500, 503 (D.Conn.1980). Thus, the prison’s monitoring and recording procedures are not subject to the restrictions under Title III. Defendants also challenge the tape recordings on constitutional grounds. They argue first that the prison’s policy of recording their conversations infringes on their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. We note at the outset that “the legitimate governmental interest in order and security of penal institutions justifies the imposition -of certain restraints on inmate correspondence.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 412-13, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1810-11, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974). In this context, the First Amendment imposes two requirements. Restrictions on inmate communication must" }, { "docid": "23561362", "title": "", "text": "the calls were initiated by Lopez. The government argued at trial that these calls proved Garcia’s role as a courier of information in the charged conspiracy. The district court held that the recordings made at Leavenworth were authorized under the federal wiretapping statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. The statute restricts the use in evidence of wiretaps. See 18 U.S.C. § 2515. Section 2510(5)(a)(ii) embodies an exception for evidence intercepted by “an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties.” Section 2510(7) of the Act defines an investigative or law enforcement officer as one “who is empowered by law to conduct investigations or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in [18 U.S.C. § 2516].” The district court held that the recordings should not be suppressed because the monitoring of Lopez’s telephone calls was done by a law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties. Garcia challenges this holding claiming that the monitoring was not done “in the ordinary course of duty” and that the district court failed to properly construe the federal wiretapping statute in light of the fourth amendment. We have recently held that prison officials are “investigative or law enforcement officers” within the meaning of § 2510(7). United States v. Feekes, 879 F.2d 1562, 1565 (7th Cir.1989); See also United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 117 (6th Cir.) cert. denied 446 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 2165, 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980); United States v. Vasta, 649 F.Supp. 974, 989 (S.D.N.Y.1986); Crooker v. United States Dept. of Justice, 497 F.Supp. 500, 503 (D.Conn.1980). In Feekes, we found that the “ordinary course” exception was “clearly satisfied” where the recordings were authorized by prison regulations and were made in accordance with established prison routine. 879 F.2d at 1565-66. Similarly, in the instant case, the monitoring of inmate telephone conversations at Leavenworth was authorized and undertaken pursuant to a specific Bureau of Prisons regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 540.101. Correctional officers who conducted the monitoring and recording acted pursuant to an institutionalized, ongoing policy at the prison. Further, prisoners are notified about the monitoring policy in" }, { "docid": "17848244", "title": "", "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: Edward Chinchello, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in El Reno, Oklahoma, (FCI El Reno) brought this Bivens action against a number of federal corrections officials alleging that his outgoing, confidential mail had been opened and that he had been placed in “administrative detention” in violation of numerous amendments to the United States Constitution. Two of the defendants, Norman Carlson, Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and Boyde Scott, a corrections officer at FCI El Reno, moved for summary judgment. They filed these appeals following denial of their motions. We will dismiss Scott’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. We will reverse the district court’s order denying Carlson’s motion and will direct that summary judgment be entered in his favor. I. Chinchello was transferred from the federal prison in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, to FCI El Reno on March 18, 1983. On March 26th, Chinchello used “special mail” to send a press release concerning conditions at FCI El Reno to his former attorney at the Lewisburg Prison Project, with directions to forward the press release to Mike Wallace of “60 Minutes.” Chin-chello alleges that prison officials improperly opened this “privileged” correspondence. On March 27, the day after Chinchello wrote and mailed the letter, he was placed in administrative detention, where he remained until April 7, 1983. He alleges that this detention was imposed without notice and a hearing and in retaliation for his attempt to publicize poor conditions in the prison. The defendants, on the other hand, assert that Chinchello was one of many prisoners properly placed in detention as part of an investigation of a food strike at FCI El Reno which occurred between March 25 and March 28. Chinchello’s original complaint alleged that Carlson, acting “through an unnamed officer, employee, agent or servant of the Bureau of Prisons,” conspired to interfere with Chinchello’s legal correspondence. (52a) The complaint also alleged that Carlson, through named employees, confined Chinchello in administrative detention. With respect to Scott, Chinchello alleged that he participated in the decision to place Chinchello in isolation for dispatching the letter concerning prison" }, { "docid": "13835157", "title": "", "text": "at 117-120 (J. Phillips, concurring in result) (arguing that Title III is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment’s concern for privacy and therefore does not apply to the prison setting since inmates have a reduced expectation of privacy within the institution). Assuming that it does, Noriega’s claim is nonetheless largely foreclosed in the context of this action. Preliminarily, the court notes that the interception of Noriega’s third-party conversations was proper under two Title III exceptions. Section 2510(5)(a)(ii) of the statute permits interception by “an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties.” Several courts have held that prison officials are “investigative or law enforcement officers” within the meaning of the statute, and that monitoring pursuant to an established and posted prison policy such as MCC’s is in the officers’ “ordinary course of duty” and thus within the ambit of § 2510(5)(a)(ii). See United States v. Sababu, 891 F.2d 1308, 1328-29 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Feekes, 879 F.2d 1562, 1565-66 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d at 117; United States v. Vasta, 649 F.Supp. 974, 989 (S.D.N.Y.1986); United States v. Clark, 651 F.Supp. 76 (M.D.Pa.1986); Crooker v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 497 F.Supp. at 503. It can perhaps be argued that the recording of Noriega’s calls had less to do with prison security than with responding to the government’s subpoenas, which were served on MCC shortly before the recording was initiated. If in fact the interception of Noriega’s conversations was unrelated to any institutional considerations, then it would fall outside the scope of an MCC official’s “ordinary course of duties.” But in the absence of any suggestion or evidence to this effect, the court must presume that the recording was pursuant to routine prison policy applicable to all inmates. Noriega has been under the tightest security since his arrival at MCC, and it is difficult to believe that the security concerns permeating all other aspects of his confinement did not also extend to the recording of his telephone conversations. As long as the recording was based on legitimate security considerations, which must be assumed" }, { "docid": "3441584", "title": "", "text": "MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge: This appeal raises the question of whether the Due Process Clause mandates procedural safeguards before the United States Bureau of Prisons may designate an inmate as a “Central Monitoring Case” (CMC). W. Raymond Nelson, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut, appeals from judgments of the District Court for the District of Connecticut, entered by Judge Ellen B. Burns in May, 1979, granting the petitions of three inmates of that institution, Frank Pugliese, John Bazzano and Leonard Durso, for writs of habeas corpus seeking termination of their classifications by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons as Category B “Central Monitoring Cases”. The classification as a CMC could hinder or preclude a prisoner in obtaining social furloughs, work releases, participation in community activities, release to halfway houses and transfers to other correctional institutions. These obstacles may not be encountered by prisoners who are not so classified. Judge Burns found that there were procedural deficiencies in making the CMC classifications, which violated appel-lees’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the writs to issue unless the designations were removed within 30 days. We reverse. The United States Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, has adopted a central inmate monitoring system under which it controls the transfer and community activities of “certain inmates who present special needs for management” or who “pose special management considerations.” See Bureau of Prisons Program Statement No. 5190.2 (June 1, 1979), formerly Policy Statement No. 7900.53A (April 7, 1976). Under this program the Bureau has established some 12 categories of inmates deemed to require such control, including those who require special protection, such as witnesses under the Witness Security Program, those who are disruptive or assaultive, and those who should for one reason or another (such as for their own protection) be separated from others or housed in particular facilities. Two of the 12 categories are involved in this case and are described as follows: “03 SOPHISTICATED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: Those inmates who have been involved in large scale sophisticated criminal activity. Criteria: Activities including large numbers of associates; offenses" }, { "docid": "18853820", "title": "", "text": "inmate/attorney calls made prior to that date were routinely monitored. This routine monitoring of possibly confidential calls was not only unwarranted, it was in clear violation of the Bureau of Prisons’ own regulations. As such, it cannot realistically be argued that such monitoring fell within the ordinary course of the prison officials’ duties. However, because plaintiffs are seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief and because the recent amendment to Policy Statement DAN 5264.1 now provides procedures for unmonitored calls to attorneys, this aspect of plaintiffs’ complaint is moot. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. It is So Ordered. . 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides in pertinent part that: Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall (1) have a civil cause of action, against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications. . In United States v. Paul, supra, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit assumed, without discussion, that a prison official is “an investigative or law enforcement officer” as that term is defined in section 2510(7). Id. at 117. . Although the claim is not raised by defendants, it would appear that section 2510(5)(a)(i) might provide an alternative basis for exclusion from the proscriptions of Title III. . In any event, there is a serious question whether injunctive or declaratory relief is even permissible under Title III. The civil remedy provision of Title III, 18 U.S.C. § 2520, provides solely for money damages. Moreover, the legislative history to Title III states that “[i]njunctive relief ... is not intended to be available.” S.Rep.No.1097, supra, at 2196. See Campiti v. Walonis, supra, at 825. . Plaintiffs also argue that the activities alleged in the complaint are prohibited by the Connecticut wiretap statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 54—41a et seq. Even ignoring the serious issue of abstention, see Naylor v. Case & McGrath, Inc., 585 F.2d 557 (2d Cir. 1978), and the question of whether the statute is meant to apply to agents of the federal government as distinguished" }, { "docid": "11069432", "title": "", "text": "employee authorized to use the inmate telephone system, is empowered to assist with investigations into events occurring at Plymouth. He is therefore an “investigative or law enforcement officer.” Lewis’s argument to the contrary rests on Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 38c, which provides that “[w]henever the superintendent of a correctional institution ... determines that a felony has been committed therein, he shall forthwith notify the district attorney for the county.” Lewis reasons that this district attorney notification provision means that corrections officers do not have the power to conduct investigations of felonies occurring within the prison. This logic is flawed. While § 38c requires the superintendent to notify the district attorney of a felony, it does not preclude prison officials from investigating those felonies. Indeed, common sense dictates otherwise. As another court aptly noted, “[i]t is beyond question that as a part of managing and regulating the day-to-day activities of a correctional institution, prison officials must be empowered to investigate potential criminal violations in order to preserve the security and orderly management of the institution.” Crooker, 497 F.Supp. at 503; see also Gilday, 124 F.3d at 282 n. 7 (noting without comment that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts determined that Massachusetts Department of Corrections officials fall within the Title III law enforcement exception); Breest v. DuBois, 1997 WL 449898, *3-4, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 246, 1997 Mass.Super. LEXIS 288, *11-12 (Mass.Super.Ct.1997) (similar). Our inquiry does not, however, end here. The law enforcement interception exception only applies to contents of a communication acquired “in the ordinary course of [an officer’s] duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a)(ii). Pyne acquired the contents of Correa’s conversation when he recorded it. Whether monitoring or re cording calls “pursuant to an established prison policy” could qualify as within “the ordinary course of correctional officers’ business within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a)” is a question which we had previously reserved for decision. Campiti v. Walonis, 611 F.2d 387, 392 n. 4 (1st Cir.1979); see also Footman, 215 F.3d at 154 n. 11. We now join our sister circuits in answering" }, { "docid": "13835158", "title": "", "text": "v. Vasta, 649 F.Supp. 974, 989 (S.D.N.Y.1986); United States v. Clark, 651 F.Supp. 76 (M.D.Pa.1986); Crooker v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 497 F.Supp. at 503. It can perhaps be argued that the recording of Noriega’s calls had less to do with prison security than with responding to the government’s subpoenas, which were served on MCC shortly before the recording was initiated. If in fact the interception of Noriega’s conversations was unrelated to any institutional considerations, then it would fall outside the scope of an MCC official’s “ordinary course of duties.” But in the absence of any suggestion or evidence to this effect, the court must presume that the recording was pursuant to routine prison policy applicable to all inmates. Noriega has been under the tightest security since his arrival at MCC, and it is difficult to believe that the security concerns permeating all other aspects of his confinement did not also extend to the recording of his telephone conversations. As long as the recording was based on legitimate security considerations, which must be assumed in view of MCC’s established policy and absent proof to the contrary, the interception of Noriega’s calls would fall within the ordinary duties of a prison official. A second exception to the statute allows interception where “one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c). On facts substantially similar to those pertinent here, the Second Circuit has found implied consent under Title III where an inmate uses a prison telephone after being advised that such phones are subject to monitoring, and where notice is prominently posted warning that use of the institution’s telephones constitutes consent to monitoring. See United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 19-20 (2nd Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1033, 109 S.Ct. 846, 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989); United States v. Amen, 831 F.2d at 379. See also Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112 (1st Cir.1990) (tenant’s use of landlady’s telephone after unambiguous notice that all incoming calls were being recorded constituted implied consent to the interception of his eonversation). The orientation manual, the" }, { "docid": "11069431", "title": "", "text": "investigations or make arrests. Although there does not appear-to be a statutory provision -expressly endowing Pyne with investigative authority, the Plymouth phone monitoring policy, together with the laws and regulations that dictated its adoption, indicate that Pyne has such authority. Massachusetts law empowers the Commissioner of Correction to “promulgate necessary rules and regulations incident to the ... performance of his duties,” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 124, § 1(q), which include “maintaining] safety, security and order at all state correctional facilities.” Id. § 1(b). Pursuant to this mandate, the Commissioner promulgated regulations instructing prison superintendents to develop a policy for inmate telephone access whereby all calls are subject to monitoring. Mass. Regs.Code tit. 103, § 482.07. Plymouth’s phone .monitoring policy, PCCF-482, was adopted in accordance with those regulations. PCCF-482 provides, in part, that “Whenever a significant incident/event occurs at [Plymouth] (e.g., assault, disorder, etc.), employees authorized to utilize the [inmate telephone system] may review tape recordings of all telephone calls made from the incident site to determine applicable intelligence information.” In other words, Pyne, as an employee authorized to use the inmate telephone system, is empowered to assist with investigations into events occurring at Plymouth. He is therefore an “investigative or law enforcement officer.” Lewis’s argument to the contrary rests on Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 38c, which provides that “[w]henever the superintendent of a correctional institution ... determines that a felony has been committed therein, he shall forthwith notify the district attorney for the county.” Lewis reasons that this district attorney notification provision means that corrections officers do not have the power to conduct investigations of felonies occurring within the prison. This logic is flawed. While § 38c requires the superintendent to notify the district attorney of a felony, it does not preclude prison officials from investigating those felonies. Indeed, common sense dictates otherwise. As another court aptly noted, “[i]t is beyond question that as a part of managing and regulating the day-to-day activities of a correctional institution, prison officials must be empowered to investigate potential criminal violations in order to preserve the security and orderly management of the" }, { "docid": "18853813", "title": "", "text": "and orderly management of the institution and to protect the public.” 28 C.F.R. § 540.101. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101 expressly provides that the warden “must provide notice to [an] inmate of the potential for monitoring where it exists.” Officials at the FCI have attempted to comply with this requirement through the issuance and dissemination of Policy Statement DAN 5264.1 and the placement of stickers on or adjacent to institution telephones stating that calls from those telephones might be monitored. These stickers also contain a statement that “use of the institutional telephones constitutes consent to this monitoring.” Although there is some question whether all inmates had actual notice of the monitoring capacity of the institution telephone system, it is clear that the telephone rules were posted and that the prison officials made good faith efforts to ensure that the inmates had reasonable notice that monitoring of telephone calls might occur. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101 also provides that prison officials “may not monitor an inmate’s properly placed call to an attorney,” and that the warden must notify “an inmate of the proper procedures to have an unmonitored telephone conversation with an attorney.” On the record that has been developed to date, it appears that, until very recently, officials at the FCI had not adopted such procedures, and inmate/attorney telephone calls were routinely monitored in the same manner as all other calls. In apparent response to the instant suit, Policy Statement DAN 5264.1 was amended on May 28, 1980 to include a provision setting forth procedures whereby an inmate would be able to have an unmonitored telephone conversation with an attorney. Policy Statement DAN 5264.1 ¶ 8. Plaintiffs argue that the routine and random monitoring of their telephone calls by prison officials violates Title III, which provides a civil remedy when wire communications are unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used. Defendants do not deny that they engage in the monitoring activities alleged by plaintiffs. Rather, they argue that Title III does not apply in the prison context, and that, even if it does, defendants come under one or more of the exclusions to the" }, { "docid": "23561363", "title": "", "text": "properly construe the federal wiretapping statute in light of the fourth amendment. We have recently held that prison officials are “investigative or law enforcement officers” within the meaning of § 2510(7). United States v. Feekes, 879 F.2d 1562, 1565 (7th Cir.1989); See also United States v. Paul, 614 F.2d 115, 117 (6th Cir.) cert. denied 446 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 2165, 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980); United States v. Vasta, 649 F.Supp. 974, 989 (S.D.N.Y.1986); Crooker v. United States Dept. of Justice, 497 F.Supp. 500, 503 (D.Conn.1980). In Feekes, we found that the “ordinary course” exception was “clearly satisfied” where the recordings were authorized by prison regulations and were made in accordance with established prison routine. 879 F.2d at 1565-66. Similarly, in the instant case, the monitoring of inmate telephone conversations at Leavenworth was authorized and undertaken pursuant to a specific Bureau of Prisons regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 540.101. Correctional officers who conducted the monitoring and recording acted pursuant to an institutionalized, ongoing policy at the prison. Further, prisoners are notified about the monitoring policy in four different ways. First, a bilingual sign is mounted at eye level on each telephone indicating that the telephone is subject to monitoring. Second, telephone regulations are discussed during the admission and orientation briefing inmates receive when they first come into the institution. Third, notification is provided in the institutional supplements of the national policy statements on telephones. Finally, the Code of Federal Regulations provides public notice of the possibility of monitoring. Based on the above analysis, we agree with the district court that the monitoring was done by law enforcement officers in the ordinary course of duty, and, accordingly, we believe that this case falls within the ambit of § 2510(5)(a)(ii). Garcia also challenges the admittance of the taped conversations on constitutional grounds. She argues that notwith- standing the Title III exceptions discussed above, the recordings should have been excluded because they violated her fourth amendment right to privacy. To invoke the fourth amendment’s protection, Garcia must establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or the subject matter seized. Katz v." } ]

[ { "docid": "19882845", "title": "", "text": "Buck adhered to her decision. Staub sued Proctor under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U. S. C. § 4301 et seq., claiming that Ms discharge was motivated by hostility to his obligations as a military reservist. His contention was not that Buck had any such hostility but that Mulally and Korenehuk did, and that their actions influenced Buck’s ultimate employment decision. A jury found that Staub’s “military status was a motivating factor in [Proctor’s] decision to discharge him,” App. 68a, and awarded $57,640 in damages. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Proctor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 560 F. 3d 647. The court observed that Staub had brought a “‘cat’s paw’ ease,” meamng that he sought to hold his employer liable for the animus of a supervisor who was not charged with making the ultimate employment decision. Id., at 655-656. It ex plained that under Seventh Circuit precedent, a “cat’s paw” case could not succeed unless the nondecisionmaker exercised such “ ‘singular influence’ ” over the decisionmaker that the decision to terminate was the product of “blind reliance.” Id., at 659. It then noted that “Buck looked beyond what Mulally and Korenchuk said,” relying in part on her conversation with Day and her review of Staub’s personnel file. Ibid. The court “admitted] that Buck’s investigation could have been more robust,” since it “failed to pursue Staub’s theory that Mulally fabricated the write-up.” Ibid. But the court said that the “ ‘singular influence’ ” rule “does not require the decisionmaker to be a paragon of independence”: “It is enough that the decisionmaker is not wholly dependent on a single source of information and conducts her own investigation into the facts relevant to the decision.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the undisputed evidence established that Buck was not wholly dependent on the advice of Korenchuk and Mulally, the court held that Proctor was entitled to judgment. Ibid. We granted certiorari. 559 U. S. 1066 (2010). II The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) provides in relevant part as follows:" } ]

[ { "docid": "18043766", "title": "", "text": "of pretext. See id. Because we find no other indication of pretext, close temporal proximity alone is of no moment in this case. Lobato also suggests that the lack of temporal proximity between the expense account investigation in June and July and his termination in December indicates pretext. But NMED does not claim the per diem incident alone triggered Lobato’s termination. Rather, Carlos Romero testified that Lobato’s confrontation with his supervisor Norvelle on December 5 was “the trigger point.” App. 341. That the per diem incident occurred some five months before Lobato’s termination is consistent with Romero’s explanation that “a stream of many incidents [ ] cumulatively brought [the] decision [to terminate Lobato] to the forefront.” App. 341. The dismissal letter reflects as much. Lobato’s temporal proximity arguments do not demonstrate pretext. More, Lobato has not raised any inconsistency, weak ness, or contradiction in NMED’s decision that would suggest to a reasonable factfinder that NMED’s proffered reasons should be disbelieved. Hence, NMED is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. We turn now to Lobato’s second theory for Title VII liability. 2. Subordinate Bias (or “Cat’s Paw”) Liability Lobato advances a second theory for Title VII liability: that Lundstrom’s bias was the proximate cause of Lobato’s termination. In support of this theory, Lobato relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Staub v. Proctor Hosp., — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011). See generally EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A., 450 F.3d 476, 484-88 (10th Cir.2006) (background on subordinate bias liability). In Staub, an army reservist brought a claim that he was fired because of his employer’s hostility toward his military obligations, a violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), which mirrors Title VII. Staub’s theory of unlawful discrimination was not that the HR manager who fired him was biased, but that the HR manager uncritically relied on reports from two of Staub’s supervisors who were biased against him. Given the HR manager’s undisputed lack of antimilitary animus, the question presented was what to do when the decisionmaker “has no discriminatory" }, { "docid": "11787734", "title": "", "text": "her cause of action against Lockheed under Section 806, noting only that such a showing is not required in all claims of retaliation under the Act. . The ALJ also found Brown was required to surrender her parking space to Jewell, and its finding was subsequently affirmed by the Board. Lockheed vigorously contests the evidentiary basis for this finding, pointing to deposition testimony that Brown chose to make her parking space available to Jewell. Our conclusion that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, however, is not dependent on whether Brown’s loss of her parking space was voluntary or mandatory. Acknowledging that this point of contention by itself is relatively trivial, Lockheed argues it should undermine this court’s confidence in the integrity of the Board's factual findings as a general matter. This invitation to generalized skepticism runs contrary both to the standard of review applicable to agency decisions, see San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038, 1045 (10th Cir.2011), and to appellate procedure generally, see United States v. Stephenson, 452 F.3d 1173, 1182 n. 4 (10th Cir.2006) (\"We have been abundantly clear that a party before this Court bears the responsibility of tying the relevant facts to the record in order to carry the burden of proving error. This Court has no responsibility to sift through the record to find support for the claimant’s arguments.” (quotation and citation omitted)). recognized that an employee’s required showing under a \"cat’s paw” theory of liability will vary depending upon the stringency of the ultimate causation element at issue. Id. (\"Although we apply the subordinate bias doctrine to age discrimination cases, the ADEA requires more than what must ordinarily be proven under an analogous Title VII or USERRA action.”). . Lockheed contests the notion that there is a meaningful difference in the causation requirements of Section 806 and other employment-discrimination statutes, quoting a portion of Simmons v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc., 647 F.3d 943, 949 (2011), which provides \"the underlying principles of agency upon which subordinate bias theories are based apply equally to all types of employment discrimination.” This quotation is taken" }, { "docid": "10150448", "title": "", "text": "identical under § 1981 and Title VII,\" see Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987, 998 (10th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), we do not distinguish between these bases for recovery here. . McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). . Indeed, there is evidence in the record suggesting just the opposite. See Suppl. App. at 26 (indicating that “ultimately the quality of the product coming off the press rests with [the Printing Technician]’’). . At earlier stages in this litigation, Thomas indicated that he complained about racial discrimination on multiple occasions. However, because Morton was not privy to all of those complaints, on appeal Thomas relies exclusively on the complaint he made in Morton’s presence during the Final Warning meeting. . To establish causation where, as here, a Title VII retaliation claim is based on the cat's-paw theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the biased subordinate was a \"but-for” cause of the adverse action. Cf. Simmons, 647 F.3d at 949-50 (holding that, because the ADEA requires a \"but-for” link between the discriminatory animus and the adverse action, \"an ADEA plaintiff seeking to hold an employer liable through the discriminatory conduct of its subordinate must show the subordinate's animus was a 'but-for' cause of the adverse employment action, i.e. it was the factor that made a difference”); Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2532-34, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013) (holding that Title VII retaliation claims, like ADEA claims, require proof that the desire to retaliate was a \"but-for” cause of the adverse action). Although we have not yet explicitly extended Simmons to Title VII retaliation claims that are based on the cat’s-paw theory, we conclude that reading Simmons in conjunction with the Supreme Court’s subsequent decisipn in Nassar calls for such an extension. See Goodsite v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 573 Fed.Appx. 572, 585 n. 7 (6th Cir.2014) (unpublished) (reaching the same conclusion). . Thomas nonetheless maintains that the Panel was not truly independent because the Panel (1) failed to interview two witnesses Thomas" }, { "docid": "22477306", "title": "", "text": "chestnuts while the cat gets only burnt paws. See Staub v. Proctor Hosp., — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1190 n. 1, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011). \" 'Today the term 'cat’s paw’ refers to one used by another to accomplish his purposes.’ ” Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587, 604 n. 13 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 450 F.3d 476, 484 (10th Cir.2006)). . The Supreme Court has recently indicated its approval of this approach in a case involving discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c). Staub, 131 S.Ct. at 1194 (\"We ... hold that if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA.” (footnote omitted)). Staub noted that USERRA is \"very similar to Title VII.” Id. at 1191. In certain circumstances, we have analogized Title VII to § 1983. E.g. Demoret v. Zegarelli, 451 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir.2006) (\"[T]he analysis for [§ 1983 employment discrimination claims] is similar to that used for employment discrimination claims brought under Title VII....”)." }, { "docid": "11787722", "title": "", "text": "combination with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision.” Klopfenstein v. PCC Flow Techs. Holdings, Inc., No. 04-149, 2006 WL 3246904, at *13 (Admin.Rev.Bd. May 31, 2006) (emphasis added) (quotation omitted); see also Allen, 514 F.3d at 476 n. 3. “[T]he contributing factor standard was ‘intended to overrule existing case law, which requires a whistleblower to prove that his protected conduct was a “significant,” “motivating,” “substantial,” or “predominant” factor in a personnel action in order to overturn that action.’ ” Klopfenstein, 2006 WL 3246904, at *13 (quoting Marano v. Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 1137, 1140 (Fed.Cir.1993)). Temporal proximity between the protected activity and adverse employment action may alone be sufficient to satisfy the contributing factor test. Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 1003 (9th Cir.2009); see also Marx v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 76 F.3d 324, 329 (10th Cir.1996) (stating, in context of Fair Labor Standard Act’s “motivating factor” element, “protected conduct closely followed by adverse action may justify an inference of retaliatory motive”). The conclusion that Brown’s protected activity was a contributing factor in her eventual constructive discharge was supported by the Board’s finding that the adverse employment actions Brown experienced began shortly after the conclusion of the investigation against Owen. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. The investigation into Brown’s allegations against Owen concluded with the preparation of a formal written report on August 21, 2006. In December 2006 Owen called Brown several times, attempting to determine who had reported her. Eventually, Brown revealed to Owen that she may have shared some information with Moncallo regarding Owen’s activities. Shortly thereafter, the cascade of difficulties which culminated in Brown’s constructive termination—her lower performance ratings, Gan’s harsh treatment of her, and the loss of her privileges and responsibilities as Director of Communications—began. Lockheed seeks to discredit this conclusion by arguing a significant amount of time passed between Brown’s report of Owen’s activities and her ultimate constructive discharge. Specifically, Lockheed argues more than twenty months passed between Brown’s ethics complaint in May 2006 and her departure from the company in January" }, { "docid": "14915823", "title": "", "text": "must first consider whether the holding in Staub applies to discrimination cases brought under the ADEA. Unlike Title VII and the USERRA, “the ADEA’s text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor,” the operative phrase relied upon in Staub. Gross, 129 S.Ct. at 2349. A plaintiff alleging age discrimination must instead prove age was a “but for” cause of her termination. See id. Despite this distinction, the underlying principles of agency upon which subordinate bias theories are based apply equally to all types of employment discrimination discussed here. Indeed, this circuit has applied the subordinate bias doctrine to cases arising under both Title VII, see, e.g., EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 450 F.3d 476, 485 (10th Cir.2006), and the ADEA, see Schulte v. Potter, 218 Fed.Appx. 703, 719 (10th Cir.2007). Although we apply the subordinate bias doctrine to age discrimination cases, the ADEA requires more than what must ordinarily be proven under an analogous Title VII or USERRA action. If we were to apply Staub directly to an age-discrimination case, the plaintiff would then only need to prove her supervisor’s animus was somehow related to the termination and not that the animus was necessary to bring about the termination. Compare Staub, 131 S.Ct. at 1192 (“Proximate cause requires only some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged, and excludes only those links that are too remote, purely contingent, or indirect.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted), with Gross, 129 S.Ct. at 2349-50. In age-discrimination cases, however, the relationship between a subordinate’s animus and the ultimate employment decision must be more closely linked. Cf. Lindsey v. Walgreen Co., 615 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir.2010) (“[E]ven if Jenkins were a cat’s paw, Lindsey could not prevail because the evidence established at most that her age was a motivating factor in Walgreens’ decision to fire her. To establish liability under the ADEA, however, Lindsey had to show that her age was the determinative factor.”). Thus, even after Staub, an ADEA plaintiff seeking to hold" }, { "docid": "11787725", "title": "", "text": "Klopfenstein, 2006 WL 3246904 at *13. More importantly, when evaluating temporal proximity for purposes of determining whether Brown’s protected activity was a contributing factor in her constructive discharge, the relevant time frame is not when the constructive discharge occurred, but when the conduct leading up to the discharge began. Marx, 76 F.3d at 329 (stating temporal proximity in FLSA case may be inferred “where the pattern of retaliatory conduct begins soon after the [protected activity] and only culminates later in actual discharge”). Moreover, unlike the employee in Meiners, Brown’s showing that her protected activity was a contributing factor in her constructive discharge was not based solely on temporal proximity. Cf. 359 F.3d at 1231-32. The Board also concluded that, although neither Gan nor Jewell knew of Brown’s ethics complaint against Owen, both were poisoned against Brown by Owen’s biased reports regarding Brown’s professional competence. This court has applied the subordinate bias, or “cat’s paw” theory of liability in other employment discrimination contexts. See Simmons v. Sykes Enters., Inc., 647 F.3d 943, 949 (10th Cir.2011) (applying theory in context of ADEA claim); EEOC v. BCI Coco-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A., 450 F.3d 476, 484-85 (10th Cir.2006) (same in context of Title VII claim). The Supreme Court recently endorsed the theory in the context of an action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Staub v. Proctor Hosp., — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1191-92, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011). Importantly, however, the required showing to establish causation for a claimant under Section 806 is less onerous than the showing required under Title VII, the ADEÁ, or USERRA. Compare Klopfenstein, 2006 WL 3246904 at *13 (noting “contributing factor” test distinct from, and more lenient than, other causation standards), with Simmons, 647 F.3d at 949 (distinguishing ADEA requirement that plaintiff show age was the “but-for” cause of adverse employment action from Title Vil and USERRA’s “motivating factor” tests). We thus must determine whether the ALJ’s finding that Owen “poisoned” Gan and Jewell’s opinion of Brown is supported by substantial evidence, keeping in mind that Brown satisfies the causation element of her" }, { "docid": "23571336", "title": "", "text": "held that the employer could be liable only if the subordinate supervisor (1) performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended to cause an adverse employment action, and (2) that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action. Staub, 131 S.Ct. at 1194. Sims urges us to apply this analysis to this case. But the text of the USERRA and the ADEA differ in important respects. The USERRA (and Title VII) requires that a plaintiff demonstrate discrimination by showing that the proscribed bias was a “motivating factor” in the adverse decision. 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c) (USERRA); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(m), 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) (Title VTI). As the Court in Staub emphasized, this “motivating factor” causation standard is simply the traditional tort law standard of proximate cause, requiring only “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged, and excludes only those link[s] that are too remote, purely contingent, or indirect.” 131 S.Ct. at 1192 (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, the ADEA states that it is unlawful if an employee suffers adverse employment action “because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, “to establish a disparate-treatment claim under the plain language of the ADEA, ... a plaintiff must prove that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer’s adverse decision.” Gross, 557 U.S. at 176, 129 S.Ct. at 2350. As noted above, a “but-for” cause requires a closer link than mere proximate causation; it requires that the proscribed animus have a determinative influence on the employer’s adverse decision. Id. As the Supreme Court cautions, “we ‘must be careful not to apply rules applicable under one statute to a different statute without careful and critical examination.’ ” Id. at 174, 129 S.Ct. at 2349 (quoting Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 393, 128 S.Ct. 1147, 1153, 170 L.Ed.2d 10 (2008)). And the ADEA requires more than what must ordinarily be proven under an analogous Title VII or USERRA action. See Simmons v. Sykes Enters., Inc., 647 F.3d 943, 949-50 (10th Cir.2011) (“If we were to apply Staub directly to an" }, { "docid": "23571335", "title": "", "text": "(2011), we applied the cat’s paw analysis to ADEA cases. See, e.g., Wright v. Southland Corp., 187 F.3d 1287, 1304 n. 20 (11th Cir.1999); Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1270 (11th Cir.2001); Stimpson v. City of Tuscaloosa, 186 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir.1999) (Title VII case). Sims argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Staub modifies our previous case law applying the cat’s paw theory and lowers the burden for plaintiffs in cases involving the ADEA. This is an issue of first impression for this Court. We consider whether, or to what extent, Staub has modified our cat’s paw analysis in ADEA cases. We first examine the Supreme Court’s recent Staub decision. In the context of an employer’s alleged liability under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“US-ERRA”), the Court defined the circumstances under which an employer could be liable when the decision-maker has no discriminatory animus but is influenced by a subordinate supervisor’s action that is the product of such discriminatory animus (cat’s paw liability). The Court held that the employer could be liable only if the subordinate supervisor (1) performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended to cause an adverse employment action, and (2) that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action. Staub, 131 S.Ct. at 1194. Sims urges us to apply this analysis to this case. But the text of the USERRA and the ADEA differ in important respects. The USERRA (and Title VII) requires that a plaintiff demonstrate discrimination by showing that the proscribed bias was a “motivating factor” in the adverse decision. 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c) (USERRA); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(m), 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) (Title VTI). As the Court in Staub emphasized, this “motivating factor” causation standard is simply the traditional tort law standard of proximate cause, requiring only “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged, and excludes only those link[s] that are too remote, purely contingent, or indirect.” 131 S.Ct. at 1192 (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, the ADEA states that it is unlawful if an employee" }, { "docid": "11787735", "title": "", "text": "1182 n. 4 (10th Cir.2006) (\"We have been abundantly clear that a party before this Court bears the responsibility of tying the relevant facts to the record in order to carry the burden of proving error. This Court has no responsibility to sift through the record to find support for the claimant’s arguments.” (quotation and citation omitted)). recognized that an employee’s required showing under a \"cat’s paw” theory of liability will vary depending upon the stringency of the ultimate causation element at issue. Id. (\"Although we apply the subordinate bias doctrine to age discrimination cases, the ADEA requires more than what must ordinarily be proven under an analogous Title VII or USERRA action.”). . Lockheed contests the notion that there is a meaningful difference in the causation requirements of Section 806 and other employment-discrimination statutes, quoting a portion of Simmons v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc., 647 F.3d 943, 949 (2011), which provides \"the underlying principles of agency upon which subordinate bias theories are based apply equally to all types of employment discrimination.” This quotation is taken out of context. The full paragraph in which the quotation upon which Lockheed relies provides: We must first consider whether the holding in Staub applies to discrimination cases brought under the ADEA. Unlike Title VII and the USERRA, \"the ADEA's text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor,” the operative phrase relied upon in Staub. A plaintiff alleging age discrimination must instead prove age was a \"but for” cause of her termination. Despite this distinction, the underlying principles of agency upon which subordinate bias theories are based apply equally to all types of employment discrimination discussed here. Indeed, this circuit has applied the subordinate bias doctrine to cases arising under both Title VII and the ADEA.' Id. at 949 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Further, the court in Simmons explicitly . Alternatively, the ALJ could have construed Jewell’s testimony as further corroboration of Brown’s poisoning theory.—when Owen told Jewell that Brown had problems with her performance evaluations, Owen conspicuously failed to disclose her own potential" }, { "docid": "23571337", "title": "", "text": "suffers adverse employment action “because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, “to establish a disparate-treatment claim under the plain language of the ADEA, ... a plaintiff must prove that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer’s adverse decision.” Gross, 557 U.S. at 176, 129 S.Ct. at 2350. As noted above, a “but-for” cause requires a closer link than mere proximate causation; it requires that the proscribed animus have a determinative influence on the employer’s adverse decision. Id. As the Supreme Court cautions, “we ‘must be careful not to apply rules applicable under one statute to a different statute without careful and critical examination.’ ” Id. at 174, 129 S.Ct. at 2349 (quoting Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 393, 128 S.Ct. 1147, 1153, 170 L.Ed.2d 10 (2008)). And the ADEA requires more than what must ordinarily be proven under an analogous Title VII or USERRA action. See Simmons v. Sykes Enters., Inc., 647 F.3d 943, 949-50 (10th Cir.2011) (“If we were to apply Staub directly to an age-discrimination case, the plaintiff would then only need to prove her supervisor’s animus was somehow related to the termination and not that the animus was necessary to bring about the termination.”). Because the ADEA requires a “but-for” link between the discriminatory animus and the adverse employment action as opposed to showing that the animus was a “motivating factor” in the adverse employment decision, we hold that Staub’s “proximate causation” standard does not apply to cat’s paw cases involving age discrimination. In so holding, we follow the same holding by the Tenth Circuit in Simmons, 647 F.3d at 949-50. However, Staub is primarily a case about agency principles and vicarious liability, and nothing in Gross is inconsistent with the application of agency principles to cat’s paw claims under the ADEA. All relevant case law, including our own prior case law applying the cat’s paw theory in ADEA cases and the Court’s decision in Staub, suggests that it is appropriate to apply agency principles in determining vicarious liability of an employer. We have, for example, applied agency" }, { "docid": "18043767", "title": "", "text": "second theory for Title VII liability. 2. Subordinate Bias (or “Cat’s Paw”) Liability Lobato advances a second theory for Title VII liability: that Lundstrom’s bias was the proximate cause of Lobato’s termination. In support of this theory, Lobato relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Staub v. Proctor Hosp., — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011). See generally EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A., 450 F.3d 476, 484-88 (10th Cir.2006) (background on subordinate bias liability). In Staub, an army reservist brought a claim that he was fired because of his employer’s hostility toward his military obligations, a violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), which mirrors Title VII. Staub’s theory of unlawful discrimination was not that the HR manager who fired him was biased, but that the HR manager uncritically relied on reports from two of Staub’s supervisors who were biased against him. Given the HR manager’s undisputed lack of antimilitary animus, the question presented was what to do when the decisionmaker “has no discriminatory animus but is influenced by previous company action that is the product of a like animus in someone else.” Staub, 131 S.Ct. at 1191. The Supreme Court concluded, “[I]f a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA.” Id. at 1194 (footnotes and emphasis omitted). Lobato reads Staub as announcing a categorical rule. He contends if a biased supervisor’s animus in any way leads to an adverse employment decision, it is the proximate cause of that decision and thus the employer incurs liability — even if the employer conducts an independent investigation. But Staub does not go this far. The Staub Court explained that a “necessary” element to a subordinate bias claim is the decisionmaker’s uncritical “reli[ance]” on facts provided by a biased supervisor. Id. at 1193. If there is no such reliance — that is to say, if the employer independently verifies" }, { "docid": "14915822", "title": "", "text": "by its decision to also terminate Ms. Gaddis, a younger employee who allegedly violated similar rules of confidentiality and investigatory protocol and was fired at the same time as Ms. Simmons. Subordinate Bias Our inquiry is not limited, however, to evaluating whether Sykes’ justification for terminating Ms. Simmons was, in the eyes of the final decision-makers, honestly held in good faith. We must also address whether Mses. James and Owen harbored discriminatory animus toward Ms. Simmons and, through their biased influence on the final decision, caused Ms. Simmons’ termination. The Supreme Court recently affirmed the theory of subordinate bias — or “cat’s paw” — liability in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011), holding that, in a discrimination suit arising under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), an employer is liable if: (1) a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended to cause an adverse employment action, and (2) that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action. We must first consider whether the holding in Staub applies to discrimination cases brought under the ADEA. Unlike Title VII and the USERRA, “the ADEA’s text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor,” the operative phrase relied upon in Staub. Gross, 129 S.Ct. at 2349. A plaintiff alleging age discrimination must instead prove age was a “but for” cause of her termination. See id. Despite this distinction, the underlying principles of agency upon which subordinate bias theories are based apply equally to all types of employment discrimination discussed here. Indeed, this circuit has applied the subordinate bias doctrine to cases arising under both Title VII, see, e.g., EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 450 F.3d 476, 485 (10th Cir.2006), and the ADEA, see Schulte v. Potter, 218 Fed.Appx. 703, 719 (10th Cir.2007). Although we apply the subordinate bias doctrine to age discrimination cases, the ADEA requires more than what must ordinarily be proven under an analogous Title VII or USERRA action. If" }, { "docid": "11787727", "title": "", "text": "Section 806 claim by demonstrating merely that her ethics complaint contributed to the adverse employment actions taken against her. We conclude it is. The ALJ accepted as credible Brown’s testimony that Gan was inexplicably hostile to her from their first encounter following the reorganization of the company in early 2007. Further, the ALJ accepted as credible Brown’s account of Owen placing a phone call to Brown in which she mockingly advised her that her job had been posted on the company website and she needed to get her resume together. The ALJ also relied upon Moncallo’s testimony that it was normal for new supervisors to consult with old supervisors regarding employee performance. Moncallo further testified that she did not discuss with Gan whether she knew about the ethics complaint or advise Gan She should not be seeking Owen’s input into Brown’s performance. The ALJ also relied on Gan’s deposition testimony that she had a high opinion of Owen and relied on her for input into personnel matters. Jewell’s deposition testimony was similar. He testified that he discussed the employees under his supervision in his new position with Owen, who told him Brown “had received a less-than-perfect performance appraisal.” Undoubtedly,' the inference the ALJ. drew from this testimony, that Owen biased Gan and Jewell against Brown, is not the only possible inference which could have been drawn. The ALJ could have chosen, as Lockheed urges, to place more weight on Gan’s testimony that Owen was merely a peer with whom she did not maintain a personal’ relationship, or on Jewell’s testimony that Owen was careful not to divulge too much information about Brown and “wanted [him] to evaluate the situation for [him]self.” The possibility of drawing different inferences from the administrative record, however, is a grossly insufficient basis to disturb an agency’s findings on appeal. Trimmer, 174 F.3d at 1102. Based on the evidence in the administrative record, a reasonable fact finder could easily conclude Brown’s ethics report was a contributing factor in her ultimate termination from Lockheed. The Board’s conclusions as to causation are therefore not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse" }, { "docid": "11787736", "title": "", "text": "out of context. The full paragraph in which the quotation upon which Lockheed relies provides: We must first consider whether the holding in Staub applies to discrimination cases brought under the ADEA. Unlike Title VII and the USERRA, \"the ADEA's text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor,” the operative phrase relied upon in Staub. A plaintiff alleging age discrimination must instead prove age was a \"but for” cause of her termination. Despite this distinction, the underlying principles of agency upon which subordinate bias theories are based apply equally to all types of employment discrimination discussed here. Indeed, this circuit has applied the subordinate bias doctrine to cases arising under both Title VII and the ADEA.' Id. at 949 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Further, the court in Simmons explicitly . Alternatively, the ALJ could have construed Jewell’s testimony as further corroboration of Brown’s poisoning theory.—when Owen told Jewell that Brown had problems with her performance evaluations, Owen conspicuously failed to disclose her own potential biases in making that assessment." }, { "docid": "22477305", "title": "", "text": "at 1082, \"a conclusory proffer of an unconstitutional motive should not defeat the motion for summary judgment” if the court determines that \"the conduct was objectively reasonable.” Id. at 1084. Because \"[t]he reasonableness of the conduct is itself substantial evidence in support of the motion” for summary judgment, a plaintiff in such a situation may be required to allege more specific facts about the official’s motivation. Id. But subjective intent has no role in the initial determination of whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. . Since there is no basis in the record for finding that there was a protocol violation, we need not decide whether, if there were such a violation, that violation would become a basis for a qualified immunity defense. . The term \"cat’s paw” is apparently drawn from a La Fontaine poem (perhaps itself drawn from an Aesop fable) about a monkey who convinces a cat to get chestnuts roasting in a fire. As the cat pushes the chestnuts out one by one, the monkey eats them; the monkey gets the chestnuts while the cat gets only burnt paws. See Staub v. Proctor Hosp., — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1190 n. 1, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011). \" 'Today the term 'cat’s paw’ refers to one used by another to accomplish his purposes.’ ” Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587, 604 n. 13 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 450 F.3d 476, 484 (10th Cir.2006)). . The Supreme Court has recently indicated its approval of this approach in a case involving discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c). Staub, 131 S.Ct. at 1194 (\"We ... hold that if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA.” (footnote omitted)). Staub noted that USERRA is \"very similar to Title VII.” Id. at 1191. In certain circumstances, we have analogized Title VII to" }, { "docid": "11787724", "title": "", "text": "2008. Even if the time is calculated from December 2006, when Owen became aware it was Brown who made the ethics complaint against her, Lockheed argues the adverse action and the protected activity are still separated by a full calendar year. Lockheed relies on Meiners v. University of Kansas, 359 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir.2004), a case involving a claim of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, for the proposition that a period of two to three months between an employee’s protected activity and an adverse employment action is insufficient to establish causation. See id. (stating a period of just under three months was “probably” too long “under our precedents” to “establish causation by temporal proximity alone”). A fortiori, Lockheed argues, a period of four to six times as long is also insufficient to establish causation. The plaintiff in Meiners, however, was required to make a prima facie showing of causation, 359 F.3d at 1229, whereas Brown was required only to show her protected activity was a contributing factor in her discharge, Klopfenstein, 2006 WL 3246904 at *13. More importantly, when evaluating temporal proximity for purposes of determining whether Brown’s protected activity was a contributing factor in her constructive discharge, the relevant time frame is not when the constructive discharge occurred, but when the conduct leading up to the discharge began. Marx, 76 F.3d at 329 (stating temporal proximity in FLSA case may be inferred “where the pattern of retaliatory conduct begins soon after the [protected activity] and only culminates later in actual discharge”). Moreover, unlike the employee in Meiners, Brown’s showing that her protected activity was a contributing factor in her constructive discharge was not based solely on temporal proximity. Cf. 359 F.3d at 1231-32. The Board also concluded that, although neither Gan nor Jewell knew of Brown’s ethics complaint against Owen, both were poisoned against Brown by Owen’s biased reports regarding Brown’s professional competence. This court has applied the subordinate bias, or “cat’s paw” theory of liability in other employment discrimination contexts. See Simmons v. Sykes Enters., Inc., 647 F.3d 943, 949 (10th Cir.2011) (applying" }, { "docid": "14915821", "title": "", "text": "Simmons and concluding Ms. Simmons disclosed the confidential information. Here, “[o]ur role is ... not to act as a ‘super personnel department’ that second guesses employers’ business judgments.” Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1330 (10th Cir.1999). As it appeared to Sykes, Ms. Simmons’ statements contained illogical changes in degrees of knowledge and certainty. Furthermore, Ms. Simmons’ position as an HR assistant carried with it a special duty to safeguard and maintain confidential employee information. Given the information she had before her, Ms. DiRose had discretion to err on the side of caution and conclude Ms. Simmons “could not be trusted to protect the confidentiality of private employee and Company information.” (DiRose Decl. ¶ 20, Dec. 23, 2008, Appellant’s App. at 240); cf. Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1046 (10th Cir.1981) (holding employer’s subjective hiring criteria to be nonpretextual where the subjective factors considered were articulated and generally relevant to the job). Sykes’ desire for greater confidence in its HR staff is further evinced by its decision to also terminate Ms. Gaddis, a younger employee who allegedly violated similar rules of confidentiality and investigatory protocol and was fired at the same time as Ms. Simmons. Subordinate Bias Our inquiry is not limited, however, to evaluating whether Sykes’ justification for terminating Ms. Simmons was, in the eyes of the final decision-makers, honestly held in good faith. We must also address whether Mses. James and Owen harbored discriminatory animus toward Ms. Simmons and, through their biased influence on the final decision, caused Ms. Simmons’ termination. The Supreme Court recently affirmed the theory of subordinate bias — or “cat’s paw” — liability in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011), holding that, in a discrimination suit arising under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), an employer is liable if: (1) a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended to cause an adverse employment action, and (2) that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action. We" }, { "docid": "11787726", "title": "", "text": "theory in context of ADEA claim); EEOC v. BCI Coco-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A., 450 F.3d 476, 484-85 (10th Cir.2006) (same in context of Title VII claim). The Supreme Court recently endorsed the theory in the context of an action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Staub v. Proctor Hosp., — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1191-92, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011). Importantly, however, the required showing to establish causation for a claimant under Section 806 is less onerous than the showing required under Title VII, the ADEÁ, or USERRA. Compare Klopfenstein, 2006 WL 3246904 at *13 (noting “contributing factor” test distinct from, and more lenient than, other causation standards), with Simmons, 647 F.3d at 949 (distinguishing ADEA requirement that plaintiff show age was the “but-for” cause of adverse employment action from Title Vil and USERRA’s “motivating factor” tests). We thus must determine whether the ALJ’s finding that Owen “poisoned” Gan and Jewell’s opinion of Brown is supported by substantial evidence, keeping in mind that Brown satisfies the causation element of her Section 806 claim by demonstrating merely that her ethics complaint contributed to the adverse employment actions taken against her. We conclude it is. The ALJ accepted as credible Brown’s testimony that Gan was inexplicably hostile to her from their first encounter following the reorganization of the company in early 2007. Further, the ALJ accepted as credible Brown’s account of Owen placing a phone call to Brown in which she mockingly advised her that her job had been posted on the company website and she needed to get her resume together. The ALJ also relied upon Moncallo’s testimony that it was normal for new supervisors to consult with old supervisors regarding employee performance. Moncallo further testified that she did not discuss with Gan whether she knew about the ethics complaint or advise Gan She should not be seeking Owen’s input into Brown’s performance. The ALJ also relied on Gan’s deposition testimony that she had a high opinion of Owen and relied on her for input into personnel matters. Jewell’s deposition testimony was similar. He testified that" }, { "docid": "11787723", "title": "", "text": "that Brown’s protected activity was a contributing factor in her eventual constructive discharge was supported by the Board’s finding that the adverse employment actions Brown experienced began shortly after the conclusion of the investigation against Owen. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. The investigation into Brown’s allegations against Owen concluded with the preparation of a formal written report on August 21, 2006. In December 2006 Owen called Brown several times, attempting to determine who had reported her. Eventually, Brown revealed to Owen that she may have shared some information with Moncallo regarding Owen’s activities. Shortly thereafter, the cascade of difficulties which culminated in Brown’s constructive termination—her lower performance ratings, Gan’s harsh treatment of her, and the loss of her privileges and responsibilities as Director of Communications—began. Lockheed seeks to discredit this conclusion by arguing a significant amount of time passed between Brown’s report of Owen’s activities and her ultimate constructive discharge. Specifically, Lockheed argues more than twenty months passed between Brown’s ethics complaint in May 2006 and her departure from the company in January 2008. Even if the time is calculated from December 2006, when Owen became aware it was Brown who made the ethics complaint against her, Lockheed argues the adverse action and the protected activity are still separated by a full calendar year. Lockheed relies on Meiners v. University of Kansas, 359 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir.2004), a case involving a claim of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, for the proposition that a period of two to three months between an employee’s protected activity and an adverse employment action is insufficient to establish causation. See id. (stating a period of just under three months was “probably” too long “under our precedents” to “establish causation by temporal proximity alone”). A fortiori, Lockheed argues, a period of four to six times as long is also insufficient to establish causation. The plaintiff in Meiners, however, was required to make a prima facie showing of causation, 359 F.3d at 1229, whereas Brown was required only to show her protected activity was a contributing factor in her discharge," } ]

[ { "docid": "7226558", "title": "", "text": "to commit suicide with history of mental illness is serious medical need), with Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir.1996) (addiction that incites feelings of fear is not serious medical need); Flowers v. Dalsheim, 826 F.Supp. 772, 775-76 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (fear of insulin shock that causes emotion distress is not serious medical need). Consequently, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs eighth amendment claim is granted. E. Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if their actions rise to the level of a constitutional violation, they are protected from liability by qualified immunity because their actions did not contravene clearly established law. Plaintiff did not respond to this aspect of defendant’s motion to dismiss. The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that state officials performing discretionary functions will not be liable for suits alleging constitutional violations “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Boomer v. Irvin, 919 F.Supp. 122, 126 (W.D.N.Y.1995). Even where such constitutional rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his acts did not violate those rights. Id. (citation omitted). Defendants’ argument that it was not clear in 1995 that denying plaintiff access to congregate religious services on one occasion violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights is unpersuasive. Even prior to RFRA’s enactment (and with it the “compelling interest” standard), the law was clear that prisoners had the right to attend congregate religious services unless prison officials could articulate a justification to prevent them from so doing that was reasonably related to some valid penological objective. See' O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 353, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 2406-07, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987). Here defendants have provided no reason. Moreover, I find that a “reasonable jury could conclude that it was objectively unreasonable for [defendants] to refuse plaintiffs request to attend religious services.” Boomer, 919 F.Supp. at 126. Therefore, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for denying plaintiff access to her weekly religious services. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, defendants motion to" } ]

[ { "docid": "23053343", "title": "", "text": "three issues: (1) whether Mr. Wilson properly exhausted his state-court remedies; (2) whether his reclassification deprived him of a constitutionally protected liberty interest; and (3) if so, whether the reclassification violated his due process rights because there was insufficient evidence to prove his alleged misconduct. Subsequent to the district court’s decision, this court, in Gamble v. Calbone, granted habeas relief to two prisoners from the same prison as Mr. Wilson, who had also been convicted of the same Class X misconduct based on the same “evidence” as Mr. Wilson. 375 F.3d 1021 (10th Cir.2004). We ordered that the State provide additional briefing in light of Gamble on the issue of whether Mr. Wilson’s suspended punishment could ever be reinstated. After receipt of the supplemental brief, we ordered oral argument and the appointment of a federal public defender to represent Mr. Wilson. II. DISCUSSION The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving citizens of liberty without due process of law. Although their due process rights are defined more narrowly, that guarantee applies to prisoners as well. Thus, in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 487, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), the Supreme Court concluded that a prisoner is entitled to due process before he is subjected to conditions that “impose atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” or disciplinary actions that “inevitably affect the duration of his sentence.” See also Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1414 (10th Cir. 1996) (discussing these two ways of establishing a liberty interest under Sandin). As a general rule, before officials may take actions that affect these protected liberty interests, they must afford a prisoner (a) advance written notice of the charges; (b) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (c) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied upon on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). In" }, { "docid": "11075936", "title": "", "text": "according to sunni tradition. Also, the prayers are lead according to sunni tradition. I, myself, the Islamic Chaplain here at the facility, am a sunni Muslim. There are some inmate leaders in the community (whom the inmates themselves have elected), that are shia. However, as I stated earlier, the majority of the Jamaat is sunni. Plaintiffs amended complaint alleges that defendant Kelly “set-up Attica ... under the tenants (sic) of the shi’ite muslims, because he has who he wants as an Imam for the muslim population”, prevented plaintiff from attending religious services and observing his faith, and withheld food from plaintiff in an attempt to coerce plaintiff to join the shia Muslim sect. Call-out sheets attached as Exhibit B to Lango’s affidavit (No. 18) reveal plaintiffs regular attendance at Muslim worship in 1985 and 1986. In Exhibit C to the same document, plaintiffs name is absent from an April 24, 1987 list of Ramadan worshippers. Such an absence comports either with plaintiffs allegation that he was denied the right to practice his religion or with defendant’s allegation that plaintiff withdrew from participation in formal Muslim activities as offered, following his unsuccessful attempt to organize a separate Sunni community. DISCUSSION As this court stated in Aliym v. Miles, 679 F.Supp. 1 (W.D.N.Y.1988): It is well recognized that “convicted prisoners do not forfeit all constitutional protections by reason of their conviction and confinement in prison,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1877, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) quoted in Ross v. Coughlin, 669 F.Supp. 1235, 1238 (S.D.N.Y.1987), and that a prisoner has the right to participate in practices which are an integral part of his religious belief. Moorish Science Temple of America v. Smith, 693 F.2d 987, 990 (2d Cir.1982). Such rights and protections, however, must be exercised in a manner that is “not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the correctional system.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). In evaluating inmate claims of constitutional deprivations, the court should thus balance the" }, { "docid": "10283986", "title": "", "text": "interest in fairly apportioning prison religious resources). Two plaintiffs allege RFRA claims based on somewhat different facts. However, these two plaintiffs also fail to present valid claims. Plaintiff Long asserts that he was “refused ‘Ramadan’ where Muslims fast during daylight hours” and that there were “no Muslim services at CCCF.” Long Religious Access Interrogs. ¶ 1. Plaintiff Hines states that he was deprived of Jumah, the Muslim Friday prayer service because he “was unable to congregate with all the other incarcerated members of his faith.” Hines General Interrogs. ¶ 5(a). CCCF officials permitted Muslim inmates to gather on their own tiers for services rather than permitting all Muslims throughout the jail to assemble. Id.; see also Barden and St. John Religious Access Interrogs. ¶ 1. As to Long’s allegations, his assertion that CCCF held “no Muslim services” is flatly contradicted by the statements of Hines, Barden, and St. John. His claim that he was “refused ‘Ramadan’ ” is far too vague to survive a summary judgment motion. A plaintiff must make a threshold showing under RFRA that defendants have placed a substantial burden on his right to exercise his religion. See Boomer v. Irvin, 919 F.Supp. 122 (W.D.N.Y.1995). Long, by contrast, fails to provide, either initially in his answers to interrogatories or subsequently in his response to the County defendants’ motion, any explanation of how he was prevented from abstaining from food during the daylight hours of Ramadan. The Court must thus grant the County defendants summary judgment on this claim. See Crosley-El v. Berge, 896 F.Supp. 885 (E.D.Wis.1995) (granting summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff presented no evidence to support bare conclusory statement that his Moorish religion prohibited attendance at general Muslim services). In contrast to Long, Hines is somewhat more specific in contending that Jumah services should have included all CCCF inmates rather than being limited to inmates from individual tiers. See Hines General Interrogs. ¶ 5(a). Nonetheless, while Jumah may be “the central congregate service of the Muslim faith,” Boomer, 919 F.Supp. at 124, Hines has not supported his contention that Muslims from a single tier would" }, { "docid": "22102075", "title": "", "text": "at 806. Ultimately, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 1. Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims arising from Mr. Trujillo’s classification into segregation Mr. Trujillo claims that his classification violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. The district court construed Mr. Trujillo’s complaint as alleging “improper classification” and held that it faded to state a claim for these constitutional violations because “[Mr. Trujillo] has no due process right to a particular classification.” The district court is correct that “[classification of [a] plaintiff into ... segregation does not involve deprivation of a liberty interest independently protected by the Due Process Clause.” Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 652 (10th Cir.1987) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468, 108 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)). But prison conditions that “impose[ ] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” may create a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); see also Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1413 (10th Cir.1996). Thus, we have held that a district court errs in sua sponte dismissing a prisoner’s due process claim under § 1915 if it does not have sufficient evidence before it to “fully address both the duration and degree of the plaintiffs restrictions as compared with other inmates.” See Perkins, 165 F.3d at 809; Gaines, 292 F.3d at 1225-26 (declaring it inappropriate to dismiss a prisoner’s due process claim without the benefit of evidence showing that the defendant’s “segregation mirrors those conditions imposed upon [other] inmates”); cf. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (“Based on a comparison between inmates inside and outside disciplinary segregation, the State’s actions in placing [the prisoner] there for 30 days did not work a major disruption in his environment.”). Here, the district court determined that Mr. Trujillo failed to state a due process claim despite the lack of any evidence addressing whether Mr. Trujillo’s" }, { "docid": "12909862", "title": "", "text": "146. We believe Dixon has provided a reasonable opportunity for Muslim inmates to participate in Jumah, the keystone of their faith, on a consistent basis. Moreover, Halal food is available to the Muslim inmates, a full-time chaplain ministers to all religious groups, Imam Bashir is compensated for specifically ministering to the Muslim inmates for four hours a week, and volunteers provide additional religious leadership when Imam Bashir is not available. Indeed, at the time of trial, the only minister other than the chaplain to receive pay was Imam Bashir. We also note that, on appeal, there are no allegations that, taken in its totality, treatment of Muslim prisoners with respect to their religious needs was any less favorable than that of any other prisoner at Dixon. In our view, the record establishes that the Dixon officials have satisfied their constitutional responsibility and made reasonable efforts to afford the plaintiffs an opportunity to practice their religion. This conclusion is supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Lone. There, several Muslim inmates challenged, on first amendment grounds, a prison policy that required inmates in their classification to work outside and, as a result, miss weekly Jumah services. See 482 U.S. at 345, 107 S.Ct. at 2402. The Court upheld the policy as reasonable under Turner because the inmates were “not deprived of all forms of religious exercise, but instead freely observe[ed] a number of their religious obligations.” 482 U.S. at 352, 107 S.Ct. at 2406. Like the plaintiffs in this case, the O’Lone inmates could congregate as a group or with an imam for prayer or discussion, the prison made accommodations for their dietary requirements, and special arrangements were made for the observance of Ramadan. Id. Moreover, unlike the O’Lone inmates, the plaintiffs have reasonable opportunities to participate in Jumah. Clearly, the plaintiffs’ basic religious services and dietary needs were provided. In the absence of an ongoing constitutional violation, there was no ground that would justify the entry of any injunctive relief against the Dixon officials. See Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 71, 106 S.Ct. 423, 427, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985);" }, { "docid": "2170306", "title": "", "text": "190 (S.D.N.Y.1995). Accepting for the purposes of this motion plaintiffs assertion of his adherence to the tenets of the Muslim faith, 1 find that plaintiff has failed to establish that his right to exercise his religious beliefs has been substantially burdened. Defendants have submitted the affidavits of two Muslim Imams employed by NYSDOCS, which establish that an inmate’s failure or inability to attend one Jummah service does not substantially interfere with the inmate’s obligations as a practicing Muslim because those obligations may be fulfilled by individual prayer offerings with no adverse consequences (Items 39, 43). Accord Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir.l995)(denial of Muslim inmate’s request for release from work assignment to attend Friday services did not substantially burden inmate’s ability to practice religion; evidence submitted by Chaplain established that Muslims may be legitimately excused from Friday services for reasons such as sickness and work activities). Accordingly, plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to establish that his inability to attend Jummah services on September 30, 1994 as a result of keeplock confinement violated his statutory rights under RFRA. Summary judgment is therefore appropriate in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint to the extent that it states a RFRA violation. B. First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, prison regulations imposing burdens on an inmate’s free exercise of religion need only be reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, supra, 482 U.S. at 349, 107 S.Ct. at 2404-05; Abdul-Malik v. Goord, 1997 WL 83402, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. February 27, 1997). The initial requirement for establishing a free exercise claim under the First Amendment is the same — the inmate must first demonstrate that the state action substantially burdened his or her exercise of religion. Abdul-Malik, supra; see also Jolly v. Coughlin, supra, 76 F.3d at 475. Having already found that plaintiff’s keeplock confinement during September 30, 1994 Jummah services did not substantially burden plaintiffs right to the free exercise of his religion under RFRA, I find that plaintiff has likewise failed as a matter of law to establish a" }, { "docid": "22102076", "title": "", "text": "Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); see also Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1413 (10th Cir.1996). Thus, we have held that a district court errs in sua sponte dismissing a prisoner’s due process claim under § 1915 if it does not have sufficient evidence before it to “fully address both the duration and degree of the plaintiffs restrictions as compared with other inmates.” See Perkins, 165 F.3d at 809; Gaines, 292 F.3d at 1225-26 (declaring it inappropriate to dismiss a prisoner’s due process claim without the benefit of evidence showing that the defendant’s “segregation mirrors those conditions imposed upon [other] inmates”); cf. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (“Based on a comparison between inmates inside and outside disciplinary segregation, the State’s actions in placing [the prisoner] there for 30 days did not work a major disruption in his environment.”). Here, the district court determined that Mr. Trujillo failed to state a due process claim despite the lack of any evidence addressing whether Mr. Trujillo’s confinement was atypical and significant when compared to conditions imposed on other prisoners. Mr. Trujillo’s complaint specifically alleges that he spent over 750 days in segregation and that other inmates remain in segregation for the most serious offenses for only 180 days. Where, as here, the prisoner is subjected to a lengthy period of segregation, the duration of that confinement may itself be atypical and significant. See Gaines, 292 F.3d at 1226 (directing the district court on remand to determine whether the 75-day duration of plaintiffs confinement in segregation is itself atypical and significant); Perkins, 165 F.3d at 809 (requiring the district court to have before it evidence that “fully address[es] both the duration and degree of plaintiffs restrictions as compared with other inmates” before it may sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s due process claim) (emphasis added); see also Colon v. Howard, 215 F.3d 227, 231-32 (2d Cir.2000) (recognizing that “the duration of [segregation] is a distinct factor bearing on atyp-icality and must be carefully considered” and concluding that 305 days in such confinement is" }, { "docid": "16318133", "title": "", "text": "am a Muslim in SHU. Today Imam Rashida brought to my attention that Downstate C.F. denies Muslims on keeplock or in SHU our meals from the Eid A1 Fitra and Eid Al Ahda [sic]. The Eid A1 Fitra and Eid Al Ahda are two Islamic holidays that are constitutionally protected even in prison. Downstate C.F. is the only prison in DOCS that denies Muslims in SHU or keeplock our Eid A1 Fitra and Eid A1 Ahda [sic ] meals. After three days passed without response, Ford sent a letter — dated January 13— reiterating his grievance to defendant Downstate Superintendent John McGinnis. It was, however, not until five days after the January 15 Eid ul Fitr feast was served at Downstate that Ford received a letter from defendant Downstate Assistant Deputy Superintendent Gordon Lord stating that inmates in SHU do not receive the Eid ul Fitr feast, as that meal is offered to only those inmates permitted to attend the event. Ford was never served the Eid ul Fitr feast for that Ramadan season. Ford began this lawsuit pro se, complaining under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the refusal to serve him the Eid ul Fitr feast denied him rights guaranteed under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. After surviving defendants’ motion to dismiss, see Ford v. McGinnis, 2000 WL 1808729 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2000), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17910, at *14, Ford was provided counsel. Following discovery, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, accepting defendants’ argument that Ford’s religious beliefs were not infringed because the feast, having been moved beyond the three days following the close of Ramadan, no longer carried any objective religious significance. See Ford, 230 F.Supp.2d at 347-48. The district court found it significant that although the Eid ul Fitr is governed by DOCS Directive 4202, which sets out prison officials’ obligations in accommodating prisoners’ religious practices, the postponed feast is held pursuant to DOCS Directive 4022, which covers so-called “Family Day Events.” Id. at 344. The Director of Ministerial and Family Services for DOCS, John Loconte, averred that DOCS does" }, { "docid": "6571292", "title": "", "text": "v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 2517, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). Sandin was decided in 1995, and the district court did not issue the subject order until 1997. Thus, Rodgers’ case was still open when the district court applied Sandin, and under Harper, the district court was correct in giving Sandin full retroactive effect. Every other federal appellate court that has considered the question has held Sandin to apply retroactively, and we likewise so hold here. See Mackey v. Dyke, 111 F.3d 460, 463 (6th Cir.1997); Driscoll v. Youngman, 105 F.3d 393, 394 (8th Cir.1997); Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1412 (10th Cir.1996); Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 317 (2d Cir.1996); Dominique v. Weld, 73 F.3d 1156, 1160 n. 6 (1st Cir.1996); Mujahid v. Meyer, 59 F.3d 931, 932 n. 2 (9th Cir.1995). As for the merits of Rodgers’ claim, we agree with the district court that Rodgers has not shown that he was deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest as defined in San-din. AFFIRMED. . 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300, 132 L.Ed.2d 418(1995) (holding that inmate can only claim a due process violation if he can show deprivation of protected liberty interest, and that such interests are generally limited to (a) those actions that unexpectedly alter the inmate’s term of imprisonment; and (b) those actions that impose an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life). . Rodgers also alleged that the defendants used excessive force in an incident arising from his request for a sanitary shower stall and that the defendants verbally abused him. The district court ruled in the defendants’ favor on these claims as well. We write today only to address the district court’s rulings as to Rodgers’ due process claim, as none of the other issues Rodgers raises on appeal merit discussion. See 11th Cir. R. 36-1." }, { "docid": "2170305", "title": "", "text": "her] beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 1432, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981)(quoted in Jolly v. Coughlin, supra, 76 F.3d at 477); see Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1794, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963)(finding substantial burden where individual is forced to “choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion ..., on the other hand”); see also Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 26 n. 22 (5th Cir.l995)(examining courts’ treatment of substantial burden inquiry under RFRA). The interference with the person’s exercise of religion “must be more than an inconvenience; the burden must be substantial and an interference with a tenet or belief that is central to religious doctrine.” Graham v. Commissioner, 822 F.2d 844, 851 (9th Cir.l987)(quoted in Davidson v. Davis, 1995 WL 60732, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 1995)); see also Muhammad v. City of New York Dept. of Corrections, 904 F.Supp. 161, 190 (S.D.N.Y.1995). Accepting for the purposes of this motion plaintiffs assertion of his adherence to the tenets of the Muslim faith, 1 find that plaintiff has failed to establish that his right to exercise his religious beliefs has been substantially burdened. Defendants have submitted the affidavits of two Muslim Imams employed by NYSDOCS, which establish that an inmate’s failure or inability to attend one Jummah service does not substantially interfere with the inmate’s obligations as a practicing Muslim because those obligations may be fulfilled by individual prayer offerings with no adverse consequences (Items 39, 43). Accord Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir.l995)(denial of Muslim inmate’s request for release from work assignment to attend Friday services did not substantially burden inmate’s ability to practice religion; evidence submitted by Chaplain established that Muslims may be legitimately excused from Friday services for reasons such as sickness and work activities). Accordingly, plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to establish that his inability to attend Jummah services on September 30, 1994 as" }, { "docid": "18050019", "title": "", "text": "dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Id. III.Discussion Plaintiff claims violations of his federal constitutional rights arising out of defendant’s decision to (1) confine plaintiff to administrative segregation pending a disciplinary hearing; and (2) pursue an investigation and disciplinary hearing on the sodomy allegations made against plaintiff. The court will consider each claim in turn. A. Administrative Segregation Pending Hearing Plaintiff first alleges that defendant violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amend ment rights by placing him in administrative segregation pending the outcome of his disciplinary hearing. The court disagrees. Assuming that the conditions of confinement do not involve unnecessary infliction of pain, a prison’s placement of an inmate in segregation does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 653 (10th Cir.1987). Prison administrators must be accorded broad flexibility in matters of internal security, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2299-2300, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), and absent a clear abuse of discretion, placement decisions are not subject to judicial review. Marchesani v. McCune, 531 F.2d 459, 462 (10th Cir.1976). Nor did plaintiffs administrative segregation confinement violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights. “It is recognized that inmates are not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison, and that ordinarily a change in an inmate’s prison classification to administrative segregation does not deprive the inmate of liberty.” Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 369 (10th Cir.1994). Moreover, there is no right independently protected under the Due Process Clause to remain in the general prison population. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468, 103 S.Ct. 864, 869-70, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). A decision by prison officials to place an inmate in administrative segregation, therefore, does not implicate the Due Process Clause unless the confinement presents “the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. at 2300. Sandin, which applies retroactively, Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1413 (10th Cir.1996), makes clear that an inmate’s segregated confinement is not such a deprivation." }, { "docid": "11474510", "title": "", "text": "simply offer con-clusory statements that a limitation on religious freedom is required for security, health o[r] safety” to establish that its interests are of the “highest order.” 894 F.Supp. at 742. In this § 1983 case, plaintiff has not sued under RFRA, nor have defendants addressed its applicability. Instead, defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that the prison regulations, policies and official conduct at issue are all reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest of maintaining order and security. In light of the legislative history of RFRA as explained in Jolly v. Coughlin, this mere articulation of a reasonable relationship between Officer Bach’s implementation of the prison’s “callout” procedures and the peno-logical interests served does not provide sufficient grounds for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs first amendment claim as a matter of law. See also Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476, 1479 (10th Cir.1995) (RFRA applies to all freedom of religion cases; defendant cannot merely rely on “reasonable relationship” standard). By the same token, plaintiff has not made the threshold showing required by RFRA that his “religious exercise has been substantially burdened” by the policies and conduct complained of. Jolly v. Coughlin, supra, 894 F.Supp. at 741. III. Sandin v. Conner. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs claim is insufficient under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), which held that a Hawaii state inmate’s 30-day disciplinary segregation “did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation” necessary to invoke the procedural protections of the due process clause. - U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2301, 132 L.Ed.2d at 431. In doing so, the Court rejected the methodology employed in cases such as Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), for determining whether a particular prison regulation creates a protected liberty interest. — U.S. at - - -, 115 S.Ct. at 2297-2300, 132 L.Ed.2d at 426-430. The Court was careful to note that its due process analysis did not affect prisoners’ rights to invoke the protection from arbitrary state action provided by the first arid eighth amendments, the" }, { "docid": "10283987", "title": "", "text": "RFRA that defendants have placed a substantial burden on his right to exercise his religion. See Boomer v. Irvin, 919 F.Supp. 122 (W.D.N.Y.1995). Long, by contrast, fails to provide, either initially in his answers to interrogatories or subsequently in his response to the County defendants’ motion, any explanation of how he was prevented from abstaining from food during the daylight hours of Ramadan. The Court must thus grant the County defendants summary judgment on this claim. See Crosley-El v. Berge, 896 F.Supp. 885 (E.D.Wis.1995) (granting summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff presented no evidence to support bare conclusory statement that his Moorish religion prohibited attendance at general Muslim services). In contrast to Long, Hines is somewhat more specific in contending that Jumah services should have included all CCCF inmates rather than being limited to inmates from individual tiers. See Hines General Interrogs. ¶ 5(a). Nonetheless, while Jumah may be “the central congregate service of the Muslim faith,” Boomer, 919 F.Supp. at 124, Hines has not supported his contention that Muslims from a single tier would not be a sufficient group for worship. Moreover, even assuming that a prohibition against mass gatherings constituted a substantial burden, defendants have demonstrated a compelling governmental interest — the preservation of safety and security — in limiting the number of inmates who could gather at one time. Cf. Shaheed v. Winston, 885 F.Supp. 861 (E.D.Va.1995) (citing the need to maintain order in a crowded jail as justification for limitations on services). Defendants have also demonstrated that they employed the least restrictive means to preserve prison safety and security. Thus, the Court will grant the County defendants summary judgment on all plaintiffs’ free-exercise claims. In most instances, plaintiffs have failed to indicate that any specific actions of the County defendants created a substantial burden on their free-exercise rights. Even where a substantial burden may have existed, defendants’ actions were the least restrictive means of assuring a compelling interest in safety and security at CCCF. III. CONCLUSION Because plaintiffs fail to demonstrate substantial burdens on their religious practices, or, in some instances, because the County defendants had" }, { "docid": "2905075", "title": "", "text": "courts of appeal that have interpreted RFRA to hold that the Act applies to the claims of prisoners. See, e.g., Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476, 1479 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 2625, 132 L.Ed.2d 866 (1995); Bryant v. Gomez, 46 F.3d 948, 949 (9th Cir.1995). Thus, the first question to be determined under RFRA is whether the State has substantially burdened the Inmate’s exercise of religion; and, if so, whether the State can justify the imposition of that burden. Although the district court did not believe it need reach the Inmates’ RFRA claim, it apparently decided to address the issue. The court concluded that the Inmates’ claim did not implicate the Act. It adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, which stated that the Inmates: have not alleged that the government has “burdened” their exercise of religion. Rather they [complain] that the government has not taken affirmative steps to provide them with a place to worship.... Accordingly, because the Act restricts only burdens placed upon the exercise of religion, it is not applicable to this claim of failure to provide the plaintiffs with a worship service of their choice. Thus, the court found that the Inmates had not proven that the State has substantially burdened their exercise of religion under the Act. In their objections to the magistrate judge’s report, the Inmates claimed that their rights to free exercise of their religion have been substantially burdened by the defendants because they are compelled to attend Jumáh and Taleem services that are led by the American Muslim Mission, which has different practices, teachings, dress codes, and Imams. The American Muslim Mission’s spiritual leader is Imam Wallace Deem Muhammad, who they assert does not follow the four (4) Schools of Thought of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. The Inmates maintain that the American Muslim Mission’s “teachings and beliefs” are “in direct contradiction” with their beliefs. In particular, they claim that their religion prohibits them from “being led in Jummah prayer by someone who does not follow one of the Four Schools of Thought, which the American Muslims do not.” Under RFRA," }, { "docid": "9667516", "title": "", "text": "availability of “alternative means of practicing his or her religion generally”) (citing O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 351-52, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987)). While the presence of “other avenues” for religious worship lends support to defendants’ position, this factor does not outweigh other relevant considerations, all of which suggest that defendants’ actions were unreasonable in light of legitimate penological interests. See id. at 59 (stating that court must balance relevant factors to “determine whether the regulation is reasonable given the prison administrators’ penological concerns and the inmate’s interest in engaging in the constitutionally protected activity”) (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 90, 107 S.Ct. 2254). Viewed in the light most favorable to Williams, the evidence establishes a violation of his right to free exercise of religion. See Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 257-58 (3d Cir.2003). Defendants should have known under governing law that their actions would constitute a deprivation of this constitutional right, and are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Williams, 285 F.Supp.2d at 604-05; see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151. Williams’s claims under the First Amendment may proceed to trial. C. Fourteenth Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....” U.S. CONST, amend. XIV. The threshold issue of due process analysis is whether the person has been suffered a “deprivation” of “life, liberty, or property.” Pappas, 381 F.Supp.2d at 315-16. Williams has failed to meet this prerequisite. Changes in confinement of an inmate will result in a deprivation of protected interest only when they impose “atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). No evidence suggests that the thirty-day cell restriction marked a “dramatic departure” from normal confinement, particularly because Williams was still permitted to attend meals and religious services with the general population. Cf. id. at 485-87, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (noting that solitary confinement is not a deprivation" }, { "docid": "22063886", "title": "", "text": "a diet consistent with [their] religious scruples”); Bass v. Coughlin, 976 F.2d 98, 99 (2d Cir.1992) (per curiam) (reaffirming Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir.1975) (finding that Orthodox Jewish inmate had right to provision of kosher meals)). Our cases and those of other circuits suggest that the First Amendment protects inmates’ free exercise rights even when the infringement results from the imposition of legitimate disciplinary measures. For example, we reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants in Young v. Coughlin, 866 F.2d 567 (2d Cir.1989), where the plaintiff-inmate was prevented from attending Ramadan religious activities because of his placement in a limited privilege program and his subsequent confinement in punitive “keeplock.” In Young, we required the prison officials to “justify their restriction of appellant’s free exercise rights,” since “[i]t ... was error to assume that prison officials were justified in limiting appellant’s free exercise rights simply because Young was in disciplinary confinement.” Id. at 570 (citing LaReau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d 974, 979 n. 9 (2d Cir.1972)); see also Ford, 352 F.3d at 597 (“[W]e also have found it well established that a prisoner’s free exercise right to participate in religious services is not extinguished by his or her confinement in special housing or keeplock.” (citing Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 993 F.2d 306, 308 (2d Cir.1993))). Courts have also found free exercise violations in cases where generally applicable prison policies were designed to accommodate inmates’ religious dietary requirements, but the same allowances were not made for inmates subjected to disciplinary restrictions. In Makin v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.1999), for instance, the general prison policy allowed meals to be provided to Muslim inmates between sunset and dawn to enable daytime fasting during Ramadan. But the Makin plaintiffs confinement in punitive segregation meant that his meals were delivered only during daylight hours. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that this arrangement violated Makin’s First Amendment rights, because even though Makin was still able to observe the Ramadan fast by saving crackers and other nonperishable items from the meals delivered" }, { "docid": "15075269", "title": "", "text": "Ex. A. . Jackson 56.1 Stmt, at 6. . Jackson Mar. 31, 1998 Declaralion/Affidavit Response to Order of Judge Peck (hereinafter “Jackson Deck”) at 3-4. . Jackson alleges that the Department of Correctional Services intentionally hindered and hampered his efforts to timely serve the Article 78 petition by constantly transferring him from facility to facility. Jackson 56.1 Stmt, at 7. . 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). . 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). . 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). . The defendants did not raise the Sandin v. Conner argument until after their summary judgment motion had been fully briefed and only did so then after being ordered to address the point by the Magistrate Judge. See Order of Feb. 5, 1998. . 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). . Wright v. Coughlin, 132 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir.1998) (citing Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989)). . Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995) (citations omitted). . Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 317 (2d Cir.1996). . Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293. .See Brooks v. DiFasi, 112 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.1997) (remanding for findings on the length of the disciplinary confinement, the restrictiveness of keeplock, and the prevailing conditions in administrative confinement and in the prison at large); Miller v. Selsky, 111 F.3d 7 (2d Cir.1997) (same); Sealey v. Giltner, 116 F.3d 47, 51-52 (2d Cir.1997) (remanding for specific findings on conditions of confinement); Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313 (2d Cir.1996) (affirming district court’s dismissal of inmate action based on extensive fact-finding that there was no showing that the conditions of confinement were dramatically different from basic conditions of his sentence); see also Samuels v. Mockry, 77 F.3d 34 (2d Cir.1996); Branham v. Meachum, 77 F.3d 626 (2d Cir.1996). Cf. Hynes v. Squillace, 143 F.3d 653 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (\"in cases involving shorter periods of segregated confinement where the plaintiff has not alleged any" }, { "docid": "2905076", "title": "", "text": "to this claim of failure to provide the plaintiffs with a worship service of their choice. Thus, the court found that the Inmates had not proven that the State has substantially burdened their exercise of religion under the Act. In their objections to the magistrate judge’s report, the Inmates claimed that their rights to free exercise of their religion have been substantially burdened by the defendants because they are compelled to attend Jumáh and Taleem services that are led by the American Muslim Mission, which has different practices, teachings, dress codes, and Imams. The American Muslim Mission’s spiritual leader is Imam Wallace Deem Muhammad, who they assert does not follow the four (4) Schools of Thought of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. The Inmates maintain that the American Muslim Mission’s “teachings and beliefs” are “in direct contradiction” with their beliefs. In particular, they claim that their religion prohibits them from “being led in Jummah prayer by someone who does not follow one of the Four Schools of Thought, which the American Muslims do not.” Under RFRA, the Inmates are required to show that a “substantial burden” to their free exercise of religion has resulted from the State’s actions. Goodall v. Stafford County Sch. Bd., 60 F.3d 168, 171 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 706, 133 L.Ed.2d 661 (1996); Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476, 1480 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2625, 132 L.Ed.2d 866 (1995). If they establish a substantial burden, then the burden of proof shifts to the State to show that it has a “compelling interest” in its actions and is furthering that interest by the “least restrictive means.” Werner, 49 F.3d at 1480 n. 2; Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F.Supp. 194, 206 (S.D.N.Y.1994). The showing, however, required to prove a substantial burden under RFRA seems to be unsettled. In Werner v. McCotter, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals provided the following summary of standards which seem to be applicable under RFRA: To exceed the “substantial burden” threshold, government regulation must significantly inhibit or constrain conduct or expression that manifests some central" }, { "docid": "2170307", "title": "", "text": "a result of keeplock confinement violated his statutory rights under RFRA. Summary judgment is therefore appropriate in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint to the extent that it states a RFRA violation. B. First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, prison regulations imposing burdens on an inmate’s free exercise of religion need only be reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, supra, 482 U.S. at 349, 107 S.Ct. at 2404-05; Abdul-Malik v. Goord, 1997 WL 83402, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. February 27, 1997). The initial requirement for establishing a free exercise claim under the First Amendment is the same — the inmate must first demonstrate that the state action substantially burdened his or her exercise of religion. Abdul-Malik, supra; see also Jolly v. Coughlin, supra, 76 F.3d at 475. Having already found that plaintiff’s keeplock confinement during September 30, 1994 Jummah services did not substantially burden plaintiffs right to the free exercise of his religion under RFRA, I find that plaintiff has likewise failed as a matter of law to establish a violation of his rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint to the extent that it states a First Amendment claim. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, defendants motion for summary judgment (Item 37) is GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants. SO ORDERED. . As noted in this court's previous decision and order, Jummah, or ''Jumu’ah,\" is a weekly Mus lim congregational service commanded by the Koran to be held \"eveiy Friday after the sun reaches its zenith and before the Asr, or afternoon prayer.\" Boomer v. Irvin, 919 F.Supp. 122, 123 n. 2 (W.D.N.Y.1995) (quoting O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 345, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 2402, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987)); see also Matiyn v. Commissioner Department of Corrections, 726 F.Supp. 42, 44 n. 3 (W.D.N.Y.1989). . Rule 109.12 provides: Inmates shall follow all facility regulations and staff directions relating to movement within the facility. This" }, { "docid": "22063887", "title": "", "text": "also Ford, 352 F.3d at 597 (“[W]e also have found it well established that a prisoner’s free exercise right to participate in religious services is not extinguished by his or her confinement in special housing or keeplock.” (citing Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 993 F.2d 306, 308 (2d Cir.1993))). Courts have also found free exercise violations in cases where generally applicable prison policies were designed to accommodate inmates’ religious dietary requirements, but the same allowances were not made for inmates subjected to disciplinary restrictions. In Makin v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.1999), for instance, the general prison policy allowed meals to be provided to Muslim inmates between sunset and dawn to enable daytime fasting during Ramadan. But the Makin plaintiffs confinement in punitive segregation meant that his meals were delivered only during daylight hours. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that this arrangement violated Makin’s First Amendment rights, because even though Makin was still able to observe the Ramadan fast by saving crackers and other nonperishable items from the meals delivered during the day and consuming them after sunset, having to take such measures “substantially diminished his qualitative spiritual experience.” Id. at 1212. Such decisions make clear that inmates do not forfeit their free exercise rights when the burden on their religious practice results from discipline imposed for violating prison rules. Of course, McEachin does not allege that his free exercise rights were infringed in the course of legitimate disciplinary measures. He claims that he was disciplined for failing to obey an order expressly given to him by a corrections officer who knew that completion of the task would require plaintiff to abandon religious prayers in which he was then engaged. Precedent' suggests that inmates have a right not to be disciplined for refusing to perform tasks that violate then-religious beliefs. See, e.g., Hayes v. Long, 72 F.3d 70 (8th Cir.1995) (holding that Muslim plaintiff had a clearly established right to refuse to handle pork while performing kitchen duties, and reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment to prison official defendants who disciplined the plaintiff" } ]

[ { "docid": "22185819", "title": "", "text": "116, 121-22 (2d Cir.2001) (affirming dismissal of inmate’s complaint because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on each of his claims, although some were exhausted during the pendency of his litigation); Jackson v. Dist. of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262, 269 (D.C.Cir.2001) (affirming dismissal of inmates’ complaint because they had begun, but not yet exhausted, the prison grievance procedure); Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 645 (6th Cir.1999) (dismissing inmate’s complaint because he filed his federal complaint before allowing the administrative process to be completed); Perez v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir.1999) (remanding for dismissal and reversing the district court’s refusal to dismiss when, at the time the district court was ruling on the motion to dismiss, the inmate had fully exhausted his administrative remedies but had not done so at the time of filing). Turning to the instant cases, we acknowledge that one of the objectives of section 1997e(a) is to resolve inmate complaints administratively without the necessity of intervention of the federal courts. In this case uniquely, Johnson and Fudge have now made all efforts to resolve their complaints administratively. There is nothing else for these inmates to do. In this posture, and because we are the first panel in this circuit to explicitly rule on this issue, we refrain from reversal only to avoid the expenditure of additional resources on the part of the parties and the court. In so deciding, however, we reiterate that should the district court be faced with identical circumstances in the future, dismissal is required under section 1997e(a). Accordingly, we affirm. . The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. . Johnson’s initial complaint was, in fact, dismissed by the district court due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing. However, the district court then granted Johnson’s motion to reopen upon submission of further proof of exhaustion. It was after the case was reopened that the state filed a motion to" } ]

[ { "docid": "16272839", "title": "", "text": "are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). As we explained in Jemigan, “[e]ven where the ‘available’ remedies would appear to be futile at providing the kind of remedy sought, the prisoner must exhaust the administrative remedies available.” 304 F.3d at 1032 (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001)). Moreover, we have held that “the PLRA contains a total exhaustion requirement, and ... the presence of unexhausted claims in [prisoner's complaint require[s][a] district court to dismiss his [or her] action in its entirety without prejudice.” Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1189 (10th Cir.2004); see also Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (“When multiple prison condition claims have been joined ... § 1997e(a) requires that all available prison grievance remedies must be exhausted as to all of the claims.”). To exhaust his or her administrative remedies, an inmate in a federal prison must complete a four-step process before filing suit. This process is laid out in the Code of Federal Regulations, as well as a parallel Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Program Statement. See generally 28 C.F.R. § 542 (2004); BOP Program Statement 1330.13 (2002). First, an inmate usually must attempt to informally resolve his or her concerns with prison staff. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13. If this attempt fails, an inmate must submit a formal written Administrative Remedy Request within twenty days of the date on which the basis for the Request occurred. Id. § 542.14(a). If the Request does not provide satisfactory relief, an inmate must appeal the resolution of his or her Request to the appropriate BOP Regional Director within twenty days. Id. § 542.15(a). Finally, if an inmate disagrees with the Regional Director’s decision, the inmate must appeal the decision to the BOP’s General Counsel within thirty days. Id. § 542.15(a). We have held that if an inmate does not comply with the time limits laid out in 28 C.F.R. § 542, he or she has not properly exhausted" }, { "docid": "8990415", "title": "", "text": "the Facility Grievance Officer assigns a number to the case and maintains a permanent grievance log. That individual shall, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the grievance, conduct an investigation into the issue raised in the grievance and render a written decision, which is set forth in the “Report and Decision” portion of the grievance form. A copy of the decision is forwarded to the inmate. In the event an inmate is not satisfied with the decision of the Facility Grievance Officer, he may, within five (5) days of his receipt of the decision, appeal to the warden or his designee by completing the Request for Warden Review portion of the grievance form and submitting it to the warden .... The warden’s written decision is to be rendered within fifteen (15) days of his receipt of the appeal. A copy of the grievance form will then be returned to the Facility Grievance Officer, who will forward a copy to the inmate. B. Procedural background The plaintiffs originally brought these suits in the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Tennessee state law. All three cases were eventually transferred to the Western District of Tennessee. The parties consented to having the cases heard by a magistrate judge, who subsequently granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all of the claims under review based upon the plaintiffs’ alleged failure to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of review We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Gurry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 503 (6th Cir.2001). The same standard of review applies to the dismissal of a prisoner’s civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997). B. Does the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement apply to prisoners who bring suit against correctional institutions run by private entities? The PLRA states in relevant part: “No action shall" }, { "docid": "22144395", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM. Four Arkansas inmates appeal the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed against various prison officials challenging various conditions of their confinement. The district court dismissed the suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for failure to exhaust available prison administrative remedies. In their pro se brief on appeal, plaintiffs admit “that they made a mistake in prematurely filing their lawsuit,” but argue that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the suit without prejudice because their prison grievances were in process when the suit was filed, and some grievances were administratively denied before the district court ruled. Section 1997e(a) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [§ 1983] by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” When multiple prison condition claims have been joined, as in this case, the plain language of § 1997e(a) requires that all available prison grievance remedies must be exhausted as to all of the claims. Here, it is apparent that at least some of the plaintiffs’ many claims were not fully exhausted at the time the district court dismissed the action without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion requesting an initial hearing en banc to consider whether our decision in Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir.1999) — that it is improper to dismiss without prejudice when available prison administrative remedies are exhausted “at the time the [district] court ruled” — is contrary to the plain language of § 1997e(a) (“no action shall be brought”), as construed by a number of our sister circuits. See, e.g., Perez v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532, 534-35 (7th Cir.1999); Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 833, 119 S.Ct. 88, 142 L.Ed.2d 69 (1998); cf. Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133, 119 S.Ct. 1809, 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999). We need not address that issue because it is clear from the record that at" }, { "docid": "3491714", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM. Harvey Jones, an Arkansas inmate, sued the Corrections defendants for incorrectly classifying him medically, assigning him an inappropriate job based on his medical needs, and failing to treat his medical needs. Jones is seeking reclassification from field duty because he claims his back, neck, right hand injuries and hemorrhoids cause him pain during this work. Jones’s current medical classification notes Jones cannot grip with his right hand, but can accomplish field work. Jones filed multiple grievances requesting medical reclassification and job reassignment, but each grievance was denied. On June 6, 2000, the doctor examining Jones noted the tendon inflammation in Jones’s right hand had improved and Jones’s current restrictive classification seemed “excessive.” Nevertheless, Jones was maintained at his current classification status. The magistrate judge recommended denying Jones’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismissing Jones’s petition without prejudice for failing to exhaust prison grievance remedies against Mobley and Compton. Jones objected to the magistrate’s report and recommendation, attaching copies of prison grievances against Mobley and Compton. The district court referred the objections and prison grievance forms to the magistrate. The magistrate analyzed Jones’s grievances, and recommended that Jones’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice because the grievance forms did not show Jones had exhausted his prison remedies. First, the magistrate noted that the grievance forms were not submitted until after the lawsuit was filed. Second, the magistrate noted the grievances were returned without decision on the merits because Jones failed to follow proper grievance procedure. Thus, the grievances did not receive substantive review by prison authorities. After de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendations and dismissed Jones’s petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust all claims. Jones now appeals pro se. Having reviewed the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo, we affirm the dismissal of Jones’s complaint. Walker v. Maschner, 270 F.3d 573, 576 (8th Cir.2001). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), mandate exhaustion of available administrative remedies before an inmate files suit. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738-39, 121 S.Ct." }, { "docid": "3491716", "title": "", "text": "1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). Because Jones’s medical classification is unchanged, filing a proper grievance against all defendants remains an available remedy. Jones must exhaust prison grievances before filing suit in federal court. Maschner, 270 F.3d at 576-77. Thus, the district court correctly dismissed Jones’s complaint without prejudice. Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (dismissing petition when not all claims are exhausted). Although Jones has not exhausted available grievance procedures, we nevertheless dismiss the complaint as frivolous under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) (2000). A complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). To succeed on his complaint, Jones must show defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). The record shows that Jones received 13 medical examinations in 2001, an evaluation to determine the need for reclassification, and recommendations to treat his muscular back pain with Tylenol. Defendants’ responses to Jones’s interrogatories support their assertions that Jones is-being treated appropriately. To support his contentions, Jones signed affidavits restating concluso-ry allegations about his need for medical care and reclassification. Jones provided no evidence beyond these conclusory allegations, which are insufficient to create a question of material fact. At best, Jones’s allegations state a difference in opinion between himself and his doctors or allege a mistake in classification or treatment. Neither differences of opinion nor medical malpractice state an actionable Constitutional violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06, 97 S.Ct. 285; Smith v. Marcantonio, 910 F.2d 500, 502 (8th Cir.1990). In addition, the record shows that before the medical grievances, Jones filed a grievance for being required to work in the field without pay. Defendants assert Jones’s medical complaints are an attempt to avoid the prison’s work requirement. Jones has provided no evidence or affidavits to dispute this assertion. We affirm the dismissal of Jones’s complaint. Further, we agree with the magistrate judge that dismissal of Jones’s complaint should be considered a strike within the" }, { "docid": "22704708", "title": "", "text": "(7th Cir.1999) (“[A] suit filed by a prisoner before administrative remedies have been exhausted must be dismissed; the district court lacks discretion to resolve the claim on the merits, even if the prisoner exhausts intra-prison remedies before judgment”). But see Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (reversing district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust where “the record demonstrated that [plaintiffs] grievance had been denied ... at the time the court ruled.”). Medina-Claudio, 292 F.3d at 36. The courts that have reached this conclusion place primary reliance on the text of the statute. As the Seventh Circuit explained in Perez: Section 1997e(a) does not say that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required before a case may be decided. It says, rather, that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” [The prisoner] violated § 1997e(a) by filing his action. Congress could have written a statute making exhaustion a precondition to judgment, but it did not. The actual statute makes exhaustion a precondition to suit. Perez, 182 F.3d at 534-535 (italics in original). While it is true that requiring dismissal may, in some circumstances, occasion the expenditure of additional resources on the part of the parties and the court, it seems apparent that Congress has made a policy judgment that this concern is outweighed by the advantages of requiring exhaustion prior to the filing of suit. The objectives that Congress sought to achieve in enacting § 1997e(a) were identified by the Supreme Court in Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002): Beyond doubt, Congress enacted § 1997e(a) to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits; to this purpose, Congress afforded corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case. In some instances, corrective action taken in response to an inmate’s grievance might improve prison administration and satisfy the inmate, thereby obviating the need for litigation. Booth, 532 U.S. at 737, 121 S.Ct. 1819. In other instances, the" }, { "docid": "1389706", "title": "", "text": "on February 8, 2004, but he did not file any grievances complaining of Gordon’s behavior after that date. Although Beltran did file grievances during December, 2003, and early January, 2004, claiming threats by Gordon and other officers, those grievances could not have served to notify the defendants of Beltran’s claim in this action, which proceeds from the subsequent threats alleged in the complaint. “A grievance obviously cannot exhaust administrative remedies for claims based on events that have not yet occurred.” Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1187 (10th Cir.2004); see also Johnson, 385 F.3d at 521 n. 12. D. Whether Beltran’s Failure to Exhaust Some Claims Mandates Dismissal of His Entire Complaint The defendants argue that Beltran’s failure to exhaust some of the claims in his complaint requires dismissal of the entire action. Three circuits have interpreted section 1997e(a) to impose this “total exhaustion” requirement. Bey v. Johnson, 407 F.3d 801, 807 (6th Cir.2005); Ross, 365 F.3d at 1187; Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam). Two other circuits, however, have expressly rejected such a rule. Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170-71 (9th Cir.2005); Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649, 663 (2d Cir.2004), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1398, 161 L.Ed.2d 190 (2005). Neither the First Circuit nor this court has passed on the “total exhaustion” question. But see Goodrich, 2003 DNH 048, 2003 WL 1392433, at *2 (allowing prisoner’s exhausted claims to proceed despite failure to exhaust other claims but not discussing total exhaustion approach). Without acknowledging this split of authority, the defendants argue that the total exhaustion rule is supported by the plain language of section 1997e(a), the policies underlying the PLRA, and concerns of judicial economy. The court disagrees, essentially for the reasons stated by those circuits which have rejected such a rule. Under section 1997(e)(a), “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted” (emphasis added). Section 1997e(c), in turn, provides that: (1) The court shall on its own motion or the motion of a party" }, { "docid": "15603866", "title": "", "text": "1983 action with respect to prison conditions “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). We have previously held, as is the case here, that “[w]hen multiple prison condition claims have been joined ... the plain language of § 1997e(a) requires that all available prison grievance remedies must be exhausted as to all of the claims.” Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (emphasis added). Because Kozohorsky did not exhaust his administrative remedies on his failure-to-supervise claim against Harmon, he failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies as to all of his claims. See id. at 885-86 (holding dismissal proper where at least some of plaintiffs claims were unexhausted when the district court ruled). Despite this defect in Kozohorsky’s complaint, we believe the District Court abused its discretion by implicitly denying his motion to amend the complaint. See Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir.2002) (noting abuse-of-discretion standard applies to a denial of a motion for leave to amend). Kozohorsky’s request to amend his complaint and dismiss Harmon would have cured the defect necessitating the dismissal. Our decision here is guided by Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), which addressed the exhaustion requirements for habeas corpus petitions. In that decision, the Supreme Court adopted “a total exhaustion rule,” which required district courts to dismiss “mixed petitions” (i.e., petitions that contain both exhausted and unexhausted claims). Id. at 510, 522, 102 S.Ct. 1198. The Supreme Court stated that after a district court dismisses such a mixed petition, the plaintiff could then return to state court to exhaust his claims or file an amended petition in federal court including only exhausted claims. Id. at 510, 102 S.Ct. 1198. We think that the rule permitting a plaintiff to file an amended petition, which includes only exhausted claims, is applicable here. In fact, we have previously approved this practice in prison condition cases. See Thornton v. Phillips County, Ark., 240 F.3d 728, 729" }, { "docid": "3491715", "title": "", "text": "prison grievance forms to the magistrate. The magistrate analyzed Jones’s grievances, and recommended that Jones’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice because the grievance forms did not show Jones had exhausted his prison remedies. First, the magistrate noted that the grievance forms were not submitted until after the lawsuit was filed. Second, the magistrate noted the grievances were returned without decision on the merits because Jones failed to follow proper grievance procedure. Thus, the grievances did not receive substantive review by prison authorities. After de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendations and dismissed Jones’s petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust all claims. Jones now appeals pro se. Having reviewed the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo, we affirm the dismissal of Jones’s complaint. Walker v. Maschner, 270 F.3d 573, 576 (8th Cir.2001). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), mandate exhaustion of available administrative remedies before an inmate files suit. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738-39, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). Because Jones’s medical classification is unchanged, filing a proper grievance against all defendants remains an available remedy. Jones must exhaust prison grievances before filing suit in federal court. Maschner, 270 F.3d at 576-77. Thus, the district court correctly dismissed Jones’s complaint without prejudice. Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (dismissing petition when not all claims are exhausted). Although Jones has not exhausted available grievance procedures, we nevertheless dismiss the complaint as frivolous under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) (2000). A complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). To succeed on his complaint, Jones must show defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). The record shows that Jones received 13 medical examinations in 2001, an evaluation to determine the need for reclassification, and recommendations to treat his muscular back pain with Tylenol." }, { "docid": "23613626", "title": "", "text": "Harbin-Bey to supplement his complaint. D. The district court did not err in determining that Harbin-Bey had not exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to Martin and Powell Finally, Harbin-Bey argues that the district court erred in ruling that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to Martin and Powell. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner must exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to bringing a § 1983 action with respect to prison conditions, even if the state administrative process does not allow the specific type of relief sought by the prisoner. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (holding that the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applied to an inmate’s claims that he was beaten by corrections officers without justification). This exhaustion requirement is mandatory and must be enforced by the district court sua sponte. Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.1998) (enforcing the exhaustion requirement sua sponte and dismissing without prejudice a prisoner’s complaint on the basis that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies). The district court does not have the discretion to order a continuance in the absence of exhaustion. Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 417 (6th Cir.1997) (noting that, prior to the enactment of the PLRA, district courts had such discretion). Prisoners may grieve the application of a policy directive if it affects them personally and involves a concern over which the MDOC has control, but they may not grieve the content of the policy itself. Policy Directive 03.02.130, ¶ E, F-2. In a grievance, the prisoner must specifically mention the allegedly offending parties so that the prison has an opportunity to address the claims before they reach federal court. Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 505 (6th Cir.2001). Harbin-Bey has submitted documentation to establish that he has filed several grievances against Rutter. But he has not demonstrated that he has filed grievances with regard to his claims against Martin and Powell. As a result, he has not exhausted these claims. A court, however, need" }, { "docid": "22916503", "title": "", "text": "the merits, even if the prisoner exhausts intra-prison remedies before judgment.”); see also Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 71 (3d Cir.2000) (“Allowing the federal courts to fashion prison remedies before the prisons themselves have had the opportunity (and have the ability) to do so, is surely not what Congress intended when it enacted the [Prison Litigation Reform Act].”); Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir.1998) (“[E]xhaustion is now a pre-condition to suit.... Mandatory exhaustion is not satisfied by a judicial conclusion that the requirement need not apply.”); Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir.1997) (“Congress specifically amended the statute to ... requir[e] federal prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing ... a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); cf. Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885-86 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal where some but not all claims were exhausted after filing of complaint and before district court’s ruling); Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff exhausted remedies after filing suit, but suggesting district court may “in certain rare instances” have discretion not to dismiss). But see Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (reversing district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust where “the record demonstrate[d] that [plaintiffs] grievance had been denied ... at the time the court ruled”). 2. Reasons for Dismissal We agree with the majority view expressed above and set out our reasoning below. To begin, the plain language of § 1997e(a), providing that “[n]o action shall be brought ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted,” suggests that exhaustion prior to commencement of a § 1983 action is mandated. See Nussle, 224 F.3d at 100-01 (noting that statutory text, “if clear and unambiguous on its face, is presumed to bear its plain meaning”). The Supreme Court instructs that “[wjhere Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992). We too have observed that § 1997e(a) “requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies before inmate-plaintiffs may bring" }, { "docid": "22704707", "title": "", "text": "complaint under § 1983 may be entertained.”) (emphasis added). Our understanding of the statute in this regard accords with that of several of the circuit courts that have faced the issue. See Neal v. Goord, 267 F.3d 116, 123 (2d Cir.2001) (“[A]llowing prisoner suits to proceed, so long as the inmate eventually fulfills the exhaustion requirement, undermines Congress’ directive to pursue administrative remedies prior to fil ing a complaint in federal court.”); Jackson v. Dist. of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262, 268-69 (D.C.Cir.2001) (rejecting the argument that § 1997e(a) “permits suit to be filed so long as administrative remedies are exhausted before trial”); Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 645 (6th Cir.1999) (“The prisoner, therefore, may not exhaust administrative remedies during the pendency of the federal suit.”); Miller v. Tanner, 196 F.3d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir.1999) (“An inmate incarcerated in a state prison, thus, must first comply with the grievance procedures established by the state department of corrections before filing a federal lawsuit under section 1983.”); Perez v. Wis. Dep’t of Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir.1999) (“[A] suit filed by a prisoner before administrative remedies have been exhausted must be dismissed; the district court lacks discretion to resolve the claim on the merits, even if the prisoner exhausts intra-prison remedies before judgment”). But see Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (reversing district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust where “the record demonstrated that [plaintiffs] grievance had been denied ... at the time the court ruled.”). Medina-Claudio, 292 F.3d at 36. The courts that have reached this conclusion place primary reliance on the text of the statute. As the Seventh Circuit explained in Perez: Section 1997e(a) does not say that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required before a case may be decided. It says, rather, that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” [The prisoner] violated § 1997e(a) by filing his action. Congress could have written a statute making exhaustion a precondition to judgment, but it did not. The actual statute makes" }, { "docid": "23147936", "title": "", "text": "again, is a meaningful way to “reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits,” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, or to “help bring relief to a civil justice system overburdened by frivolous prisoner lawsuits,” 141 Cong. Ree. 26,553 (1995) (statement of Sen. Hatch). We therefore conclude that the presence of the unexhausted Eighth Amendment claim in Ortiz’s complaint when he brought it did not require the district court to dismiss the action in its entirety. We note, finally, that we expect that, in the ordinary case, once the district court dismisses the unexhausted claims, it will proceed directly to decide the exhausted claims without waiting for the plaintiff to attempt to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to the dismissed claims. We see no reason to doubt that this is such an “ordinary” case. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. . As we have noted, Ortiz now concedes that his Eighth Amendment claim is not viable in any event. That does not alter the fact that Ortiz \"brought,” see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a lawsuit presenting both an exhausted claim and an unexhausted claim. . See, e.g., Ross, 365 F.3d at 1189 (\"[T]he presence of unexhausted claims in [the prisoner’s] complaint require[s] the district court to dismiss his action in its entirety without prejudice.”); Smeltzer v. Hook, 235 F.Supp.2d 736, 742 (W.D.Mich.2002) (\"Under the total exhaustion rule, the presence of an unex-hausted claim warrants dismissal not just of that claim, but of the entire action.”). . One Circuit has concluded, without explanation, that the language of the statute requires such dismissal. Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (\"When multiple prison condition claims have been joined, as in this case, the plain language of § 1997e(a) requires that all available prison grievance remedies must be exhausted as to all of the claims.”). At least two district courts in our Circuit have, in unpublished opinions, come to similar conclusions. See Vidal v. Gorr, No. 02 Civ. 5554, 2003" }, { "docid": "22916504", "title": "", "text": "but suggesting district court may “in certain rare instances” have discretion not to dismiss). But see Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (reversing district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust where “the record demonstrate[d] that [plaintiffs] grievance had been denied ... at the time the court ruled”). 2. Reasons for Dismissal We agree with the majority view expressed above and set out our reasoning below. To begin, the plain language of § 1997e(a), providing that “[n]o action shall be brought ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted,” suggests that exhaustion prior to commencement of a § 1983 action is mandated. See Nussle, 224 F.3d at 100-01 (noting that statutory text, “if clear and unambiguous on its face, is presumed to bear its plain meaning”). The Supreme Court instructs that “[wjhere Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992). We too have observed that § 1997e(a) “requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies before inmate-plaintiffs may bring their federal claims to court at all.” Nussle, 224 F.3d at 99 (emphases added); see also id. at 98 (describing § 1997e(a) as “add[ing] teeth” to the exhaustion requirement). Subsequent exhaustion after suit is filed therefore is insufficient. Further, the change in language effected by the Act suggests that where required, grievances must now be fully pursued pri- or to filing a complaint in federal court. Section 1997e(a) formerly allowed a district court to continue a pending § 1983 case for up to 180 days in order that a prisoner be required to exhaust effective administrative remedies as were available. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(l) (1994) (amended 1996). The Act eliminated reference to the provision allowing for the continuance of an action. Such elimination lends strong support to the conclusion that dismissal is warranted in the case at hand. See Perez, 182 F.3d at 537. Additionally, courts must take care not to frustrate the policy concerns underlying § 1997e(a) by allowing inmate-plaintiffs to file or proceed with lawsuits before exhausting administrative remedies. This section of the" }, { "docid": "22916502", "title": "", "text": "claims during the pendency of his lawsuit. The issue is one of first impression in this Court. District courts within the Circuit have not agreed on the issue. Compare Santiago v. Meinsen, 89 F.Supp.2d 435, 441 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (dismissing case so that inmate could seek extension of time to file grievance), with Cruz v. Jordan, 80 F.Supp.2d 109, 121-23 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (staying case pending exhaustion). At least three other circuits have held that exhausting administrative remedies after a complaint is filed will not save a case from dismissal. See Jackson v. Dist. of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262, 268-69 (D.C.Cir.2001) (affirming rejection of the argument that § 1997e(a) “permits suit to be filed so long as administrative remedies are exhausted before trial”); Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 645 (6th Cir.1999) (“The prisoner, therefore, may not exhaust administrative remedies during the pen-dency of the federal suit.”); Perez, 182 F.3d at 535 (7th Cir.) (“[A] suit filed by a prisoner before administrative remedies have been exhausted must be dismissed; the district court lacks discretion to resolve the claim on the merits, even if the prisoner exhausts intra-prison remedies before judgment.”); see also Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 71 (3d Cir.2000) (“Allowing the federal courts to fashion prison remedies before the prisons themselves have had the opportunity (and have the ability) to do so, is surely not what Congress intended when it enacted the [Prison Litigation Reform Act].”); Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir.1998) (“[E]xhaustion is now a pre-condition to suit.... Mandatory exhaustion is not satisfied by a judicial conclusion that the requirement need not apply.”); Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir.1997) (“Congress specifically amended the statute to ... requir[e] federal prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing ... a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); cf. Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885-86 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal where some but not all claims were exhausted after filing of complaint and before district court’s ruling); Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff exhausted remedies after filing suit," }, { "docid": "23613625", "title": "", "text": "insufficient to state a cause of action under § 1983”). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in granting Rutter’s motion for summary judgment. 2. Supplementation of Harbin-Bey’s complaint Nor did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Harbin-Bey’s motion to supplement his complaint as to his retaliation claim. Harbin-Bey sought to add allegations showing that Rutter had retaliated against him for filing the present action. The district court denied his motion because Harbin-Bey failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the prison’s grievance procedures with regard to Rutter’s most recent alleged misconduct. Although Harbin-Bey filed a new administrative grievance against Rutter, he did so only after commencing this lawsuit. This court has held that a prisoner “may not exhaust administrative remedies during the pendency of the federal suit.” Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 645 (6th Cir.1999) (dismissing an Ohio prisoner’s suit because he filed his federal complaint before completing the administrative process). We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Harbin-Bey to supplement his complaint. D. The district court did not err in determining that Harbin-Bey had not exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to Martin and Powell Finally, Harbin-Bey argues that the district court erred in ruling that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to Martin and Powell. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner must exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to bringing a § 1983 action with respect to prison conditions, even if the state administrative process does not allow the specific type of relief sought by the prisoner. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (holding that the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applied to an inmate’s claims that he was beaten by corrections officers without justification). This exhaustion requirement is mandatory and must be enforced by the district court sua sponte. Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.1998) (enforcing the exhaustion requirement sua sponte and dismissing without prejudice a prisoner’s complaint on" }, { "docid": "15603865", "title": "", "text": "amend the complaint and dismiss the claims against Harmon. After receiving Kozohorsky’s motion to amend, a deputy clerk for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas struck through the title of the motion to amend and renamed it “Supplement to the Objections,” and then docketed the motion under this new title. The deputy clerk made the title change to the motion at the request of one of the District Court’s law clerks. On March 5, 2002, without explicitly ruling on Kozohorsky’s motion to amend his complaint, the District Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed Kozohorsky’s complaint without prejudice. This appeal followed. II. Kozohorsky first argues that the District Court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his claims against Harmon. We review the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. See Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam). Under § 1997e(a), a prisoner cannot bring a § 1983 action with respect to prison conditions “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). We have previously held, as is the case here, that “[w]hen multiple prison condition claims have been joined ... the plain language of § 1997e(a) requires that all available prison grievance remedies must be exhausted as to all of the claims.” Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (emphasis added). Because Kozohorsky did not exhaust his administrative remedies on his failure-to-supervise claim against Harmon, he failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies as to all of his claims. See id. at 885-86 (holding dismissal proper where at least some of plaintiffs claims were unexhausted when the district court ruled). Despite this defect in Kozohorsky’s complaint, we believe the District Court abused its discretion by implicitly denying his motion to amend the complaint. See Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir.2002) (noting abuse-of-discretion standard applies to a" }, { "docid": "22413393", "title": "", "text": "events that have not yet occurred. Nor does a grievance exhaust administrative remedies for all future complaints of the same general type. Ross’ December 1 grievance did nothing to alert prison officials to any inadequate treatment that might take place in the future. Consequently, it did not further the purposes of the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement — allowing prisons to address specific complaints internally to obviate the need for litigation, filtering out frivolous claims, and creating a useful administrative record — as to the inadequate medical treatment claims Ross now pursues in federal court. We therefore conclude that the administrative remedies available to Ross for his claims alleging inadequate medical treatment from November 30, 1999, to July 2000 were not exhausted, and that these claims are barred by the PLRA. TV. Total Exhaustion Finally, we turn to whether Ross’ entire action should be dismissed under the PLRA because he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as to his medical treatment claims. The only Court of Appeals to have addressed this “total exhaustion” issue in a published opinion, the Eighth Circuit, has concluded that “[w]hen multiple prison condition claims have been joined ... § 1997e(a) requires that all available prison grievance remedies must be exhausted as to all of the claims.” Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000). We agree that the PLRA contains a total exhaustion requirement, and hold that the presence of unex-hausted claims in Ross’ complaint required the district court to dismiss his action in its entirety without prejudice. In the habeas context, the total exhaustion rule is well-established. In Rose v. Lundy, the Supreme Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 required district courts to “dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus containing any claims that have not been exhausted .... leaving the prisoner with the choice of returning to state court to exhaust his claims or of amending or resubmitting the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims to the district court.” 455 U.S. 509, 510, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 879 (1982). The Court began by observing that the text of 28" }, { "docid": "16272838", "title": "", "text": "for the Western District of Oklahoma. On December 16, 2002, the district court referred this case to a magistrate judge for initial proceedings. On September 2, 2003, Defendants moved to dismiss the suit. On February 2, 2004, the magistrate judge recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. On March 30, 2004, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation over Plaintiffs objections and dismissed the case. On August 9, 2004, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. II. Analysis A. Plaintiffs Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an inmate’s suit for failure to exhaust his or her administrative remedies. Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir.2002). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). As we explained in Jemigan, “[e]ven where the ‘available’ remedies would appear to be futile at providing the kind of remedy sought, the prisoner must exhaust the administrative remedies available.” 304 F.3d at 1032 (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001)). Moreover, we have held that “the PLRA contains a total exhaustion requirement, and ... the presence of unexhausted claims in [prisoner's complaint require[s][a] district court to dismiss his [or her] action in its entirety without prejudice.” Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1189 (10th Cir.2004); see also Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (“When multiple prison condition claims have been joined ... § 1997e(a) requires that all available prison grievance remedies must be exhausted as to all of the claims.”). To exhaust his or her administrative remedies, an inmate in a federal prison must complete a four-step" }, { "docid": "8990416", "title": "", "text": "of Tennessee, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Tennessee state law. All three cases were eventually transferred to the Western District of Tennessee. The parties consented to having the cases heard by a magistrate judge, who subsequently granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all of the claims under review based upon the plaintiffs’ alleged failure to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of review We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Gurry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 503 (6th Cir.2001). The same standard of review applies to the dismissal of a prisoner’s civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997). B. Does the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement apply to prisoners who bring suit against correctional institutions run by private entities? The PLRA states in relevant part: “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In the present case, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for failure to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a). The plaintiffs, however, contend that they were not required to exhaust WCF’s grievance procedure before filing suit because “[a] grievance system entirely under the control of a private[,] for profit corporation engaged in [the] housing of state prisoners with no oversight by any agency of the state or federal government is not an available administrative remedy as that term is used in the PLRA.” This court has no published opinion holding that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to prisoners held in privately operated correctional facilities. In one unpublished opinion, however, this court affirmed the dismissal of a prisoner’s suit against CCA because the prisoner had failed “to set forth" } ]

[ { "docid": "13009001", "title": "", "text": "regardless of the effect or supposed effect of the answer upon the rights of the parties as to recovery. To inform them of the effect of their answer in this respect is to frustrate this purpose.” In Beach v. Gehl, 204 Wis. 367, 235 N.W. 778, 780, the court commented : “ ‘It is reversible error * * * (for the court) to inform the jury expressly or by necessary implication of the effect of an answer * * * • to a question * * * of the special verdict upon the ultimate right of either party litigant to recover or upon- the ultimate liability of either party litigant.’ ” We agree with the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit and with that of the Wisconsin courts to the effect that it was not within the province of the jury to consider or determine the legal result of their special findings of fact. That was a question solely for the court. In trials in federal court the procedure upon special verdicts is governed by the Federal Rules of Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and not by a state- statute. Cohen v. Travelers Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 134 F.2d 378, at page 384; Tillman v. Great American Indemnity Co. of New York, 7 Cir., 207 F.2d 588, at page 593; Gulf Refining Co. v. Fetschan, 6 Cir., 130 F.2d 129, at page 134. Under Rule 49(a), governing procedure involving special interrogatories or special verdicts, the trial judge has the responsibility of applying appropriate legal principles to the facts found by the jury; it is for the court to decide upon the jury’s answers, the jury’s special verdicts, what the resulting legal obligation is. In such a situation the jury is not entitled to information concerning the legal principles which the judge will apply to their findings. Cate v. Good Brothers, 3 Cir., 181 F.2d 146, at page 149. Such interrogatories must put to the jury only questions 'of fact from which a legal proposition may be deduced by the court. Carpenter v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 6 Cir., 109 F.2d 375. Long" } ]

[ { "docid": "6816899", "title": "", "text": "legal principles” [181 F.Supp. 232] and they “gave the jury an unnecessary legal workout which was far beyond their comprehension.” We agree with this, although we are frank to say that the legal principles involved could have been more clearly stated. Judge Foley also held that, the facts having been determined by the answers to questions 3, 4, 5 and 6, the erroneous legal conclusion stated in the answer to question 7 could be disregarded “as surplusage.” We also agree with this ruling, which we think especially admissible in a case where a special verdict is taken under Rule 49(a). In such a case the trial judge reserves a large measure of control over the judgment to be entered, in the interest of substantial justice between the parties. Cf. Momand v. Universal Film Exchange, Inc., D.C.D.Mass.1947, 72 F.Supp. 469, 485; Halprin v. Mora, 3 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 197. Thus we conclude that the judgment dismissing the railroad’s first cross-claim against Interstate was proper and that it should be affirmed. The Remaining Cross-Claims When Interstate bought the property on which the canopy was later constructed, it assumed the obligations of its assignor pursuant to the terms of the sidetrack agreement of March 8, 1937 with Troy Union. The agreement made no reference whatever to New York Central or to its employees. Indeed, we are told Interstate knew of no relationship between Troy Union and New York Central nor of such arrangements as existed between the various railroads and Troy Union concerning the use of the Troy Union yard and tracks. The indemnity clause relied upon by New York Central, while in broad terms, runs in favor of Troy Union only. The basis of the second cross-claim by New York Central is that, as Troy Union owned no engines or rolling stock of any kind, employed no conductors, engineers, foremen or brakemen, and had an arrangement with the New York Central, the Delaware & Hudson and the Boston & Maine, described as operating companies, pursuant to which they pay nothing for the privilege of operating on the Troy Union tracks but" }, { "docid": "11410666", "title": "", "text": "“4. If so, what amount, if any, should the Defendant pay as punitive damages: “(b) To the Plaintiff Crist “ANSWER: $3,750.00” Appellant Stahl now assigns error to the resubmission of the questions to the jury, contending that since its first response was altogether dispositive of Crist’s claim, the second answers were meaningless. The remaining questions did not go to the determinant issue — liability. They were surplus-age, to be disregarded as no longer having place in the litigation. When the jury found no unlawfulness the case was over; final judgment should then have gone for the defendant. Of course, the taking of a special verdict was appropriate, F.R.Civ.P. 49, but the resubmission was procedurally impermissible. At the time of the recommitment there was before the court a decisive verdict, an unequivocal finding of no wrongful conduct by Stahl. Moreover, this is confirmed by the answer to the immediately following question, 2(b), refusing Crist compensatory damages. These excusáis of Stahl were not oversights or misunderstandings. The jury was not unfamiliar with the procedure — not to answer in damages if liability was not found — for it had exhibited this knowledge in McCollum’s case. The inescapable implication of the remand by the trial court was that nothing was amiss in the computation of damages, but that the award demanded justification. Thus the remand of the questions to the jury was tantamount, in its effect, to a direction to the jury to find liability in order to warrant the award of damages. Finally, as a matter of law the return of the Crist questions was not allowable. The initial submission was under F.R.Civ.P. 49(a). It does not provide for a resubmission as does Rule 49(b). The point is emphasized in Griffin v. Matherne, 471 F.2d 911, 917 fn. 6 (5 Cir. 1973) with the notation: “6. Rule 49(a) unlike 49(b) does not provide for resubmission. Under Rule 49(b) the jury returns answers to special interrogatories and a general verdict. To enable it to perform this dual function, the former primarily a factual undertaking and the latter an application of the law to" }, { "docid": "22308717", "title": "", "text": "on the verdict form”) (emphasis in original); James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 49.02[2][b] (3d ed. 1998) (“Pursuant to Rule 49(a), the jury returns its special verdict in the form of written answers to separate questions concerning specific factual issues. The trial court then applies the law to those answers and enters judgment accordingly.”). The dissent maintains that the verdict form may be seen as soliciting special verdicts under Rule 49(a), noting that the form was actually labeled “special verdict.” Post, at 67. We have held, however, that where a jury is instructed to apply legal principles and assign liability, “the answers to the questions submitted to the jury are not special verdicts, despite the use of those words in the title appended to the form, and Rule 49(a) therefore does not apply.” Lavoie v. Pac. Press & Shear Co., 975 F.2d 48, 54 (2d Cir.1992). Neither is Ford’s objection proper pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(b). Under Rule 49(b), a “court may submit to the jury, together with appropriate forms for a general verdict, written interrogatories upon one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(b). If the answers to the interrogatories are “inconsistent with each other and one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict,” the court may return the verdict to the jury or order a new trial. Id. Although an objection under Rule 49(b) to answers to the interrogatories may be timely if made before the jury is dismissed, Rule 49(b) is inapplicable here because the alleged inconsistency was not among responses to interrogatories regarding “issues of fact,” but between two general verdicts based on different legal theories. The dissent contends that these cannot be general verdicts, because a general verdict asks only the question of ultimate liability, and there cannot be more than one question of ultimate liability in a single cause of action. Post, at 66. However, as the dissent appears to concede, id. at 66 n. 1, and as Ford seems to concede by not invoking Rule 49, our precedent clearly holds" }, { "docid": "8561781", "title": "", "text": "Quaker City subsequently filed a motion asking that the judgment be vacated, which was denied by Judge Green on the basis that the motion raised no issues that had not previously been considered. With respect to Skil’s request for attorney fees, which it made in its pleadings and its post-trial proposed conclusions of law, no specific ruling was made on the matter. The judgment simply contains no award. OPINION I. When a special verdict is sought from a jury, the appropriate procedure is for the court to accept the findings of fact explicitly made or implicit in the jury’s answers and, based thereon and on such additional findings as the court may find necessary to make (Rule 49(a)), direct entry of judgment under Rule 58, Fed.R.Civ.P. In this case, there was some uncertainty concerning how to deal with the jury’s special verdict even though it was largely in Quaker City’s favor, because all of the questions were not answered and because some of the answers, particularly the answer to Interrogatory 1 rejecting all proffered references from consideration as prior art, indicated a lack of comprehension of the issues. Because of its uncertain status as a “verdict”, Skil filed a motion for judgment under Rule 50(b) purportedly on the theory that “no verdict was returned.” See Rule 50(b), supra note 3, last sentence. The court, however, termed and treated this motion as a 50(b) motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. As an initial matter, with respect to terminology, Rule 49(a) speaks of “a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact.” Thus, the compilation of findings is “a special verdict.” The rule contemplates that only factual questions will be submitted to the jury to which the judge will then apply the law, supplementing, if necessary, any factual determinations not submitted to the jury. 5A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 49.-02, at 49-8 (2d ed. 1984). Where a special verdict does not contain one or more answers requested, it may, unless wholly defective, be accepted for those issues that are resolved. It is “a special verdict”" }, { "docid": "6816906", "title": "", "text": "to say the least, is ambiguous, entering a judgment on the cross-claim quite evidently opposed to the result the jury intended and could permissibly have reached on the evidence. F.R.Civ.Proc. 49(a), which is here applicable, contains no provision for the court’s disregarding an answer, in the way that the penultimate sentence of 49(b) permits the court to disregard a general verdict “When the answers [to special interrogatories] are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict.” The problem under 49(a) is more like that dealt with in the last sentence of 49(b) ■“When the answers are inconsistent with each other * * * ”; there the Rule provides that “the court shall not direct the entry of judgment but may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial.” The evident sense of this is that when the answers are all consistent, a contrary general verdict may be disregarded as an aberration; but when the answers are inconsistent, disregard of any would be a denial of jury trial. Despite this, my brothers say the answers to questions 7 and 8 may be disregarded because these ought not have been asked in the first place, since, in their view, the two latter questions do not relate to an “issue of fact.” Whether Rule 49 uses “fact” in the limited} sense which we have held with respect to “findings of fact” in Rule 52(a), see E. F. Drew & Co. v. Reinhard, 2 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 679, 683-684 and the cases as to negligence cited in Romero v. Garcia & Diaz, Inc., 2 Cir., 1961, 286 F.2d 347, 355, certiorari denied 1961, 365 U.S. 869, 81 S.Ct. 905, 5 L.Ed.2d 860, or in the broader sense of including mixed questions of law and fact, seems not to have been clearly decided — certainly the district courts in this circuit have not regarded themselves as confined to the former. Although statements in Cate v. Good Bros., Inc., 3 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 146, 149, certiorari denied 1950, 340" }, { "docid": "2079397", "title": "", "text": "the jury to apply the law to facts, and therefore require legal in struction, whereas special verdicts compel the jury to focus exclusively on its fact finding role.” Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 9B Federal Practice and Procedure § 2503 n. 1 (3d ed.2008). Under the special verdict, the jury finds the facts while the court applies the law, and it is typically unnecessary to even instruct the jury on the law. Id. § 2503. “The special verdict is thought to bring the jury determination into the open, so that all can see what has been done.” Id. In contrast, “[i]n a general verdict, the jury announces only the prevailing party on a particular claim, and may announce damages.” Id. § 2503 n. 1. “[T]he general verdict accompanied by special interrogatories gives the jury an opportunity to express itself broadly through the general verdict — the historic medium — while at the same time turning the jury’s attention to important issues that should be resolved by responding to particular questions before a general verdict is reached.” Id. § 2503; see Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(b). In this case, the portion of the verdict in which the jury applied facts to law on the question of obviousness was clearly a general verdict because it is a legal question resting on underlying factual questions. See Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 720 (Fed.Cir.1984) (explaining that “a trial court may, with proper instructions, ... ask for a general answer on one or more specific legal issues, such as obviousness, a practice not specifically provided for in the Federal Rules”); Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1359 (Fed.Cir.2012) (“Because the ultimate conclusion of obviousness is a legal question, there is strength to the argument that by including that question on its verdict form the court chose to employ a general verdict with answers to written questions governed by Rule 49(b).”). The closer question is on the verdicts regarding anticipation and invalidity, in which the jury answered yes or no questions on each asserted claim. For" }, { "docid": "6816895", "title": "", "text": "this dangerous obstruction to be active negligence. See Putvin v. Buffalo Elec. Co., supra. Also, according to New York law, there could be no recovery by way of indemnity by the railroad against Interstate if one of the proximate causes of the accident was the active negligence of the railroad. Tipaldi v. Riverside Memorial Chapel, 1st Dep’t, 1948, 273 App.Div. 414, 418, 78 N.Y.S.2d 12, affirmed 298 N.Y. 686, 82 N.E.2d 585; see Putvin v. Buffalo Elec. Co., supra, 5 N.Y.2d at page 455, 186 N.Y.S.2d at page 21, 158 N.E.2d at page 695; Messaro v. Long Island R. R., 2d Dep’t, 1948, 274 App.Div. 939, 83 N.Y.S.2d 527. Despite the New York ruling that what is active and what is passive negligence is, “generally speaking, a question of fact for the jury,” McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Belge, supra, 304 N.Y. at page 328, 107 N.E.2d at page 471, it would have been entirely proper for the trial judge to formulate questions of fact, as he did in this case, leaving it to himself to draw the legal inferences of active and passive negligence. As a matter of federal procedure it was unnecessary and improper also to submit questions con- ' taining the conclusions of law to be drawn from the findings of fact. Cf. Thedorf v. Lipsey, 7 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 190, 193; Cate v. Good Bros., Inc., 3 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 146, 149; 5 Moore, Federal Practice, p. 2204. On the other hand, it would have been proper to submit the case to the jury for a general verdict as was apparently done by the trial court in Banks v. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 2 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 631. If this course had been pursued, it would have been necessary to explain as succinctly as possible, and with reference to the claims actually made by the parties, the difference between active and passive negligence. What the trial judge did was to pursue a middle course. The questions formulated, to which no objection was voiced by any of the parties, and the answers given" }, { "docid": "6816897", "title": "", "text": "by the jury are as follows: “ ‘1. Did the erection of the canopy adjacent to door 3 by Interstate constitute negligence? Answer: Yes. “ ‘2. Was the erection of the canopy one of the causes of the accident? Answer: Yes. “ ‘3. Did the New York Central Railroad Company know or should it have known of the existence and position of the canopy and its extension over a railroad car previous to October 23, 1957 ? Answer: Yes. “ ‘4. If your answer to question “3” is “yes,” then was the New York Central Railroad Company negligent in failing to take any steps to bring about removal of the canopy or notify its employees of its existence? Answer: Yes. “ ‘5. Did the method of operation by which the New York Central Railroad Company moved the car to its destination on the siding constitute negligence? Answer: Yes. '“‘6. Was the method of operation by which the New York Central Railroad Company moved the car to its destination on the siding one of the causes of the accident? Answer: Yes. “ ‘7. Was the New York Central Railroad Company guilty of active or passive negligence, or both? Answer : Passive. “ ‘8. Was Interstate Commodities, Inc., guilty of active or passive negligence or both ? Both.’ ” Answer: We think questions 7 and 8 were unnecessary and improper. Having already made the findings of fact in its answers to questions 5 and 6, to the effect that the negligence of the railroad in the method of operation of moving the freight car was “one of the causes of the accident,” the jury should have concluded that the railroad was guilty of active negligence. There is a manifest inconsistency between the answers to questions 5 and 6, on the one hand, and the answer to question 7 on the other. On the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial Judge Foley in effect held that it was a mistake to submit the legal questions pertaining to active and passive negligence to the jury because these were “difficult" }, { "docid": "2197590", "title": "", "text": "It is this very separation which has inspired writers to comment so favorably upon its use. 3 In the case at bar the questions propounded to the jury were not limited to fact, but required an application of legal principles. The jury was asked to determine whether either defendant was negligent and such negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury. It is well established “ * * * that whether or not one has been negligent is a ‘question of law,’ i. e., a question whether he has measured up to a legal standard.” Kreste v. United States, 2 Cir., 1946, 158 F.2d 575, 577; cf. Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 2 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 54. The questions submitted to the jury amount to no more than a breakdown of a general verdict, and the answers are obviously in conflict. Perhaps the jury would have understood this simple situation much better if questions three and four (relating to awarding of damages) were conditioned upon the affirmative answer to the first two (relating to negligence). Undeniably, where a general verdict is sought, the jury must be charged as to all of the law. Rule 49(b) so provides. Cf. Jackson v. King, 5 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 714, 718. Here the trial court omitted to instruct the jury that the plaintiff’s right of recovery of damages existed only if the jury found the defendant Mora guilty of negligence which contributed to the accident. I cannot subscribe to the function performed by the majority and by the trial court in selecting which of two conflicting verdicts should prevail. There was patent confusion in the minds of the jurors, upon which they sought, but did not receive, clarification. Moreover, the determination of an award of damages seems to me to be closer, first, to the real intent of the jury as to its verdict, and second, to the special finding of fact intended to be controlling in Rule 49(b). The verdict of the jury, being inconsistent, could only be cured by instructing the jurors to reconsider, or by the" }, { "docid": "14437875", "title": "", "text": "I am more content to accept the answers of the jury to Questions “3”, “4”, “5” and “6”, and direct entry of judgment upon the special verdict in favor of the third-party defendant, Interstate Commodities, Inc. The answer to Question “7” is merely treated as surplusage and unnecessary to the determination of the important issues of fact required by Rule 49(a) to be found by the jury. The Judge has the responsibility to apply appropriate legal principles to facts found by the jury. It is settled that only questions of fact are to be put to the jury by the interrogatories, and the legal proposition is to be deduced from the answers by the Court. Cate v. Good Bros., Inc., 3 Cir., 181 F.2d 146, 149; Thedorf v. Lipsey, 7 Cir., 237 F.2d 190, 193; 5 Moore’s Federal Prac., 2d Ed. pg. 2204. If I were to accept the answer to Question “7” as the Railroad contends I should, it would be in the manner of taking a general verdict or one under Rule 49(b) which I did not intend to take, and then the definite and important answers to factual Questions “3”, “4”, “5” and “6” would have to be totally disregarded. I think that the submission of Questions “7” and “8”, and my instructions on difficult legal principles, gave the jury an unnecessary legal workout which was far beyond their comprehension, and outside their sole function to decide issues of fact. The principles involved would have been difficult for a jury of law professors unfamiliar with the subject to absorb on such short notice. I think the relevant answers made indicate consistent findings by the jury on the important issues of fact, and intelligent and conscientious decision on their part should not be aborted by one answer to a difficult, legal and unnecessary question absolutely contrary to the sense and purpose of Rule 49(a). Morris v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 837, 840; Lyons v. United Fruit Co., D.C., 170 F. Supp. 261, affirmed Lyons v. Empressa Hondurena De Vapores, S. A., 2 Cir., 273 F.2d" }, { "docid": "6816896", "title": "", "text": "draw the legal inferences of active and passive negligence. As a matter of federal procedure it was unnecessary and improper also to submit questions con- ' taining the conclusions of law to be drawn from the findings of fact. Cf. Thedorf v. Lipsey, 7 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 190, 193; Cate v. Good Bros., Inc., 3 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 146, 149; 5 Moore, Federal Practice, p. 2204. On the other hand, it would have been proper to submit the case to the jury for a general verdict as was apparently done by the trial court in Banks v. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 2 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 631. If this course had been pursued, it would have been necessary to explain as succinctly as possible, and with reference to the claims actually made by the parties, the difference between active and passive negligence. What the trial judge did was to pursue a middle course. The questions formulated, to which no objection was voiced by any of the parties, and the answers given by the jury are as follows: “ ‘1. Did the erection of the canopy adjacent to door 3 by Interstate constitute negligence? Answer: Yes. “ ‘2. Was the erection of the canopy one of the causes of the accident? Answer: Yes. “ ‘3. Did the New York Central Railroad Company know or should it have known of the existence and position of the canopy and its extension over a railroad car previous to October 23, 1957 ? Answer: Yes. “ ‘4. If your answer to question “3” is “yes,” then was the New York Central Railroad Company negligent in failing to take any steps to bring about removal of the canopy or notify its employees of its existence? Answer: Yes. “ ‘5. Did the method of operation by which the New York Central Railroad Company moved the car to its destination on the siding constitute negligence? Answer: Yes. '“‘6. Was the method of operation by which the New York Central Railroad Company moved the car to its destination on the siding one of the causes" }, { "docid": "3459059", "title": "", "text": "your discussions to the evidence admitted before you under the rulings of the court, and will not mention or discuss any personal experi-. ence that any one of you may have had elsewhere.” This charge ' was clearly inadequate. Rule 49(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permits submission of special interrogatories to juries only of issues of fact. If the question is a mixed question of fact and law, it may be submitted only if the jury is instructed as to the legal standards which they are to apply. Feldmann v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 142 F.2d 628, 634. Certainly, the issues submitted here were mixed questions of law and fact. We have many times declared that there are legal principles involved in these issues, to which the findings of the trier of fact must conform. See our most recent discussion of these legal aspects in Goldberg v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 223 F.2d 709. It is unnecessary to decide which, if any, of the Collectors’ requested instructions exactly stated the applicable principles; for in any case it was error to refuse these instructions without explaining to the jury the factors which they were to consider in arriving at the ultimate conclusion. Furthermore, we agree with the Collectors that the form of the special issues submitted to the jury was misleading. See Scarborough v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 935, 938. In importing that the jury should find that the property was held for rental purposes or, in the alternative, that it was held for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, the instructions did not make it clear that the jury could choose to make neither finding, and that the defendants should prevail if the evidence was so much -in equipoise that the jury was left in doubt. The special verdict form requested by the Collectors was similar to that actually submitted, except that the jury was told to answer yes or no. If one compares the choice of a yes or no answer to the question propounded, with the choice" }, { "docid": "11410667", "title": "", "text": "answer in damages if liability was not found — for it had exhibited this knowledge in McCollum’s case. The inescapable implication of the remand by the trial court was that nothing was amiss in the computation of damages, but that the award demanded justification. Thus the remand of the questions to the jury was tantamount, in its effect, to a direction to the jury to find liability in order to warrant the award of damages. Finally, as a matter of law the return of the Crist questions was not allowable. The initial submission was under F.R.Civ.P. 49(a). It does not provide for a resubmission as does Rule 49(b). The point is emphasized in Griffin v. Matherne, 471 F.2d 911, 917 fn. 6 (5 Cir. 1973) with the notation: “6. Rule 49(a) unlike 49(b) does not provide for resubmission. Under Rule 49(b) the jury returns answers to special interrogatories and a general verdict. To enable it to perform this dual function, the former primarily a factual undertaking and the latter an application of the law to the facts, the jury must be fully charged, and the rule itself provides for reconsideration by the jury or for new trial if there is inconsistency between one or more special answers and the general verdict. Rule 49(a), under which the jury’s function is solely fact-finding with only such instruction as necessary for it to discharge that function, does not provide for jury reconsideration of inconsistent answers.” Again, in Halprin v. Mora, 231 F.2d 197, 200 (3 Cir. 1956), a parallel to the Crist case, the Court gave judgment for defendants upon the jury’s ascertainment in a special verdict of no negligence on the part of either of the two defendants but at the same time including answers fixing damages for the plaintiff. Even under Rule 49(b) — in which interrogatories as well as a general verdict are simultaneously laid before the jury — the proper disposition is a judgment for the defendant. This was explained in Ninnicht v. Evans, Inc., 477 F.2d 133, 135 (5 Cir. 1973), with the posture of the proceedings akin" }, { "docid": "13538390", "title": "", "text": "jury did answer these interrogatories and indicated that neither of the patents had been infringed. It is clear that interrogatories 1 through 18 required the jury to make only factual determinations. The two un-numbered interrogatories between numbers 18 and 19 required the jury to answer the ultimate question of validity of each of the patents, but the jury was not permitted to reach this answer independently of its findings. These questions merely required the jury to canvass its previous answers and to make the ultimate finding which the law requires on the basis of these factual findings. The answers to these interrogatories were actually surplusage. The general verdict of the jury in favor of Goodyear was consistent with the answers to the factual questions contained in interrogatories 1 through 18 and the court would have been required to enter judgment for the defendant thereon. Rule 49(b) Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff insists that it was reversible error to submit the interrogatories in this case because they contained mixed questions of law and fact. In Carpenter v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 109 F.2d 375 (6th Cir. 1940), we held that interrogatories must submit to the jury only factual questions from which legal propositions may be deduced and that it is improper to pose questions of law or mixed questions of fact and law in interrogatories. We do not believe that the Carpenter decision means that it is improper under all circumstances to submit mixed questions of law and fact to a jury. Rule 49(b) provides that when a jury is required to render a general verdict accompanied by answers to interrogatories “[t]he court shall give such explanation or instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury both to make answers to the interrogatories and to render a general verdict . .” In Kissell v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 367 F.2d 375, 376 (1st Cir. 1966), the court, in discussing Carpenter v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, supra, said, “It would be a purposeless restriction to say that special interrogatories cannot be mixed questions of law and fact, provided that the jury is properly" }, { "docid": "6816908", "title": "", "text": "U.S. 826, 71 S.Ct. 62, 95 L.Ed. 607, and in Thedorf v. Lipsey, 7 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 190, 193, cited by Judge Foley and by my brother MEDINA, give some support to the former view, others say that a mixed question of law and fact may be put if the jury is properly instructed on the applicable legal standards, Jackson v. King, 5 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 714, 718; McDonnell v. Timmerman, 8 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 54, 58; A. M. Webb & Co. v. Robert P. Miller Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1948, 78 F.Supp. 24, 27, reversed on other grounds, 3 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 678; McCandless v. L. G. De Felice & Son, Inc., D.C.W.D.Pa.1956, 144 F.Supp. 462, 464. If it were necessary here to resolve the issue, I doubt that trial courts should be so hamstrung ; to such extent as the device provided in Rule 49 has utility, and cases like this indicate the difficulties its use may create, the court should be able, in a complicated trial, to elicit the jury’s view on “ultimate” issues and not merely on evidentiary ones. “The number and form of issues, if they present the case fairly, is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Davis Frozen Foods, Inc., 4 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 662, 666, second appeal 4 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 839, certiorari denied, 1953, 346 U.S. 824, 74 S.Ct. 41, 98 L.Ed. 349. For that matter, if the rule be as narrow as my brothers think, question 5 also is not immune from criticism. However, we are not required to decide that issue here. The Cate and Thedorf cases held merely that it was not error to submit only issues of fact without instructions as to their legal consequences, — not that a party who has not objected to the submission of a mixed question of fact and law may have a disappointing answer disregarded and judgment entered in his favor as if the question had not been put. Here the jury gave its considered verdict that the Central" }, { "docid": "6816907", "title": "", "text": "would be a denial of jury trial. Despite this, my brothers say the answers to questions 7 and 8 may be disregarded because these ought not have been asked in the first place, since, in their view, the two latter questions do not relate to an “issue of fact.” Whether Rule 49 uses “fact” in the limited} sense which we have held with respect to “findings of fact” in Rule 52(a), see E. F. Drew & Co. v. Reinhard, 2 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 679, 683-684 and the cases as to negligence cited in Romero v. Garcia & Diaz, Inc., 2 Cir., 1961, 286 F.2d 347, 355, certiorari denied 1961, 365 U.S. 869, 81 S.Ct. 905, 5 L.Ed.2d 860, or in the broader sense of including mixed questions of law and fact, seems not to have been clearly decided — certainly the district courts in this circuit have not regarded themselves as confined to the former. Although statements in Cate v. Good Bros., Inc., 3 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 146, 149, certiorari denied 1950, 340 U.S. 826, 71 S.Ct. 62, 95 L.Ed. 607, and in Thedorf v. Lipsey, 7 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 190, 193, cited by Judge Foley and by my brother MEDINA, give some support to the former view, others say that a mixed question of law and fact may be put if the jury is properly instructed on the applicable legal standards, Jackson v. King, 5 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 714, 718; McDonnell v. Timmerman, 8 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 54, 58; A. M. Webb & Co. v. Robert P. Miller Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1948, 78 F.Supp. 24, 27, reversed on other grounds, 3 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 678; McCandless v. L. G. De Felice & Son, Inc., D.C.W.D.Pa.1956, 144 F.Supp. 462, 464. If it were necessary here to resolve the issue, I doubt that trial courts should be so hamstrung ; to such extent as the device provided in Rule 49 has utility, and cases like this indicate the difficulties its use may create, the court should be able, in a complicated trial, to elicit the jury’s view" }, { "docid": "6816898", "title": "", "text": "of the accident? Answer: Yes. “ ‘7. Was the New York Central Railroad Company guilty of active or passive negligence, or both? Answer : Passive. “ ‘8. Was Interstate Commodities, Inc., guilty of active or passive negligence or both ? Both.’ ” Answer: We think questions 7 and 8 were unnecessary and improper. Having already made the findings of fact in its answers to questions 5 and 6, to the effect that the negligence of the railroad in the method of operation of moving the freight car was “one of the causes of the accident,” the jury should have concluded that the railroad was guilty of active negligence. There is a manifest inconsistency between the answers to questions 5 and 6, on the one hand, and the answer to question 7 on the other. On the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial Judge Foley in effect held that it was a mistake to submit the legal questions pertaining to active and passive negligence to the jury because these were “difficult legal principles” [181 F.Supp. 232] and they “gave the jury an unnecessary legal workout which was far beyond their comprehension.” We agree with this, although we are frank to say that the legal principles involved could have been more clearly stated. Judge Foley also held that, the facts having been determined by the answers to questions 3, 4, 5 and 6, the erroneous legal conclusion stated in the answer to question 7 could be disregarded “as surplusage.” We also agree with this ruling, which we think especially admissible in a case where a special verdict is taken under Rule 49(a). In such a case the trial judge reserves a large measure of control over the judgment to be entered, in the interest of substantial justice between the parties. Cf. Momand v. Universal Film Exchange, Inc., D.C.D.Mass.1947, 72 F.Supp. 469, 485; Halprin v. Mora, 3 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 197. Thus we conclude that the judgment dismissing the railroad’s first cross-claim against Interstate was proper and that it should be affirmed. The Remaining Cross-Claims When Interstate" }, { "docid": "14437874", "title": "", "text": "them intelligently, in accord with the evidence, and I think such answers can only lead to the conclusion that the Railroad and Interstate were guilty of active negligence, and hence the Railroad cannot recover the amount of the verdict from Interstate on the first cross action. There is much in the evidence as to the delinquency of the Railroad, which alone selected the time and place and was in complete charge and control of the sidetrack movement, to warrant a conclusion of active negligence. The admitted fumbling of instructions and the manner in which the move was made which resulted in two men on the top of a box car where one should have been is sufficient to support the answers to Questions “5” and “6”, that the method of operation was negligent and proximately caused the accident and injury. The factors present in the evidence concerning careless acts of Railroad employees are such that a dismissal of this cross action as a matter of law could without much difficulty be rationalized and made. However, I am more content to accept the answers of the jury to Questions “3”, “4”, “5” and “6”, and direct entry of judgment upon the special verdict in favor of the third-party defendant, Interstate Commodities, Inc. The answer to Question “7” is merely treated as surplusage and unnecessary to the determination of the important issues of fact required by Rule 49(a) to be found by the jury. The Judge has the responsibility to apply appropriate legal principles to facts found by the jury. It is settled that only questions of fact are to be put to the jury by the interrogatories, and the legal proposition is to be deduced from the answers by the Court. Cate v. Good Bros., Inc., 3 Cir., 181 F.2d 146, 149; Thedorf v. Lipsey, 7 Cir., 237 F.2d 190, 193; 5 Moore’s Federal Prac., 2d Ed. pg. 2204. If I were to accept the answer to Question “7” as the Railroad contends I should, it would be in the manner of taking a general verdict or one under Rule 49(b)" }, { "docid": "14437876", "title": "", "text": "which I did not intend to take, and then the definite and important answers to factual Questions “3”, “4”, “5” and “6” would have to be totally disregarded. I think that the submission of Questions “7” and “8”, and my instructions on difficult legal principles, gave the jury an unnecessary legal workout which was far beyond their comprehension, and outside their sole function to decide issues of fact. The principles involved would have been difficult for a jury of law professors unfamiliar with the subject to absorb on such short notice. I think the relevant answers made indicate consistent findings by the jury on the important issues of fact, and intelligent and conscientious decision on their part should not be aborted by one answer to a difficult, legal and unnecessary question absolutely contrary to the sense and purpose of Rule 49(a). Morris v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 837, 840; Lyons v. United Fruit Co., D.C., 170 F. Supp. 261, affirmed Lyons v. Empressa Hondurena De Vapores, S. A., 2 Cir., 273 F.2d 317. The second cross action or claim over by the New York Central Railroad against Interstate is based upon a written sidetrack agreement of indemnity entered into by the predecessor owner of the property on the sidetrack and The Troy Union Railroad Company. The agreement was assigned to Interstate by the previous owner some time after the sale of the property. The extraordinary circumstance we have is that the Troy Union Railroad Company solely and without equivocation is named as the Railroad indemnified throughout the agreement without any reference by name or terminology to the New York Central or other railroads. The construction of indemnification agreements has been the source of much discussion in the Courts and I have had my own contact. Ruddy v. New York Central R. Co., D.C., 124 F. Supp. 470; Id., 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 96; Mos-tyn v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 2 Cir., 160 F.2d 15 (N. Y. cases cited therein); Wanser v. Long Island R. Co., 2 Cir., 238 F.2d 467, supra; Dery v. Wyer, supra." }, { "docid": "6816909", "title": "", "text": "on “ultimate” issues and not merely on evidentiary ones. “The number and form of issues, if they present the case fairly, is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Davis Frozen Foods, Inc., 4 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 662, 666, second appeal 4 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 839, certiorari denied, 1953, 346 U.S. 824, 74 S.Ct. 41, 98 L.Ed. 349. For that matter, if the rule be as narrow as my brothers think, question 5 also is not immune from criticism. However, we are not required to decide that issue here. The Cate and Thedorf cases held merely that it was not error to submit only issues of fact without instructions as to their legal consequences, — not that a party who has not objected to the submission of a mixed question of fact and law may have a disappointing answer disregarded and judgment entered in his favor as if the question had not been put. Here the jury gave its considered verdict that the Central was not guilty of active negligence and that Interstate was, after having been charged in the clearest terms what the consequences would be. Even if that answer was inconsistent with the answer to question 5, which I do not think it necessarily was, the only proper course, once the jury was discharged, was to order a new trial; neither the district court nor we are permitted to guess which of the two answers the jury would have altered if the alleged inconsistency had been promptly explained. The ruling of the district judge, now affirmed by my brothers, seems to me to deprive the Central of its right to a jury trial. See Union Pacific R. Co. v. Bridal Veil Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 825, 831-832, certiorari denied 1956, 350 U.S. 981, 76 S.Ct. 466, 100 L.Ed. 849." } ]

[ { "docid": "11992674", "title": "", "text": "Payment Plan in Chapter 13, 69 Ky.L.J. 327, 352-53 (1981); Note, Abusing Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code: The Problem of Nonrepayment, 55 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 941, 954 (1980). . See Note, Abusing Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code: The Problem of Nonrepayment, 55 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 941, 948-51 (1980) (advantages for debtors proceeding under Chapter 13); Note, Good Faith, Zero Plans, and the Purposes of Bankruptcy Code Chapter 13: A Legislative Solution to the Controversy, 61 B.U. L.Rev. 773, 788-89 (1981) (disadvantages for creditors). . The two courts of appeals that have discussed the meaning of “good faith” in § 1325(a)(3) also adopted somewhat different approaches. The Eighth Circuit held that a plan to pay nothing cannot be proposed in good faith because “it amounts to an abuse of § 1328 (granting a more generous discharge than Chapter 7), and of the spirit of the chapter, that the debtor ‘make payments’ under a plan.” In re Terry, 630 F.2d 634, 635 (8th Cir. 1980). While the court did not explicitly calculate good faith arithmetically, it based its holding solely on the amount to be paid unsecured creditors under the plan. In contrast, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that “the conduct comprehended under the rubric ‘good faith’ will have to be defined on a case-by-case basis as the courts encounter various problems in the administration of Chapter 13’s provisions,” with the substantiality of repayment one of many factors to be considered. In re Rimgale, 669 F.2d 426, 431 & n.14 (7th Cir. 1982). Unlike the plan in In re Terry, which provided for no payment to any creditor, the Goebs’ plan would repay secured and priority creditors in full and unsecured creditors one cent on the dollar. The Goebs’ plan does not encounter the statutory obstacles peculiar to zero-repayment plans (like the “make payments” language in 11 U.S.C. § 101(24)). We therefore reserve judgment on the legality of zero-payment plans under Chapter 13. . It is also interesting that, in its report of the bill, the Committee on the Judiciary observed: “Many courts have construed the good-faith language, section 1325(a)(3), to this end [of" } ]

[ { "docid": "6461306", "title": "", "text": "addressed the issue have found that the filing of a Chapter 13 petition immediately, or relatively soon after the receipt of a discharge in Chapter 7 does not, standing alone, constitute bad faith justifying dismissal of the Chapter 13 petition. See, e.g., In re Metz, 820 F.2d 1495 (9th Cir.1987); In re Baker, 736 F.2d 481 (8th Cir.1984). In Metz, supra (hereafter, “Metz II”), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of its Bankruptcy Appellate Panel on, inter alia, the bad faith issue. See In re Metz, 67 B.R. 462 (9th Cir. BAP 1986) (hereafter, “Metz I”). The decision in Metz I and Metz II on this issue was based in large measure upon the 9th Circuit requirement that the good faith of a Chapter 13 plan proponent must be determined on a case-by-case basis, with the court reviewing the “totality of the circumstances.” Goeb v. Heid (In re Goeb), 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982). It is pointed out that most circuits which have addressed the issue have adopted a flexible test such as that set out in Goeb. In re Hines, 723 F.2d 333 (3rd Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell (In re Deans), 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman (In re Freeman), 712 F.2d 219 (5th Cir. 1983); Ravenot v. Rimgale (In re Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. Estus (In re Estus), 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982); Flygare v. Boulden (In re Flygare), 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); Kitchens v. Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust Co. (In re Kitchens), 702 F,2d 885 (11th Cir.1983); Barnes v. Whelan, 689 F.2d 193 (D.C.Cir.1982). Although the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in Metz I cites Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Whitman (In re Whitman), 692 F.2d 427 (6th Cir.1982), as less than completely supportive of the flexible review test of good faith, this court’s reading of that case is that it is not inconsistent with such a rule. Although the court in Whitman expresses grave concerns with regard to manipulation of the Bankruptcy Code by a dishonest debtor, it nevertheless requires a review of all relevant" }, { "docid": "10222330", "title": "", "text": "re Sadler, 3 B.R. 536 (B.C.E.D.Ark.1980). See discussion in U.S. v. Estus, 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir., 1982). Ultimately a number of circuit courts adopted a middle of the road test for measuring good faith. Estus, supra at 316; In re Rimgale, 669 F.2d 426, 431-32 (7th Cir., 1982); Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344, 1347-48 (10th Cir., 1983); Deans v. O’Donnell, 692 F.2d 968, 971-72 (4th Cir., 1982); Goeb v. Held, 675 F.2d 1386, 1389-90 (9th Cir., 1982). These decisions rejected the “substantial repayment” test and also rejected the “simple arithmetic minimum” of Section 1325(a)(4) and established non-exclusive criteria by which good faith would thereafter be measured on a case-by-case inquiry by the Bankruptcy court. Kitchens v. Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust Co., 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir., 1983). The general rule now established is that “A comprehensive definition of good faith is not practical. Broadly speaking, the basic inquiry should be whether or not under the circumstances of the case there has been an abuse of the provisions, purpose or spirit of [Chapter 13] in the proposal.” Id. at 888. The District Court, in the Kitchens case, reviewed the long history of Chapter 13 and the predecessor “Wage Earner” plans and concluded that the spirit and purpose of Chapter 13 is rehabilitation through repayment of debt. “The use of this ‘good faith’ in the current legislation is too synonymous and too closely related with the historical concepts and prior statutory language to be merely coincidental. It should not be subject to a different interpretation. Accordingly, ‘good faith’ as used in section 1325(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code requires that a debtor be committed to the purpose and spirit of Chapter 13. The purpose and spirit of Chapter 13 is rehabilitation and repayment.” In re Kitchens, 12 B.R. 654 at 658 (D.C.S.D.Ga., 1981). According to Kitchens, factors to be considered on the question of good faith include: “1) the amount of the debtor’s income from all sources; 2) the living expenses of the debtor and his dependents; 3) the amount of attorney’s fees; 4) the probable or expected duration of" }, { "docid": "20916669", "title": "", "text": "of the plan. Again, no provision was made for the unsecured debts discharged by the chapter 7 proceeding. Downey objected to Metz’s second chapter 13 plan on the ground that it was not proposed in good faith as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) (1982). Downey contended, inter alia, that (1) a “zero percent” repayment plan to unsecured creditors is unlawful; (2) consecutive chapter 7 and chapter 13 filings constitute bad faith per se; and (3) the prior discharge of Metz’s debt left Downey with a vested property right under state law that entitles Downey to the “indubitable equivalent” of the right taken by de-acceleration of the mortgage. Over those objections, the bankruptcy judge approved Metz’s chapter 13 plan. A divided Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (BAP) affirmed. In re Metz, 67 B.R. 462 (9th Cir. BAP 1986). DISCUSSION Our review of the bankruptcy judge’s confirmation of Metz’s chapter 13 plan is the same as the review by the BAP. See In re Mellor, 734 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir.1984). A bankruptcy judge’s finding that a debtor’s plan is proposed in good faith is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See In re Baker, 736 F.2d 481, 482 (8th Cir.1984) (debtor’s intentions in filing chapter 13 plan is a question of fact for the bankruptcy court); Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman, 712 F.2d 219, 221 (5th Cir.1983) (reasonableness of plan is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard); In re Slade, 15 B.R. 910, 911 (9th Cir. BAP 1981) (whether debtor’s chapter 13 plan is proposed in good faith is a question of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard). A. Good Faith Filings Metz’s successive filing of bankruptcy petitions does not constitute bad faith per se. See, e.g., Baker, 736 F.2d at 482 (prior chapter 7 filing is not an automatic bar to a chapter 13 filing); In re Gayton,, 61 B.R. 612, 614 (9th Cir. BAP 1986) (chapter 7 discharge followed by chapter 13 plan does not constitute bad faith per se); In re Beauty, 42 B.R. 655, 657 (E.D.La.1984) (successive filings alone" }, { "docid": "11658495", "title": "", "text": "Public Fin. Cory. v. Freeman (In re Freeman), 712 F.2d 219, 221 (5th Cir.1983); Kitchens v. Georgia R.R. Bank and Trust Co. (In re Kitchens), 702 F.2d 885, 888-89 (11th Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell (In re Deans), 692 F.2d 968, 970-72 (4th Cir.1982); Ravenot v. Rimgale (In re Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426, 432-33 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. Estus (In re Estus), 695 F.2d 311, 316-17 (8th Cir.1982) ; Goeb v. Heid (In re Goeb), 675 F.2d 1386, 1389-90 (9th Cir.1982); Barnes v. Whelan (In re Barnes), 689 F.2d 193, 198 (D.C.Cir.1982). “[Bjoth pre-petition conduct and prior bankruptcy filings by the debtor may be relevant to the good faith inquiry under § 1325(a)(3).” Neufeld v. Freeman, 794 F.2d 149, 150 (4th Cir.1986). Reviewing the totality of circumstances, we undertake de novo review of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Rasmussen’s Chapter 13 filing. The bankruptcy court noted in its thoughtful recitation of the factors involved that the debtor’s budget was “tight” and that he did not have more than $50 per month for debt repayment under the plan. R.V. IV, tr. at 20. Mr. Rasmussen’s attorney pointed out that Mr. Rasmussen was in the business of buying and selling sheep and lambs, a business which made necessary the use of a bank account for deposits and payments. He pointed out that Mr. Rasmussen would not be able to get the fresh start envisioned by the bankruptcy code if Pioneer’s debt were not discharged and Mr. Rasmussen’s banking accounts were garnished repeatedly by Pioneer. Id. at 5, 13. In addition, the bankruptcy court noted that the stated legislative purpose of Chapter 13 was to achieve broad, extensive, and unqualified discharge of debts for a working debtor. Id. at 17. The bankruptcy court noted that there is no bar to successive filings under Chapter 13, and the very fact that the exceptions to Chapter 13 discharge are so limited is an indication of legislative intent that objections to discharge be scrutinized closely. Id. The bankruptcy court noted the distinction between “deviousness” and “clever lawyer-ing,” drawing strength for confirmation of Mr. Rasmussen’s plan from the" }, { "docid": "18740807", "title": "", "text": "“Good faith” was employed in § 366(4) of the former Bankruptcy Act. Consequently the courts, in defining that concept under the Code, have borrowed from prior cases construing the term in that context to mean, “whether or not under the circumstances of the case there has been an abuse of provisions, purpose, or spirit of [the chapter] in the proposal.” In re Terry, 630 F.2d 634, 635 (8th Cir.1980) (quoting 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 9.20 at 319 (14th ed. 1978). Accord Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344, 8 C.B.C.2d 1027, 10 B.C.D. 1044 (10th Cir.1983); In re Kitchens, 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir.1983); In re Rimgale, 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982); In re Goeb, 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982); Barnes v. Whelan, 689 F.2d 193 (D.C.Cir.1982); Deans v. O’Donnell, 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982). In applying this standard, it is self-evident from the statute that the purpose of Chapter 13 is to afford individuals having a regular income and owing less than $100,-000 to unsecured creditors, and less than $350,000 to secured creditors (§ 109(e)), with the opportunity to restructure those debts and thereby continue as productive members of society while retaining, if possible, the family home. Cf. § 1325(a)(5). This purpose is achieved through affording a discharge broader than that available under Chapter 7. The creditors are protected by application of the tests contained in § 1325(a). From considerations akin to these, and after this Court’s decision in In re Scher, 12 B.R. 258, 4 C.B.C.2d 784 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1981) upholding the validity of a zero payment plan, an eleven point non-exclusive list of relevant factors was formulated by the Eighth Circuit in In re Estus, 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982) and subsequently adopted by the Tenth Circuit in Flygare v. Boulden, supra, and the Eleventh Circuit in In re Kitchens, supra. In addition to the percentage of unsecured debts to be paid under the plan, those factors are: (1) the amount of the proposed payments and the amount of the debtor’s surplus; (2) the debtor’s employment history, ability to earn and likelihood of future increases in income; (3) the" }, { "docid": "13954647", "title": "", "text": "to pay unsecured creditors not less than they would receive in a chapter 7 liquidation and not more than the debtor is able to pay. Prior to the 1984 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, § 1325(a)(4) and § 1325(a)(6) represented the only statutory guidelines expressly addressing the amount of payments as a factor in determining the confirmability of a chapter 13 plan. The provisions of chapter 13 were criticized for failing to explicitly require an inquiry into whether the debtor proposed to repay unsecured debt under the plan to the full extent of his or her ability. See Cyr, “The Chapter 13 ‘Good Faith’ Tempest: An Analysis and Proposal For Change,” 55 Am.Bankr.L.J. 271 (1981). Before the 1984 amendments a number of appellate courts addressed the issue of whether the requirement of “good faith” under § 1325(a)(3) required a substantial or meaningful repayment of unsecured debt under the plan. In general, the courts of appeal rejected the notion that § 1325(a)(3) “good faith” envisioned a per se rule of substantial repayment in every case, but the courts nonetheless generally concluded that the amount of payments to unsecured creditors could be considered as one among a number of factors to be considered in assessing the good faith of the chapter 13 plan. See Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); In re Hines, 723 F.2d 333 (3rd Cir.1983); Kitchens v. Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust Co. (In re Kitchens), 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell (In re Deans), 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Estus (In re Estus), 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982); Goeb v. Heid (In re Goeb), 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982); Ravenot v. Rimgale (In re Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982). Cf. Barnes v. Whelan (In re Barnes), 689 F.2d 193, 200 (D.C.Cir.1982) (adhering to “the traditional meaning of ‘good faith’ as honesty of intention”). However, pursuant to the 1984 amendments the Bankruptcy Code now provides: (b)(1) If the trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to the confirmation of the plan, then the court may not approve the" }, { "docid": "11658494", "title": "", "text": "(alimony and child support). 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a). However, the plan may only be confirmed if it is proposed in good faith. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). Neither the bankruptcy code itself nor its legislative history defines the term “good faith,” and definition of the term in the context of successive filings has evolved through case decisions since the 1984 amendments to the code. This circuit has rejected a per se bad faith standard, holding instead that bad faith is to be judged by the totality of the circumstances on a case by case basis. Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983). In Flygare, the court set forth eleven factors to be considered, among other relevant circumstances, in determining whether the Chapter 13 plan was filed in good faith. Other circuits have rejected a per se bad faith standard in favor of a “totality of circumstances” approach. See State of Ohio, Student Loan Comm ’n v. Doersam (In re Doersam), 849 F.2d 237, 239 (6th Cir.1988); In re Hines, 723 F.2d 333, 334 (3d Cir.1983); Public Fin. Cory. v. Freeman (In re Freeman), 712 F.2d 219, 221 (5th Cir.1983); Kitchens v. Georgia R.R. Bank and Trust Co. (In re Kitchens), 702 F.2d 885, 888-89 (11th Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell (In re Deans), 692 F.2d 968, 970-72 (4th Cir.1982); Ravenot v. Rimgale (In re Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426, 432-33 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. Estus (In re Estus), 695 F.2d 311, 316-17 (8th Cir.1982) ; Goeb v. Heid (In re Goeb), 675 F.2d 1386, 1389-90 (9th Cir.1982); Barnes v. Whelan (In re Barnes), 689 F.2d 193, 198 (D.C.Cir.1982). “[Bjoth pre-petition conduct and prior bankruptcy filings by the debtor may be relevant to the good faith inquiry under § 1325(a)(3).” Neufeld v. Freeman, 794 F.2d 149, 150 (4th Cir.1986). Reviewing the totality of circumstances, we undertake de novo review of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Rasmussen’s Chapter 13 filing. The bankruptcy court noted in its thoughtful recitation of the factors involved that the debtor’s budget was “tight” and that he did not have more than $50 per month for debt repayment under the" }, { "docid": "1886425", "title": "", "text": "(Bankr.E.D.Ark.1986). Therefore, unless the Chapter 13 filing is shown to be part of a scheme to defraud, the mere fact that the debtor’s primary debt is nondischargeable in Chapter 7 does not by itself preclude Chapter 13 relief. Congress could easily have provided for the Chapter 13 nondischargeability of debts incurred by fraud or by willful and malicious injury, but it did not. Significantly, Congress did provide for the Chapter 13 nondischargeability of two other kinds of debts. See 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a). This Court cannot and will not infer or create any additional classes of nondis-chargeable debt in Chapter 13. See In re Seely (Johnson v. Seely), 6 B.R. 309 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1980), and In re DeSimone, 25 B.R. 728 (E.D.Pa.1982). Thus this Court rejects the cases relied upon by Boff: In re Brock, 47 B.R. 167 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1985), and In re Sotter, 28 B.R. 201 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1983). The Court agrees with Kourtakis’s contention that the great weight of authority holds that the existence of a nondis-chargeable debt is only one factor to be considered in determining the good faith issue. The cases indicate that the Court must examine the totality of the circumstances. Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman, 712 F.2d 219 (5th Cir.1983); Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); In re Kitchens (Kitchens v. Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust Co.), 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell, 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); In re Rimgale (Ravenot v. Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982); In re Estus (United States v. Estus ), 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982); and In re Goeb (Goeb v. Heid), 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982). Broadly speaking, the inquiry involves two related questions: First, whether under the circumstances of the case, there has been an abuse of the provisions, purpose, or spirit of Chapter 13, In re Terry (Tenney v. Terry), 630 F.2d 634, 635 (8th Cir.1980); Rimgale; Estus; Kitchens; and Deans; second, whether the debtor has the requisite honesty of intention, Goeb; In re Johnson (Johnson v. Vanguard Holding Corp.), 708 F.2d 865 (2d Cir.1983); and In re Barnes (Barnes v. Whalen), 689 F.2d 193," }, { "docid": "18896873", "title": "", "text": "court’s finding that LeMaire proposed his plan in good faith was clearly erroneous. We remand this case to the district court with instructions to remand, in turn, to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MAGILL, Circuit Judge, with whom LAY, Chief Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, join, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Although it purports to consider the totality of the circumstances and give due deference to the bankruptcy court’s credibility determinations, the majority ultimately relies on its own view of “public policy” to hold clearly erroneous the bankruptcy court’s finding that LeMaire proposed his plan in good faith. I reject the idea that this court’s own policy preference is a legitimate basis for reversing the bankruptcy court’s decision. I. Despite the disclaimer that its decision does not rest on “public policy” alone, ante at 1352, the majority concludes that “the public policies promoted by not discharging a debt resulting from willful or malicious injury in any Chapter 7 case are also implicated in this particular Chapter 13 case, and that the bankruptcy court’s decision was clearly erroneous in not according these policies sufficient weight.” Ante at 1353. The majority’s holding is contrary to the law of this circuit, In re Estus, 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982), and the many other circuits which have held that good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) must be judged on the totality of the circumstances. In re Okoreeh-Baah, 836 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1988); Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman, 712 F.2d 219 (5th Cir.1983); Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); In re Kitchens, 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir. 1983); Deans v. O’Donnell, 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); In re Goeb, 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982); In re Rimgale, 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982); see also In re Johnson, 708 F.2d 865, 868 (2d Cir.1983) (implicitly approving totality of circumstances approach). 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) expressly states that, except for alimony, child support, and certain long-term obligations, “all debts” provided for in a Chapter 13 plan “shall” be discharged after the completion of payments under the plan. Thus, “[although the" }, { "docid": "6461305", "title": "", "text": "debtors object to the dismissal of their Chapter 12 petition, assert that the “Chapter 19” scenario does not constitute per se evidence of bad faith, and offer to demonstrate, to the contrary, that they have acted in good faith. Chapter 12 has been in effect for less than 19 months. Thus, although the court is confident that this issue has arisen in other bankruptcy courts, no published opinions on the issue have been found. The issue of good faith, however, has been litigated in numerous cases in the context of “Chapter 20” proceedings: A Chapter 7 case followed by a petition under Chapter 13. Since Chapter 12 was modeled after, and is substantially identical in many respects, to Chapter 13, decisions under Chapter 13 may be looked to in order to predict the attitudes of courts to related issues which may arise under Chapter 12. Although the cases are by no means unanimous, and although each may, to some extent, turn on its own distinctive fact situation, the clear majority of the courts which have addressed the issue have found that the filing of a Chapter 13 petition immediately, or relatively soon after the receipt of a discharge in Chapter 7 does not, standing alone, constitute bad faith justifying dismissal of the Chapter 13 petition. See, e.g., In re Metz, 820 F.2d 1495 (9th Cir.1987); In re Baker, 736 F.2d 481 (8th Cir.1984). In Metz, supra (hereafter, “Metz II”), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of its Bankruptcy Appellate Panel on, inter alia, the bad faith issue. See In re Metz, 67 B.R. 462 (9th Cir. BAP 1986) (hereafter, “Metz I”). The decision in Metz I and Metz II on this issue was based in large measure upon the 9th Circuit requirement that the good faith of a Chapter 13 plan proponent must be determined on a case-by-case basis, with the court reviewing the “totality of the circumstances.” Goeb v. Heid (In re Goeb), 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982). It is pointed out that most circuits which have addressed the issue have adopted a flexible test such as that" }, { "docid": "20916675", "title": "", "text": "and thus not be submitted in good faith. See, e.g., Beauty, 42 B.R. at 657 (submission of chapter 13 plan with ostensible purpose of restructuring non-dis-chargeable debts from earlier chapter 7 case is contrary to the purpose of chapter 13 and thus not in good faith); In re Sanchez, 20 B.R. 431, 433 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Tex.1982) (chapter 13 plan intended to evade payment of unsecured debts discharged by chapter 7 is abuse of bankruptcy laws); In re Sardella, 8 B.R. 401, 403 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1981) (chapter 13 plan by debtors to adjust debts which survived chapter 7 transgresses the good faith requirement). To judge the good faith of Metz’s filings, we apply a “totality of the circumstances” test. In re Goeb, 675 F.2d 1386, 1391 (9th Cir.1982). The BAP found Metz’s circumstances justified the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the second chapter 13 plan. Metz, 67 B.R. at 466. Metz proposed to pay the arrears to Downey over thirty-six months at a market rate of 12%. He had shown good faith by keeping the payments on his house current. His increased salary made it possible for the first time in the bankruptcy proceedings to propose such a cure. Such a bona fide change in circumstances is precisely what the bankruptcy judge should examine to determine whether successive filings are proper. See In re Johnson, 708 F.2d 865, 868 (2d Cir.1983). The fact that Metz’s plan provides for no payment to unsecured creditors is not sufficient to conclude that the plan was submitted in bad faith. See, e.g., Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344, 1348 (10th Cir.1983) (no per se minimum payment requirement); In re Gregory, 705 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir.1983) (noting in dictum that zero-payment plan to unsecured creditors may be proposed in good faith); Barnes v. Whelan, 689 F.2d 193, 198 (D.C.Cir.1982) (chapter 13 requires no minimum repayment as a prerequisite to confirmation); In re Greer, 60 B.R. 547, 554 (Bankrtcy.C.D.Cal.1986) (zero-payments to unsecured creditors is not evidence of bad faith per se). But see In re Lattimore, 69 B.R. 622, 625 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn.1987) (“a plan proposing zero payment for unsecured claims is" }, { "docid": "18896874", "title": "", "text": "bankruptcy court’s decision was clearly erroneous in not according these policies sufficient weight.” Ante at 1353. The majority’s holding is contrary to the law of this circuit, In re Estus, 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982), and the many other circuits which have held that good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) must be judged on the totality of the circumstances. In re Okoreeh-Baah, 836 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1988); Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman, 712 F.2d 219 (5th Cir.1983); Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); In re Kitchens, 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir. 1983); Deans v. O’Donnell, 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); In re Goeb, 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982); In re Rimgale, 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982); see also In re Johnson, 708 F.2d 865, 868 (2d Cir.1983) (implicitly approving totality of circumstances approach). 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) expressly states that, except for alimony, child support, and certain long-term obligations, “all debts” provided for in a Chapter 13 plan “shall” be discharged after the completion of payments under the plan. Thus, “[although the debtor’s motive in invoking Chapter 13 solely to obtain discharge of a[n] [otherwise] non-dischargeable debt, as well as the circumstances under which that debt arose, may be factors to consider as part of the totality of the circumstances, they cannot, as a matter of law, suffice to show bad faith.” In re Chaffin, 816 F.2d 1070, 1074 (5th Cir.1987), modified on reconsideration on other grounds, 836 F.2d 215 (5th Cir.1988); see also In re Smith, 848 F.2d 813, 818 (7th Cir.1988) (quoting Chaffin); In re Caldwell, 851 F.2d 852, 860 (6th Cir.1988) (agreeing with Chaffin). Section 1325(a)(3) requires that the plan be “ ‘proposed in good faith’ ..., not that the debt was incurred in good faith.” Smith, 848 F.2d at 819 (emphasis added in Smith). As a result, “ ‘a Chapter 13 plan may be confirmed despite even the most egregious pre-filing conduct where other factors suggest that the plan nevertheless represents a good faith effort by the debtor to satisfy his creditors’ claims.’ ” Id. (quoting Neufeld v. Freeman, 794 F.2d 149, 153" }, { "docid": "23532636", "title": "", "text": "Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-598, 92 stat. 2549 (1978) (§ 1325(4)). . See id. . 689 F.2d 193 (D.C.Cir.1982). . See id. at 199. . 630 F.2d 634 (8th Cir.1980). . 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982). . 311 U.S. 138, 61 S.Ct. 157, 85 L.Ed. 91. . 675 F.2d at 1390. . See id., at 1390-1391. . 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982) . Id. at 972. . 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982). . Id. at 432-33 [footnotes omitted]. . Id. at 433 n. 22. . 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982). . Id. at 317. . Id. . See id. . See, e.g., Gier v. Farmers State Bank (In re Gier), 986 F.2d 1326 (10th Cir.1993) (no error in bankruptcy court finding bad faith plan proposal under Estus factors where debtor failed to discharge section 523(a)(6) debt in Chapter 7 and attempted to discharge same debt in Chapter 13); Metro Employees Credit Union v. Okoreeh-Baah (In re Okoreeh-Baah), 836 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1988) (dealing with debt resulting from \"questionable conduct” of debtor in not recording creditor's lien and permitting finding of bad faith based not on this conduct alone but on \"totality of circumstances” including a prior bankruptcy filing); In re Chaffin, 816 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir.1987), vacated, 836 F.2d 215 (5th Cir.1988) (payment of 2% dividend debt resulting from non-dischargeable fraud warrants finding of bad faith when considered in conjunction with other factors under standard of \"totality of circumstances”); Public Fin. Corp. v. Freeman, 712 F.2d 219 (5th Cir.1983) (affirming finding of good faith in proposal of zero payment to unsecured creditors under standard of \"totality of circumstances”); Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983) (remanding under Estus factors because in denying confirmation bankruptcy court had placed emphasis on minimal payment feature of debtor's 3% plan); Kitchens v. Georgia R.R. Bank & Trust Co. (In re Kitchens), 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir.1983) (remanding under Estus factors question of confirmation of 10% plan in view of record's indication of debtors’ underestimation of income and overestimation of expenses). . See Conrad K. Cyr, The Chapter 13 \"Good Faith\" Tempest:" }, { "docid": "1886426", "title": "", "text": "good faith issue. The cases indicate that the Court must examine the totality of the circumstances. Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman, 712 F.2d 219 (5th Cir.1983); Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); In re Kitchens (Kitchens v. Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust Co.), 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell, 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); In re Rimgale (Ravenot v. Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982); In re Estus (United States v. Estus ), 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982); and In re Goeb (Goeb v. Heid), 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982). Broadly speaking, the inquiry involves two related questions: First, whether under the circumstances of the case, there has been an abuse of the provisions, purpose, or spirit of Chapter 13, In re Terry (Tenney v. Terry), 630 F.2d 634, 635 (8th Cir.1980); Rimgale; Estus; Kitchens; and Deans; second, whether the debtor has the requisite honesty of intention, Goeb; In re Johnson (Johnson v. Vanguard Holding Corp.), 708 F.2d 865 (2d Cir.1983); and In re Barnes (Barnes v. Whalen), 689 F.2d 193, 200 (D.C.Cir.1982). It is true that most of these cases address the good faith requirement in the context of a plan that proposes little or no repayment to creditors, rather than in the context presently before the Court, and it is also true that the 1984 amendments to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b), relating to the debtor’s best efforts, largely resolves the issue addressed in these prior cases. Nevertheless, the underlying propositions in those cases—first that no single factor is conclusive, second that the court must look to the totality of the circumstances, and third that the true issues are whether there is an abuse of Chapter 13 and whether the debt- or’s intentions are honest—must guide this Court in resolving the present case. Boff relies upon In re Chase, 43 B.R. 739 (D.Md.1984). There, the debtor had a $25,-000 consent judgment for sexual assault on a minor. The court recognized that a debt resulting from a malicious injury can be discharged in Chapter 13. Nevertheless, the court held that the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was" }, { "docid": "6945718", "title": "", "text": "a debt incurred as the result of criminal conduct can never do so in good faith. Based on the history of the good faith requirement and this circuit’s interpretation of § 1325(a)(3), we disagree. Our objective when interpreting a federal statute is “to ascertain the intent of Congress and to give effect to the legislative will.” In re Hudson, 859 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir.1988). While the language of a statute is always the starting point when its construction is at issue, see In re Ron Pair Enterprises, 828 F.2d 367 (6th Cir.1987), we must also review prior law in order to understand the context in which the provision was drafted and therefore the language itself. Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986); Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 107 S.Ct. 353, 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986). Because the good faith requirement of § 1325(a)(3) is neither defined in the Bankruptcy Code nor discussed in the legislative history, courts have struggled to set appropriate parameters for the requisite inquiry into the debtor’s motives and intentions in proposing a Chapter 13 plan. Most courts of appeals which examined the issue prior to the 1984 amendments held that a bankruptcy court inquiring into a debtor’s good faith must examine the totality of the circumstances. Neufeld v. Freeman, 794 F.2d 149 (4th Cir.1986); Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); In re Kitchens, 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir.1983); In re Estus, 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982); Deans v. O’Donnell, 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); In re Rimgale, 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982); In re Goeb, 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982). This court, in In re Estus, 695 F.2d at 316, adopted the definition of good faith used in Chapter 11 of the old Bankruptcy Act: A comprehensive definition of good faith is not practical. Broadly speaking, the basic inquiry should be whether or not under the circumstances of the case there has been an abuse of the.provisions, purpose, or spirit of [the Chapter] in the proposal of the plan * *" }, { "docid": "13954648", "title": "", "text": "the courts nonetheless generally concluded that the amount of payments to unsecured creditors could be considered as one among a number of factors to be considered in assessing the good faith of the chapter 13 plan. See Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); In re Hines, 723 F.2d 333 (3rd Cir.1983); Kitchens v. Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust Co. (In re Kitchens), 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell (In re Deans), 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Estus (In re Estus), 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982); Goeb v. Heid (In re Goeb), 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982); Ravenot v. Rimgale (In re Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982). Cf. Barnes v. Whelan (In re Barnes), 689 F.2d 193, 200 (D.C.Cir.1982) (adhering to “the traditional meaning of ‘good faith’ as honesty of intention”). However, pursuant to the 1984 amendments the Bankruptcy Code now provides: (b)(1) If the trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to the confirmation of the plan, then the court may not approve the plan unless, as of the effective date of the plan— (A) the value of the property to be distributed under the plan on account of such claim is not less than the amount of such claim; or (B) the plan provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income to be received in the three-year period beginning on the date that the first payment is due under the plan will be applied to make payments under the plan. (2) For purposes of this subsection, ‘disposable income’ means income which is received by the debtor and which is not reasonably necessary to be expended— (A) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; or (B) if the debtor is engaged in business, for the payment of expenditures necessary for the continuance, preservation, and operation of such business. 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b) (West Supp.1985). In this connection the leading bankruptcy treatise now observes: [T]he 1984 amendments to the Code finally resolve the issue of whether any particular amount must be paid" }, { "docid": "6461307", "title": "", "text": "set out in Goeb. In re Hines, 723 F.2d 333 (3rd Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell (In re Deans), 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman (In re Freeman), 712 F.2d 219 (5th Cir. 1983); Ravenot v. Rimgale (In re Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. Estus (In re Estus), 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982); Flygare v. Boulden (In re Flygare), 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); Kitchens v. Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust Co. (In re Kitchens), 702 F,2d 885 (11th Cir.1983); Barnes v. Whelan, 689 F.2d 193 (D.C.Cir.1982). Although the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in Metz I cites Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Whitman (In re Whitman), 692 F.2d 427 (6th Cir.1982), as less than completely supportive of the flexible review test of good faith, this court’s reading of that case is that it is not inconsistent with such a rule. Although the court in Whitman expresses grave concerns with regard to manipulation of the Bankruptcy Code by a dishonest debtor, it nevertheless requires a review of all relevant facts and circumstances before determining whether to confirm or deny a Chapter 13 plan. In Metz I, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel concedes that “obvious policy concerns arise as to the Chapter 13 case that is part of a Chapter 20.” Among these concerns are the eradication of unsecured debts in the Chapter 7, thus permitting a Chapter 13 plan which pays nothing to those creditors who very shortly before possessed unsecured claims against the debtor. The substance of the panel’s stated concern seems to be that the Chapter 20 scenario would undermine the incentive built into Chapter 13 for debtors to pay their unsecured debts, such incentives being, generally, the more favorable treatment available to Chapter 13 debtors than to those under Chapter 7. It is stated that “Chapter 20”, by circumventing the need to pay unsecured debts, “pose[s] a direct threat to the rationale for having Chapter 13.” The panel concludes, in refusing to adopt a rule of bad faith per se in “Chapter 20” cases, as follows: “While Chapter 20 cases are clearly" }, { "docid": "18565999", "title": "", "text": "B.R. 612, 3 Bankr.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 71,194 (9th Cir. BAP 1986); In re Street, 55 B.R. 763, 3 Bankr.L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 70,892 (9th Cir. BAP 1985) (best efforts and all factors considered); Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v. Slade (In re Slade), 15 B.R. 910, 911-912 (9th Cir. BAP 1981). Most circuits have followed Goeb and adopted a flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances test. In re Hines, 723 F.2d 333, 334 (3d Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell (In re Deans), 692 F.2d 968, 972 (4th Cir. 1982); Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman (In re Freeman), 712 F.2d 219, 221 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Estus (In re Estus), 695 F.2d 311, 316-17 (8th Cir.1982); Flygare v. Boulden (In re Flygare), 709 F.2d 1344, 1346-48 (10th Cir.1983); Kitchens v. Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust Co. (In re Kitchens), 702 F.2d 885, 888-89 (11th Cir.1983); accord Ravenot v. Rimgale (In re Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426, 431-32 (7th Cir.1982) (preceding Goeb but also advocating case-by-case analysis); Barnes v. Whelan, 689 F.2d 193, 198-200 (D.C.Cir.1982) (not citing Goeb with approval, but rejecting a rule of bad faith per se where payments to unsecured creditors are only nominal). No circuit level decision has rejected the Goeb approach in favor of a per se rule. But cf. Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Whitman (In re Whitman), 692 F.2d 427, 431-32 (6th Cir.1982). Although the Goeb court did “not attempt ... to compile a complete list of relevant considerations,” 675 F.2d at 1390, it gave some general examples of bad faith. The court asked whether the debtors had “acted equitably” in proposing their Chapter 13 plan. The court sought to determine whether the debtors had misrepresented facts in their proposed plan and whether they were “unfairly manipulating] the Bankruptcy Code.” 675 F.2d at 1390. More recently, the Ninth Circuit has also stated that a good faith test “should examine the intentions of the debtor and the legal effect of the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan in light of the spirit and purposes of Chapter 13.” Chinichian, 784 F.2d at 1444. B. As Downey correctly points" }, { "docid": "18565998", "title": "", "text": "a new plan. In particular, the debtor’s earnings had increased significantly» by $350 per month. The court further determined that the debtor had shown his good faith by keeping the payments on his house current. III. In Downey’s view, filing a Chapter 13 case shortly after the debtor receives a Chapter 7 discharge is bad faith per se. Thus, to Downey, any plan proposed in a Chapter 13 case that is part of a Chapter 20 must always fail the good faith requirement of section 1325(a)(3). A. In this circuit, the test of good faith in proposing a Chapter 13 plan is made on a case-by-ease basis, with the court reviewing the “totality of the circumstances.” Goeb v. Held (In re Goeb), 675 F.2d 1386, 1390, 1391 (9th Cir.1982) (“the court must make its good-faith determination in light of all militating factors”; “bankruptcy courts cannot [make a] substitute ... for a review of the totality of the circumstances”); accord Chinichian v. Campolongo (In re Chinichian), 784 F.2d 1440, 1444-46 (9th Cir.1986); In re Gayton, 61 B.R. 612, 3 Bankr.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 71,194 (9th Cir. BAP 1986); In re Street, 55 B.R. 763, 3 Bankr.L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 70,892 (9th Cir. BAP 1985) (best efforts and all factors considered); Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v. Slade (In re Slade), 15 B.R. 910, 911-912 (9th Cir. BAP 1981). Most circuits have followed Goeb and adopted a flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances test. In re Hines, 723 F.2d 333, 334 (3d Cir.1983); Deans v. O’Donnell (In re Deans), 692 F.2d 968, 972 (4th Cir. 1982); Public Finance Corp. v. Freeman (In re Freeman), 712 F.2d 219, 221 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Estus (In re Estus), 695 F.2d 311, 316-17 (8th Cir.1982); Flygare v. Boulden (In re Flygare), 709 F.2d 1344, 1346-48 (10th Cir.1983); Kitchens v. Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust Co. (In re Kitchens), 702 F.2d 885, 888-89 (11th Cir.1983); accord Ravenot v. Rimgale (In re Rimgale), 669 F.2d 426, 431-32 (7th Cir.1982) (preceding Goeb but also advocating case-by-case analysis); Barnes v. Whelan, 689 F.2d 193, 198-200 (D.C.Cir.1982) (not citing Goeb with" }, { "docid": "6945719", "title": "", "text": "parameters for the requisite inquiry into the debtor’s motives and intentions in proposing a Chapter 13 plan. Most courts of appeals which examined the issue prior to the 1984 amendments held that a bankruptcy court inquiring into a debtor’s good faith must examine the totality of the circumstances. Neufeld v. Freeman, 794 F.2d 149 (4th Cir.1986); Flygare v. Boulden, 709 F.2d 1344 (10th Cir.1983); In re Kitchens, 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir.1983); In re Estus, 695 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1982); Deans v. O’Donnell, 692 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1982); In re Rimgale, 669 F.2d 426 (7th Cir.1982); In re Goeb, 675 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1982). This court, in In re Estus, 695 F.2d at 316, adopted the definition of good faith used in Chapter 11 of the old Bankruptcy Act: A comprehensive definition of good faith is not practical. Broadly speaking, the basic inquiry should be whether or not under the circumstances of the case there has been an abuse of the.provisions, purpose, or spirit of [the Chapter] in the proposal of the plan * * *. 11 U.S.C. § 766(4) (1976) (repealed). Estus addressed the question of whether § 1325(a)(3) good faith requires a per se minimum level of repayment. The court found that substantial repayment is only one factor in the good faith analysis. See Deans, 692 F.2d at 972; Rimgale, 669 F.2d at 432; Goeb, 675 F.2d at 1390. Other factors for courts to consider in making a determination of good faith include: (1) the amount of the proposed payments and the amount of the debtor’s surplus; (2) the debtor’s employment history, ability to earn and likelihood of future increases in income; (3) the probable or expected duration of the plan; (4) the accuracy of the plan’s statements of the debts, expenses and percentage repayment of unsecured debt and whether any inaccuracies are an attempt to mislead the court; (5) the extent of preferential treatment between classes of creditors; (6) the extent to which secured claims are modified; (7) the type of debt sought to be discharged and whether any such debt is nondischargeable in Chapter 7; (8)" } ]

[ { "docid": "923176", "title": "", "text": "District of New York, faced with a potentially large number of litigious federal employees has also held in favor of a trial de novo. Henderson v. Defense Contract Admin. Servs. Region, 370 F.Supp. 180 (S.D.N.Y.1973). In addition Judge Wollenberg writing in Thompson v. Dept. of Justice, 360 F.Supp. 255 (N.D.Cal.1973), had originally decided that the Act required a trial de novo, and then reversed his position, accepting the contrary view espoused principally by the courts in the District of Columbia Circuit. Thompson v. Dept. of Justice, 372 F.Supp. 762 (N.D.Cal.1974). See also McLaughlin v. Callaway, 382 F.Supp. 885 (S.D. Ala. 1974) (finding a discretionary right to a trial de novo). Judge Gesell’s opinion in Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (D.D.C.1973), appeal docketed, No. 73-2072 (D.C.Cir., Sept. 7, 1973) , is the leading decision rejecting a trial de novo in all cases brought under § 717(c). The District of Columbia of course has the highest concentration of federal employees anywhere in the nation, and Judge Gesell noted that a brief review of the civil docket of the District Court for the District of Columbia revealed no less than nineteen § 717(c) claims awaiting disposition at the time Hackley was decided. 360 F.Supp. at 1249 n. 2. The only circuit decision to have reached this issue agreed with Judge Gesell’s position. Salone v. United States, 511 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1975). Other district court opinions which have followed his lead include Allen v. Veterans Admin., 10 F.E.P.Cas. 195 (W.D.Pa.1974); Baca v. Butz, 376 F.Supp. 1005 (D.N.M.1974); Cates v. Johnson, 377 F.Supp. 1145 (W.D.Pa., July 18, 1974), appeal docketed, No. 74-2079 (3d Cir. 1974); Eastland v. TVA, 8 F.E.P. Cas. 1226 (N.D.Ala. 1974); Ficklin v. Sabatini, 383 F.Supp. 1147 (E.D.Pa.1974); Guilday v. Dept. of Justice, 385 F.Supp. 1096 (D.Del.1974); Haire v. Callaway, 385 F.Supp. 309 (E.D.Mo. 1974); Handy v. Gayler, 364 F.Supp. 676 (D.Md.1973); Johnson v. Postal Serv., 364 F.Supp. 37 (N.D.Fla.1973), aff'd per curiam, 497 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1974); Pointer v. Sampson, 62 F.R.D. 689 (D.D.C.1974); Pendleton v. Schlesinger, 8 F.E.P. 853 (D.D.C.1974); Roberts v. Mumford, 8 F.E.P.Cas. 1195 (D.D.C." } ]

[ { "docid": "8969128", "title": "", "text": "and 11478. Jurisdiction was invoked under, inter alia, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1970), the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1970), and the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (1970), as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (Supp. Ill 1973). In light of our disposition of the Title VII claim, we need not reach the question whether a trial de novo (or some variant thereof) might be appropriate under the other asserted jurisdictional bases. See, e. g., Bowers v. Campbell, 505 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1974); note 172 infra. . The agency whose decision was under review in the District Court was the Civil Service Commission’s Board of Appeals and Review, which had itself reviewed the final decision of the VA. 171 U.S.App.D.C. pp. ---,---, 520 F.2d pp. 114-115, 116 & n. 72 infra. . Appellees also sought dismissal of appellant’s claims on the ground that this was an unconsented suit against the sovereign, see, e. g., Gnotta v. United States, 415 F.2d 1271 (8th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 934, 90 S.Ct. 941, 25 L.Ed.2d 115 (1970), since the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 purportedly did not retroactively extend jurisdiction to cases where the alleged discrimination occurred prior to the Act’s passage. Judge Ge-sell denied appellees’ motion without stating any rationale, see Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (order of Mar. 14, 1973), and later specifically reaffirmed that ruling upon the ground that the 1972 amendments were retroactive as to discrimination complaints administratively pending at the time they went into effect. See Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247, 1249 n. 1 (D.D.C.1973). We concur in this determination of the scope of Title VII’s coverage. See, e. g., Grubbs v. Butz, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 82, 514 F.2d 1323 (1975); Womack v. Lynn, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 504 F.2d 267, 269 & nn. 4, 6 (1974). See also, e. g., Sperling v. United States, 515 F.2d 465, 474-475 (3d Cir. 1975); Koger v. Ball, 497 F.2d 702 (4th Cir. 1974). . Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247" }, { "docid": "11677111", "title": "", "text": "for employment, if aggrieved by the final disposition of his complaint, or by the failure to take final action on his complaint, may file a civil action as provided in section 2000e-5 of this title, in which civil action the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant. . Accord, Hackley v. Roudebush, supra, 520 F.2d at 122 n.53: “. . .a broad interpretation of § 717 is particularly appropriate in light of the remedial character of the 1974 amendments and the constitutional overtones of the rights protected through Title VII.” . Current agency procedures are not significantly different from these. Compare 5 C.F.R. § 713.201 et seq. (1972) with 29 C.F.R. § 1613.-201 et seq. (1979). . The Court reasoned: It [Congress] faced a choice between record review of agency action based on traditional appellate standards and trial de novo of Title VII claims. The Senate committee selected trial de novo as the proper means for resolving the claims of federal employees. The Senate broadened the category of claims entitled to trial de novo to include those of private-sector employees, and the Senate’s decision to treat private- and federal-sector employees alike in this respect was ratified by the Congress as a whole. Id. at 861, 96 S.Ct. at 1960. . Cf. Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247, 1252 (D.D.C.1973), rev’d sub nom. Hackley v. Roudebush, supra; Chandler v. Johnson, 515 F.2d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1975), rev’d sub nom. Chandler v. Roudebush, supra. . Both parties to this action cite McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969), and McGee v. United States, 402 U.S. 479, 91 S.Ct. 1565, 29 L.Ed.2d 47 (1971), in support of their arguments. These two cases concern the necessity of exhausting Selective Service procedures and set out a balancing test for determining the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine to a given case. They are not dispositive of the case before us since the governmental interests protected by the exhaustion requirement (e. g., the interest in the development of a factual record, in the" }, { "docid": "4918661", "title": "", "text": "Williams: “There is no reason why a Federal employee should not have the same private right of action enjoyed by individuals in the private sector, and I believe that the [Senate] committee has acted wisely in this regard.” 118 Cong.Rec. 4922 (1972). and by Senator Cranston: “Aggrieved employees or applicants will also have the full rights available in the courts as are granted to individuals in the private sector under title VII.” 118 Cong.Rec. 4938 (1972). The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that the rights of private employees bringing Title VII actions include full and independent judicial court determinations of their claims even after there has been some administrative action. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed. 2d 147 (1974); McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). In light of the teachings of the Supreme Court and the clear statements of legislative purpose, I am of the opinion that federal employees are entitled as a matter of right to hearings de novo in federal court. However, I need not reach this issue in the cases presently before me. Even assuming arguendo that federal employees are not entitled to a full and independent district court determination as a matter of right, the sorry state of the administrative records in the instant cases would still make summary judgment inappropriate and the taking of additional evidence a necessity. Even Hackley v. Johnson, supra, suggests that there might be situations in which the district court judge would find it necessary to supplement the administrative record. Relying on Hackley v. Johnson, the Ninth Circuit in Chandler v. Johnson, 515 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1975), also recognized that there would be instances when supplementation of the record and even hearings de novo would be appropriate. Leaving the determination of the proper procedure to the district court, the Chandler court stated: “With this objective in mind, the district judge faced with a demand for a trial de novo is entitled to determine, at a pretrial conference or otherwise, why the plaintiff believes that" }, { "docid": "11677112", "title": "", "text": "entitled to trial de novo to include those of private-sector employees, and the Senate’s decision to treat private- and federal-sector employees alike in this respect was ratified by the Congress as a whole. Id. at 861, 96 S.Ct. at 1960. . Cf. Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247, 1252 (D.D.C.1973), rev’d sub nom. Hackley v. Roudebush, supra; Chandler v. Johnson, 515 F.2d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1975), rev’d sub nom. Chandler v. Roudebush, supra. . Both parties to this action cite McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969), and McGee v. United States, 402 U.S. 479, 91 S.Ct. 1565, 29 L.Ed.2d 47 (1971), in support of their arguments. These two cases concern the necessity of exhausting Selective Service procedures and set out a balancing test for determining the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine to a given case. They are not dispositive of the case before us since the governmental interests protected by the exhaustion requirement (e. g., the interest in the development of a factual record, in the application of agency expertise, of avoiding frequent flouting of the administrative process, see McKart v. United States, supra, 395 U.S. at 193-195, 89 S.Ct. at 1662-63) have been subordinated by Congress to the interest in eradicating employment discrimination. We note, however, that those cases create a balancing test and do not utilize an absolutist approach: they evidence the Supreme Court’s recognition that the interests of plaintiffs even in non-Title VII cases overshadow those of the government. Id. at 197, 89 S.Ct. at 1664. . 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. . This court had reached a similar result in Jefferson v. Peerless Pumps, 456 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1972). . Similarly, the court in Koger v. Ball, 497 F.2d 702 (4th Cir. 1974), held that the appellant’s complaint stated a cause of action over which the district court had jurisdiction since the appellant had a claim of racial discrimination, had waited 180 days from the initial filing, and was aggrieved by the agency’s failure to take final action. Id. at 706. . A decision from either the" }, { "docid": "22010279", "title": "", "text": "by this Court’s decision in Jones v. Brennan, (N.D.Ga., Judge Moye, decided September 30, 1975), 401 F.Supp. 622 (1975). The defendants are correct in their contention that, under the 1972 Amendments to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e — 16(c), these federal defendants may only be sued in their official capacity, not individually, Jones v. Brennan, supra; Williams v. Munford, 6 F.E.P. Cases 483 (D.D.C.1973). This is because § 2000e-16(c) requires that a suit by a federal employee alleging racial discrimination be maintained against the head of the department which employs the plaintiff employee (in the instant case, originally James Lynn who has been succeeded by Mrs. Carla Hills, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development). There is no need to retain Mr. Lamar Seals in this lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 since he is not the department head identified in § 2000e-16(c). Accordingly, it is the ORDER of the Court that defendant Mrs. Carla Hills be substituted in her official capacity as the sole defendant in this case and that Mr. Lamar Seals be dismissed from this lawsuit as an improper defendant under § 2000e-16(c). Secondly, Jones v. Brennan, supra, squarely held that federal employees bringing Title VII actions under § 2000e — 16(c) are entitled to a trial de novo and not merely a review of the administrative record below. See Sperling v. United States, 515 F.2d 465, 474-81 (3 Cir. 1975); Hackley v. Roudebush, 520 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Parks v. Dunlop, 517 F.2d 785, 787 (5 Cir. 1975); Caro v. Sehultz, 521 F.2d 1084 (7 Cir. decided September 3, 1975). Thus plaintiffs are entitled to a de novo trial. As a third matter, the defendant claims that this Court has no jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) to hear plaintiff Keeler’s class action allegations which were included in her “Third Party Complaint” filed with HUD pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 713.251, because there is no grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts to hear “Third Party Complaints” on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved federal employees. It appears, however, that plaintiff Keeler’s administrative complaint" }, { "docid": "4138014", "title": "", "text": "legislative history of the Act and concluded that the analysis of Judge Ge-sell’s leading opinion in Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (D.D.C.1973) misread the Act’s legislative history. The Third Circuit in Sperling found that a federal employee under § 2000e-16 had a right to a trial de novo. Accordingly, based on the Sperling decision, the Fifth Circuit’s recent citation with approval of the earlier Thompson case in Parks v. Dunlop, and Judge Edenfield’s decision in Thomas v. Camp, supra, this Court concludes that Mr. Jones is entitled to a de novo trial, not merely a review of the administrative record under § 2000e-16. III. Scope of Relief Under U.S.C. § 1981 The defendant Brennan argues that plaintiff’s claims for injunctive, declaratory, compensatory and back-pay relief against the defendant government officers are barred by the sovereign immu nity doctrine. Penn v. Schlesinger, 490 F.2d 700, 703 (5 Cir. 1973) (Penn I). The Fifth Circuit reversed itself on the administrative exhaustion issue in an en banc decision in Penn v. Schlesinger, 497 F.2d 970 (5 Cir. 1975) (Penn II). The Penn I Court, argues Brennan, permitted under § 1981 only a mandamus action against the officers in their official capacity. See also Beale v. Blount, 461 F.2d 1133 (5 Cir. 1972). The defendant claims that plaintiff has not sued the defendants in their individual capacity. Sued only in their official capacity, defendant Brennan argues, the defendants are liable only for a mandamus action under § 1981. The law in the Fifth Circuit regarding federal employee suits under § 1981 appears to be that after exhaustion of his administrative remedies, Penn v. Schlesinger, 497 F.2d 970 (5 Cir. 1975) (Penn II), Parks v. Dunlop, 517 F.2d 785 (5 Cir. 1975), the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars all other relief except for relief available by mandamus, which “would include a promotion as well as reinstatement if otherwise appropriate.” Petterway v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., Houston, Texas, 495 F.2d 1223, 1225 (5 Cir. 1974). The Court notes that the extent of relief under § 1981 cases of this sort in the Fifth Circuit is not" }, { "docid": "4918655", "title": "", "text": "novo in federal court. The defendants claim that in denying the summary judgment motions with respect to each of the plaintiffs, the Court applied an improper standard of review. The defendants further claim that with respect to certain individual plaintiffs, the Court improperly failed to require exhaustion of administrative remedies or a timely filing of the civil suit once the administrative remedies had been exhausted. In this motion for reconsideration, as in the defendants’ initial motions for summary judgment, the central issue before the Court is the much-litigated and much-disputed scope of judicial review to be afforded federal employees bringing employment discrimination claims under Title VII. SCOPE OF REVIEW In considering the defendants’ initial motion for summary judgment, I rejected their contention that the judicial role in federal employment discrimination cases is limited to a review of the administrative record compiled by the CSC, and I held that if the discrimination claims could not be determined by way of summary judgment based on the administrative record, federal employees were then entitled as a matter of right to hearings de novo in federal court. In reaching this conclusion, I relied heavily on the Third Circuit’s extensive and well-reasoned opinion in Sperling v. United States, 515 F.2d 465 (3d Cir. 1975), which rectified the prior judicial misconstruction of the legislative intent behind the 1972 amendments to Title VII. In making its own detailed analysis of the legislative history, the Sperling court concluded that Congress had intended federal employees to have hearings de novo as a matter of right. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia provides additional strong support for this view. In Hackley v. Roudebush, 520 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir., 1975) (which was decided after the instant motion was briefed and argued), the court, reversing Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (D.D.C.1973), which had provided the seminal interpretation of the legislation, held that in Title VII cases federal employees are entitled as a matter of right to a trial de novo in federal court. Defendants’ main contention is that the Sperling court placed undue emphasis on the Senate Committee" }, { "docid": "12553098", "title": "", "text": "we stated in Grubbs v. Butz, supra note 52, 169 U.S.App.D.C. at 87, 514 F.2d at 1328, “the Act is in part a response to Congressional realization that ‘the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies . . . had become [a] barrier to meaningful court review’ ” (quoting Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247, 1251 (D.D.C.1973), rev’d sub nom. Hackley v. Roudebush, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 520 F.2d 108 (1975) (footnote omitted)); see also S.Rep. No. 92-415, supra note 26, at 16; H.R.Rep. No. 92-238, supra note 26, at 22-26. . Love v. Pullman Co., supra note 51, 404 U.S. at 526-527, 92 S.Ct. at 619, 30 L.Ed.2d at 684-685. . Shehadeh v. C & P Tel. Co., 193 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 342, 595 F.2d 711, 727 (1978). . See, e. g., Russell v. American Tobacco Co., 528 F.2d 357, 365 (4th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 935, 96 S.Ct. 1666, 1667, 48 L.Ed.2d 176 (1976); Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 462, 464 (5th Cir. 1970); Tipler v. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 443 F.2d 125, 131 (6th Cir. 1971); Waters v. Heubelin, Inc., 547 F.2d 466, 468 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915, 97 S.Ct. 2988, 53 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1977). As the Fifth Circuit observed in Sanchez, “the specific words of the [administrative] charge of discrimination need not presage with literary exactitude the judicial pleadings which may follow.” 431 F.2d at 465. . Had President been a private-sector employee filing a complaint with EEOC rather than an employee of the Federal Government filing the identical complaint with the employing agency, there would have been little question as to the availability of promotion as a remedy in his civil action. We are unable to discern in the text or legislative history of § 717 anything indicating that when Congress extended Title VII coverage to federal employees, in 1972, it intended to draw any such distinction. . Our conclusion that Congress must have intended the agency to share the task of determining appropriate relief is buttressed by an examination of the regulations issued by the Civil" }, { "docid": "22758545", "title": "", "text": "argued, that routine trials de novo in the federal courts will tend ultimately to defeat, rather than to advance, the basic purposes of the statutory scheme. But Congress has made the choice, and it is not for us to disturb it. Since the Court of Appeals in this case erroneously concluded that § 717 (c) does not accord a federal employee the same right to a trial de novo as private-sector employees enjoy under Title VII, its judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 16 (1971) (hereinafter cited as Senate Report). The Veterans’ Administration accepted the examiner’s proposed finding of no race discrimination. The District Court in Hackley had held that even if that “exacting standard” were not met, a full trial de novo would not necessarily be required. Rather a district court could, “in its discretion, as appropriate, remand, take testimony to supplement the administrative record, or grant the plaintiff relief on the administrative record.” 360 F. Supp., at 1252. Four Courts of Appeals have held that §717 (c) gives federal employees the right to a trial de novo in the district court. Abrams v. Johnson, 534 F. 2d 1226 (CA6); Caro v. Schultz, 521 F. 2d 1084 (CA7); Hackley v. Roudebush, 171 U. S. App. D. C. 376, 520 F. 2d 108; Sperling v. United States, 515 F. 2d 465 (CA3). Three other Courts of Appeals have held that federal employees are not generally entitled to trials de novo. Haire v. Calloway, 526 F. 2d 246 (CA8); Chandler v. Johnson, 515 F. 2d 251 (CA9) (opinion below); Salone v. United States, 511 F. 2d 902 (CA10). The Attorney General of the United States is given responsibility for instituting Title VII civil actions on behalf of employees of state governments, governmental agencies, or political subdivisions. §706 (f)(1), 42 U. 8. C. §2000e-5 (f)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706, 78 Stat. 259. See Hackley v. Roudebush, 171 U. S. App. D. C., at 387-388, 520 F. 2d," }, { "docid": "21923127", "title": "", "text": "however. In the proceedings to follow, whatever they may be, both parties should bear in mind that discriminatory practices can fade over time. When they do not fade, however, they become increasingly anomalous and ugly, and the need to extirpate them becomes correspondingly more pressing. As we said in Thompson, it is long past time for GPO to get back to its appointed tasks. . The individual claims of plaintiffs McKenzie, Jones, and Ross are still pending. . This change will make no practical difference in the back pay award for journeymen hires during the years 1972 and 1973, because all promotions to journeyman during those years went to blacks. . GPO also moved for summary judgment, on the theory that the court’s role in reviewing Title VII suits against the federal government was limited to a determination of whether substantial record evidence supported the administrative disposition of the employee’s complaint. GPO’s motion was filed some five months before this circuit decided that plaintiffs suing the federal government under Title VII were entitled to a trial de novo in district court, see Hackley v. Roudebush, 520 F.2d 198 (D.C.Cir. 1975), rev’g Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (D.D.C.1973). While the cross-motions for summary judgment were under advisement, the Supreme Court held that Title VII plaintiffs against the federal government have the right to a trial de novo, Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 96 S.Ct. 1949, 48 L.Ed.2d 416 (1976). The plaintiffs suggest that GPO waived its right to a trial de novo by filing its motion for summary judgment. The rule governing cross-motions for summary judgment, however, is that neither party waives the right to a full trial on the merits by filing its own motion; each side concedes that no material facts are at issue only for the purposes of its own motion. If a motion is based on a legal theory later rejected — as here — the movant retains whatever right that party otherwise has to a trial on the merits. See 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720 (1973). ." }, { "docid": "15964934", "title": "", "text": "awarded since Nolan’s salary at the University of California position was thought to be at a rate of pay higher than the VA offered. On September 3, 1976, pursuant to FPM regulations, Nolan appealed the denial of leave and voluntariness of resignation issues to the Appeals Review Board of the Civil Service Commission (Board). The non-discrimination finding concerning the coordinator position was not appealed. On June 2, 1978, the Board affirmed the findings of the VA. On July 10, 1978, Nolan brought this action in district court seeking de novo review of the administrative decisions. In her first cause of action, Nolan sought review of the coordinator, leave, and resignation issues which she claimed were acts of discrimination on the basis of her sex which culminated in her constructive discharge. In her second cause of action, Nolan argued that the VA’s failure to process her § 752 appeal was a due process violation. Nolan sought back pay or retroactive leave without pay, reinstatement, and attorney fees. Jurisdiction was premised on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(4), 2201 and 2202; 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., 7501 and 7532; and Executive Order 11478. Nolan moved for summary judgment and the VA filed a cross motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the VA’s motion and this appeal was taken from such judgment. II. LAW A. Summary judgment on the discrimination claims. As a federal employee Nolan was entitled to de novo review in the district court of her Title VII action on the issues that were determined against her during the administrative proceedings. See Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 96 S.Ct. 1949, 48 L.Ed.2d 416 (1976). Nolan argued that the district court’s grant of Fed.R. Civ.P. 56(c) summary judgment deprived her of her right to de novo review. However, in some situations summary judgment may be based on the district court’s review of the proceedings and record from the administrative level. See Hackley v. Roudebush, 520 F.2d 108, 156-57 (D.C.Cir.1975). The VA" }, { "docid": "4138013", "title": "", "text": "regarding the scope of review of actions brought by federal employees under the Amendments. The Court concluded from the language of the 1972 Amendments and the report of the Congressional managers that federal employees are entitled to a trial de novo, not merely a review of the administrative record, for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. 360 F.Supp. 256-58. However, see 372 F.Supp. 762 (1974) where the same court reversed itself and' held that no de novo trial was required. Judge Newell Edenfield of this district recently ruled that in a Title YII suit brought by a federal employee who has properly completed the administrative prerequisites to filing suit, the federal employee is entitled to a trial de novo on the merits and not merely a review of the administrative record employing a “substantial evidence” standard of review. Henry Thomas v. George W. Camp, (Civ. No. C75-652A, decided September 8, 1975). Even more persuasive is Judge Gibbons’s opinion in Sperling v. United States, 515 F.2d 465, 474-484 (3 Cir. 1975), which extensively analyzed the legislative history of the Act and concluded that the analysis of Judge Ge-sell’s leading opinion in Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (D.D.C.1973) misread the Act’s legislative history. The Third Circuit in Sperling found that a federal employee under § 2000e-16 had a right to a trial de novo. Accordingly, based on the Sperling decision, the Fifth Circuit’s recent citation with approval of the earlier Thompson case in Parks v. Dunlop, and Judge Edenfield’s decision in Thomas v. Camp, supra, this Court concludes that Mr. Jones is entitled to a de novo trial, not merely a review of the administrative record under § 2000e-16. III. Scope of Relief Under U.S.C. § 1981 The defendant Brennan argues that plaintiff’s claims for injunctive, declaratory, compensatory and back-pay relief against the defendant government officers are barred by the sovereign immu nity doctrine. Penn v. Schlesinger, 490 F.2d 700, 703 (5 Cir. 1973) (Penn I). The Fifth Circuit reversed itself on the administrative exhaustion issue in an en banc decision in Penn v. Schlesinger, 497 F.2d 970 (5 Cir." }, { "docid": "4918638", "title": "", "text": "bringing certain claims under Title VII because' they have failed to exhaust their available administrative remedies, they would also be precluded from raising these claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or the Fifth Amendment. Bowers v. Campbell, supra. Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the exhaustion requirements by alleging additional jurisdictional grounds. Accordingly, all jurisdictional grounds other than Title VII are dismissed. McLaughlin v. Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 885 (S.D.Ala.1974). II. SCOPE OF REVIEW Ten of the eleven plaintiffs’ claims were investigated by the employees’ own agency at the naval base (5 C.F.R. §§ 713.213-713.218). Six of the plaintiffs also had more formal “quasi-judicial” hearings before the Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) (5 C.F.R. § 713.231). Bowers v. Campbell, supra. The defendants contend that the records produced by these administrative bodies adequately develop the discrimination claims,. that any deficits in the records are due to plaintiffs’ own failure to make timely requests for additional information or witnesses, and that the Court is, therefore, limited to reviewing the administrative records and determining whether “an absence of discrimination is affirmatively established by the clear weight of the evidence”. Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247, 1252 (D.D.C.1973); Chandler v. Johnson, 515 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1975); Salone v. U. S., 511 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1975). Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend the available administrative records have serious deficiencies that can only be remedied through judicial discovery. They contend that at the least they are entitled to supplement the administrative record (Chandler v. Johnson, supra), and that the more appropriate relief would be a hearing de novo in district court. Sperling v. United States, 515 F.2d 465 (3d Cir. 1975). A. The District Court Decisions Federal employees were expressly excluded from the coverage of Title VII as it was initially enacted. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and (e). In 1972, Title VII was amended by the Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16), and federal employees were brought within the ambit of the Act. Since that time, the scope of judicial review in federal employee discrimination cases has been a much litigated issue. Several" }, { "docid": "4918639", "title": "", "text": "established by the clear weight of the evidence”. Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247, 1252 (D.D.C.1973); Chandler v. Johnson, 515 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1975); Salone v. U. S., 511 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1975). Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend the available administrative records have serious deficiencies that can only be remedied through judicial discovery. They contend that at the least they are entitled to supplement the administrative record (Chandler v. Johnson, supra), and that the more appropriate relief would be a hearing de novo in district court. Sperling v. United States, 515 F.2d 465 (3d Cir. 1975). A. The District Court Decisions Federal employees were expressly excluded from the coverage of Title VII as it was initially enacted. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and (e). In 1972, Title VII was amended by the Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16), and federal employees were brought within the ambit of the Act. Since that time, the scope of judicial review in federal employee discrimination cases has been a much litigated issue. Several courts have reasoned that since private employees who bring discrimination suits pursuant to Title VII are entitled to hearings de novo in federal court (Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., supra; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)), federal employees who bring discrimination actions under the same statute are also entitled to de novo hearings (e. g. Reynolds v. Wise, 375 F.Supp. 145 (N.D.Tex.1974); Henderson v. Defense Contract Admin. Service Region, 370 F.Supp. 180 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). Other district courts have taken a contrary position holding that federal employees, suing under Title VII, are not entitled as a matter of right to hearings de novo in federal courts. e. g. Hackley v. Johnson, supra; Carreathers v. Alex- under, No. C-5082 (D.Colo. Dec. 11, 1974). These courts, after declaring the legislative history of the 1972 Amendments to Title VII to be murky, compare the legislative scheme for private and public employee discrimination suits. They reason that private employees who are entitled to hearings de novo in federal court may only process" }, { "docid": "23338336", "title": "", "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from an order of the district court granting summary judgment against the plaintiff in an action brought against the Veterans Administration (VA) under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. as amended by Section 717 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, (the 1972 Act) 42 U.S.C. § 20006-16. The summary judgment was predicated upon findings by the trial judge that the plaintiff had failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies and that she did not meet the provisions of 5 C.F.R. § 713.214(a)(4), which permits waiver of the general requirement that a complaint be made within thirty days of an alleged discriminatory incident if certain conditions are met. Because the district court did not properly apply F.R.Civ.P. 56 in granting the motion for summary judgment, we reverse and remand. I. HISTORY OF THE CASE A. The Background of the Case. This is the second time that this case has been before this Court. In Ettinger v. Johnson, 518 F.2d 648 (3d Cir. 1975) (Ettinger I), this Court reversed the district court’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to a trial de novo on the question of discrimination. In its holding in Ettinger I, the district court judge granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that the VA’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for untimeliness was supported “by not only substantial, but also uncontroverted facts” in the administrative record. We disagreed with the denial of a de novo hearing, and “[b]ecause the record [then] before us . [did] not contain sufficient facts relevant to deciding either aspect of this exhaustion issue, we [remanded] the case to the district court for a hearing de novo on the question of exhaustion.” 518 F.2d at 652. It is evident from the language at pages 652-658 of 518 F.2d that the record, as it then existed, was insufficient to ascertain whether or not the December 6, 1972, allegation was an effective claim at the time the formal complaint was filed on December 18,1972," }, { "docid": "21923128", "title": "", "text": "trial de novo in district court, see Hackley v. Roudebush, 520 F.2d 198 (D.C.Cir. 1975), rev’g Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (D.D.C.1973). While the cross-motions for summary judgment were under advisement, the Supreme Court held that Title VII plaintiffs against the federal government have the right to a trial de novo, Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 96 S.Ct. 1949, 48 L.Ed.2d 416 (1976). The plaintiffs suggest that GPO waived its right to a trial de novo by filing its motion for summary judgment. The rule governing cross-motions for summary judgment, however, is that neither party waives the right to a full trial on the merits by filing its own motion; each side concedes that no material facts are at issue only for the purposes of its own motion. If a motion is based on a legal theory later rejected — as here — the movant retains whatever right that party otherwise has to a trial on the merits. See 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720 (1973). . The genesis of the lawsuit was the McKenzie complaint. Within thirty days of final administrative action on the CMW complaint, plaintiffs sought leave to amend the McKenzie suit to include the additional plaintiffs, R. 7. When the district court permitted amendment of the McKenzie suit, and certified the class as “all ... past, present and future black employees of the Offset Press Section,” R. 8, separate proceedings on the CMW complaint were voluntarily dismissed. . One black was promoted to group chief in March 1974, R. 136, J.A. 493. Evidence of this promotion, however, was not part of the record on summary judgment but was submitted in connection with the proceedings on relief. . In this appeal, the plaintiffs also remind us that they had alleged that certain practices in OPS were in violation of Title VII because they had a disparate impact on blacks, Brief for Plaintiffs at 30. In particular, they contend that the decision to allow letterpress trainees priority in filling journeyman positions over offset press assistants, the heavy reliance on supervisory" }, { "docid": "19994482", "title": "", "text": "S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944). In these claims that he was denied his liberty without due process, plaintiff has clearly alleged acts which independently constitute deprivations of his federal constitutional “rights, privileges, or immunities,” and which are therefore actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. O’Connor v. Donaldson, supra, 422 U.S. at 573-76, 95 S.Ct. 2486. “It is no answer that the State has a law which if enforced would give relief. The federal remedy [of § 1983] is supplementary to the state remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the federal one is invoked.” Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183, 81 S.Ct. 473, 482, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). It is of course well established that a plaintiff need not exhaust state judicial proceedings before proceeding in federal court under § 1983. Monroe v. Pape, supra ; see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 609-10 n. 21, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 472-73, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S.Ct. 407, 30 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971); McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668, 83 S.Ct. 1433, 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963). This universal rule is no less applicable to complaints alleging the deprivation of constitutional rights in the context of civil commitment by reason of mental illness. Woe v. Mathews, 408 F.Supp. 419, 426 (E.D. N.Y.1976), aff’d mem. sub nom. Woe v. Weinberger, 562 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Although the Second Circuit does require exhaustion of administrative remedies in certain circumstances, Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 841, 91 S.Ct. 82, 27 L.Ed.2d 75 (1970); see Morgan v. La Vallee, 526 F.2d 221, 223 (2d Cir. 1975); Fuentes v. Roher, 519 F.2d 379, 386-87 (2d Cir. 1975); see also Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 186 n. *, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 574-75, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973), defendants have failed to suggest any such" }, { "docid": "17759193", "title": "", "text": "interpersonal encounter. Having found that the Hearing Examiner’s decision was based upon substantial evidence and was a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, the Court will deny defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment. And while the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the basis of the administrative record, the Court can do no more than issue a declaration that the defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a), since the parties have not addressed what specific relief is appropriate and lawful under the circumstances. The Court will therefore issue an order disposing of the motions and requiring the parties to submit memoranda on the question of remedies. . Plaintiffs decision was made while the appeal in Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (D.D.C.1973) was still pending. The court of appeals has since rendered its decision affirming the right to a trial de novo in federal employee Title VII cases. Hackley v. Roudebush, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 520 F.2d 108 (1975). . While Sprogis was a private sector case arising under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, its analysis is applicable to federal employee cases under § 2000e-16. See H.R.Rep. No. 92-238, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) and S.Rep. No. 92^415, 92d Sess., 1st Cong. (1971), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1971, p. 2137. . See Willinghan v. Macon Telegraph Publishing Co., 482 F.2d 535, 537 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1973). . See e. g., Utility Workers Union v. Southern California Edison Co., 2 E.P.D. ¶ 10,133 (C.D. Cal. 1969). . The court also deferred to the agency’s interpretation of the Act that “ ‘so long as sex is a factor in the application of the rule, such application involves a discrimination based on sex.’ 29 CFR § 1604.3(a).” 444 F.2d at 1198. . This court also rejects any argument that this cannot be sex discrimination because the application of the rule would depend upon the sexual preference of the supervisor, as opposed to some other reason. But the reason for the discrimination under Title VII is not necessary to a finding of discrimination. Cf. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 432, 91 S.Ct." }, { "docid": "7138143", "title": "", "text": "limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.” Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 1132, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982). The second purpose of the exhaustion requirement is far more crucial. Without an allegation of discrimination personal to the Title VII complainant, the agency cannot render a decision on the merits. It is particularly important that the agency develop a record and have the opportunity to exercise its discretion, to apply its expertise, and, possibly, to discover and correct its own errors. In Johnson v. Bergland, 614 F.2d 415 (5th Cir.1980), a Title VII com plainant resorted to the administrative process, but his administrative complaint was vacated because he failed to make his generalized discrimination charge more specific. The court found that the plaintiffs suit was properly dismissed for failure to pursue and exhaust administrative remedies. The court explained: The administrative complaint procedures must be complied with. If they are, and an adverse decision is rendered on the merits of a complaint, then a complainant is entitled to a de novo hearing in federal court. However, if the agency does not reach the merits of the complaint because the complainant fails to comply with the administrative procedures the Court should not reach the merits either. Otherwise, the complainant might be dilatory at the administrative level, knowing that he can get into federal court anyway. See Ettinger v. Johnson, 518 F.2d 648 (3rd Cir.1975). Id. at 417-418. Similarly, in Dixon v. Marshall, 27 F.E.P. Cases 1656 (D.D.C.1979), the plaintiff complained that the Department of Labor’s failure to provide an affirmative action plan constituted discrimination on the basis of race. The agency’s EEO office rejected plaintiff’s claim as not within the purview of the regulations. The court in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction held that [plaintiff’s complaint of an inadequate affirmative action plan * * * is a general allegation * * * and is not within the purview of the Civil Service regulations, 5 C.F.R. §§ 713.212 et seq. [the forerunner of 29 C.F.R. § 1613.212], Consequently, 42 U.S.C. §" }, { "docid": "23200588", "title": "", "text": "exhaustion requirement as barring from district court consideration issues which were not raised in administrative proceedings. Beale v. Blount, 461 F.2d 1133, 1140 (5th Cir. 1972). Absent unusual circumstances which would make it impossible for the employee to raise an issue in the administrative process, this Fifth Circuit rule is a sound one, which promotes the purposes of the exhaustion doctrine. See McKart, supra at 193-95, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194, for an exposition of these purposes. . “(4) The agency shall extend the time lim-. its in this section: (i) When the complainant shows that he was not notified of the time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, or that he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from submitting the matter within the time limits; or (ii) for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency.” ADAMS, Circuit Judge (concurring): Although I have serious reservations regarding this Court’s holding in Sperling v. United States that federal employees are entitled to trials de novo in the district courts with respect to their allegations of employment discrimination and although some courts have raised questions whether, as the Court decided in Sperling, Section 717(c) of the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 applies retroactively, the Sperling decision now represents the law of this Circuit. Since the result reached by the majority here appears to be consistent with Sperling, I concur. . 515 F.2d 465 (3rd Cir., 1975). Compare Salone v. United States, 511 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1975); Chandler v. Johnson, 515 F.2d 251 (9th Cir., Apr. 25, 1975); Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (D.D.C.1973), appeal docketed, No. 73-2072 (D.C.Cir., Sept. 7, 1973). . 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (Supp.1975). . In deciding the retroactivity issue in Sperling the Court referred to a similar ruling by the Second Circuit in Brown v. General Services Administration, 8 F.E.P.Cas. 1299 (1974). See No. 74-1533 at 14 n. 30. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Brown. 421 U.S. 987, 95 S.Ct. 1989, 44 L.Ed.2d 476 (1975). The Sixth Circuit has held that section 717(c) is not retroactive. Place v. Weinberger, 497 F.2d" } ]

[ { "docid": "4968495", "title": "", "text": "OPINION AND ORDER ELMO B. HUNTER, District Judge. In this action plaintiff, a firm engaged in the business of. developing, producing and marketing pesticides for agricultural and industrial use, asserts that the defendant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is violating the provisions of certain sections of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 135 et seq., as amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (FEPGA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. (1972). Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the actions of the Administrator violate FIFRA as amended, and injunctive relief restraining the Administrator from those violations. Subject matter jurisdiction is provided by § 16(c) of FIFRA, as amended by FEPCA, 7 U.S.C. § 136n(c), and venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(4) (1966). The Regulatory Background The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 135 et seq., originally was enacted in 1947. At that time, it applied only to pesticides shipped in interstate commerce and was administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. Until 1970, tolerances for pesticide chemicals were established by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. In 1970, by Reorganization Plan No. 3, 35 Fed.Reg. 15623 (1970), both of these administrative functions were transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Before any pesticide could be marketed in interstate commerce, FIFRA required that the producer have the pesticide registered. In order to obtain registration, the applicant for registration was required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Agriculture and, later, to the Administrator of the EPA, the safety and efficacy of the pesticide product. If the use of a pesticide could result in a residue in or on food crops, a tolerance for such use also had to be established pursuant to § 408 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In order to satisfy the requirements of the Acts, an application for registration of a pesticide had to be supported by substantial amounts of information, research and test data regarding the pesticide chemical. In 1972, FIFRA was" } ]

[ { "docid": "23659608", "title": "", "text": "VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which preliminarily enjoined appellants, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Administrator, from enforcing against appellees two provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(1)(D), 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(D), and section 10, 7 U.S.C. § 136h(d) (Supp. II 1978). The district judge found that appellees had raised serious questions going to the merits, had shown substantial irreparable harm and a balance of hardships tipping in their favor, and were therefore entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. We reverse. Appellees are producers of pesticide chemicals. Since 1947, FIFRA has required them to register their pesticides with the federal government. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administered the registration program from 1947 until 1970, when EPA assumed that responsibility. To assist the USDA in evaluating registration applications, the 1947 law gave it discretion to require the submission of “a full description of the tests made and the results thereof upon which the claims are based”. 7 U.S.C. § 135b(a)(4). Acting under this provision, the USDA required each applicant to submit data showing both the efficacy of the pesticide and the hazards, if any, in its use. These data are the subject of this litigation. Appellees test thousands of compounds for efficacy, safety, and other properties before they ultimately offer one for sale as a commercial pesticide. This costly research and lengthy development process produce data that define the peculiar characteristics of the pesticide submitted for registration. Data of this nature must be submitted for registration. Data of this nature must be submitted to obtain registration not only in the United States but in many other countries as well. Without them, a manufacturer cannot compete effectively in the pesticide market. Appellees contend that the data submitted by them are common law trade secrets in which they have a property interest. As enacted in 1947, FIFRA did not specifically prohibit the USDA from publicly disclosing submitted data or from using data supplied by one applicant to" }, { "docid": "22567035", "title": "", "text": "Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-394, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Roden-ticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y, by requiring the EPA to evaluate new pesticide uses and reevaluate the safety of authorized pesticide uses based upon a complex measurement of risk factors. FFDCA § 408(b)(2)(A)(ii), 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii). The EPA regulates pesticides under both the FFDCA and FIFRA. FIFRA imposes a federal licensing scheme on the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides. It provides that “no person in any State may distribute or sell to any person any pesticide that is not registered” by the EPA. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). A pesticide cannot be registered unless EPA, after substantial testing, determines that “it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects in the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D). The process for registering a pesticide is described in FIFRA and EPA regulations at 7 U.S.C. § 136a and 40 C.F.R. §§ 152 and 158. Under certain “emergency” conditions, however, the EPA may exempt a pesticide use from the FI-FRA registration requirement. 7 U.S.C. § 136p. FIFRA further provides that if the EPA later determines that additional scientific data are required to maintain in effect an existing pesticide registration, the EPA must notify all registrants of the pesticide in what is termed a “data call-in” to provide registrants with the opportunity to submit the additional data specified in the notice or face suspension of their registration. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(B)(ii). Under 1988 amendments to FIFRA, the EPA is required to re-register any pesticide first registered before November 1, 1984. 7 U.S.C. § 136a-l(a)-(g). For those pesticides that the EPA re-registers, EPA must determine whether additional “product-specific data” is needed, and if so, obtain that information through a data call-in. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(2)(A) and (B). Upon review of the product-specific data, the EPA must decide if the particular product warrants re-registration. 7 U.S.C. § 136a-1(g)(2)(C). The FFDCA provides for the regulation of the presence of pesticides in agricultural commodities by empowering the EPA to establish “tolerances” setting the maximum allowable levels of pesticide residue in foods. 21" }, { "docid": "16284433", "title": "", "text": "because of the importance of resuming registrations as quickly as possible. In other words, EPA says it acted in the public interest, and this constitutes good cause for noncompliance with the 30-day publication rule of 5 U.S.C. § 553(d). For the same reasons given in regard to the notice-and-comment procedures, we believe that there was good cause for making both sets of regulations effective immediately. Ill DELETION OF DEADLINE FOR REREGISTRATION In Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle, 447 F.Supp. 811 (W.D.Mo.1978), the district court, Judge Hunter presiding, found that 23 registrations relying on Mobay’s data without its permission and offers of compensation had been issued in violation of § 3(c)(1)(D) of the 1972 amendments. The court did not cancel those registrations, however. Instead, the court observed that Mobay would receive its compensation when EPA reregistered the 23 products. Id. at 823-24. At the time that case was decided, the deadline for reregistration was October 21, 1977. Congress changed this deadline by the 1978 amendments, however, after the case was decided. Now, under § 3(g), 7 U.S.C.A. § 136a(g), the Administrator is to reregister pesticides “in the most expeditious manner practicable.” As we mentioned earlier, EPA says reregistration may not be completed for 10 to 15 years. Mobay alleges, in Count III, that § 3(g) constitutes a taking of its property without due process or just compensation, in that it deprives Mobay of compensation rights established by a judgment. Mobay seeks a declaratory judgment to that effect. Mo-bay also asks us to order that EPA immediately reregister the 23 products so that it may obtain the compensation due it. Alternatively, Mobay asks that we order EPA to cancel the registrations of the 23 products. Section 3(g) does not repeal the reregistration provisions of FIFRA, but instead sets an affirmative, albeit indefinite, timetable for reregistration. Mobay’s right to compensation has not been abrogated. Delay in the payment of just compensation to a property owner whose property has been taken may violate the fifth amendment. See, e. g., Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 677, 43 S.Ct. 684, 688," }, { "docid": "6765512", "title": "", "text": "patents expired in February, 1978, and thus the right to make, use and sell naled and paraquat became a part of the public domain. When the compounds were patented, however, the issuance of patents did not confer on Chevron the right to sell those compounds in interstate commerce for agricultural use. Federal law has regulated the sale in interstate commerce of agricultural fungicides and pesticides since the passage of the Insecticide Act of April 26, 1910, c. 191, 36 Stat. 335. In 1947 more stringent regulations were adopted, requiring registration of such compounds prior to sale in interstate commerce, and requiring, as a condition to registration, that the applicant submit test data to demonstrate to a federal regulatory agency the product’s safety and efficacy. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of June 25, 1947, c. 125 §§ 2-13, 61 Stat. 163-72; 7 U.S.C. § 135 et seq., superceded by 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. Originally the registration function was housed in the Department of Agriculture, and later in the Food and Drug Administration, but in 1970 that function was transferred to EPA, 35 Fed.Reg. 15623 (1970). Beginning in 1955 and continuing to 1979, Chevron submitted to EPA and its predecessor agencies test data supporting its applications for registration of naled. Beginning in 1966 and continuing through 1980, Chevron submitted to those agencies test data supporting its application for registration of paraquat. Both were approved as safe and effective, and have been sold by Chevron and its licensees in interstate commerce in substantial quantities. The test data submitted to the federal agencies involving the results of metabolism, toxicity, efficency, and tolerance testing on plants and animals, required expenditures by Chevron in excess of $1 million, and all of it, except to the extent it was submitted to those agencies, has been maintained in confidence. Indeed, according to Chevron, development of the information required to demonstrate safety and efficacy may be more costly than the research leading to development of the patented chemical compounds. Thus, as between it and its competitors, Chevron takes steps to treat the test data as trade" }, { "docid": "16284438", "title": "", "text": "in fact granted in violation of the compensation provisions of § 3(c)(1)(D), Congressional recognition of the legitimate confusion concerning those provisions resulted in a clear expression of Congressional desire not to invalidate those improperly-granted registrations. See also S.Rep. No. 94-452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Nov. 10, 1975, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1975, p. 1359. In short, plaintiff will receive any relief to which it is entitled not immediately, but upon reregistration of the products registered under FIFRA of 1947. Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle, supra, 447 F.Supp. at 823-24. We note that Judge Hunter issued his decision in March of 1978, after the October 21, 1977 deadline set for reregistration had passed. He thus could not have assumed that there was any deadline for reregistration, or that Mobay would soon be receiving compensation. We believe that the legislative history relied on by Judge Hunter is still persuasive. Mobay is definitely entitled to compensation under § 3(c)(1)(D), and it will receive it upon reregistration. Congress has exhorted EPA to perform reregistration in the most expeditious manner practicable. In view of the thousands of products which must be reregistered on a priority basis, from the most dangerous down to the least, we decline to interfere with the reregistration process. We also decline to order EPA to cancel the 23 registrations. Since the 23 registrants are not present before us, or a part of this proceeding, we hesitate to issue such summary relief. Consequently, we deny Mobay’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief under Count III. . The Department of Agriculture was responsible for overseeing the registration of pesticides until 1970, when the newly created Environmental Protection Agency assumed the responsibility. . Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-516, 86 Stat. 973. . Act of Nov. 28, 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-140, 89 Stat. 751. . The EPA was authorized, as early as the 1972 reenactment, by § 3(c)(2)(A) to request additional data. See Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-516, § 2, 86 Stat. 980. Apparently the 1978 amendments were intended to provide detailed" }, { "docid": "6765511", "title": "", "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Chevron Chemical Company (Chevron) appeals from an order of the district court denying its motion for a preliminary injunction and granting the motion of the defendant, Douglas M. Costle, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Chevron’s amended complaint alleges that EPA possesses test data submitted by it in order to obtain registration for sale in interstate commerce of the pesticide naled and fungicide paraquat, and seeks preliminary injunctions prohibiting that agency from using such data submitted by Chevron “before, on, or after January 1, 1970” in ruling on applications for registrations for sale of chemically identical pesticides made by other manufacturers. The district court concluded that EPA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm, although on grounds somewhat different from those the district court relied on, 499 F.Supp. 732. I. More than nineteen years ago Chevron obtained patents on a pesticide, naled, and a fungicide, paraquat. Both are chemical compounds effective in controlling fungus and insect damage in agricultural products. Those patents expired in February, 1978, and thus the right to make, use and sell naled and paraquat became a part of the public domain. When the compounds were patented, however, the issuance of patents did not confer on Chevron the right to sell those compounds in interstate commerce for agricultural use. Federal law has regulated the sale in interstate commerce of agricultural fungicides and pesticides since the passage of the Insecticide Act of April 26, 1910, c. 191, 36 Stat. 335. In 1947 more stringent regulations were adopted, requiring registration of such compounds prior to sale in interstate commerce, and requiring, as a condition to registration, that the applicant submit test data to demonstrate to a federal regulatory agency the product’s safety and efficacy. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of June 25, 1947, c. 125 §§ 2-13, 61 Stat. 163-72; 7 U.S.C. § 135 et seq., superceded by 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. Originally the registration function was housed in the Department of Agriculture, and later in the Food and Drug Administration, but" }, { "docid": "16284340", "title": "", "text": "features of the regulatory scheme, Mobay claims, render research and development in the pesticide industry unprofitable and impractical. It says that chemical companies will not devote large amounts of money and time to developing new pesticides if they know that their trade secret data will be disclosed to others; if another company may obtain a registration by relying entirely on their data and submitting none of its own; if EPA is continually imposing new conditions on them which they must meet in order to keep their products on the market; or if EPA does not publish definite data requirements specifying exactly what tests and studies must be submitted. In short, Mobay contends that the scheme is now arbitrary and uncertain. The defendant offered justification for both the FIFRA amendments and EPA’s interpretation of those amendments, expressed in its regulations. The defendant contends that Congress and the EPA acted together to increase competition in the pesticide industry, present all scientific data necessary for informed regulatory decisions before EPA, protect the proprietary rights of data submitters, inform the public about the effects of the chemicals contained in the pesticides, and ease the burden EPA has long borne in processing thousands of applications for registration and analyzing innumerable items of data. In other words, despite FIFRA’s and the regulations’ seeming inscrutability, and their allegedly appro-priative data sharing scheme, and the interminable registration process, Congress and EPA have devised a rational scheme designed to meet several needs and satisfy diverse interests. Numerous exhibits were introduced at trial, and both sides have filed extensive pretrial and posttrial briefs. These, together with our review of the transcripts of the able direct and cross examination of both sides’ witnesses, have facilitated our understanding of FIFRA and the regulations, and our perception of Mobay’s objections to them. THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT Enacted in 1947, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, ch. 125, 61 Stat. 163 (1947), initially provided for a simple and straightforward registration process. An applicant seeking to register his pesticide — or “economic poison” as it was called then, see id. §" }, { "docid": "5788927", "title": "", "text": "creating a record of more than 13,000 pages. In May 1976, Allied Chemical Corporation transferred its Mirex registrations to the Mississippi Authority for the Control of Fire Ants. In September 1976, the Mississippi Authority offered to cancel the registrations voluntarily, to phase out production, and to suspend the pending proceedings indefinitely. The Administrative Law Judge temporarily suspended the hearings to allow the EPA time to consider the proposal. The Agency submitted the plan for comment to all participants in the hearing with a document eventually titled “Summary of Evidence and Other Information and Statement of Reasons.” Although the petitioners and others, including the United States Department of Agriculture, objected to the plan, the Administrator of the EPA approved it and ordered the suspension of the hearing. This appeal followed the Administrator’s decision. The legislation under consideration here has never been construed in a published opinion of this court, although other courts have had occasion to review various provisions of the act. In 1972, FIFRA, which was originally enacted in 1947, was completely revised in the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act. The general purpose of the revisions was to expand EPA’s supervisory role over the use of pesticides. See S.Rep.No.92-838, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972), reprinted in [1972] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 3993. For exam- pie, the Act extended registration requirements to pesticides marketed in intrastate commerce, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a), and increased the requirements for the submission of research, test data and other information to the EPA. See, e. g., 7 U.S.C. § 136d(a)(2). It required previously registered pesticides to be re-registered to ensure that the registrations of older pesticides met the data requirements of the new law. See Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle, W.D.Mo.1978, 447 F.Supp. 811, 814 appeal dismissed, 1979, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 644, 58 L.Ed.2d 549; 40 C.F.R. § 162.6(b)(5). Although the revisions were aimed at increasing the EPA’s ability to protect the environment, they were also designed to assure that the economic interests of farmers and other consumers would be fully considered before any pesticide was withdrawn from the market. For this reason," }, { "docid": "16284394", "title": "", "text": "the guidelines, submits the required data, and obtains a registration. If EPA later discovers evidence which raises questions about a pesticide’s safety, it may request, pursuant to § 3(c)(2)(B), that additional data be submitted. Section 3(c)(2)(A) applies to applications for registration submitted after the date of its enactment, which was October 21, 1972. It thus cannot apply to registrations issued before that time under the 1947 FIFRA, since data guidelines would be unnecessary for already registered pesticides. Under Mobay’s interpretation, however, EPA’s authority for requesting additional data from pre-1972 FIFRA registrants would be unclear. If Mobay’s interpretation of § 3(c)(2)(A) controlled, it would frustrate the operation of § 3(c)(2)(B), which we believe must be independent of § 3(c)(2)(A). Section 3(c)(2)(B) authorizes requests for additional data “to maintain in effect an existing registration of a pesticide.” EPA should not be prevented from obtaining data concerning a pesticide to aid it in ascertaining that the pesticide is safe, merely because it has not yet published final data guidelines. As to the portion of Count I challenging § 3(c)(2)(B), we do no more than set out the stipulation of the parties filed on August 25,1980. That is, that § 3(c)(2)(B) does not compel Mobay to enter into joint data development or cost sharing arrangements, and that § 3(c)(2)(B)’s arbitration provisions are applicable only if Mobay first elects to enter into such arrangements. We find nothing to indicate that EPA’s practices deviate from this. We therefore hold that the rest of Mobay’s objections to § 3(c)(2)(B) are without merit. II THE REGISTRATION PROCESS UNDER THE 1978 AMENDMENTS A. The FIFRA Regulations Mobay challenges the regulations which outline EPA’s generic standards registration procedure. Mobay asserts that these regulations violate FIFRA, are arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and were promulgated without observance of procedure required by law. The FIFRA registration regulations are published at 40 C.F.R. §§ 162.1-162.47 (1980). Those regulations, notably §§ 162.-7(d), .8, .9-1 to 8, and .18-1 to 5, implementing FIFRA §§ 3(c)(1)(D), 3(c)(2)(D), and 3(c)(7) are the center of controversy. Under the new registration scheme, EPA will conduct complete data evaluations for unconditional" }, { "docid": "23659611", "title": "", "text": "date of the 1972 amendments. The latter ambiguity was resolved in 1975 when Congress provided that the new use restrictions applied only to data submitted on or after January 1, 1970. Pub.L. No. 94-140, § 12, 89 Stat. 755 (1975). Definition of “trade secret” was left to the Administrator and the courts. The EPA took the position that the 1972 and 1975 amendments restricted use and disclosure of only a narrow range of data, such as formulas and manufacturing processes, and did not include the hazard and efficacy data at issue here. In a series of lawsuits, the industry challenged this view, meeting with some success. Several district courts held that test data might be considered a trade secret if the data met the requisites of that term as set forth in section 757, comment b, of the Restatement of Torts. See, e. g., Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle, 447 F.Supp. 811, 824-27 (W.D.Mo. 1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 320, 99 S.Ct. 644, 58 L.Ed.2d 549 (1979); Chevron Chemical Co. v. Costle, 443 F.Supp. 1024, 1031-32 (N.D.Cal.1978); Dow Chemical Co. v. Costle, No. 76-10087, (E.D.Mich., Nov. 16, 1977). As originally filed on June 30, 1976, the present lawsuit also challenged EPA’s construction of the 1972 and 1975 amendments. While the litigation was in progress, however, Congress enacted the Federal Pesticide Act of 1978, which amended FIFRA to reflect the EPA’s position. Pub.L. No. 95-396, 92 Stat. 819 (Sept. 30, 1978). Appellees then amended their complaint so as to attack the new provisions on constitutional grounds. Appellees contend that the disclosure and use provisions of the 1978 amendments constitute a taking of their property without just compensation or due process of law. In an unreported opinion dated July 5, 1979, the district court granted appellees’ application for a temporary injunction prohibiting the unconsented-to disclosure and use of appellees’ trade secret research and test data submitted on or before September 30, 1978, the date of the 1978 Act. It is this injunction order that we now reverse. In arguing for affirmance, appellees rely heavily on the oft-repeated doctrines that the purpose of" }, { "docid": "16284341", "title": "", "text": "the public about the effects of the chemicals contained in the pesticides, and ease the burden EPA has long borne in processing thousands of applications for registration and analyzing innumerable items of data. In other words, despite FIFRA’s and the regulations’ seeming inscrutability, and their allegedly appro-priative data sharing scheme, and the interminable registration process, Congress and EPA have devised a rational scheme designed to meet several needs and satisfy diverse interests. Numerous exhibits were introduced at trial, and both sides have filed extensive pretrial and posttrial briefs. These, together with our review of the transcripts of the able direct and cross examination of both sides’ witnesses, have facilitated our understanding of FIFRA and the regulations, and our perception of Mobay’s objections to them. THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT Enacted in 1947, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, ch. 125, 61 Stat. 163 (1947), initially provided for a simple and straightforward registration process. An applicant seeking to register his pesticide — or “economic poison” as it was called then, see id. § 2(a) — was required to file with the Secretary of Agriculture his name and address, the name of the pesticide, a complete copy of the labeling and a statement of all claims made for it, including directions for use, and, if requested by the Secretary, a full description of the tests made and the results thereof upon which the claims were based. Id. § 4(a), 61 Stat. 167. If he deemed it necessary for the effective administration of the Act, the Secretary could require the applicant to submit the complete formula of the pesticide. Id. § 4(b). The early FIFRA made it unlawful for any person to reveal or use to his own advantage information relative to product formulas, acquired by authority of the Act, id. § 3(c)(4), and provided penalties for violations. Id. § 8, 61 Stat. 170. The Secretary registered the pesticide if it appeared that its composition was such as to warrant the proposed claims made for it and if it and its labeling and other submitted materials complied with the Act." }, { "docid": "22701163", "title": "", "text": "In addition, Congress failed to designate an effective date for the data-consideration and disclosure schemes. In 1975, Congress amended § 3(c)(1)(D) to provide that the data-consideration and data-disclosure provisions applied only to data submitted on or after January 1, 1970, 89 Stat. 755, but left the definitional question unanswered. Much litigation centered around the definition of “trade secrets or commercial or financial information” for the purposes of the data-consideration and data-disclosure provisions of FIFRA. EPA maintained that the exemption from consideration or disclosure applied only to a narrow range of information, principally statements of formulae and manufacturing processes. In a series of lawsuits, however, data-submitting firms challenged EPA’s interpretation and obtained several decisions to the effect that the term “trade secrets” applied to any data, including health, safety, and environmental data, that met the definition of trade secrets set forth in Restatement of Torts §757 (1939). See, e. g., Mobay Chemical Cory. v. Costle, 447 F. Supp. 811 (WD Mo. 1978); Chevron Chemical Co. v. Costle, 443 F. Supp. 1024 (ND Cal. 1978). These decisions prevented EPA from disclosing much of the data on which it based its decision to register pesticides and from considering the data submitted by one applicant in reviewing the application of a later applicant. See S. Rep. No. 95-334, at 7; H. R. Rep. No. 95-663, p. 18. (1977). Because of these and other problems with the regulatory scheme embodied in FIFRA as amended in 1972, see S. Rep. No. 95-334, at 2-5; H. R. Rep. No. 95-663, at 15-21; see generally EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, FIFRA: Impact on the Industry (1977), reprinted in S. Rep. No. 95-334, at 34-68, Congress enacted other amendments to FIFRA in 1978. These were effected by the Federal Pesticide Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 819. The new amendments included a series of revisions in the data-consideration and data-disclosure provisions of FIFRA’s §§3 and 10, 7 U. S. C. §§ 136a and 136h. Under FIFRA, as amended in 1978, applicants are granted a 10-year period of exclusive use for data on new active ingredients contained in pesticides registered after" }, { "docid": "22086869", "title": "", "text": "this conflict. 542 U. S. 936 (2004). II Prior to 1910 the States provided the primary and possibly the exclusive source of regulatory control over the distribution of poisonous substances. Both the Federal Government’s first effort at regulation in this area, the Insecticide Act of 1910, 36 Stat. 331, and FIFRA as originally enacted in 1947, ch. 125, 61 Stat. 163, primarily dealt with licensing and labeling. Under the original version of FIFRA, all pesticides sold in interstate commerce had to be registered with the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary would register a pesticide if it complied with the statute’s labeling standards and was determined to be efficacious and safe. In 1970, EPA assumed responsibility for this registration process. In 1972, spurred by growing environmental and safety concerns, Congress adopted the extensive amendments that “transformed FIFRA from a labeling law into a comprehensive regulatory statute.” Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 991 (1984). “As amended, FIFRA regulated the use, as well as the sale and labeling, of pesticides; regulated pesticides produced and sold in both intrastate and interstate commerce; provided for review, cancellation, and suspension of registration; and gave EPA greater enforcement authority.” Id., at 991-992. The 1972 amendments also imposed a new criterion for registration — environmental safety. Id., at 992. See generally 4 F. Grad, Treatise on Environmental Law §§8.02-8.03 (2004) (tracing FIFRA’s statutory evolution). Under FIFRA as it currently stands, a manufacturer seeking to register a pesticide must submit a proposed label to EPA as well as certain supporting data. 7 U. S. C. §§ 136a(c)(1)(C), (F). The agency will register the pesticide if it determines that the pesticide is efficacious (with the caveat discussed below), § 136a(c)(5)(A); that it will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, §§ 136a(c)(5)(C), (D); § 136(bb); and that its label complies with the statute’s prohibition on misbranding, § 136a(c)(5)(B); 40 CFR § 152.112(f) (2004). A pesticide is “misbranded” if its label contains a statement that is “false or misleading in any particular,” including a false or misleading statement concerning the efficacy of the pesticide. 7" }, { "docid": "16284338", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM McCUNE, District Judge. The following is written to comply with Rule 52 following a nonjury trial during August and September of 1980. Plaintiff, in its complaint, mounted a broad attack on the 1978 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Ro-denticide Act, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 136 — 136y (1980), as well as certain regulations pro mulgated in 1979 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the 1978 amendments. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the operation of the challenged portions of FIFRA and the EPA’s regulatory practice and procedure as set forth in the regulations. Mobay is a major developer of pesticides and has been for many years. It has spent millions of dollars in research and development and experimentation and analysis. Production of pesticides is essential to the production of food throughout the world. The evaluation and registration of pesticides are essential to the protection of people. How both interests are to be accommodated has occupied the industry and the government for many years. Both interests have long sought an accommodation, but the result achieved thus far has left Mobay, and we suspect many other developers, exasperated and frustrated. As technology improves, more products are developed, but the need for protection increases. Mobay’s complaints are understandable. Certainly a. better accommodation can be devised by the human mind, and it must be, if the industry is to succeed in developing the sophisticated pesticides which will be required in the years to come. However, for the reasons which follow, we cannot grant either declaratory or in-junctive relief, in our judgment. In essence, Mobay attacks three features of FIFRA's new regulatory scheme. First, EPA’s use of data previously submitted by one applicant to support the application for registration filed by a later applicant. Second, disclosure provisions which make certain trade secret data submitted to EPA available to the public and to government contractors. Third, EPA’s policy of issuing, for the time being, only conditional registrations and of requiring, from time to time, general, as opposed to specific and detailed, data requirements in order to maintain the conditional registrations. These" }, { "docid": "22701158", "title": "", "text": "Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, we are asked to review a United States District Court’s determination that several provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 61 Stat. 163, as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 136 et seq., are unconstitutional. The provisions at issue authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use data submitted by an applicant for registration of a pesticide in evaluating the application of a subsequent applicant, and to disclose publicly some of the submitted data. Over the past century, the use of pesticides to control weeds and minimize crop damage caused by insects, disease, and animals has become increasingly more important for American agriculture. See S. Rep. No. 95-334, p. 32 (1977); S. Rep. No. 92-838, pp. 3-4, 6-7 (1972); H. R. Rep. No. 92-511, pp. 3-7 (1971). While pesticide use has led to improvements in productivity, it has also led to increased risk of harm to humans and the environment. See S. Rep. No. 92-838, at 3-4, 6-7; H. R. Rep. No. 92-511, at 3-7. Although the Federal Government has regulated pesticide use for nearly 75 years, FIFRA was first adopted in 1947. 61 Stat. 163. As first enacted, FIFRA was primarily a licensing and labeling statute. It required that all pesticides be registered with the Secretary of Agriculture prior to their sale in interstate or foreign commerce. §§ 3(a) and 4(a) of the 1947 Act, 61 Stat. 166-167. The 1947 legislation also contained general standards setting forth the types of information necessary for proper labeling of a registered pesticide, including directions for use; warnings to prevent harm to people, animals, and plants; and claims made about the efficacy of the product. §§2(u)(2) and 3(a)(3). Upon request of the Secretary, an applicant was required to submit test data supporting the claims on the label, including the formula for the pesticide. §§ 4(a) and (b). The 1947 version of FIFRA specifically prohibited disclosure of “any information relative to formulas of products,” §§ 3(c)(4) and 8(c), but was silent with respect to the disclosure of any of the" }, { "docid": "16284339", "title": "", "text": "but the result achieved thus far has left Mobay, and we suspect many other developers, exasperated and frustrated. As technology improves, more products are developed, but the need for protection increases. Mobay’s complaints are understandable. Certainly a. better accommodation can be devised by the human mind, and it must be, if the industry is to succeed in developing the sophisticated pesticides which will be required in the years to come. However, for the reasons which follow, we cannot grant either declaratory or in-junctive relief, in our judgment. In essence, Mobay attacks three features of FIFRA's new regulatory scheme. First, EPA’s use of data previously submitted by one applicant to support the application for registration filed by a later applicant. Second, disclosure provisions which make certain trade secret data submitted to EPA available to the public and to government contractors. Third, EPA’s policy of issuing, for the time being, only conditional registrations and of requiring, from time to time, general, as opposed to specific and detailed, data requirements in order to maintain the conditional registrations. These features of the regulatory scheme, Mobay claims, render research and development in the pesticide industry unprofitable and impractical. It says that chemical companies will not devote large amounts of money and time to developing new pesticides if they know that their trade secret data will be disclosed to others; if another company may obtain a registration by relying entirely on their data and submitting none of its own; if EPA is continually imposing new conditions on them which they must meet in order to keep their products on the market; or if EPA does not publish definite data requirements specifying exactly what tests and studies must be submitted. In short, Mobay contends that the scheme is now arbitrary and uncertain. The defendant offered justification for both the FIFRA amendments and EPA’s interpretation of those amendments, expressed in its regulations. The defendant contends that Congress and the EPA acted together to increase competition in the pesticide industry, present all scientific data necessary for informed regulatory decisions before EPA, protect the proprietary rights of data submitters, inform" }, { "docid": "16236064", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM McCUNE, District Judge. We consider defendant EPA’s Motion to Vacate and Dissolve Injunction issued by Judge Elmo B. Hunter of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Judge Hunter granted declaratory and injunctive relief to plaintiff, Mobay Chemical Corporation (Mobay), from the operation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 136-136y (1980) in certain respects. He issued his order on March 14, 1978. See Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle, 447 F.Supp. 811, 834-35 (W.D.Mo.1978). On September 30, 1978, FIFRA was amended. Many of the amendments altered provisions of FIFRA which had been the subject of Judge Hunter’s order. On June 29, 1979, defendant filed the instant motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). It asserted that the amendments now authorized what the injunction prohibited. It contends that it is unnecessary and inequitable for the injunction to operate in the face of the 1978 amendments. Earlier, on May 1, 1979, Mobay had filed a complaint in this district at Civil Action No. 79-591, challenging the 1978 amendments. By memorandum and order filed concurrently with this memorandum and order, we have adjudicated that case. See Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle, 517 F.Supp. 254 (W.D.Pa.1981). By order filed February 26, 1981, Judge Hunter transferred the defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Dissolve to this court. Judge Hunter’s 1978 order contains 14 paragraphs, 5 of which defendant seeks to have deleted or modified. In Paragraph No. 9, Judge Hunter ORDERED that defendant, his officers, agents, employees and representatives be, and they are hereby, forever and permanently enjoined from considering or using any information, research and test data submitted by plaintiff to the Administering Agencies on or after January 1, 1970, which contains or relates to trade secrets or other confidential or privileged commercial or financial information in support of any application for registration in which an applicant seeks to rely on such data until such time as defendant shall have obtained the express written permission of plaintiff. Section 3(c)(1)(D), as amended in 1978, permits EPA to use data submitted on or after January 1, 1970, by an" }, { "docid": "22567034", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM OPINION HUVELLE, District Judge. This case comes before the court on a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint filed by defendant United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and on motions to dismiss counts one through nine and/or to sever and transfer counts eight and nine filed by intervener defendant Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In addition, defendant EPA has moved for a protective order. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the EPA to take certain actions that plaintiffs claim are statutorily mandated, including the promulgation of regulations and guidelines and the implementation of procedures to collect scientific data for the evaluation of pesticide safety, and to preclude the EPA from applying other policies which plaintiffs allege are unlawful. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs, twenty-five organizations representing farmers and other producers of food crops, manufacturers and suppliers of crop protection and enhancement products, and manufacturers and users of pesticides and other chemicals, challenge the EPA’s implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), Pub.L. No. 104-170. The FQPA amended both the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-394, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Roden-ticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y, by requiring the EPA to evaluate new pesticide uses and reevaluate the safety of authorized pesticide uses based upon a complex measurement of risk factors. FFDCA § 408(b)(2)(A)(ii), 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii). The EPA regulates pesticides under both the FFDCA and FIFRA. FIFRA imposes a federal licensing scheme on the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides. It provides that “no person in any State may distribute or sell to any person any pesticide that is not registered” by the EPA. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). A pesticide cannot be registered unless EPA, after substantial testing, determines that “it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects in the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D). The process for registering a pesticide is described in FIFRA and EPA regulations at 7 U.S.C. § 136a and 40 C.F.R. §§ 152 and 158. Under certain “emergency” conditions, however, the EPA may exempt a pesticide use from the FI-FRA registration requirement." }, { "docid": "16284363", "title": "", "text": "the reregistration of 23 products manufactured by other companies who supported their applications by relying on Mobay’s data, but who violated § 3(c)(1)(D). The district court in the Western District of Missouri ruled that Mobay would receive compensation when the 23 products were reregistered. See Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle, 447 F.Supp. 811, 823-24 (W.D.Mo.1978). That was before § 3(g) was added by the 1978 amendments to authorize EPA to reregister pesticides “in the most expeditious manner practicable,” however. In Count III, Mobay seeks a declaratory judgment that as applied to it, § 3(g) deprives it of its property without due process or just compensation, in violation of the fifth amendment. It also seeks a judgment ordering EPA to immediately reregister the 23 pesticides, or else to cancel their registrations. We divide our discussion into three parts. In Part I, we consider the effect of FIFRA on the trade secret data which Mobay has submitted to EPA. In Part II, we examine the registration process derived from the 1978 FIFRA amendments and defined by the compensation and conditional registration regulations. And in Part III, we consider the matter of reregistration. I PROVISIONS OF FIFRA AFFECTING MOBAY’S TRADE SECRET DATA A. EPA’s Use of Mobay’s Trade Secret Data to Support Other Applicants’ Applications Under § 3(c)(1)(D) Mobay alleges that the provisions of § 3(c)(1)(D), 7 U.S.C.A. § 136a(c)(lXD) (1980), permitting the use of its trade se cret data for the benefit of its competitors without its consent, are beyond any power conferred on Congress by the Constitution, and constitute a taking of its property for a private purpose without due process and just compensation, in violation of the fifth amendment. In addition, it objects to the fact that the proprietary rights in its data provided by § 3(c)(1)(D) terminate once the limited periods of entitlement to exclusive use or compensation expire. Mobay also challenges § 3(c)(l)(D)’s provision for binding arbitration of disputes concerning reasonable compensation owed the original data submitter. It contends that the arbitration scheme violates its liberty of contract and constitutes a taking, in that it denies Mobay the" }, { "docid": "16284362", "title": "", "text": "conditional registration and data compensation regulations, alleging that they violate FIFRA and are arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. In particular, it takes exception to (1) the “cite all” method; (2) EPA’s conditional-registration-only policy; (3) EPA’s interpretation of the formulator’s exemption under § 3(c)(2)(D), as expressed in 40 C.F.R. § 162.9-7 (1980); and (4) the amendment of § 162.8, subsection (b) of which previously had set out extensive detailed data requirements for registration, but which now simply requests the submission of data sufficient for making an incremental risk assessment. Mobay says that the amendment now offers little guidance concerning the data to be submitted. In addition, Mobay alleges that the regulations are void because EPA did not comply with the procedural requirements of FIFRA and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553 (1976). Finally in Count II, Mobay seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to EPA’s use or consideration of its trade secret data submitted prior to January 1, 1970, without its express written permission. In Count III, Mobay seeks to realize compensation rights from the reregistration of 23 products manufactured by other companies who supported their applications by relying on Mobay’s data, but who violated § 3(c)(1)(D). The district court in the Western District of Missouri ruled that Mobay would receive compensation when the 23 products were reregistered. See Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle, 447 F.Supp. 811, 823-24 (W.D.Mo.1978). That was before § 3(g) was added by the 1978 amendments to authorize EPA to reregister pesticides “in the most expeditious manner practicable,” however. In Count III, Mobay seeks a declaratory judgment that as applied to it, § 3(g) deprives it of its property without due process or just compensation, in violation of the fifth amendment. It also seeks a judgment ordering EPA to immediately reregister the 23 pesticides, or else to cancel their registrations. We divide our discussion into three parts. In Part I, we consider the effect of FIFRA on the trade secret data which Mobay has submitted to EPA. In Part II, we examine the registration process derived from the 1978 FIFRA amendments and defined by the" } ]

[ { "docid": "3785828", "title": "", "text": "LOKEN, Chief Judge. LaDonna Joens brought this Title VII action against John Morrell & Co. for hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and discriminatory retaliation. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The district court granted summary judgment for Morrell, dismissing all claims. Joens v. John Morrell & Co., 243 F.Supp.2d 920, 951 (N.D.Iowa 2003). Joens appeals the dismissal of her hostile work environment claim, arguing that she presented sufficient evidence that the harassing co-worker was a supervisor and that Morrell ignored her repeated complaints of sex-based harassment. Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Joens, the non-moving party, we affirm. See Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A. Co., 181 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review). Joens was hired to work at Morrell’s Sioux City meat packing plant in 1986. Beginning in 1990, she was employed in the “box shop,” where she operated a machine that made boxes from flat sheets of cardboard. Joens worked the day shift, when box bottoms were made. A male employee operated the machine during the night shift, making box tops. Joens testified that she made three types of box bottoms for various production lines in the plant, including the kill floor, the cut floor, and the ham line. The foremen for the different production lines ordered boxes from the box shop. Joens testified that she was not told how many boxes of each type to make each day: “You don’t know. You just have to play it by ear.... You just hope you make the correct decision.” Morrell presented evidence that the superintendent of the day shift kill floor, Dennis Reitz, supervised the box shop, and that Joens’s day-to-day box making activity was largely unsupervised. Joens testified that she thought Reitz was her immediate supervisor. Joens alleges persistent sexual harassment by Herman Johnson, the day shift foreman of the cut floor line. Joens testified in a deposition that Johnson came to the box shop on almost a daily basis to abusively criticize her for not making enough boxes for the cut floor. Joens alleges that Johnson" } ]

[ { "docid": "14058025", "title": "", "text": "2003 WL 21995186(S.D.Iowa Aug.8, 2003) (“Since Ellerth, the critical question, regardless of how the plaintiff articulates her claims, is whether a “tangible employment action” occurred.”) (citations omitted). Specifically, the court finds that the quid pro quo claim could reasonably grow out of an investigation into Soto’s claims that she “saw that all the women that went along with what was going on got favored and got easier jobs and all the other ones had to do the harder work,” and the incident with Sida in which she was counseled to give Tanner a hug and a kiss to get better treatment. Plaintiffs Brief at 23-24. Also noteworthy is the fact that both the quid pro quo and hostile environment claims grow out of conduct by the same key person, Tanner, and they are not distanced in time from each other. See Nichols, 154 F.3d at 887. If this court has determined, as it has, that Soto’s quid pro quo claim grew out of her claims in her EEOC and ICRC charges, John Morrell asserts that it is still entitled to summary judgment on the quid pro quo claim as the plaintiff has failed to generate genuine issues of material facts as to two elements of the prima facie case. 2. Failure to generate issues of material fact as to the elements of the claim a. Unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors The second element of a prima facie case of quid pro quo harassment is that the plaintiff be subjected to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors. Both parties agree that Tanner never made any explicit requests for sexual favors from Soto. The dispute basically centers on what qualifies as a sexual advance or implicit sexual request. John Morrell predictably argues that the allegations in the record do not amount to sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, and further seeks to capitalize on the fact that during the plaintiffs deposition she sometimes answered that she was unsure whether the alleged conduct was a request for sexual favors. In her resistance, Soto argues that the record" }, { "docid": "14058001", "title": "", "text": "complaint channels. On this factor, Soto argues that the Sexual Harassment Statement contains “absolutely no reference to a ‘complaint channel’ for reporting harassing conduct,” and that the Joseph Sebring memorandum only states that employees should report complaints to the Human Resources Department. Plaintiffs Brief at pg. 10. John Morrell urges that both the Sexual Harassment Statement and the Joseph Sebring memorandum provide that complaints should be lodged with Human Resources Director Steve Joyce, and that therefore a complaint channel was established via the anti- harassment policy. The court initially notes that while John Morrell’s policy contains a complaint channel (Steve Joyce), this factor plainly requires multiple complaint channels. The court notes that the anti-harassment posters stated that complaints could be made to human resource or a supervisor, but these posters were placed in only two places, the training department and the personnel department, which made them not highly visible to the majority of John Morrell employees. When asked what John Morrell told Soto, with regard to reporting sexual harassment complaints, at her initial employee orientation, Soto responded: A: To the next person higher than whoever’s doing it. Q: Was any mention made of the personnel department? A: Probably, but I don’t know because— Q: In relation to reporting? A: Probably. I don’t know. Defendant’s App., Doc. No. 31 at 000021. So, it appears from the record that John Morrell employees had some knowledge that they could report harassment to someone other than Human Resources. However, any knowledge John Morrell employees may have had that they could report harassment to their supervisors cannot trump, at the summary judgment stage, the fact that the actual policy itself provides only one complaint channel. John Morrell is not entitled, as a matter of law, to a finding that multiple complaint channels existed for the reporting of sexual harassment. Genuine issues of material fact have been generated as to the effectiveness of John Morrell’s anti-harassment policy. Specifically, because there are genuine issues of fact as to whether John Morrell’s anti-harassment policy is effective under the first prong of the ElleHh/Faragher affirmative defense, the court need" }, { "docid": "14057961", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BENNETT, Chief Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.1153 A. Procedural Background.1153 B. Factual Background.1153 1. Soto’s first period of employment with John Morrell.1153 2. Soto’s second period of employment with John Morrell.1154 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1158 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1158 A. Sexually Hostile Work Environment.1158 1. Did Soto suffer a tangible employment action?.1160 2. Ellerth/Faragher Affirmative Defense .1162 a. Did John Morrell exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the sexual harassment?.1162 i. Training for company supervisors regarding sexual harassment.1164 ii. Express anti-retaliation policy .1165 Hi. Multiple complaint channels .1165 B. Racially Hostile Work Environment . 1166 Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment . C. 05 © t — 1 i — 1 1. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 2. the claim. CO a. Unwelcome sexual advances or requests 1175 b. Express or implied or resulting in detriment. Tiotnliafiíin. D. Iowa Civil Rights Act E. IV. CONCLUSION. .1179 I. INTRODUCTION A. Procedural Background On March 16, 2002, Teresa Soto (“Soto”) filed a complaint in this court against her former employer, defendant John Morrell & Co. (“John Morrell”), alleging four causes of action: (1) a claim of sexual harassment in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; (2) a claim of racial harassment and discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) a claim of retaliation; and (4) pendent state law-claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), IOWA CODE CH. 216. Soto filed an amended complaint on June 25, 2003, which added the additional claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment. Presently, John Morrell seeks summary judgment in its favor on each of Soto’s claims. Subject matter jurisdiction over Soto’s federal claim is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, which provides for original jurisdiction of claims under Title VII in the United States district courts. The court has jurisdiction over the state law claim alleging violations of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which confers" }, { "docid": "14058047", "title": "", "text": "App., Doc. No. 38 at 31. Accordingly, material issues of fact have been raised as to whether John Morrell knew or should have known of the harassment at some time earlier than the date that Soto quit her employment with John Morrell in July 2001. Accordingly, summary judgment on the ICRA sexually hostile work environment claim is denied. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, John Mor-rell’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Soto has generated genuine issues of material fact on her claims of sexually hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment under Title VII, and therefore John Morrell’s motion for summary judgment is denied as to Counts I and V. Further, summary judgment is also denied as to claims of sexually hostile work envi ronment and quid pro quo harassment under the ICRA contained in Count IV. However, as Soto has failed to generate genuine issues of material fact on her claims of racially hostile work environment and retaliation, John Morrell’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Counts II and III. Summary judgment is likewise granted as to any claims of racial harassment and retaliation under the ICRA in Count IV. IT IS SO ORDERED. . The cold floor is also referred to as the ‘cut floor’ and the 'cold area’ in the record. Defendant’s Appendix in Support of Summary Judgment (\"Defendant’s App.”), Doc. No. 31 at APP000004-APP000005. . The 'kill floor' refers to the area of the John Morrell facility in which the hogs come off of the trucks live, are slaughtered, and are then sent to various areas of the kill floor where they are further broken down into various pork products. . Tripe is the stomach lining of ruminants, such as cattle or pigs. . During the two years in between her employment periods with John Morrell, Soto worked at Meitz Baking, and then at a Subway restaurant. . Soto alleges that during her first period of employment, Tanner would joke around in a sexual manner with a couple female coworkers, and that there were" }, { "docid": "14058004", "title": "", "text": "employed for analyzing a sexually hostile work environment claim. The Supreme Court instructs that hostile work environment harassment occurs when “the workplace is permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult’ that is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Harris v. Forklift Sys. Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (citations omitted). By their nature, hostile work environment claims are not isolated incidents, but rather entail ongoing and repeated conduct. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 115, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment, Soto must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on a protected characteristic, in this case, on her race; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Beard v. Flying J. Inc., 266 F.3d 792, 797 (8th Cir.2001); Bradley v. Widnall, 232 F.3d 626, 631 (8th Cir.2000); see Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 700 (8th Cir.1999). Where the harassment was at the hands of a co-worker, and not a supervisor, the prima facie case includes a fifth element requiring the plaintiff to show that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment, but failed to take proper remedial action. Stuart v. General Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 631 (8th Cir.2000); Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 522 (8th Cir.2002); Rheineck v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc., 261 F.3d 751, 755-56 (8th Cir.2001); Canady v. John Morrell & Co., 247 F.Supp.2d 1107, 1115 (N.D.Iowa 2003). Where the harassment is at the hands of the plaintiffs supervisor, but no tangible employment action resulted, an affirmative defense described in the Ellerth/Faragher duo is available to the employer. See Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807-08, 118 S.Ct. 2275. Leaving aside the implications arising from the fact that Tanner is a “supervisor,” John Morrell contends in its motion for summary judgment that Soto" }, { "docid": "14058046", "title": "", "text": "it “places a reasonable duty on an employer who is aware of discrimination in the workplace to take reasonable steps to remedy it.” Vaughn v. Ag Processing, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 627, 634 (Iowa 1990). The manner in which John Morrell responded to Soto’s complaints is well-documented in the record, and if that were the only remaining question, it could warrant entry of summary judgment for the defendant. However, the court finds that there are still genuine issues of material fact as to when the defendant ‘knew or should have known’ of the harassment. The record shows that Soto complained about Tanner to Human Resources, albeit without specifically disclosing his sexual harassment, on a couple of occasions before she quit in July 2001. The record also shows the Soto complained directly to Tanner, as well as to her direct supervisors, some of whom had engaged in sexually harassing the plaintiff. Further, according to Steve Joyce, if a foreman or supervisor witnessed, or was told of, sexual harassment, they were to report it to Human Resources. Plaintiff’s App., Doc. No. 38 at 31. Accordingly, material issues of fact have been raised as to whether John Morrell knew or should have known of the harassment at some time earlier than the date that Soto quit her employment with John Morrell in July 2001. Accordingly, summary judgment on the ICRA sexually hostile work environment claim is denied. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, John Mor-rell’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Soto has generated genuine issues of material fact on her claims of sexually hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment under Title VII, and therefore John Morrell’s motion for summary judgment is denied as to Counts I and V. Further, summary judgment is also denied as to claims of sexually hostile work envi ronment and quid pro quo harassment under the ICRA contained in Count IV. However, as Soto has failed to generate genuine issues of material fact on her claims of racially hostile work environment and retaliation, John Morrell’s motion for summary judgment" }, { "docid": "2987735", "title": "", "text": "is a “supervisor” harassment case, or the plaintiffs proof that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment, if this is a “co-worker” harassment case, is, what kind of complaint from the plaintiff is sufficient to put an employer on notice that the alleged harassment is “based on sex”? The court’s resolution of these and other issues related to the plaintiffs claims of sexual harassment, disparate treatment based on sex, and retaliation for complaining about harassment and disparate treatment, are herein. J. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background In this action, filed August 13, 2001, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, plaintiff LaDonna Joens asserts the following claims against her current employer, defendant John Morrell & Co.: (1) hostile environment sexual harassment; (2) sexual discrimination (disparate treatment) in overtime hours; and (3) retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment and discrimination. This matter is set for trial to begin on March 31, 2003. However, this matter comes before the court pursuant to John Morrell’s November 29, 2002, motion for summary judgment on all of Joens’s claims, which, if granted, would obviate the need for any trial. Joens resisted John Morrell’s motion for summary judgment on January 3, 2003, and John Morrell filed a reply in further support of its motion on January 17, 2003. By order dated January 23, 2003, the court requested that the parties address in their oral arguments certain questions concerning whether this case involves “supervisor” or “co-worker” harassment and what kind of reports of “harassment” would be sufficient to put an employer on notice that such harassment might be “based on sex.” In response to that order, John Morrell filed two supplemental affidavits on January 29, 2003, one from Dennis Reitz, concerning who exercised supervisory authority over the “box shop” where the plaintiff was employed, and one from Steve Joyce, John Morrell’s Director of Human Resources, concerning who exercises the authority to hire and fire employees in the “box shop” and the company generally. The court heard the parties’ unusually-animated and informative oral arguments on John Morrell’s motion for summary judgment on" }, { "docid": "14058018", "title": "", "text": "In her resistance, Soto counters that the allegations contained in her complaint are sufficient to put the EEOC, and John Mor-rell, on notice of both a hostile working environment claim and a quid pro quo claim. Specifically, Soto points to the fact that the charge specifically states: “I saw that all the women that went along with what was going on got favored and got easier jobs and all the other ones had to do the harder work.” Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Resistance to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs Brief’), Doc. No. 41 at pg. 23. Soto further asserts that the following statements in her charge give rise to an inference that female employees had to go along with Tanner’s sexual behavior to be treated well: Then there is Sida. She would wear sexy clothes to work and then she could miss any day or go home early. Tanner wouldn’t even care. At one time I and other girls were in our locker room and I was upset cuz I got sick and sent home with high blood pressure and Tanner was mad a me. I told Sida about it and she said oh honey all you got to do is give Tanner a hug and a kiss and he will never tell you nothing. That’s what I do and he’ll just melt. I said hell no. I am not gonna kiss no one to make him happy. That’s sexual harassment. Plaintiffs Brief, Doc. No. 38 at pg. 24. Soto argues that she did not fail to exhaust her administrative remedies because the allegations in her charge, construed in light of the liberal interpretation accorded to administrative charges, establishes that the quid pro quo claim is ‘reasonably related’ to the allegations in her EEOC/ICRC charge. John Morrell relies on King v. M.R. Brown, Inc., 911 F.Supp. 161 (E.D.Pa. 1995), for the principle that claims of quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment harassment are distinct, and cannot be ‘reasonably related’ for purposes of exhaustion as a matter of law. Defendant’s Brief, Doc. No. 45 at 26. This" }, { "docid": "2987813", "title": "", "text": "she notified John Morrell that she believed that the harassment and overtime disparity were because of sex. The only evidence in the record is that, once Joens notified John Morrell that she believed that the harassment and overtime disparity were because of sex, by filing her administrative charge of discrimination, John Morrell took action to correct the conduct in question. Thus, John Morrell is also entitled to summary judgment on Joens’s retaliation claim. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, John Mor-rell’s motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety. More specifically, John Morrell is entitled to summary judgment on Count I of Joens’s complaint, her claim of a sexually hostile work environment, based on Joens’s failure to generate any genuine issues of material fact that John Morrell either knew or should have known about the harassment. Joens failed to generate a genuine issue of material fact that she either declared, indicated, or even implied that the gender-neutral tirades by Herman Johnson, which she asserted were harassing, had anything to do with her sex, or that she reported tirades that were cast in such terms that they “arguably” suggested a gender-based animus. John Morrell is also entitled to summary judgment on Counts II and III of Joens’s Complaint, her disparate treatment and retaliation claims, because Joens has failed to generate genuine issues of material fact that John Morrell took any adverse employment action against her on the basis of discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Because no viable claims remain, judgment shall enter in favor of John Morrell. IT IS SO ORDERED. . These standards are articulated in the Supreme Court's decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998), and Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998). . It is also embodied, in the context of “supervisor” harassment, in the prongs of the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative1 defense. See, e.g., Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (examining the adequacy of the employer’s antiharassment policy and implementation of that policy); Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807-08, 118" }, { "docid": "14057980", "title": "", "text": "prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise .... No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807-08, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998). “Thus, in the wake of Ellerth and Faragher, an employer is subject to vicarious liability for harassment by a supervisor, if that harassment resulted in a ‘tangible employment action,’ but the employer’s liability for harassment by a supervisor is otherwise contingent upon an affirmative defense.” Joens v. John Morrell & Co., 243 F.Supp.2d 920, 932 (N.D.Iowa 2003). The record indicates that Tanner told Soto’s boyfriend, and coworker, Antonio Gonzalez, that she was fired, and that based on this conversation, Soto indeed did believe she had been terminated. Soto’s belief that she was fired was based on the fact that she had previously seen Tanner fire other coworkers. In Soto’s own words: “I seen Tanner fire people, and they get so scared they just go. I seen him do that. I used to interpret for him ... I’ve seen him do that ...” Defendant’s Appendix, Doc. No. 31 at 000060 (Deposition of Teresa Soto at 209, 11. 21-24). Equally true is the fact that Tanner did not have the actual authority to fire anyone. When questioned about the extent of his authority in his deposition, Tanner gave the following response: Q : Did you have the authority to fire people when you worked for John Mor-rell in Management? A: No. Q : Who had the authority to fire people? A: That was human resources, Steve Joyce or Kerry Abel. Defendant’s Appendix, Doc. No. 31 at 000265-000266 (Deposition of Leonard Tanner at 31-32, 11. 21-25). In fact, John Morrell employment records echo this fact in that there is no indication that" }, { "docid": "14057978", "title": "", "text": "U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 394. If a party fails to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of a claim with respect to which that party has the burden of proof, then the opposing party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548; In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 113 F.3d 1484, 1492 (8th Cir.1997). Finally, this court has repeatedly taken note of the rule in this circuit that, because summary judgment often turns on inferences from the record, summary judgment should seldom or rarely be granted in employment discrimination cases. See, e.g., Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Johnson v. Minnesota Historical Soc’y, 931 F.2d 1239, 1244 (8th Cir.1991)). The court will apply these standards to John Morrell’s motion for summary judgment on Soto’s claims. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Sexually Hostile Work Environment As John Morrell does not base its argument for summary judgment, on the sexually hostile work environment claim, on a failure by the plaintiff to create material questions of fact as to any of the elements of the prima facie case, the court need not embark on a lengthy discussion of the elements required to prove a sexually hostile work environment claim. Rather than counter any of the elements of the claim, John Morrell couches it’s argument for summary judgment on the rationale that there is no genuine issue of material fact that it is entitled to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense to any sexually hostile work environment created by Tanner and other male employees. The Supreme Court, in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. Boca Raton, established an affirmative defense to employer liability for harassment by a supervisor: When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, see Fed. Rule Civ. PROC. 8(c). The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to" }, { "docid": "14058026", "title": "", "text": "it is still entitled to summary judgment on the quid pro quo claim as the plaintiff has failed to generate genuine issues of material facts as to two elements of the prima facie case. 2. Failure to generate issues of material fact as to the elements of the claim a. Unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors The second element of a prima facie case of quid pro quo harassment is that the plaintiff be subjected to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors. Both parties agree that Tanner never made any explicit requests for sexual favors from Soto. The dispute basically centers on what qualifies as a sexual advance or implicit sexual request. John Morrell predictably argues that the allegations in the record do not amount to sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, and further seeks to capitalize on the fact that during the plaintiffs deposition she sometimes answered that she was unsure whether the alleged conduct was a request for sexual favors. In her resistance, Soto argues that the record is replete with verbal statements and physical conduct of a sexual nature. Looking at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court finds that genuine issues of material fact are generated by record evidence. John Morrell’s argument neglects the fact that the element is read in the disjunctive: there must be either requests for sexual favors or sexual advances. The record details the following alleged incidents which could be categorized as sexual advances or implicit requests for sexual relations: • When Tanner saw the hickey on Soto’s neck, he said he was jealous and that he was going to find out who gave it to her. Tanner continued to comment on the hickey for the next several weeks. • On a couple occasions, without provocation, Tanner gave Soto his phone number and asked her to call him. • On a couple of occasions, Tanner came up to Soto while she was working on the line, took her hand and continued to hold her hand as he walked her across the kill" }, { "docid": "14058032", "title": "", "text": "asserts that she never submitted to Tanner’s ‘demands,’ and therefore the viability of her quid pro quo claim lies in a determination of whether genuine issues of material fact have been raised that she suffered a tangible job detriment for refusing to submit to Tanners advances. On this front, Soto claims that she suffered the following tangible job detriments: (1) Tanner yelled at her more than he did at other women who went along with his sexual antics; (2) She was given harder jobs than those who submitted to his advances; (3) Tanner gave her fewer, and shorter, breaks; and (4) Tanner fired her. John Morrell argues that Soto was never fired, as Tanner lacked the authority to fire her, and further that “being yelled at more and not being given long breaks is [sic] not a tangible job detriment.” Defendant’s Brief, Doc. No. 45 at pg. 30. John Morrell does not dispute that if Soto had in fact been ‘truly’ fired, that termination would constitute a tangible job detriment. For the reasons discussed supra, part III.A.1, while Tanner’s firing of Soto does not amount to a tangible job detriment due to the factual circumstances surrounding the timing of Soto’s return to John Morrell from her absence, a genuine issue of material fact has been raised as to the denial of bathroom breaks, or whether giving Soto much shorter bathroom breaks than other female coworkers on the same line, constitutes a tangible job detriment. Therefore, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court concludes that genuine issues of material fact have been generated as to whether Soto suffered a tangible job detriment as a result of her refusal to submit to Tanner’s sexual advances. D. Retaliation John Morrell also claims it is entitled to summary judgment on Soto’s Title VII retaliation claim. Under Title VII, an employer is forbidden to retaliate against employees for opposing sexual discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); Bogren v. Minnesota, 236 F.3d 399, 407 (8th Cir.2000). Based on the statutory language, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals distinguishes the types of" }, { "docid": "14058017", "title": "", "text": "sweep of the administrative charge is as ‘broad as the scope of the EEOC investigation which could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.’ ” Simmons v. New Pub. Sch. Dist. No. Eight, 251 F.3d 1210, 1216 (8th Cir.2001) (quoting Kells, 210 F.3d at 836))(quotations omitted). John Morrell argues that Soto failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to the quid pro quo sexual harassment claim. Specifically, John Morrell asserts that the quid pro quo claim is not ‘likely or reasonably related’ to the allegations in her EEOC/ICRC charge in two respects: (1) Soto’s EEOC/ICRC charge didn’t include allegations sufficient to meet the elements of a quid pro quo claim; and (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment is a distinct form of recovery that requires “the rebuffing of sexual advances or the refusal to engage in sexual favors resulting in some tangible job benefit,” rather than “mere allegations of sexual conduct or sexual behavior.” Defendant’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Brief’), Doc. No. 45, at pg. 26. In her resistance, Soto counters that the allegations contained in her complaint are sufficient to put the EEOC, and John Mor-rell, on notice of both a hostile working environment claim and a quid pro quo claim. Specifically, Soto points to the fact that the charge specifically states: “I saw that all the women that went along with what was going on got favored and got easier jobs and all the other ones had to do the harder work.” Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Resistance to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs Brief’), Doc. No. 41 at pg. 23. Soto further asserts that the following statements in her charge give rise to an inference that female employees had to go along with Tanner’s sexual behavior to be treated well: Then there is Sida. She would wear sexy clothes to work and then she could miss any day or go home early. Tanner wouldn’t even care. At one time I and other girls were in our locker room and I was upset cuz I got sick and" }, { "docid": "14058002", "title": "", "text": "Soto responded: A: To the next person higher than whoever’s doing it. Q: Was any mention made of the personnel department? A: Probably, but I don’t know because— Q: In relation to reporting? A: Probably. I don’t know. Defendant’s App., Doc. No. 31 at 000021. So, it appears from the record that John Morrell employees had some knowledge that they could report harassment to someone other than Human Resources. However, any knowledge John Morrell employees may have had that they could report harassment to their supervisors cannot trump, at the summary judgment stage, the fact that the actual policy itself provides only one complaint channel. John Morrell is not entitled, as a matter of law, to a finding that multiple complaint channels existed for the reporting of sexual harassment. Genuine issues of material fact have been generated as to the effectiveness of John Morrell’s anti-harassment policy. Specifically, because there are genuine issues of fact as to whether John Morrell’s anti-harassment policy is effective under the first prong of the ElleHh/Faragher affirmative defense, the court need not delve into whether John Morrell promptly corrected the conduct, or an analysis of the second ElleHh/Faragher prong, at this juncture. As this is a matter that is properly left for determination by the finder of fact, John Morrell’s motion for summary judgment as to the sexually hostile work environment is denied. B. Racially Hostile Work Environment In her complaint, Soto asserts that John Morrell discriminated against her based upon her race in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Hostile work environment claims under Section 1981 are analyzed in the same manner as a similar Title VII claim. Ross v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 293 F.3d 1041, 1050 (8th Cir.2002). Further, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that “the same standards are generally used to evaluate claims of hostile work environment based on sexual harassment and racial harassment.” Gipson v. KAS Snacktime Co., 171 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir.1999). Accordingly, the plaintiffs claim of racial discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981 is analyzed under the same schematic" }, { "docid": "14057997", "title": "", "text": "harassment on the job to the following person: Contact: Steve Joyce Phone: (712)279-7398. Defendant’s App., Doc. No. 31 at 000259-000269 (emphasis in original). In evaluating this interoffice memorandum version of the anti-harassment policy it is important to look at the fact that this memo was distributed in July 1998 and August 2001, whereas Ms. Soto’s two periods of employment \"with John Morrell ended in March 1998 and July 2001, respectively. Steve Joyce even testified that he was uncertain whether Ms. Soto had ever been provided with a copy of this letter, unless she had procured it in one of John Morrell’s mass distributions. Defendant’s App., Doc. No. 31 at 000168. Therefore, as plaintiff Soto’s employment with the company ended, in both instances, before this memo was distributed, it is very likely that she never received this memorandum. i. Training for company supervisors regarding sexual harassment In its reply brief, John Morrell asserts that the Steve Joyce, Director of Human Resources for John Morrell, testified that John Morrell trains its supervisors annually, reviews the anti-harassment policy and complaint procedures with supervisors, and provides supervisors with a copy of the policy. Defendant’s Brief in Reply to Plaintiffs Brief in Resistance to Motion For Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Reply Brief’), Doc. No. 50. at pg. 3. John Morrell’s assertions vastly overstate the content of Mr. Joyce’s testimony in the record. The following excerpt is the only information about corporate training in Mr. Joyce’s testimony: Q: What guidelines or requirements does corporate have for you in terms of what you must do in training, is there any written policy or guideline saying this is what you must do, this is how you must do it? A: Not that I’m aware of. Defendant’s App., Doc. No. 31 at 000161 (emphasis added). Joyce’s testimony continues: Q: ... Has corporate ever provided you like a script of what is to be told to employees regarding sexual harassment? A: No. Q: Have they ever provided you any policies that say you must do this training with its employees regarding sexual harassment and then provide the training material? A: No," }, { "docid": "14058044", "title": "", "text": "the federal claim due to the plaintiffs failure to generate material fact issues as to the elements of the prima facie ease. Likewise, summary judgment is therefore granted as to the racial harassment claim under the ICRA. The non-recognition of the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense also does not impact the survival of a quid pro quo claim under the ICRA. The federal quid pro quo claim survived summary judgment as the plain tiff had generated genuine issues of material fact as to the elements of the claim. Accordingly, summary judgment as to the quid pro quo claim under the ICRA is denied. As summary judgment was denied on the Title VII sexually hostile work environment claim based primarily on questions surrounding the availability of the Ellertk/Faragher affirmative defense, the fate of the ICRA sexually hostile work environment claim is slightly less predictable. In its motion for summary judgment, John Morrell recognizes that the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense does not apply, and rather argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that Soto cannot satisfy the fifth element of a hostile work environment claim under the ICRA: that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. See Lynch, 454 N.W.2d at 833 (listing the elements of a hostile work environment claim under the ICRA). Specifically, John Morrell argues that it took prompt and reasonable action in that: John Morrell immediately met with Soto, asked her to submit in writing a detailed description of the harassment, promptly conducted a detailed investigation which included interviewing the alleged harasser and potential witnesses, asked Soto for her input as to what John Morrell’s response to the harassment should be, and ultimately terminated the alleged harasser. Defendant’s Brief, Doc. No. 45 at pg. 44. Soto counters with the argument that she complained to Tanner and Human Resources about the harassing behavior, and that John Morrell did not fire Tanner until four months after Soto first reported his behavior. In regard to this fifth element of the case, the Iowa Supreme Court has stated that" }, { "docid": "14058031", "title": "", "text": "viewing them in isolation, the court finds that Soto has generated genuine issues of material fact as to whether Tanner was making sexual advances towards her or requesting sexual favors from her. Accordingly, summary judgment on the issue of whether the plaintiff was subjected to sexual advances or requests for sexual favors is denied. b. Express or implied conditioning of benefíts or refusal resulting in detriment The fourth element of a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim is read in the disjunctive, and requires that either job benefits were conditioned on submission to the harasser’s sexual requests or advances, or that refusal to submit resulted in a tangible job detriment. See Am. Home Prods. Corp., 2001 WL 34008505 at *9 n. 2 (reading the fourth element of a quid pro quo harassment claim to “encompass both the situation in which the plaintiff received a job benefit only after she submitted to the harasser’s demands, and the situation in which the plaintiff did not submit and was subjected to a job detriment.”). In this instance Soto asserts that she never submitted to Tanner’s ‘demands,’ and therefore the viability of her quid pro quo claim lies in a determination of whether genuine issues of material fact have been raised that she suffered a tangible job detriment for refusing to submit to Tanners advances. On this front, Soto claims that she suffered the following tangible job detriments: (1) Tanner yelled at her more than he did at other women who went along with his sexual antics; (2) She was given harder jobs than those who submitted to his advances; (3) Tanner gave her fewer, and shorter, breaks; and (4) Tanner fired her. John Morrell argues that Soto was never fired, as Tanner lacked the authority to fire her, and further that “being yelled at more and not being given long breaks is [sic] not a tangible job detriment.” Defendant’s Brief, Doc. No. 45 at pg. 30. John Morrell does not dispute that if Soto had in fact been ‘truly’ fired, that termination would constitute a tangible job detriment. For the reasons discussed supra," }, { "docid": "14058045", "title": "", "text": "the fifth element of a hostile work environment claim under the ICRA: that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. See Lynch, 454 N.W.2d at 833 (listing the elements of a hostile work environment claim under the ICRA). Specifically, John Morrell argues that it took prompt and reasonable action in that: John Morrell immediately met with Soto, asked her to submit in writing a detailed description of the harassment, promptly conducted a detailed investigation which included interviewing the alleged harasser and potential witnesses, asked Soto for her input as to what John Morrell’s response to the harassment should be, and ultimately terminated the alleged harasser. Defendant’s Brief, Doc. No. 45 at pg. 44. Soto counters with the argument that she complained to Tanner and Human Resources about the harassing behavior, and that John Morrell did not fire Tanner until four months after Soto first reported his behavior. In regard to this fifth element of the case, the Iowa Supreme Court has stated that it “places a reasonable duty on an employer who is aware of discrimination in the workplace to take reasonable steps to remedy it.” Vaughn v. Ag Processing, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 627, 634 (Iowa 1990). The manner in which John Morrell responded to Soto’s complaints is well-documented in the record, and if that were the only remaining question, it could warrant entry of summary judgment for the defendant. However, the court finds that there are still genuine issues of material fact as to when the defendant ‘knew or should have known’ of the harassment. The record shows that Soto complained about Tanner to Human Resources, albeit without specifically disclosing his sexual harassment, on a couple of occasions before she quit in July 2001. The record also shows the Soto complained directly to Tanner, as well as to her direct supervisors, some of whom had engaged in sexually harassing the plaintiff. Further, according to Steve Joyce, if a foreman or supervisor witnessed, or was told of, sexual harassment, they were to report it to Human Resources. Plaintiff’s" }, { "docid": "2987812", "title": "", "text": "claim. For the reasons stated above, as to Joens’s disparate treatment claim, the court concludes that Joens has generated genuine issues of material fact that she suffered adverse employment action in the form of denial of overtime hours that is sufficient to support her retaliation claim. Also for much the same reason that the record here contained no evidence of discriminatory animus beyond the weak pri-ma facie case of disparate treatment, there is likewise no evidence of retaliatory animus, either. Until John Morrell had notice that Joens was complaining that harassment and the overtime disparity were because of sex, John Morrell could not have been retaliating for conduct protected by Title VII, even if John Morrell’s failure to respond to Joens’s complaints was in “retaliation” for Joens’s repeated complaints about harassment and the overtime disparity. Joens’s argument that the record demonstrates retaliatory animus based on the purported temporal proximity of the protected activity and the .allegedly retaliatory conduct thus fails where there was no notice to John Morrell that her complaints were protected activity until she notified John Morrell that she believed that the harassment and overtime disparity were because of sex. The only evidence in the record is that, once Joens notified John Morrell that she believed that the harassment and overtime disparity were because of sex, by filing her administrative charge of discrimination, John Morrell took action to correct the conduct in question. Thus, John Morrell is also entitled to summary judgment on Joens’s retaliation claim. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, John Mor-rell’s motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety. More specifically, John Morrell is entitled to summary judgment on Count I of Joens’s complaint, her claim of a sexually hostile work environment, based on Joens’s failure to generate any genuine issues of material fact that John Morrell either knew or should have known about the harassment. Joens failed to generate a genuine issue of material fact that she either declared, indicated, or even implied that the gender-neutral tirades by Herman Johnson, which she asserted were harassing, had anything to do with her sex," } ]

[ { "docid": "22829086", "title": "", "text": "issue if the good-faith exception applies, and the case does not involve a “novel question of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 264, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2346, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (White, J., concurring); United States v. Maggitt, 778 F.2d 1029, 1033 (5th Cir.1985) (quoting Gates), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184, 106 S.Ct. 2920, 91 L.Ed.2d 548 (1986); see United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 820 (5th Cir.1988) (“Principles of judicial restraint and precedent dictate that, in most cases, we should not reach the probable cause issue if ... the good-faith exception of Leon will resolve the matter.”). This case does not raise a novel question of law under the Fourth Amendment. The only question is whether, on the particular facts of this case, the affidavit supporting the search warrant established probable cause to search the apartment. We therefore turn to the good-faith issue first. In Leon, the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the affidavit on which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish probable cause. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420. This rule does not apply where the warrant is based on an affidavit “ ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’ ” Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3421 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610-11, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2265-66, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part)); see Craig, 861 F.2d at 821 (referring to this type of affidavit as a “bare bones” affidavit). Satter- white argues that the affidavit, supporting the search warrant for his apartment was a “bare bones” affidavit, which made agent Hildreth’s reliance on the warrant unreasonable. We review de novo the reasonableness of an officer’s reliance upon a warrant issued by a magistrate. U.S. v. Wylie, 919 F.2d 969, 974 (5th Cir.1990). When a warrant is supported by more than a" } ]

[ { "docid": "22588078", "title": "", "text": "address the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies, unless the case involves a “ ‘novel question of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates.’ ” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 264, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2346, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (White, J., concurring); Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320 (quoting Gates). Because Pofahl’s Fourth Amendment argument does not present a novel question of law, we address the good-faith issue first. Evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the warrant was unsupported by probable cause. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420; Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320. The evidence is not admissible where the warrant is based upon an affidavit “ ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’ ” Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3421 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610-611, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2265-66, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part)). We often refer to an affidavit of that sort as a “bare bones affidavit.” See United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir.1988). Where a warrant is supported by more than a bare bones affidavit, an officer may rely in good faith on the warrant’s validity. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 321; United States v. Pigrum, 922 F.2d 249, 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2064, 114 L.Ed.2d 468 (1991). We review de novo the reasonableness of an officer’s reliance upon a warrant issued by a magistrate. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 321 (citing United States v. Wylie, 919 F.2d 969, 974 (5th Cir.1990)). (i) The search warrant for 8488 Carlton Way in Los Angeles was supported by the affidavit of Internal Revenue Service Special Agent Michel L. Lamberth. See Record on Appeal, vol. 2, at 232-53. The affidavit described at length how Charles Pofahl and Morris Key obtained chemicals in West Germany, shipped them to Guatemala for use in the manufacture of MDMA, and then imported" }, { "docid": "23596497", "title": "", "text": "Shugart filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. On April 11, 1996, the district court concluded that the subject evidence was not material and denied Shugart’s motion for a new trial. Shugart timely filed his notice of appeal, and this appeal followed. II. Search and Seizure A. Probable Cause to Search Shugart argues that Agent Keene’s affidavit in support of the search warrants failed to establish probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found on Shugart’s or Leach’s property. Specifically, Shugart claims that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause because it relied on information provided by an untrustworthy confidential informant and because it contained material errors, namely references to “cocaine” rather than “methcathinone.” Therefore, Shugart contends that the evidence seized as a result of the searches should have been excluded from evidence and that the district court’s denial of his suppression motion constituted reversible error. This court reviews conclusions of law regarding the sufficiency of a warrant de novo. United States v. Richardson, 943 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1991). Our review involves a two-step process, whereby we must first determine whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419-21, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992). Only if a novel legal question is presented or the good-faith exception does not apply must we then “ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332-33, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (internal quotations omitted); see also United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1130 & n. 10 (5th Cir.1997). The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides “that evidence obtained by law enforcement officials acting in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, even though the affidavit on which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish probable cause.” United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 821" }, { "docid": "5983192", "title": "", "text": "S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), applies. Under Leon, if a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant does not present a Fourth Amendment argument that should be decided in order to provide instruction to law enforcement or to magistrate judges, it is appropriate for a reviewing court to turn “immediately to a consideration of the officers’ good faith.” Id. at 925, 104 S.Ct. 3405. In this case, we do not think that Kim’s probable cause and particularity arguments “involve ... ‘novel questions] of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates,’ ” United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992) quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 264, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), and we therefore turn directly to the good faith issue. See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 119 F.3d 625, 629 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Zayas-Diaz, 95 F.3d 105, 112 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. Cancelmo, 64 F.3d 804, 807 (2d Cir.1995); Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320. B. Under Leon, suppression of evidence “is inappropriate when an officer executes a search in objectively reasonable rebanee on a warrant’s authority.” United States v. Williams, 3 F.3d 69, 74 (3d Cir.1993). The Supreme Court developed the exclusionary rule to deter unlawful police conduct. Leon, 468 U.S. at 906, 104 S.Ct. 3405. However, where law enforcement officers act in the “objectively reasonable belief that their conduct d[oes] not violate the Fourth Amendment,” “the marginal or nonexistent [deterrent] benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion.” Id. at 918, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405. Therefore, if an officer has obtained a warrant and executed it in good faith, “there is no police illegality and thus nothing to deter.” Id. at 921, 104 S.Ct. 3405. To determine the applicability of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, we ask “whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that • the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization.” United States v. Loy, 191" }, { "docid": "7865897", "title": "", "text": "her judicial role, 3) when the affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable, and 4) when the warrant is so facially defi cient — i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized — that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. Id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3421. Additionally, the Court has indicated that the good faith exception does not apply to cases where the magistrate had no business issuing the warrant. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 990, n. 7, 104 S.Ct. 3424, 3429, n. 7, 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 264, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2346, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (White, J., concurring in judgment)). None of the Leon categories applies to this case. There was no use of materially misleading information in the affidavit. We find no evidence that the magistrate wholly abandoned her judicial role. As discussed above, we find that there was probable cause to search, even with the improper statements redacted from the affidavit. And as we have held before, failure to provide for notice does not necessarily render a warrant facially deficient. See discussion below. This case resembles the situation we considered in Freitas II. In Freitas II, we held that the prosecutor’s and the magistrate’s approval of the illegal provisions of the warrant were sufficient to establish objectively reasonable behavior on the part of the officers conducting the search. 856 F.2d at 1431. We likened that situation to the facts before the Supreme Court in Sheppard. There, too, an officer prepared an affidavit which a district attorney reviewed and approved. He then presented it to a judge who decided that probable cause existed and issued a. warrant. The judge made a clerical error in failing to delete the words “controlled substance” from the search warrant. The Court held that it was the judge, not the police officers, who made the critical mistake. 468 U.S. at 990, 104 S.Ct. at 3428. The Court reasoned that" }, { "docid": "14111431", "title": "", "text": "affidavit that had supported a warrant for an earlier search of the same apartment on February 10, 2000. I conclude that what Agent Peterson knew but failed to tell the magistrate is irrelevant to Peterson’s good faith because Leon requires an officer to have an objectively reasonable belief that his affidavit gave the magistrate a substantial basis for finding probable cause. Whether this belief is reasonable can depend only on the facts presented to the magistrate. I. In deciding whether Agent Peterson’s affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer would have submitted it to a magistrate, we must view the affidavit in the light of the totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause established by the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). Under Gates “[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317. The task of a reviewing court is to “ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Id. at 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted). Although Gates abandoned the two-pronged test set forth in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), it was not a repudiation of all that had gone before. Specifically, the Gates Court continued to insist that a magistrate’s probable cause determination must be based on evidence that is both substantial and independent. “Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (emphasis added). When an affidavit" }, { "docid": "23468335", "title": "", "text": "of 15 years. II. Discussion A. Search Warrant Dismuke first challenges the district court’s denial of his suppression motion. He argues that Randazzo’s affidavit provided too little corroboration of the information from the confidential informant and was therefore insufficient to establish probable cause to search his home. Because Dismuke contests the sufficiency of the warrant affidavit, the question for us is not whether the district court got the probable-cause question right but whether the warrant-issuing judge did. “On that issue we must afford great deference to the issuing judge’s conclusion.” McIntire, 516 F.3d at 578 (internal quotation marks omitted). We will uphold a finding of probable cause to search “so long as the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for ... concluding]’ that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) (alteration in original)). Probable cause is a commonsense, nontechnical inquiry, and an affidavit submitted in support of a search-warrant application will be sufficient to support a probable-cause finding if, “based on the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit sets forth sufficient evidence to induce a reasonably prudent person to believe that a search will uncover evidence of a crime.” United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir.2003). Even if we conclude that the affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause, the evidence obtained in the execution of the warrant need not be suppressed if the police relied on the warrant in good faith. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405. An officer’s decision to seek a warrant is prima facie evidence that the officer was acting in good faith. United States v. Watts, 535 F.3d 650, 657 (7th Cir.2008). The good-faith exception thus applies unless the affidavit was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable” or the warrant-issuing judge “wholly abandoned” his neutral judicial role and “serve[d] merely as a rubber stamp for the police.” Leon, 468" }, { "docid": "4198616", "title": "", "text": "Forfeiture which specifically stated that the parties stipulated that forfeiture of substitute assets was appropriate. Therefore, given that both parties stipulated that substitution of assets was appropriate, and because the court’s decision was based on a legally proper ground, § 1963(m)(2), we hold that the forfeiture was proper. VI Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying their motions to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that they allege was invalid. In reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant we must decide: “(1) whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies; and (2) whether probable cause supported the warrant.” United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992) (footnote omitted). However, because this case does not involve novel issues of law that need to be resolved to assist law enforcement officers and magistrate judges in the future, we need not decide whether the warrant was supported by probable cause if we find that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. Id.; United States v. Restrepo, 994 F.2d 173, 187 (5th Cir.1993). “When a warrant is supported by more than a ‘bare bones’ affidavit, officers may rely in good faith on the warrant’s validity” in conducting a search. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 321. However, an affidavit that contains only conclusions and “laek[s] the facts and circumstances from which a magistrate can independently determine probable cause” is considered “bare bones” and cannot be the basis of an objectively reasonable good-faith reliance by an officer. Id. We review de novo whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. Id. at 321. We conclude that the affidavit which supported the search warrants for Marmolejo’s residence, ranch, and office and Salinas’ residence contained sufficient facts from which the magistrate could determine probable cause. The affidavit contains detailed first-hand observations by the affiant, as well as detailed information provided by informants whom the affiant establishes as reliable. It describes the bribery scheme be tween Beltran and Marmolejo in detail and Salmas’ role in aiding and abetting it. Many of" }, { "docid": "22955655", "title": "", "text": "G Laury contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his apartment. Laury contends that the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not establish probable cause because: (a) the affidavit was based on conclusory statements and unreliable hearsay; (b) the affidavit did not establish a nexus between Laury’s home and the instrumentalities and evidence of the robbery; and (c) the information provided by affiant Agent Garcia and the Cl was stale. We disagree. In reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we engage in a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); and (2) whether the warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Webster, 960 F.2d 1301, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 355, 121 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992). We need not, however, address the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies, and the case does not involve a “ ‘novel question of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates.’ ” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 264, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2346, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (White, J., concurring); Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320 (quoting Gates). This case does not present a novel question of law. Therefore, we address the good-faith issue first. The Supreme Court in Leon held that evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the warrant was unsupported by probable cause. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420; Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320. Where a warrant is supported by more than a bare bones affidavit, an officer may rely in good faith on the warrant’s validity. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 321; U.S. v. Pigrum, 922 F.2d 249, 252 (5th Cir.1991). We review de novo the reasonableness of an officer’s reliance upon a" }, { "docid": "23596498", "title": "", "text": "v. Richardson, 943 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1991). Our review involves a two-step process, whereby we must first determine whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419-21, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992). Only if a novel legal question is presented or the good-faith exception does not apply must we then “ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332-33, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (internal quotations omitted); see also United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1130 & n. 10 (5th Cir.1997). The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides “that evidence obtained by law enforcement officials acting in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, even though the affidavit on which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish probable cause.” United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir.1988) (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. at 3419-21). “Issuance of a warrant by a magistrate normally suffices to establish good faith on the part of law en forcement officers who conduct a search pursuant to the warrant.” Id. Nonetheless, the officers’ good faith cannot be established, for example, when a warrant is “based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3420. Agent Keene’s affidavit provided sufficient “indicia of probable cause” for reasonable law enforcement officers to believe that the procured warrants were valid. The affidavit related information from the Cl that strongly suggested that Shugart was involved with methcathinone production. For example, the informant was aware that Shugart and Leach had ordered large amounts of ephedrine, an essential ingredient used to manufacture methcathinone. In addition, the Cl had observed a “methcathinone laboratory” on Shu-gart’s property in the recent past. The Cl had also witnessed Shugart manufacturing methcathinone on two prior" }, { "docid": "23681344", "title": "", "text": "United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3420-21, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). The second step requires the court “to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for ... concluding that probable cause existed.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332-33, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (internal quotation omitted). If the good-faith exception applies, the court need not reach the question of probable cause. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320; see also United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 820 (5th Cir.1988) (“Principles of judicial restraint and precedent dictate that, in most eases, we should not reach the probable cause issue if a decision on the admissibility of the evidence under the good-faith exception of Leon will resolve the matter”). In Leon, the Supreme Court established the good-faith exception, holding “that evidence obtained by law enforcement officials acting in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible in the prosecution’s ease-in-ehief, even though the affidavit on which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish probable cause.” Craig, 861 F.2d at 821 (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420-21). “Issuance of a warrant by a magistrate normally suffices to establish good faith on the part of law enforcement officers who conduct a search pursuant to the warrant.” Id. Law enforcement officers cannot establish objective good faith, however, when the warrant is “based on an affidavit ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3420-21). See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 818 F.2d 345, 350 & n. 8 (5th Cir.1987) (concluding that a “bare bones” affidavit did not justify good-faith reliance on a warrant); United States v. Barrington, 806 F.2d 529, 531-33 (5th Cir.1986) (same). To prevail on his fourth amendment claim, Maestas must establish that the facts alleged in the affidavit were so dated that no reasonable officer could have believed that the affidavit established probable cause to search his ranch. Craig, 861 F.2d at 822. In addressing a similar" }, { "docid": "23402435", "title": "", "text": "985 F.2d 1293, 1311 (5th Cir.1993). If the good-faith exception applies, then we need not inquire whether probable cause existed, unless the case presents a “novel question of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). No such novel question exists here. The Supreme Court has held that “evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the warrant was unsupported by probable cause.” Id. (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984)). We will uphold an officer’s good-faith reliance on a warrant unless one of four conditions apply: (1) the issuing-judge “was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth”; (2) the issuing-judge “wholly abandoned his judicial role” in such a manner that “no reasonably well trained officer should rely on the warrant”; (3) the underlying affidavit is “bare bones” (“so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable”); or (4) the warrant is “so facially deficient ... that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid[J” Gibbs, 421 F.3d at 358 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405). Mays argues for the first condition based on testimony from Mays’s mother at the suppression hearing that it was impossible for her to be behind the second controlled transaction at his residence, because she lived at a separate address, was disabled, did not deal drugs, and was not present at the residence at the time. In evaluating this argument, we apply the standard from Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), which requires a defendant to show that “(1) allegations in a supporting affidavit were deliberate falsehoods or made with a reckless disregard for the truth, and (2) the remaining portion of the affidavit is not sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” United States v." }, { "docid": "22945150", "title": "", "text": "of that search. “When the district court denies a motion to suppress, we review factual findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo.” United States v. Payne, 341 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir.2003). Probable cause questions are evaluated in two steps: “First we determine whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule ... applies. If it does, we need not reach the question of probable cause for the warrant unless it presents a novel question of law, resolution of which is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Under the good-faith exception, evidence obtained during the execution of a warrant later determined to be deficient is admissible nonetheless, so long as the executing officers’ reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable and in good faith.... The good faith exception cannot apply if one of four circumstances is present: (1) If the issuing magistrate/judge was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known except for reckless disregard of the truth; (2) where the issuing magistrate/judge wholly abandoned his or her judicial role; (3) where the warrant is based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; and (4) where the warrant is so facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. Id. at 399-400 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Castle contends that the court erred in not allowing her to impeach James’s credibility during the hearing on the suppression motion. James’s credibility is irrelevant, however. As the court noted, “what is relevant for the suppression hearing is what she told the officer” and “any reason that he had to challenge her credibility....” The court therefore correctly considered only whether the officer was objectively reasonable in relying on James’s statements; it does not matter whether, unbeknownst to the officer, her story was completely fabricated. Castle also argues that" }, { "docid": "22579905", "title": "", "text": "of FBI agent Loretta Smitherman ..., including, but not limited to” twenty-six categories of evidence does not describe the evidence sought with sufficient particularity. Although the warrant refers to Smitherman’s affidavit, Cherna contends, the affidavit cannot save the warrant because it was neither attached thereto nor shown to Cherna. Second, Cherna maintains that the warrant was unsupported by probable cause. We employ a two-step process for reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress when a search warrant is involved. See United States v. Lampton, 158 F.3d 251, 258 (5th Cir.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1124, 143 L.Ed.2d 119 (1999). First, we determine whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), applies. If so, we end our analysis and affirm the district court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress. See Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320. If not, we proceed to the second step, in which we “ ‘ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for ... concluding that probable cause existed.’ ” United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1129 (5th Cir.) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 71, 139 L.Ed.2d 32 (1997). If the good-faith exception applies, we need not reach the question of probable cause. See id.; see also United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 820 (5th Cir.1988) (“Principles of judicial restraint and precedent dictate that, in most cases, we should not reach the probable cause issue if a decision on the admissibility of the evidence under Leon will resolve the matter.”). We begin our analysis of the good-faith exception with Leon. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require the suppression of evidence obtained as a result of objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant, even if the warrant is subsequently invalidated. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405. Although the Court noted that “[w]hen officers have acted pursuant to" }, { "docid": "13128464", "title": "", "text": "“so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,” 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. at 590, 610-611, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)) (Powell, J., concurring in part), it also stated that “all of the circumstances — including whether the warrant application had previously been rejected by a different magistrate — may be considered” in the good faith inquiry. Id. at 922, 95 S.Ct. 2254, n. 23. Moreover, in discussing the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule, Leon explained that a police officer generally should be able to rely on a judge’s probable cause determination because “it is the magistrate’s responsibility to determine whether the officer’s allegations establish probable cause.” Id. at 921, 104 S.Ct. 3405. Because Agent Fishburn provided the superior court judge with additional facts to support a “colorable” probable cause determination, see United States v. Hove, 848 F.2d 137, 140 (9th Cir.1988), and because Agent Fishburn relied on the judge’s probable cause determination in objective good faith, I would apply the good faith exception to the application of the exclusionary rule here and reverse the district court’s suppression order. We have held that extrinsic evidence of time pressure may be considered when determining whether the Leon good faith exception applies to a deficient “bare bones” affidavit. See United States v. Weber, 923 F.2d 1338, 1346 (9th Cir.1991). In Weber, we considered evidence extrinsic to the four corners of the affidavit to determine whether the warrant was obtained reasonably. We ultimately determined that the government had complete control over the timing of the search, and accordingly held that the warrant was not reasonably obtained under Leon. Although Weber did not address a court’s consideration of information known to both the affiant and the magistrate supporting a probable cause determination in the good faith equation, the case is nevertheless significant because the extrinsic evidence in Weber was considered where, like here, the affidavit lacked an indicia of probable cause. Id. at 1346 (describing affidavit as being “the kind of ‘bare bones’ affidavit" }, { "docid": "292621", "title": "", "text": "doing so. That proves fatal to a probable cause determination. There is simply not enough evidence on the face of the affidavit for a magistrate to conclude reasonably that the requisite nexus between Roach and 1441 N. Minneapolis was present. See Gonzales, 399 F.3d at 1228. Nor would the magistrate have been justified in relying upon the blanket assertion that “officers have verified that the individuals listed below live at the following addresses,” as this would fly in the face of the probable cause requirement. It has long been established that a warrant must be supported by facts demonstrating probable cause, not by police summaries of what they have concluded from such facts. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (holding that “mere conclusory statement[s]” cannot support probable cause). Because the affidavit failed to provide a sufficient nexus between Roach and the premises at 1441 N. Minneapolis, we conclude that the warrant lacked probable cause on this basis as well. B Notwithstanding a lack of probable cause to support a warrant, we must refuse the suppression remedy if the officers executing the warrant relied in good faith upon the magistrate’s authorization. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). “The law encourages, generally demands, officers obtain a warrant before conducting a search, especially of a home[, and] [c]ourts reward officers who obtain warrants.” Poolaw v. Marcantel, 565 F.3d 721, 747 (10th Cir.2009). Nonetheless, a faulty warrant requires suppression in four situations: First, evidence should be suppressed if the issuing magistrate was misled by an affidavit containing false information or information that the affiant would have known was false if not for his reckless disregard of the truth. Second, the [good-faith] exception does not apply when the issuing magistrate wholly abandons her judicial role. Third, the good-faith exception does not apply when the affidavit in support of the warrant is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. Fourth, the exception does not apply when a warrant is" }, { "docid": "21147493", "title": "", "text": "the search warrant. After his motion to suppress was denied, Grant entered his conditional guilty plea and was sentenced. Grant now appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that Eng’s affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause for Judge Turnbull to issue the warrant. Grant also argues that Judge Turnbull “abandon[ed] his role as a neutral arbiter” by relying on an affidavit that was “wholly lacking in probable cause.” Br. of Appellant at 8. Therefore, according to Grant, the Leon good-faith exception cannot save the search of his computer. On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and we review the court’s legal conclusions— including its determination of probable cause and application of the Leon exception — de novo. United States v. McCoy, 483 F.3d 862, 863 (8th Cir.2007). Grant contends there was not probable cause for Judge Turnbull to issue the search warrant because Eng’s affidavit in support of the warrant was factually insufficient and constituted nothing more than a “bare bones affidavit.” Br. of Appellant at 8. We disagree. If an affidavit in support of a search warrant “sets forth sufficient facts to lead a prudent person to believe that there is a ‘fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,’ ” probable cause to issue the warrant has been established. United States v. Warford, 439 F.3d 836, 841 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). Whether probable cause to issue a search warrant has been established is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances, and resolution of the question by an issuing judge “ ‘should be paid great deference by reviewing courts.’ ” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969)). Accordingly, we examine the sufficiency of a search-warrant affidavit using a “" }, { "docid": "23681343", "title": "", "text": "and distinctly proved. In circumstances such as these, when a pure credibility determination was at issue, we are not inclined to disturb a decision that was quite properly and directly within the jury’s province. III. Fourth Amendment Search At trial, appellant Lloyd Phillip Maestas moved to suppress evidence attained during a February 27, 1994 search of his ranch in New Mexico because the material facts alleged in the affidavit for the search warrant were based on stale information. The district court found that the information upon which the affidavit was based indicated a long-standing, ongoing pattern of criminal activity. The district court, therefore, concluded that the warrant was supported by probable cause and denied Maestas’s suppression motion. On appeal, Maestas contends that the district court’s decision constituted reversible error. This court engages in a two-step review of a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress. United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992). The first step requires the court to determine whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3420-21, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). The second step requires the court “to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for ... concluding that probable cause existed.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332-33, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (internal quotation omitted). If the good-faith exception applies, the court need not reach the question of probable cause. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320; see also United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 820 (5th Cir.1988) (“Principles of judicial restraint and precedent dictate that, in most eases, we should not reach the probable cause issue if a decision on the admissibility of the evidence under the good-faith exception of Leon will resolve the matter”). In Leon, the Supreme Court established the good-faith exception, holding “that evidence obtained by law enforcement officials acting in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible in the prosecution’s ease-in-ehief, even though the affidavit on which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish probable cause.”" }, { "docid": "23693345", "title": "", "text": "establish probable cause. In reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we employ a two-part test: (1) whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies and (2) whether the warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1311 (5th Cir.1993). Generally, if the good faith exception applies, we need not reach the probable cause issue. Id. Under the good faith exception, we uphold a search if the officers reasonably relied on a search warrant. United States v. Fisher, 22 F.3d 574, 578 (5th Cir.1994). ‘Warrants based on affidavits ‘so lacking in evidence of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable’ do not fall within this exception.” Id. (quoting United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992)). But “[w]here a warrant is supported by more than a bare bones affidavit, an officer may rely in good faith on the warrant’s validity.” Laury, 985 F.2d at 1311 (footnote omitted). The affidavit in this ease clearly satisfies the good faith exception. The affiant reported that three confidential informants had implicated MeCutcheon in drug dealing. One told an officer that he saw MeCutcheon and Webster together in Webster’s car with 1.5 kilograms of cocaine in their possession. Another reported to the same officer that MeCutcheon had sold a quarter ounce of cocaine to an individual in a convenience store. And a third informant described to the affiant an incident in which Webster and MeCutcheon had brought 30 rocks of cocaine to the Harberts. This informant also identified MeCutcheon as one of Webster’s runners and told the affiant that Luis Sais, a drug dealer, claimed to have bought crack and cocaine powder from MeCutcheon over a-four-month period. MeCutcheon attempts to discount these informant reports by arguing that they were hearsay. An affidavit may, however, employ hearsay as long as it provides a “substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 242, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2334, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 269, 80 S.Ct. 725, 735, 4 L.Ed.2d" }, { "docid": "22588077", "title": "", "text": "Pofahl, the affidavits alleged that her husband, Charles Pofahl, and Dr. Morris Key engaged in criminal activities in Texas, but failed to allege that she engaged in any illegal conduct or that any illegal conduct took place in California. Pofahl contends that the affidavits therefore did not establish a nexus between her residences in California and the evidence sought there by officials. Where a district court denies a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant, and the motion is premised on an alleged lack of probable cause to support the warrant, we review the denial of the motion to determine (1) whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); and (2) whether the warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Webster, 960 F.2d 1301, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 355, 121 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992). However, it is unnecessary to address the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies, unless the case involves a “ ‘novel question of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates.’ ” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 264, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2346, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (White, J., concurring); Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320 (quoting Gates). Because Pofahl’s Fourth Amendment argument does not present a novel question of law, we address the good-faith issue first. Evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the warrant was unsupported by probable cause. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420; Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320. The evidence is not admissible where the warrant is based upon an affidavit “ ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’ ” Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3421 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610-611, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2265-66, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)" }, { "docid": "22955656", "title": "", "text": "however, address the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies, and the case does not involve a “ ‘novel question of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates.’ ” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 264, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2346, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (White, J., concurring); Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320 (quoting Gates). This case does not present a novel question of law. Therefore, we address the good-faith issue first. The Supreme Court in Leon held that evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the warrant was unsupported by probable cause. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420; Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320. Where a warrant is supported by more than a bare bones affidavit, an officer may rely in good faith on the warrant’s validity. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 321; U.S. v. Pigrum, 922 F.2d 249, 252 (5th Cir.1991). We review de novo the reasonableness of an officer’s reliance upon a warrant issued by a magistrate. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 321 (citing United States v. Wylie, 919 F.2d 969, 974 (5th Cir.1990)). Laury first claims that the warrant was not supported by probable cause because it was based solely upon a bare bones affidavit. We disagree. The affidavit shows that eyewitnesses to the robbery provided a description of the robber which was similar to Laury’s. See Record on Appeal, vol. 1, at 157-58. The affidavit also states: A confidential source who has provided reliable information in the past to local law enforcement officers and whose information has culminated in three arrests and three convictions furnished the following information to which he had access: 1. A personal friend of Felmon Lakeith Laury stated that Laury robbed a bank in Rosebud, Texas during December, 1988. 2. Felmon Lakeith Laury is unemployed and has been for some time. However, in late December, 1988, Laury purchased a 1982, two-door, white Lincoln Continental with a tan “convertible look” vinyl top. He also purchased a yellow Chevrolet Z.28 Camaro for his girlfriend." } ]

[ { "docid": "16655878", "title": "", "text": "claim in the state court proceedings. If so, we must deny his petition under the doctrine announced in Stone v. Powell. In that case, the Supreme Court held that where the state has provided such an opportunity, “a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” Id. at 494, 96 S.Ct. at 3052. This decision was based on the Court’s belief that the incremental benefits associated with applying the exclusionary rule on collateral review was outweighed by its costs. Id. at 493, 96 S.Ct. at 3052. The Supreme Court did not define the phrase “opportunity for full and fair litigation”; however, we have held that the petitioner has been provided that opportunity when: (1) he has “clearly informed the state court of the factual basis for that claim and has argued that those facts constitute a violation of ... [his] fourth amendment rights and (2) the state court has carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts and [ (3) ] applied the proper constitutional case law to the facts.” Pierson v. O’Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 168, 121 L.Ed.2d 115 (1992) (citing Dortch v. O’Leary, 863 F.2d 1337, 1342 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1049, 109 S.Ct. 1961, 104 L.Ed.2d 429 (1989)). We first address the question of whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to inform the state court of the factual basis of his claim. The trial court conducted an extensive suppression hearing, during which both the petitioner and the state were given the opportunity to present evidence concerning the playing of the cassette tape during the police search. There were no limitations placed on the petitioner’s ability to present evidence that the audio contents of the tape were illegally obtained. Additionally, he not only had the opportunity, but actually took advantage of that opportunity by arguing that he was denied his Fourth Amendment rights. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to inform" } ]

[ { "docid": "19761326", "title": "", "text": "should have been suppressed because there was no probable cause for the search. The trial court found that Crockett alerted to the presence of drugs in Chavez’s car during his sniff and that this provided probable cause for the subsequent physical search of the car. The South Dakota Supreme Court upheld this conclusion on direct appeal. Chavez raised the issue again on habeas, and the district court concluded that Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), barred it from reviewing Chavez’s Fourth Amendment claim. Under Stone, “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” 428 U.S. at 482, 96 S.Ct. 3037. Chavez argues that he did not have an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court. Chavez contends that the State had an unfair advantage in the prosecution because it was brought on the heels of the failed federal prosecution, which effectively served as a trial run for law enforcement to sharpen the case against him. The district court correctly concluded that Chavez had an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his Fourth Amendment claim, and thus Stone bars federal habeas review of that claim. To show that he was not afforded an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his claim, Chavez would have to show that the State “provided no corrective procedures at all to address the alleged Fourth Amendment violation” or that the State “provided a corrective mechanism, but [he] was precluded from using that mechanism because of an unconscionable breakdown in the underlying process.” Willett v. Lockhart, 37 F.3d 1265, 1271-72 (8th Cir.1994) (en banc) (adopting test set forth in Capellan v. Riley, 975 F.2d 67, 71 (2d Cir.1992)) (quotation marks omitted and emphasis removed); see also Palmer v. Clarke, 408 F.3d 423, 437 (8th Cir.2005). In this case, the State provided" }, { "docid": "14892994", "title": "", "text": "point relied on clearly set out petitioner’s complaint that the evidence derived from the search should have been suppressed. The Missouri Court of Appeals was faced with the substance of the claim when it refused to pass on the merits. Therefore, we hold that Lenza’s claim is properly before us. Cf. Houston v. Estelle, supra, 569 F.2d 372 (state appellate court’s refusal to pass on the merits because the listing of grounds of error lacked reference to specific pages of the record). Petitioner contends that the denial of the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the evidence on appeal in state court constitutes a separate and independent ground for habeas relief. We disagree. Petitioner’s substantive claim is that his fourth amendment rights were violated when the fruits of an unconstitutional search were admitted into evidence against him. The only issue before this court is whether petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his fourth amendment claim in the state courts of Missouri. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). In Stone v. Powell the Supreme Court held that “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” Id. at 482, 96 S.Ct. at 3046; see, e.g., Gates v. Henderson, 568 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1977) (banc), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1038, 98 S.Ct. 775, 54 L.Ed.2d 787 (1978). It is the existence of state processes allowing an opportunity for full and fair litigation of fourth amendment claims, rather than a defendant’s use of those processes, that bars federal habeas corpus consideration of claims under Stone. E.g., Caver v. Alabama, 577 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1978). “[I]f state procedures afford the defendant in a criminal case the opportunity to [fully and fairly] litigate whether evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment should be excluded . . . then Stone v. Powell precludes federal habeas corpus" }, { "docid": "18098056", "title": "", "text": "had forfeited argument that Article III judge was required to conduct extradition proceeding, when at time of extradition hearing they contended the opposite). For these reasons, we conclude that the Illinois Appellate Court’s disposition of Miranda’s Fourth Amendment claim rests on an adequate and independent state ground, namely that he waived the claim when he failed to assert it in a post-trial motion for a new trial, ,as required by Illinois law. Miranda has not argued that an equitable exception would permit us to reach the merits of his claim notwithstanding the procedural default. Consequently, federal review of this claim is barred. However, in an abundance of caution, and recognizing the inconsistency in Illinois cases as to the availability of appellate review for constitutional claims not preserved in post-trial motions, we have gone on to consider whether Miranda enjoyed a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court. Lest there be any doubt, our analysis as to the full and fair opportunity represents an alternative basis for our decision. B. Full and Fair Opportunity So long as a habeas petitioner enjoyed an “opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim” in state court, federal habeas review of the claim is barred. Stone v. Powell, supra, 428 U.S. at 481-82, 96 S.Ct. at 3046. A petitioner has had the benefit of such an opportunity so long as (1) he clearly apprised the state court of his Fourth Amendment claim along with the factual basis for that claim, (2) the state court carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts, and (3) the court applied the proper constitutional case law to those facts. Pierson v. O’Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir.1992); see also Cabrera v. Hinsley, 324 ,F.3d 527, 531-32 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 873, 124 S.Ct. 220, 157 L.Ed.2d 133 (2003); Hampton v. Wyant, 296 F.3d 560, 563-64 (7th Cir.2002). The full and fair hearing requirement applies not only at the trial-court level in state court but also on direct review of the petitioner’s conviction. See Stone, 428 U.S. at 489, 96" }, { "docid": "13049506", "title": "", "text": "Court of Criminal Appeals show this to be true. There is nothing in the record that shows that the confession was in any way involuntary, nor that it was induced by an illegal arrest. The facts are not in dispute. They were fully developed in the state trial court and in the appellate court. It is now well established that where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal arrest was introduced at his trial. This was the holding of the Supreme Court in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), where the court stated: In sum, we conclude that where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” 428 U.S. 494, 96 S.Ct. 3052, 49 L.Ed.2d 1088. In speaking for our court, Chief Judge Brown followed Stone v. Powell in a comprehensive and exhaustive opinion in O’Berry v. Wainwright, 546 F.2d 1204 (5 Cir. 1977) from which opinion we quote extensively as follows because it answers the controlling questions and arguments in the case before us: “Full and Fair State Hearing “In Stone v. Powell, 1976, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067, the Supreme Court held that ‘where the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.’ Id. at 482, 96 S.Ct. at 3046, 49 L.Ed.2d at 1080. Whether or not we will even consider affirming the grant of habeas relief by the District Court thus depends on whether or not the State ‘provided" }, { "docid": "13049507", "title": "", "text": "or seizure was introduced at his trial.” 428 U.S. 494, 96 S.Ct. 3052, 49 L.Ed.2d 1088. In speaking for our court, Chief Judge Brown followed Stone v. Powell in a comprehensive and exhaustive opinion in O’Berry v. Wainwright, 546 F.2d 1204 (5 Cir. 1977) from which opinion we quote extensively as follows because it answers the controlling questions and arguments in the case before us: “Full and Fair State Hearing “In Stone v. Powell, 1976, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067, the Supreme Court held that ‘where the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.’ Id. at 482, 96 S.Ct. at 3046, 49 L.Ed.2d at 1080. Whether or not we will even consider affirming the grant of habeas relief by the District Court thus depends on whether or not the State ‘provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation’ of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim. If it did, the matter ends there, and we must reverse the District Court. If it did not, then our analysis is only begun, and we must inquire further whether or not the petition should be granted on the merits of this ease.” 546 F.2d 1209-10. The court stated further: “Our analysis must begin with the determination of what the Supreme Court meant by ‘opportunity for full and fair consideration’ of Fourth Amendment claims by state courts — a task not made easier by the Court’s failure to define that term in Stone.” 546 F.2d 1210. “In Stone, on the other hand, the answer to the question of whether the state has given the Petitioner a full and fair hearing has a much more drastic and far-reaching effect. Although the Court in Stone stopped short of saying that its decision was a limitation on federal court jurisdiction, see Stone, supra, 428 U.S. at 494 n. 37, 96 S.Ct. at 3052 n. 37, 49" }, { "docid": "15425575", "title": "", "text": "a closing argument on his behalf. Mr. Edison, however, clarified petitioner’s argument concerning the illegality of the arrest in his own closing argument with the court. (Id. at pp. 12-13). The trial court subsequently denied petitioner’s motion to suppress, finding petitioner’s arrest to have been legal. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that petitioner’s statement to the police that he wanted to turn himself in for a bank robbery, the red dye found on petitioner’s hands and clothes, and the police officers’ confirmation that a robbery had, in fact, occurred, was sufficient to give the police probable cause to arrest petitioner. People v. Monroe, Slip. Op. at * 4. A federal habeas review of a petitioner’s arrest or search by state police is barred where the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate an illegal arrest or a search and seizure claim. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494-495, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); Machacek v. Hofbauer, 213 F.3d 947, 952 (6th Cir.2000); Gilbert v. Parke, 763 F.2d 821, 823 (6th Cir.1985). For such an opportunity to have existed, the state must have provided, in the abstract, a mechanism by which the petitioner could raise the claim, and presentation of the claim must not have been frustrated by a failure of that mechanism. Riley v. Gray, 674 F.2d 522, 526 (6th Cir.1982). Thus, on federal habe-as review, a federal court cannot reexamine a petitioner’s fourth amendment claim that post-arrest statements should have been suppressed as “poisonous fruit” of his illegal arrest, where the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim prior to trial. Jones v. Johnson, 171 F.3d 270, 277-278 (5th Cir.1999); Pierson v. O’Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1391-1392 (7th Cir.1992). In the present case, petitioner is precluded from raising a Fourth Amendment claim that his confession was the product of an illegal arrest when he raised the factual basis for this claim in the state trial and appellate courts, and the state courts thoroughly analyzed the facts and applied the proper constitutional law in rejecting his" }, { "docid": "15137465", "title": "", "text": "Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68, 76, 717 N.E.2d 298 (1999). The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the record contained sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Higgins was not acting as a stalking horse for the deputies, but had “her own objective in conducting the search.” Id. at 76, 717 N.E.2d 298. During his state postconviction proceedings, petitioner presented this claim as his fourteenth claim for relief, and the state courts refused to consider it on the merits on the basis of res judicata. Petitioner argues that the factual determinations made by the state courts are plainly unreasonable in light of the record evidence, and that the trial court erred in finding that Higgins was merely assisted by the sheriffs deputies. Law enforcement officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights, petitioner contends, by using his parole officer to conduct a search for which they could not have obtained a warrant. Petitioner argues that a parole officer cannot act as a stalking horse on behalf of the police in order to evade the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, and he complains that “the police brought Higgins to the scene of the crime, and used her as their proxy to avoid the requirement of a warrant because they lacked probable cause.” (Doc. # 42, at 75.) Respondent asserts that petitioner’s third ground for relief is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. Citing Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 474-95, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), respondent contends that where the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure was introduced into evidence at his trial. (Doc. # 36, at 69.) A federal habeas court cannot review a habeas petitioner’s claim that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should have been excluded at his trial if the prisoner had an opportunity for full and fair litigation of that claim in the state courts. Stone, 428 U.S. at 489-90, 96 S.Ct. 3037. In" }, { "docid": "21669064", "title": "", "text": "interpretation of § 2254(a) that treats inaccurate administration of the exclusionary rule as outside the scope of that statute. What Stone requires is that states provide full and fair hearings so that the exclusionary rule may be enforced with reasonable (though not perfect) accuracy at trial and on direct appeal. A competent and intellectually honest judicial system is a personal right of the accused, and a system that acts with reasonable accuracy is essential to deterrence. Aware of Stone, the district judge in this case suggested that the appellate court’s error shows that Hampton had not received a full and fair opportunity for litigation. That approach, however, nullifies the holding of Stone and leads to collateral relief whenever the search violates the fourth amendment. It cannot be right, for then Stone was itself wrongly decided. Stone resolved two consolidated cases. In one the ninth circuit had held a- particular search unconstitutional because the statute under which it had been conducted was unconstitutional. In the other the eighth circuit had held that the warrant supporting a search was invalid because of deficiencies in the affidavits, and that a warrantless entry was unconstitutional because the police lacked probable cause. In all of these respects the federal tribunals disagreed with contrary holdings- of the state courts. Stone reversed both the eighth and the ninth circuits, not because the Justices thought that the state courts had handled the fourth amendment issues correctly, but because error on a fourth amendment issue does not support a writ of habeas corpus. So if all that occurred in Hampton’s case is error, then here too there is no justification for federal collateral relief. Illinois contends that, having reached this conclusion, we should overrule (or at least modify) a series of opinions that have made the existence of error part of the inquiry into full and fair adjudication. See, e.g., Terry v. Martin, 120 F.3d 661, 663 (7th Cir.1997); Turentine v. Miller, 80 F.3d 222, 224 (7th Cir.1996); Weber v. Murphy, 15 F.3d 691, 694 (7th Cir.1994); Pierson v. O’Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir.1992). We wrote in" }, { "docid": "18098057", "title": "", "text": "Full and Fair Opportunity So long as a habeas petitioner enjoyed an “opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim” in state court, federal habeas review of the claim is barred. Stone v. Powell, supra, 428 U.S. at 481-82, 96 S.Ct. at 3046. A petitioner has had the benefit of such an opportunity so long as (1) he clearly apprised the state court of his Fourth Amendment claim along with the factual basis for that claim, (2) the state court carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts, and (3) the court applied the proper constitutional case law to those facts. Pierson v. O’Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir.1992); see also Cabrera v. Hinsley, 324 ,F.3d 527, 531-32 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 873, 124 S.Ct. 220, 157 L.Ed.2d 133 (2003); Hampton v. Wyant, 296 F.3d 560, 563-64 (7th Cir.2002). The full and fair hearing requirement applies not only at the trial-court level in state court but also on direct review of the petitioner’s conviction. See Stone, 428 U.S. at 489, 96 S.Ct. at 3050 (“The question is whether state prisoners — who have been afforded the opportunity for full.and fair consideration of their reliance on the exclusionary rule ... by the state courts at the trial level and on direct review — may invoke their claim again on federal habeas corpus review.”) (emphasis supplied); see also, e.g., Hampton, 296 F.3d at 563-64; Turentine v. Miller, 80 F.3d 222, 225-26 (7th Cir.1996). Miranda contends that the Illinois Appellate Court deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in that it failed to carefully and thoroughly analyze the facts. That failure, in Miranda’s view, is evidenced by the appellate court’s determination, without any explanation, that Chavez was not under arrest. Summary Order at 3. Whether an individual was seized by the police is a highly fact-specific assessment that requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. United States v. McCarthur, 6 F.3d 1270, 1275-76 (7th Cir.1993). We have indicated that when a state court’s Fourth Amendment analysis turns on factual determinations that" }, { "docid": "15137466", "title": "", "text": "requirement, and he complains that “the police brought Higgins to the scene of the crime, and used her as their proxy to avoid the requirement of a warrant because they lacked probable cause.” (Doc. # 42, at 75.) Respondent asserts that petitioner’s third ground for relief is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. Citing Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 474-95, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), respondent contends that where the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure was introduced into evidence at his trial. (Doc. # 36, at 69.) A federal habeas court cannot review a habeas petitioner’s claim that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should have been excluded at his trial if the prisoner had an opportunity for full and fair litigation of that claim in the state courts. Stone, 428 U.S. at 489-90, 96 S.Ct. 3037. In determining whether a habeas petitioner is entitled to habeas review of a Fourth Amendment claim, this Court must first determine whether the state has a procedural mechanism “which in the abstract presents an adequate opportunity to raise a Fourth Amendment claim.” Riley v. Gray, 674 F.2d 522, 526 (6th Cir.1982). The Court must then consider whether presentation of that claim was frustrated because of the failure of the procedural mechanism. Id. “All that Stone v. Powell requires is an ‘opportunity’ for full and fair consideration of the claim for suppression; it is up to the claimant and his counsel to decide what use, if any, is to be made of the opportunity.” Jennings v. Rees, 800 F.2d 72, 77 (6th Cir.1986). In the present case, petitioner does not contest either the existence or the functioning of Ohio’s procedural mechanisms, and he does not allege that the State of Ohio failed to provide him with a full and fair opportunity to litigate the constitutionality of the search of his home. Instead, petitioner argues that Stone v." }, { "docid": "12632831", "title": "", "text": "upon the jury. • The absence of the Jones did not deprive Kirkpatrick of a fundamentally fair trial. Petitioner’s Remaining Claims A. Fourth Amendment Claims Kirkpatrick claims that his arrest was unconstitutional because it was not supported by probable cause, and that an oral inculpatory statement made by him immediately following his arrest and the subsequent seizure of physical evidence were taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is well settled that a state prisoner may not be grantéd federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that the state introduced at trial evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search and seizure where the state courts provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the Fourth Amendment claim. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3052, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). In evaluating an application for habeas corpus relief based on asserted Fourth Amendment violations, the Fifth Circuit has stated that: The opportunity to present a Fourth Amendment claim to the state trial and appellate courts, whether or not that opportunity is exercised or proves successful, constitutes “an opportunity for full and fair consideration” of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment claim under Stone absent sufficient allegations and proof that the state process is “routinely or systematically applied in such a way as to prevent the actual litigation of Fourth Amendment claims on the merits.” Joshua v. Maggio, 674 F.2d 376, 377 (5th Cir.1982). A hearing was conducted by the state trial court on Kirkpatrick’s Fifth Amendment motion to suppress an inculpatory statement made subsequent to his arrest and while in custody awaiting extradition to Louisiana. Kirkpatrick has not demonstrated that he was precluded by custom, practice or procedure from similar litigation of any Fourth Amendment claim. See e.g. Taylor v. Maggio, 727 F.2d 341, 347 n. 7 (5th Cir.1984). Kirkpatrick was therefore afforded an opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment complaints in state court and may not assert those claims in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court. B. Fifth Amendment Claims Kirkpatrick also contends that his Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination has been" }, { "docid": "14991280", "title": "", "text": "705, 711 (10th Cir.1999). B. Guilt Phase Issues 1. Confession Obtained in Violation of the Fourth Amendment In his habeas petition, Cannon argued that the Oklahoma state courts committed constitutional error when they refused to suppress certain statements he made shortly after his arrest. In particular, Cannon argued that his arrest was illegal because the outstanding warrants for which he was arrested were invalid. He thus argued the custodial statements were fruits of an illegal arrest. The district court concluded that it was barred from reaching the merits of Cannon’s claim because Cannon received an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the claim in state court. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (“[W]e conclude that where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment Claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” (footnote omitted)). On appeal, Cannon asserts the district court erred in applying Stone to bar habeas relief because he never received a full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim in state court. Whether Cannon had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court is a question of law this court reviews de novo. See Miranda v. Cooper, 967 F.2d 392, 401 (10th Cir.1992). This court has held that “Stone’s ‘opportunity for full and fair consideration’ and/or ‘litigation’ includes, but is not limited to[,] the procedural opportunity to raise or otherwise present a Fourth Amendment claim[ ] and the full and fair evidentiary hearing contemplated by Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963).” Id. That standard further “contemplates recognition and at least color-able application of the correct Fourth Amendment constitutional standards.” Gamble v. Oklahoma, 583 F.2d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir.1978). Upon de novo review of the district court order and the entire state court record, this court agrees that Cannon had a full and fair opportunity to litigate" }, { "docid": "18098058", "title": "", "text": "S.Ct. at 3050 (“The question is whether state prisoners — who have been afforded the opportunity for full.and fair consideration of their reliance on the exclusionary rule ... by the state courts at the trial level and on direct review — may invoke their claim again on federal habeas corpus review.”) (emphasis supplied); see also, e.g., Hampton, 296 F.3d at 563-64; Turentine v. Miller, 80 F.3d 222, 225-26 (7th Cir.1996). Miranda contends that the Illinois Appellate Court deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in that it failed to carefully and thoroughly analyze the facts. That failure, in Miranda’s view, is evidenced by the appellate court’s determination, without any explanation, that Chavez was not under arrest. Summary Order at 3. Whether an individual was seized by the police is a highly fact-specific assessment that requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. United States v. McCarthur, 6 F.3d 1270, 1275-76 (7th Cir.1993). We have indicated that when a state court’s Fourth Amendment analysis turns on factual determinations that lack the fair support of the record, we cannot say that the court carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts. Weber v. Murphy, 15 F.3d 691, 694 (7th Cir.1994); contra Willett v. Lockhart, 37 F.3d 1265, 1270 (8th Cir.1994) (en banc) (“We conclude that under Stone a federal habeas court considering a state prisoner’s claim alleging a Fourth Amendment violation should abstain from reviewing the state court records to determine if the state court’s factual findings are fairly supported by the record as a whole .... ”); see also Turentine, 80 F.3d at 225-26 (declining to overrule Weberin light of Willett). Of course, we presume that a state court’s factual determinations are correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see Weber, 15 F.3d at 694-95. We have also made clear that mistakes in a state court’s treatment of a petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim are not sufficient, in and of themselves, to surmount the Stone bar. Turentine, 80 F.3d at 225-26; see also Hampton, 296 F.3d at 563-64. Stone does not guarantee a correct outcome on a Fourth Amendment" }, { "docid": "10439696", "title": "", "text": "in petitions for transfer [to the Indiana Supreme Court].” Id. Turentine had no duty under Indiana law to present his claims to the Indiana Supreme Court; therefore, his failure to file a timely transfer petition does not constitute a procedural default. II. Stone v. Powell In Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), the Supreme Court established a general rule that criminal defendants may not seek collateral review of Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule claims under § 2254 if they received “an opportunity for full and fair litigation of’ their Fourth Amendment claims in state court. Id. at 494. The Court based its decision on a concern for judicial economy, stating that the “justification [for the exclusionary rule] becomes minimal where ... a prisoner ... previously has been afforded the opportunity for full and fair consideration of his search-and-seizure claim at trial and on direct review.” Id. at 486. The Supreme Court has not elaborated on the meaning of “opportunity for full and fair litigation.” In Weber v. Murphy, 15 F.3d 691 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1865, 128 L.Ed.2d 486 (1994), we established a test for determining when a § 2254 petitioner has received a full and fair opportunity to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim in state court. First, the petitioner must “clearly inform[ ] the state court of the factual basis for ... [his] claim and ... argue[ ] that those facts constitute a violation of ... [his] fourth amendment rights.” Id. at 694 (quoting Pierson v. O’Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 857, 113 S.Ct. 168, 121 L.Ed.2d 115 (1992)). If he has clearly presented the issue, we then consider whether “the state court has carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts and ... applied the proper constitutional case law to the facts.” Id.; see also United States ex rel. Bostick v. Peters, 3 F.3d 1023, 1027 (7th Cir.1993); cf. Dortch v. O’Leary, 863 F.2d 1337, 1341-42 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1049, 109 S.Ct. 1961, 104 L.Ed.2d 429 (1989). If so, the" }, { "docid": "8432474", "title": "", "text": "into evidence, and accordingly affirmed the trial court’s denial of Dortch’s motion to suppress. In his habeas petition, the petitioner again argues that the court’s failure to suppress the lineup and in-court identifications allegedly tainted by his illegal arrest amounted to a denial of his due process right to a fair trial. The district court held that petitioner was barred from seeking review of this claim under Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), because he had already fully litigated the issue in the Illinois state courts. In Stone, the Supreme Court held that “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” Id. at 482, 96 S.Ct. at 3046, 49 L.Ed.2d at 1080. Dortch contends on appeal that Stone v. Powell does not bar federal review of his fourth amendment claims because the Illinois courts failed to apply the proper constitutional standards. In support of this argument, Dortch places substantial reliance on Gamble v. Oklahoma, 583 F.2d 1161 (10th Cir.1978). The primary issue in Gamble was whether the petitioner’s fourth amendment claim had been “afforded an ‘opportunity for full and fair litigation’ within the meaning of Stone.” Id. at 1164. Because Stone did not define its “full and fair litigation” requirement, the Tenth Circuit extensively analyzed other opinions addressing the requirement set forth in Stone and concluded that “full and fair litigation” involves more than mere opportunity to present fourth amendment arguments but also includes “at least color-able application of the correct fourth amendment constitutional standards.” Gamble, 583 F.2d at 1165. Petitioner’s reliance on Gamble is misplaced. The Tenth Circuit based its holding that Stone v. Powell was not a bar to Gamble’s fourth amendment claim on the fact that the Oklahoma courts had ignored controlling federal precedent, namely Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). The" }, { "docid": "917262", "title": "", "text": "Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Mills v. Wainwright, 415 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1969). Since this ground for relief arises under the fourth amendment exclusionary rule, however, our power to grant habeas corpus relief depends on whether Caver was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue in the state courts of Alabama. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); Caver v. Alabama, 537 F.2d 1333 (5th Cir. 1976). In Stone v. Powell, the Supreme Court held: [Wjhere the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial. 428 U.S. at 482, 96 S.Ct. at 3052 (footnotes omitted). This circuit has interpreted “full and fair consideration” of a fourth amendment claim to include at least one eviden-tiary hearing in a trial court and the availability of meaningful appellate review when there are facts in dispute, and full consideration by an appellate court when the facts are not in dispute. O’Berry v. Wainwright, 546 F.2d 1204, 1213 (5th Cir. 1977); see Sosa v. United States, 550 F.2d 244, 249 & n. 4 (5th Cir. 1977). Caver argues that O’Berry and Sosa hold that the bar of Stone v. Powell becomes operative only after there has been full and fair litigation in the state courts as these cases define. He contends that the mere presence of an opportunity, unavailed of by a defendant, is not sufficient to preclude federal habeas corpus consideration of fourth amendment suppression claims. Under circumstances similar to those in this case, the Second Circuit rejected the argument advanced by Caver. Gates v. Henderson, 568 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1977) (en banc). We also reject his argument. An “opportunity for full and fair litigation” means just that: an opportunity. If a state provides the processes whereby a defendant can obtain full and fair litigation of a fourth amendment claim," }, { "docid": "10439697", "title": "", "text": "F.3d 691 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1865, 128 L.Ed.2d 486 (1994), we established a test for determining when a § 2254 petitioner has received a full and fair opportunity to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim in state court. First, the petitioner must “clearly inform[ ] the state court of the factual basis for ... [his] claim and ... argue[ ] that those facts constitute a violation of ... [his] fourth amendment rights.” Id. at 694 (quoting Pierson v. O’Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 857, 113 S.Ct. 168, 121 L.Ed.2d 115 (1992)). If he has clearly presented the issue, we then consider whether “the state court has carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts and ... applied the proper constitutional case law to the facts.” Id.; see also United States ex rel. Bostick v. Peters, 3 F.3d 1023, 1027 (7th Cir.1993); cf. Dortch v. O’Leary, 863 F.2d 1337, 1341-42 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1049, 109 S.Ct. 1961, 104 L.Ed.2d 429 (1989). If so, the petitioner has received a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, and federal habeas corpus review is barred by Stone. Turentine argues that the Indiana Court of Appeals denied his Fourth Amendment claims without applying the proper constitutional case law. The officers who arrested Turentine entered his home without a warrant, and the state has not argued that any exigent circumstances justified the entry. Consequently, Turentine now argues, the entry and arrest were illegal, and the drags and money seized from his house should not have been admitted at trial. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 583-87, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1378-81, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); see also New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 20, 110 S.Ct. 1640, 1644, 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990). He contends that the Indiana Court of Appeals deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims because it did not discuss the Payton requirement that the home search be supported by either a warrant or exigent circumstances. We" }, { "docid": "21669065", "title": "", "text": "search was invalid because of deficiencies in the affidavits, and that a warrantless entry was unconstitutional because the police lacked probable cause. In all of these respects the federal tribunals disagreed with contrary holdings- of the state courts. Stone reversed both the eighth and the ninth circuits, not because the Justices thought that the state courts had handled the fourth amendment issues correctly, but because error on a fourth amendment issue does not support a writ of habeas corpus. So if all that occurred in Hampton’s case is error, then here too there is no justification for federal collateral relief. Illinois contends that, having reached this conclusion, we should overrule (or at least modify) a series of opinions that have made the existence of error part of the inquiry into full and fair adjudication. See, e.g., Terry v. Martin, 120 F.3d 661, 663 (7th Cir.1997); Turentine v. Miller, 80 F.3d 222, 224 (7th Cir.1996); Weber v. Murphy, 15 F.3d 691, 694 (7th Cir.1994); Pierson v. O’Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir.1992). We wrote in Pierson, and have repeated since, that an accused receives a full and fair opportunity to litigate if (1) he has clearly informed the state court of the factual basis for that claim and has argued that those facts constitute a violation of his fourth amendment rights and (2) the state court has carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts and (3) applied the proper constitutional case law to the facts. Illinois wonders how the third of these considerations can be appropriate, given the way Stone itself handled a claim of error. The state’s concern supposes, however, that Pierson required the state to decide the issue correctly. But this is not what we meant. What a state has to do is look to the appropriate body of decisional law. Faced with a claim that the police lacked probable cause to make an arrest, a state court could not respond that in Illinois it is proper to arrest without probable cause. Failure to apply applicable law would show that the accused lacked a full opportunity to prevail on" }, { "docid": "8424879", "title": "", "text": "context of habeas petitions, the benefit of the exclusionary rule is minimal compared to the substantial societal costs of applying it. Therefore, “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” At 494. It sounds simple but has, in fact, caused considerable consternation over what exactly “full and fair” means. The only help in Stone is a footnote to a prior case: “Cf. Townsend v. Sam, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963).” And of course the value, generally, of “Cf.” citations is often only revealed in the eye of the beholder. Recently, we have waded again into the debate in an attempt to clarify some of our earlier cases. Our traditional formulation was that a petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate if (1) he has clearly informed the state court of the factual basis for that claim and has argued that those facts constitute a violation of his fourth amendment rights and (2) the state court has carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts and (3) applied the proper constitutional case law to the facts. Pierson v. O’Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir.1992). This test spawned many arguments, including one that the litigation was “full and fair” only if the state court decided the issue correctly. This erroneous interpretation of Stone was pretty clearly sent packing by our decision last year in Hampton. In Hampton we observed that the Pierson approach nullifies the holding of Stone and leads to collateral relief whenever the search violates the fourth amendment. Even an egregious error would not by itself justify habeas relief: [A] blunder, no matter how obvious, matters only in conjunction with other circumstances that imply refusal by the state judiciary to take seriously its obligation to adjudicate claims under the fourth amendment. 296 F.3d at 564. Unsatisfied by this formulation, the State wants us to take this opportunity" }, { "docid": "1799992", "title": "", "text": "is relevant in the unique circumstances of a capital sentencing hearing.” Booth, 482 U.S. at 504, 107 S.Ct. at 2533. Booth was expressly overruled by Payne v. Tennessee, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). II. Pierson argues that his statement to police must be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal seizure. We must first determine whether Pierson’s fourth amendment claim falls within the substantive scope of the habeas corpus writ. “[Wjhere the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” Stone, 428 U.S. at 482, 96 S.Ct. at 3046. A habeas corpus petitioner has received an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his or her fourth amendment claim when (1) the petitioner has clearly informed the state court of the factual basis for that claim and has argued that those facts constitute a violation of the petitioner’s fourth amendment rights and (2) the state court has carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts and applied the proper constitutional case law to the facts. See, Dortch v. O’Leary, 863 F.2d 1337, 1342 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1049, 109 S.Ct. 1961, 104 L.Ed.2d 429 (1989). Pierson argues that he was not provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his fourth amendment claim because the state courts did not apply the proper constitutional case law. In determining whether the taint of an unlawful seizure has sufficiently dissipated so as to allow admission of a subsequently acquired statement, a court must consider four factors: (1) the presence of Miranda warnings, (2) the temporal proximity of the arrest to the confession, (3) the presence of intervening circumstances, and (4) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-62, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). The state appellate court listed the foregoing factors as the appropriate standard and cited Brown. Pierson," } ]

[ { "docid": "22838800", "title": "", "text": "specific factual misrepresentations and disclosed risks were “so generalized in nature that a' reasonable jury could nonetheless find the prospectus misleading.”). “A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will succeed only when the statements containing defendants’ challenged documents include enough cautionary language or risk disclosure that reasonable minds could not disagree that the challenged statements were not misleading.” Fecht, 70 F.3d at 1082 (citation and quotations omitted). The district court did not rely on the bespeaks caution doctrine here because it found that the Prospectus contained no forward-looking representations. [SER 37:23.] By definition, the bespeaks caution doctrine applies only to affirmative, forward-looking statements. Id. at 1413 n. 2. However, we have observed that the doctrine “merely represents the pragmatic application of two fundamental concepts in the law of securities fraud: materiality and reliance.” WOW, 35 F.3d at 1414. [T]he ‘bespeaks caution’ doctrine has developed to address situations in which optimistic projections are coupled with cautionary language ... affecting the reasonableness of reliance on and the materiality of those projections. To put it another way, the ‘bespeaks caution’ doctrine reflects the unremarkable proposition that statements must be analyzed in context. Id. (quoting Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 167 (5th Cir.1994)). In WOW, we approved the district court’s application of the “Basic test of materiality” to plaintiffs’ claims concerning material omissions, which states that for nondisclosure to be actionable, “ ‘there must be a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available.’ ” Id. at 1413 n. 2 (quoting Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 231, 108 S.Ct. 978, 983, 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988)) (alterations omitted). Cf. Gray, 82 F.3d at 884 (concluding that bespeaks caution doctrine was relevant in determining whether the prospectus as a whole was misleading as a matter of law, where alleged misrepresentations concerned matters of historical fact). Here, Anderson characterizes certain claims regarding Stac’s Prospectus as both material omissions and misstatements. For example, Anderson alleges that Stac failed to disclose its inadequate" } ]

[ { "docid": "13294390", "title": "", "text": "Id. (quoting Victor Brudney, A Note on Materiality and Soft Information under the Federal Securities Laws, 75 VA. L. REV. 723, 750 (1989)). “Forward-looking representations are also considered immaterial when the defendant has provided the investing public with sufficiently specific risk disclosures or other cautionary statements concerning the subject matter of the statements at issue to nullify any potentially misleading effect.” Grossman, 120 F.3d at 1120. This doctrine, which is called the “bespeaks caution” doctrine, “provides a mechanism by which a court can rule as a matter of law ... that defendants’ forward-looking representations contained enough cautionary language or risk disclosure to protect the defendant against claims of securities fraud.” Worlds of Wonder, 35 F.3d at 1413 (citation omitted). However, not every risk disclosure will be sufficient to immunize statements relating to the disclosure; rather, “the cautionary statements must be substantive and tailored to the specific future projections, estimates or opinions ... which the plaintiffs challenge.” Trump, 7 F.3d at 371. General statements that fail to disclose specific underlying material information fail to trigger the protection of the bespeaks caution doctrine. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1494 (9th Cir.1996). Likewise, boilerplate warnings merely reminding an investor that the investment holds risk are not sufficient. See Trump, 7 F.3d at 371; see also Saltzberg v. TM Sterling/Austin Assoc., Ltd., 45 F.3d 399, 400 (11th Cir.1995). On the other hand, acceptable cautionary language includes warnings that are specific and are linked to the projections at issue. See Saltzberg, 45 F.3d at 400. At bottom, the “bespeaks caution” doctrine stands for the “unremarkable proposition that statements must be analyzed in context” when determining whether or not they are materially misleading. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 167 (5th Cir.1994). The PSLRA also provides a statutory safe harbor for certain forward-looking statements in certain circumstances. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77z-2(c), 78u-5(c); see also Saltzberg, 45 F.3d at 400. A “forward-looking statement” under the “safe harbor” includes (a) statements containing projections of revenues, income, earnings per share, or other financial items; (b) statements of the plans and objectives of management for future operations;" }, { "docid": "13164946", "title": "", "text": "created doctrine providing that ‘‘[florward-looking representations are ... immaterial when the defendant has provided the investing public with sufficiently specific risk disclosures or other cautionary statements concerning the subject matter of the statement at issue to nullify any potentially misleading effect.” Gross-man, 120 F.3d at 1120. Such forward-looking statements may, however, be material “if the opinion is known by the speaker at the time it is expressed to be untrue or to have no reasonable basis in fact.” Id. at 1120 n. 6. In the PSLRA, Congress created a “safe harbor” for “forward looking statements” grounded in the bespeaks caution doctrine. Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., 251 F.3d 540, 547 (6th Cir.2001). Under the PSLRA’s safe harbor provision, public companies are insulated from liability for certain forward-looking statements, including “projection of revenues, income (including income loss), earnings (including earnings loss) per share, capital expenditures, dividends, capital structure, or other financial items,” if such statements are “accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c) (2006). “Congress enacted the safe-harbor provision in order to loosen the ‘muzzling effect’ of potential liability for forward-looking statements, which often kept investors in the dark about what management foresaw for the company.” Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799, 806 (11th Cir.1999) (citing H.R. Conf.Rep. No. 104369, at 42 [1995], reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730, 741). However, even such a forward-looking statement is actionable if made with “actual knowledge” that the statement was false or misleading. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(B) (2006). While the bespeaks caution doctrine predated the PSLRA and is similar to the statutory safe harbor, the doctrine survived the PSLRA as an independent test of materiality. See H.R. Conf.Rep. No. 104-369, at 46 (1995) reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730, 745. Plaintiffs Consolidated Complaint alleges that Red Robin’s earnings guidance for the fourth quarter of 2005 was materially false and misleading. (See Consolid. Compl. ¶¶ 61, 140, 173.) Red Robin argues its earnings forecasts are protected by the PSLRA’s safe harbor provision as well as the bespeaks caution" }, { "docid": "13898643", "title": "", "text": "has repeatedly required, among other things, that the pleading ‘explain why the statements were fraudulent.’ ” (internal citations omitted)). Accordingly, to state adequately a claim for relief for violation of section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a complaint must plead that “the defendant^] made a false statement or omitted a material fact, with scienter, and that plaintiffs reliance on defendants’ action caused plaintiff injury.” Kalnit v. Eichler, 264 F.3d 131, 138 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting San Leandro Emergency Medical Group Profit Sharing Plan v. Philip Morris Co., 75 F.3d 801, 808 (2d Cir.1996)); see also Lawrence v. Cohn, 325 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir.2003) (same). C. Application of PSLRA “Safe Harbor” and the “Bespeaks Caution” Doctrine At the outset, defendants urge that none of the alleged misrepresentations identified in the Complaint are actionable under the federal securities laws because they fall within the “safe harbor” provisions of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c), or are protected by the judicial “bespeaks caution” doctrine. The PSLRA creates two categories of statutory “safe harbors.” First, there is no fraud liability under federal securities laws for making a forward-looking statement if such a statement is either (i) identified as forward-looking “and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the statement;” or “(ii) immaterial.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(A). Secondly, the statutory “safe harbor” also insulates from fraud liability the making of a forward-looking statement unless a plaintiff can prove that such a statement was “made with actual knowledge by that person that the statement was false or misleading.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(B)(i); see also In re Independent Energy Holdings PLC Securities Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 741, 755 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (applying 15 U.S.C. § 77z-2(c), the parallel “safe harbor” provision applicable to the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq). The judicial “bespeaks caution” doctrine operates in a similar fashion and protects forward-looking statements accompanied by adequate cautionary language from being actionable. Specifically, under the “bespeaks caution” doctrine, “ ‘alleged misrepresentations ... are immaterial as a matter of law [if] it cannot be said" }, { "docid": "3027971", "title": "", "text": "is at least deliberately reckless as to its falsity, at the time that he or she makes the statement. See Nordstrom, Inc. v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 54 F.3d 1424, 1435-6 (9th Cir.1995). The Ninth Circuit has rejected the concept of “collective scienter” in attributing scienter to a corporation. See id. Finally, the general rule is that all material allegations in a complaint will be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir.1986). However, under the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Gompper v. VISX, 298 F.3d 893, 896-7 (9th Cir.2002), plaintiffs in PSLRA cases are not entitled to have only favorable inferences drawn on their complaints. In PSLRA cases, negative competing inferences must also be considered in deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See id. II. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint In their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendants make both specific and general arguments regarding the insufficiency of Plaintiffs’ claims. A. “Bespeaks Caution” Doctrine and 15 U.S.C. § 78u~5(c) Safe Harbor Defendants argue that the statements by Jobs and other Apple officers are subject to the safe harbor provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1) and the “bespeaks caution” doctrine. In order for the safe harbor to apply, a forward-looking statement must both be “identified as a forward-looking statement, and [be] accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A)(i). The bespeaks caution doctrine, which was formulated by courts prior to the enactment of the PSLRA, operates in a very similar fashion. This doctrine provides a mechanism by which a court can rule as a matter of law ... that defendants’ forward-looking representations contained enough cautionary language or risk disclosure to protect the defendant against claims of securities fraud. Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.Sd 1478, 1493 (9th Cir.1996) (citing In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation, 35 F.3d 1407, 1413-4 (9th Cir.1994)). Both the safe harbor and the bespeaks caution" }, { "docid": "21973513", "title": "", "text": "its limitations; a projection of optimism becomes actionable “when (1) the statement is not actually believed, (2) there is no reasonable basis for the belief, or (3) the speaker is aware of undisclosed facts tending seriously to undermine the statement’s accuracy.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The statements regarding Ceclor CD are not subject to the puffery rule. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded the Company’s sales of Ceclor CD were artificially inflated through the “fire sales” and “load-ins” orchestrated by certain of the Defendants. Therefore, although statements that sales and demand for Ceclor CD were “strong,” that the Company was “pleased” with Dura’s performance and financial results, and that Ceclor CD was “well received” by physicians are generalized, the facts alleged in the TAC lead to a strong inference there was no reasonable basis for believing such statements to be true because the sales were achieved by overloading wholesalers with the product. Accordingly, the puf-fery rule does not insulate Defendants from liability. 4. Safe Harbor and “Bespeaks Caution” Courts have refused to impose liability on statements which “bespeak caution.” This doctrine “developed to address situations in which optimistic projections are coupled with cautionary language ... affecting the reasonableness of reliance on and the materiality of those projections.” In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 35 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir.1994). The PSLRA’s safe harbor provision provides that forward-looking statements cannot be the basis for a securities fraud claim if: (1) the statement is identified as forward looking and is accompanied by sufficient cautionary statements; or (2) the person who made the forward-looking statement did so without actual knowledge that the statement was false or misleading. The safe harbor provision protects both written and oral forward-looking statements. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)-(2). The Ninth Circuit has held the PSLRA’s safe harbor provision codified the judicially-created bespeaks caution doctrine. Employers Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider the application of the bespeaks caution doctrine and safe harbor provision simultaneously. In re Copper Mountain Sec." }, { "docid": "3027972", "title": "", "text": "“Bespeaks Caution” Doctrine and 15 U.S.C. § 78u~5(c) Safe Harbor Defendants argue that the statements by Jobs and other Apple officers are subject to the safe harbor provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1) and the “bespeaks caution” doctrine. In order for the safe harbor to apply, a forward-looking statement must both be “identified as a forward-looking statement, and [be] accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A)(i). The bespeaks caution doctrine, which was formulated by courts prior to the enactment of the PSLRA, operates in a very similar fashion. This doctrine provides a mechanism by which a court can rule as a matter of law ... that defendants’ forward-looking representations contained enough cautionary language or risk disclosure to protect the defendant against claims of securities fraud. Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.Sd 1478, 1493 (9th Cir.1996) (citing In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation, 35 F.3d 1407, 1413-4 (9th Cir.1994)). Both the safe harbor and the bespeaks caution doctrine shield a defendant from liability for statements that both (1) are forward-looking and (2) include sufficient cautionary language. The Ninth Circuit has explained that the bespeaks caution doctrine merely stands for “the unremarkable proposition that statements must be analyzed in context.” Id. The cautionary statements upon which Defendants attempt to rely were made in Apple’s 1999 Form 10-K, its 3Q00 Form 10-Q and the July 18, 2000 teleconference. Any cautionary state- merits made in the 10-K and 10-Q forms are irrelevant here. Plaintiffs’ fraud claims are not based on any statements included in these forms. If Defendants mean to argue that cautionary statements in these forms may trigger application of the safe harbor or bespeaks caution doctrine with respect to statements not made in these forms, this position is without merit. The making of a cautionary statement on one occasion does not provide a shield to liability for all statements subsequently made. In order for the safe harbor or bespeaks caution doctrine to apply, a cautionary statement must “aceom-pan[y]” or be “contained” in the" }, { "docid": "7796246", "title": "", "text": "main competitors. The Court concludes that these facts would be material to a reasonable investor. 2. Whether the Alleged Statements or Omissions Were Protected Under the Statutory Safe Harbor or Bespeaks Caution Doctrine As explained by the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges material misrepresentations and omissions that could form the basis for a claim of securities fraud. Now the Court must consider whether the Defendants’ statements are protected by the statutory safe harbor for forward-looking statements or by the judicially-created “bespeaks caution” doctrine. The PSLRA’s safe harbor provision provides protection under certain circumstances against claims brought under the Exchange Act for forward-looking statements. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(A)(I). Generally, “forecasts, opinions, or projections” do not amount to “material misrepresentations” if “meaningful cautionary statements” accompany the forward-looking statements. Saltzberg v. TM Sterling/Austin Assocs., 45 F.3d 399, 400 (11th Cir.1995); see 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2). The safe harbor provision protects against liability “based on forward-looking statements if: (1) the statement is identified as a forward-looking statement and accompanied by cautionary language, (2) the statement was immaterial, or (3) the plaintiffs fail to establish that the person (or entity) making the statement had ‘actual knowledge’ of its falsity.” In re ValuJet, Inc. Sec. Litig., 984 F.Supp. 1472, 1479 (N.D.Ga.1997) (Thrash, J.); see also Grassi v. Information Resources, Inc., 63 F.3d 596, 599 (7th Cir.1995) (citing Stransky v. Cummins Engine Co., 51 F.3d 1329, 1333 n. 9 (7th Cir.1995) and opining that forward-looking statement can be fraudulent only if “management did not genuinely believe the projection or [if] the projection lacked any reasonable basis at the time it was made.”); DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 628 (7th Cir.1990) (“There is no ‘fraud by hindsight.’”) (citing Denny v. Barber, 576 F.2d 465, 470 (2nd Cir.1978)). The judicially-created “bespeaks caution” doctrine is the safe harbor’s counterpart, and it “protect[s] statements in the nature of projections that are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements and specific warnings of the risks involved, so as to ‘bespeak caution’ to investors that actual results may differ, thereby shielding the statements from § 10(b) and" }, { "docid": "9193334", "title": "", "text": "statements were false and misleading. However, it is settled law in the Third Circuit (and many other Circuits) that such knowledge is not relevant to a Safe Harbor inquiry based on 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A) : The provisions of the safe harbor under § 78u-5(c)(1) are disjunctive; they immunize any forward-looking statement provided that either it is \"accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements,\" id. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A), or \"the plaintiff fails to prove the forward-looking statement ... was made with actual knowledge ... that the statement was false or misleading,\" id. § 78u-5(c)(1)(B). Thus, where a future-looking statement is accompanied by sufficient cautions, then the state of mind of the individual making the statement is irrelevant, and the statement is not actionable regardless of the plaintiff's showing of scienter. OFI Asset Mgmt. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber, 834 F.3d 481, 502 (3d Cir. 2016) (collecting cases). The Court may consider the cautionary language contained in these documents under both the language of the Safe Harbor Provision and Third Circuit precedent interpreting it. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(e) (\"On any motion to dismiss based upon [the Safe Harbor Provision], the court shall consider any ... cautionary statement accompanying the forward-looking statement, which [is] not subject to material dispute, cited by the defendant.\"); In re NAHC, Inc. Sec. Litig., 306 F.3d 1314, 1331 (3d Cir. 2002) (affirming judicial notice of documents filed with the SEC). For support, Plaintiffs cite several out-of-circuit cases, as well as In re Westinghouse Securities Litigation, 90 F.3d 696, 709 (3d Cir. 1996), for the proposition that \"[w]arnings of possible adverse events are insufficient to make omissions of present knowledge of certain future events legally immaterial.\" MTD Response, at 31. In re Westinghouse is a case involving the \"bespeaks caution\" doctrine, which, like the Safe Harbor Provision, requires that courts consider statements in context, that is, along with \"accompanying statements.\" In re Donald J. Trump Casino Sec. Litig.-Taj Mahal Litig., 7 F.3d 357, 364 (3d Cir. 1993). \"While the Third Circuit has incorporated much of the 'bespeaks caution' doctrine into its analysis of the PSLRA ... the Third Circuit has" }, { "docid": "21621514", "title": "", "text": "by the PSLRA’s safe harbor and because they are protected under the “bespeaks caution” doctrine. Mot. Dism. at 17:24-24:5. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “[t]he PSLRA created a statutory version of th[e “bespeaks caution”] doctrine by providing a safe harbor for forward-looking statements identified as such, which are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements.” Employers Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Trust Fund v. The Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider the two protections simultaneously. In describing the “bespeaks caution” doctrine, the Ninth Circuit has said: “The bespeaks caution doctrine provides a mechanism by which a court can rule as a matter of law (typically in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action or a motion for summary judgment) that defendants’ forward-looking representations contained enough cautionary language or risk disclosure to protect the defendant against claims of securities fraud.” Clorox, at 1132, quoting In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 35 F.3d 1407, 1413 (9th Cir.1995). Under this doctrine, the court must consider whether the total mix of information in the document or conversation is misleading. Fecht v. The Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.1995). In other words, the “bespeaks caution” doctrine “reflects nothing more than ‘the unremarkable proposition that statements must be analyzed in context.’ ” Id., quoting Worlds of Wonder, 35 F.3d at 1414. Similarly, the safe harbor created by the PSLRA protects “forward-looking statements identified as such, which are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements.” Clorox, at 1131; see also 15 USC § 78u-5(c). The court is required under the PSLRA to consider any statement cited in the complaint and any cautionary statement accompanying such statement in evaluating a motion to dismiss. 15 USC § 78u-5(e) Defendants contend that a number of the statements in the complaint are immunized under the safe harbor/bespeaks caution rationale. Defendants argue that the following statements are accompanied by adequate safe harbor warnings: • The two identified press releases — one from April 18, 2000, and one from July 17, 2000 (CC at 11 ¶68, 13 ¶ 82;" }, { "docid": "16974897", "title": "", "text": "the statement with “actual knowledge” that it was “false or misleading.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(B). The safe harbor provision does not apply where the defendants knew at the time that they were issuing statements that the statements contained false and misleading information and thus lacked any reasonable basis for making them. Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1213 (1st Cir.1996); Gross v. Medaphis Corp., 977 F.Supp. 1463, 1473 (N.D.Ga.1997); In re MobileMedia Sec. Litig., 28 F.Supp.2d 901, 930 (D.N.J.1998). The PSLRA restricts review of forward-looking statements to those specified in the complaint. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(l). Thus the Court must examine piecemeal the statements made by the company as expressed in the pleadings. There is a judicially created equivalent to the PSLRA’s “safe harbor” provision, the “bespeaks caution” doctrine, which the Eleventh Circuit in Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1276 n. 7 (11th Cir.1999) explains “operates similarly, protecting statements in the nature of projections that are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements and specific warnings of the risks involved, so as to ‘bespeak caution’ to investors that actual results may differ, thereby shielding the statements from § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 liability.” Id., citing Saltzberg v. TM Sterling/ Austin Assoc., 45 F.3d 399 (11th Cir.1995)(per curiam )(holding that explicit cautionary language in private placement memorandum rendered alleged misstatements immaterial and made them not actionable under the “bespeaks caution” doctrine). The Fifth Circuit has rejected the application of the “bespeaks caution” doctrine as a per se bar to liability. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.1994). Observing that the use of the doctrine by district courts “reflects a relatively recent, ongoing, and somewhat uncertain evolution in securities law,” the Fifth Circuit skeptically comments, In essence, predictive statements are just what the name implies: predictions. As such, any optimistic projections contained in such statements are necessarily contingent. Thus the “bespeaks caution” doctrine has developed to address situations in which optimistic projections are coupled with cautionary language— in particular, relevant specific facts or assumptions — affecting the reasonableness of the reliance on and the materiality of those" }, { "docid": "15495693", "title": "", "text": "in cash than it was led to believe. If this misrepresentation had not been made, Livid would likely have believed that PCI’s financial status was closer to the negative net worth of $743,646 reported in the Memorandum, rather than $24.2 million predicted to result from the stock offering. This misrepresentation radically altered the picture of PCI’s overall economic health and viability presented to Livid by the Memorandum and its accompanying notice. Thus, Livid successfully pled the materiality of Defendants’ misrepresentation regarding PCI’s capital. The district court, however, found that the notice Defendants attached to the Memorandum contained cautionary language rendering “any statement made in the [njotice legally immaterial.” In making this finding, the district court relied on the bespeaks caution doctrine, which “provides a mechanism by which a court can rule as a matter of law that defendants’ forward-looking representations contained enough cautionary language or risk disclosure to protect the defendant against claims of securities fraud.” In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1408 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Fecht v. The Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir.1995)). We have applied the bespeaks caution doctrine in situations where “optimistic projections coupled with cautionary language ... affect[ ] the reasonableness of reliance on and the materiality of those projections.” In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 35 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir.1994). Dismissal on the pleadings under the bespeaks caution doctrine, however, requires a stringent showing: There must be sufficient “cautionary language or risk disclosure [such] that reasonable minds could not disagree that the challenged statements were not misleading.” In re Stac, 89 F.3d at 1409 (quoting Fecht, 70 F.3d at 1082). We cannot agree that the only reasonable interpretation of the contested sentence is that it warned potential investors that PCI may not have received all of the capital from the $25 million stock sale. Instead, the most obvious interpretation of this sentence is that this cash had already been received, but that this “fact” and the resulting cash increase was not yet updated in the Memorandum. In finding the statement immaterial, the district court also extended the" }, { "docid": "16974896", "title": "", "text": "factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement” or where the forward-looking statement is immaterial. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(A)(i) and (ii). If a statement is “accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements,” the defendants’ state of mind is not relevant. Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799, 803 (11th Cir.1999), citing H.R. Conf. Rep. 104-369, at 44 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.A.A.N. 730, 743 (“The first prong of the safe harbor requires courts to examine only the cautionary statement accompanying the forward-looking statement. Courts should not examine the state of mind of the person- making the statement.”) See also Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1213 (1st Cir.1996)(“when statements of ‘soft’ information such as forecasts, estimates, opinions, or projections are accompanied by cautionary disclosures that adequately warn of the possibility that actual results or events may turn out differently, the ‘soft’ statements may not be materially misleading under the securities laws”). Where the forward-looking statement is not accompanied by cautionary language, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the defendant made the statement with “actual knowledge” that it was “false or misleading.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(B). The safe harbor provision does not apply where the defendants knew at the time that they were issuing statements that the statements contained false and misleading information and thus lacked any reasonable basis for making them. Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1213 (1st Cir.1996); Gross v. Medaphis Corp., 977 F.Supp. 1463, 1473 (N.D.Ga.1997); In re MobileMedia Sec. Litig., 28 F.Supp.2d 901, 930 (D.N.J.1998). The PSLRA restricts review of forward-looking statements to those specified in the complaint. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(l). Thus the Court must examine piecemeal the statements made by the company as expressed in the pleadings. There is a judicially created equivalent to the PSLRA’s “safe harbor” provision, the “bespeaks caution” doctrine, which the Eleventh Circuit in Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1276 n. 7 (11th Cir.1999) explains “operates similarly, protecting statements in the nature of projections that are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements and specific warnings of the risks involved, so as" }, { "docid": "7457577", "title": "", "text": "quickly and avoid the expense of litigation. See S. Rep. No. 104-98, at 4 (1990), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 679, 683; H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, at 31 (1990), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730, 730. The Reform Act contains, inter alia, a statutory safe harbor for forward-looking written or oral statements. Under that provision, an is suer is not liable for a forward-looking statement if it is “identified as a forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 78u-5(c)(l)(A)(i) (West Supp. 2000). The safe harbor is also available for oral forward-looking statements under certain conditions. In this case, the District Court did not rely on, nor did EchoCath cite, the safe harbor provision as a basis for finding the representations at issue immaterial as a matter of law. This may be because the oral misrepresentations on which MedSys-tems brought suit were not identified as forward-looking as required by the safe harbor provision. See supra note 3. Instead, the District Court found that the misrepresentations were immaterial under the “bespeaks caution” doctrine as adopted by this court in In re Donald J. Trump Casino Securities Litigation, 7 F.3d 357 (3d Cir.1993). Under the “bespeaks caution” doctrine, “cautionary language, if sufficient, renders the alleged omissions or misrepresentations immaterial as a matter of law.” Id. at 371. In In re Trump Casino Sec. Litig., we held that a suit brought by a class of investors who purchased bonds to provide funding for the acquisition and completion of the Taj Mahal, a lavish casino/hotel on the boardwalk of Atlantic City, could not be maintained because the alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the prospectus were accompanied by warning signals in the text of the prospectus that conveyed to potential investors the extreme risks inherent in the venture and the variety of obstacles the venture would face. See id. at 364. We stated that “bespeaks caution” represents new nomenclature, but it “is essentially shorthand for the well-established principle that a statement or omission must be" }, { "docid": "21621515", "title": "", "text": "consider whether the total mix of information in the document or conversation is misleading. Fecht v. The Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.1995). In other words, the “bespeaks caution” doctrine “reflects nothing more than ‘the unremarkable proposition that statements must be analyzed in context.’ ” Id., quoting Worlds of Wonder, 35 F.3d at 1414. Similarly, the safe harbor created by the PSLRA protects “forward-looking statements identified as such, which are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements.” Clorox, at 1131; see also 15 USC § 78u-5(c). The court is required under the PSLRA to consider any statement cited in the complaint and any cautionary statement accompanying such statement in evaluating a motion to dismiss. 15 USC § 78u-5(e) Defendants contend that a number of the statements in the complaint are immunized under the safe harbor/bespeaks caution rationale. Defendants argue that the following statements are accompanied by adequate safe harbor warnings: • The two identified press releases — one from April 18, 2000, and one from July 17, 2000 (CC at 11 ¶68, 13 ¶ 82; Ramos Deck, Exhs. C, D): • The April 18, 2000, press release announced first-quarter revenues and earnings, described CM’s past revenues and described CM’s acquisition of OnPrem, as well as the market opportunities that acquisition might present. The press release contained a “Note to Investors” warning that identified the press release as containing forward-looking statements and listing factors that might subject the information to change, such as: • quarterly fluctuations in operating results attributable to the timing and amount of orders for products; • the concentration of revenue in a small number of customers; • risks related to integrating the operations and products of Om-Prem Networds; • factors affecting the rate of DSL deployment by customers; and (5) factors affecting the demand for DSL technologies. Ramos Deck, Exh. C. • The July 17, 2000, press release announced second-quarter revenues and earnings, characterized CM as likely to continue to be “best-of-breed” for the evolving DSL market and characterized the second quarter as a reflection of an ongoing focus on “excellence, execution, and market leadership.” The press" }, { "docid": "22898635", "title": "", "text": "basis of these allegations, we conclude that plaintiffs have produced a strong inference that defendants persisted in making favorable predictions and feigning ignorance of the Budget Act with actual knowledge that their statements were misleading. 3. Not Identified as Forward-Looking/Absence of Meaningful Cautionary Statements-Though defendants described their predictions as \"forward-looking\" in the 1996 10-K, other SEC filings and press releases during the class period lacked this designation. Moreover, the first- and second-quarter 10-Q filings contained only a generic disclaimer of knowledge about \"whether such proposals will be adopted or if adopted, what effect, if any, such proposals would have on its business.\" The safe harbor provision, in contrast, requires that defendants identify \"important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements.\" 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A)(i). While the Conference Committee explained that a company need not list all factors, the legislative history makes clear that \"boilerplate warnings will not suffice.... The cautionary statements must convey substantive information about factors that realistically could cause results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements, such as, for example, information about the issuer’s business.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, at 43 (1995), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News at 742. The safe harbor was designed to encourage company disclosure of future plans and objectives by removing the threat of liability. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, at 45 (1995). In crafting it, Congress drew on the judicially created “bespeaks caution” doctrine, which states that “beliefs about future statements which turn out to be incorrect are not actionable under Section 10(b) if the statements contain sufficient cautionary language.” Mayer, 988 F.2d at 639. As the Eleventh Circuit observed, “In short, when an investor has been warned of risks of a significance similar to that actually realized, she is sufficiently on notice of the danger of the investment to make an intelligent decision about it according to her own preferences for risk and reward.” Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799, 807 (11th Cir.1999). According to the plaintiffs, that is not what happened here. In its 1996 10-K" }, { "docid": "22898602", "title": "", "text": "representing an in temrem increment of the settlement value, rather than a reasonably founded hope that the process will reveal relevant evidence”). In 1995, Congress attempted to resolve this tension by implementing “procedural protections to discourage frivolous litigation.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, at 32 (1995), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News at 730, 731. The resulting law, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA” or the “Reform Act”), insulates defendants from abusive suits in two ways relevant to this case. See The Private ' Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-67 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 & -5) (1995). A. The Safe Harbor First, Congress created a “safe harbor” for “forward-looking statements.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l). Based on the judicial “bespeaks caution” doctrine, this provision excuses liability for defendants’ projections, statements of plans and ob- jeetives, and estimates of future economic performance. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(i)(l). A plaintiff may overcome this protection only if the statement was material; if defendants had actual knowledge that it was false or misleading; and if the statement was not identified as “forward-looking” or lacked meaningful cautionary statements. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l). B. The Pleading Standard Second, Congress heightened the pleading standard for securities fraud. Before 1995, a plaintiff had to allege fraud “with particularity.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Under the PSLRA, a plaintiff must now “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2) (emphasis added). In passing the Reform Act, Congress never defined “state of mind.” Hoffman v. Comshare, 183 F.3d 542, 549 (6th Cir.1999). It is clear that some form of fraudulent intent is required. The Supreme Court has held that scienter, “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud,” is an essential element of a § 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 193 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976). Though the Court has never defined the mental state required for securities fraud- and in fact expressly reserved the question, see id." }, { "docid": "5470517", "title": "", "text": "Plaintiffs would have the Court view Defendants’ goodwill as if it were a line on a graph, on which the precise value of IVAX goodwill can be determined at any given moment in time. Such an analogy bears little relation to reality, where the value of an intangible asset like goodwill is much less, exact and depends on numerous other business judgments and financial calculations not made until the end of the quarter. As the cautionary statements at the end of each press release noted, all of the figures regarding IVAX’s third quarter loss were projections subject to change. The decision not to factor in the goodwill writeoff in those projections was also necessarily forward-looking; it reflected the judgment of the corporation that goodwill was strong and that no such writeoff would be necessary. Provided that they satisfy one of the two conditions discussed below, such projections are clearly immunized by the Reform Act’s safe harbor. 2. Meaningful Cautionary Statements Having found that the press releases upon which the Plaintiffs base their claims were forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Reform Act, those statements cannot as a matter of law form the basis of liability under the first prong of the safe harbor if they were accompanied by mean ingful cautionary statements. This provision was based upon the judicially -created safe harbor known as the “bespeaks caution” doctrine. The bespeaks caution doctrine is recognized in this Circuit, see Saltzberg v. TM Sterling/Austin Assoc., 45 F.3d 399, 400 (11th Cir.1995), and provides some guidance in interpreting the Reform Act’s safe harbor. Applying subsection (c)(1)(A)®, it is clear first that the representations upon which the. Plaintiffs attempt to base liability were plainly identified as forward-looking statements. Plaintiffs attempt to avoid that section, however, by arguing that although identified, those statements were not accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. The Court disagrees. While it is clear that “boilerplate warnings will not suffice as meaningful cautionary statements,” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, at 43 (1995); see also In re Donald J. Trump Casino Sec. Litig., 7 F.3d 357, 371 (3rd Cir.1993), the italicized warnings" }, { "docid": "21973514", "title": "", "text": "on statements which “bespeak caution.” This doctrine “developed to address situations in which optimistic projections are coupled with cautionary language ... affecting the reasonableness of reliance on and the materiality of those projections.” In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 35 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir.1994). The PSLRA’s safe harbor provision provides that forward-looking statements cannot be the basis for a securities fraud claim if: (1) the statement is identified as forward looking and is accompanied by sufficient cautionary statements; or (2) the person who made the forward-looking statement did so without actual knowledge that the statement was false or misleading. The safe harbor provision protects both written and oral forward-looking statements. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)-(2). The Ninth Circuit has held the PSLRA’s safe harbor provision codified the judicially-created bespeaks caution doctrine. Employers Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider the application of the bespeaks caution doctrine and safe harbor provision simultaneously. In re Copper Mountain Sec. Litig., 311 F.Supp.2d 857, 876 (N.D.Cal.2004). Under the safe harbor provision, a person is not liable for a “forward looking” statement provided the statement is identified as such, and is accompanied “by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement.” 15 U.S.C. 78u-5(c)(l)(A)(i); Am. W., 320 F.3d at 936. A “forward-looking statement” “is any statement regarding (1) financial projections, (2) plans and objectives of management for future operations, (3) future economic performance, or (4) the assumptions ‘underlying or related to’ any of these issues.” Am. W., 320 F.3d at 936. Defendants contend that most of the challenged statements refer to Dura’s future plans, objectives, and business prospects relating to the development and hoped-for FDA approval of the Spiros products, and its then newly-acquired Cec-lor, Keftab, and Nasalide/Nasarel product lines. Defendants argue these statements are forward-looking and thus subject to the Reform Act’s safe harbor provisions. Defendants contend Dura disclosed the risks associated with its recent acquisition of Ceclor CD. For example, the Company’s" }, { "docid": "13164947", "title": "", "text": "statement.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c) (2006). “Congress enacted the safe-harbor provision in order to loosen the ‘muzzling effect’ of potential liability for forward-looking statements, which often kept investors in the dark about what management foresaw for the company.” Harris v. Ivax Corp., 182 F.3d 799, 806 (11th Cir.1999) (citing H.R. Conf.Rep. No. 104369, at 42 [1995], reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730, 741). However, even such a forward-looking statement is actionable if made with “actual knowledge” that the statement was false or misleading. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(B) (2006). While the bespeaks caution doctrine predated the PSLRA and is similar to the statutory safe harbor, the doctrine survived the PSLRA as an independent test of materiality. See H.R. Conf.Rep. No. 104-369, at 46 (1995) reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730, 745. Plaintiffs Consolidated Complaint alleges that Red Robin’s earnings guidance for the fourth quarter of 2005 was materially false and misleading. (See Consolid. Compl. ¶¶ 61, 140, 173.) Red Robin argues its earnings forecasts are protected by the PSLRA’s safe harbor provision as well as the bespeaks caution doctrine. (Red Robin Br. at 31-33.) Plaintiff counters that because Red Robin provided the guidance with actual knowledge of its falsity, its forecasts are not protected. (Pl.’s Resp. at 41-44, 48-50.) I find that Red Robin’s forward-looking statements are protected under the PSLRA’s safe harbor provision and are thus insulated from liability under federal law. Accordingly, I need not consider application of the bespeaks caution doctrine. As an initial matter, I will assume for the purposes of this motion that the Company’s earnings guidance for the fourth quarter of 2005 was false when made. Plaintiff does not dispute that Red Robin’s earnings guidance contained forward looking statements accompanied by the requisite meaningful cautionary statements. (See Pl.’s Resp. at 41-42.) The issue before the court, then, is whether Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to support a finding that Red Robin made its projections with actual knowledge as to their falsity. In private securities fraud cases, such as this one, in order for a plaintiff to show that a defendant acted with the requisite state of mind, the" }, { "docid": "13294391", "title": "", "text": "protection of the bespeaks caution doctrine. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1494 (9th Cir.1996). Likewise, boilerplate warnings merely reminding an investor that the investment holds risk are not sufficient. See Trump, 7 F.3d at 371; see also Saltzberg v. TM Sterling/Austin Assoc., Ltd., 45 F.3d 399, 400 (11th Cir.1995). On the other hand, acceptable cautionary language includes warnings that are specific and are linked to the projections at issue. See Saltzberg, 45 F.3d at 400. At bottom, the “bespeaks caution” doctrine stands for the “unremarkable proposition that statements must be analyzed in context” when determining whether or not they are materially misleading. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 167 (5th Cir.1994). The PSLRA also provides a statutory safe harbor for certain forward-looking statements in certain circumstances. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77z-2(c), 78u-5(c); see also Saltzberg, 45 F.3d at 400. A “forward-looking statement” under the “safe harbor” includes (a) statements containing projections of revenues, income, earnings per share, or other financial items; (b) statements of the plans and objectives of management for future operations; and (c) statements of future economic performance. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(i)(l). Similar to the “bespeaks caution” doctrine, the statutory safe harbor insulates a defendant from private securities liability for forward-looking statements if the forward-looking statement is identified as such and “is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(A)(i). Even if the forward-looking statements are not accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, defendants are insulated from liability if the plaintiff cannot show that the forward-looking statements were made by or with the approval of an executive officer of the company who had “actual knowledge” that they were false or misleading. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(l)(B). However, if a forward-looking statement “is accompanied by ‘meaningful cautionary language,’ the defendants’ state of mind is irrelevant.” Harris 182 F.3d at 803. In Grossman, a case with facts similar to the present case, the plaintiff alleged that various statements issued by the defendants after a public offering were misleading because they" } ]

[ { "docid": "6804398", "title": "", "text": "School District substantially complied with those statutory safeguards. S.D.'s IEPs set out educational goals and the special services to be provided. The School District maintained open communications with S.D.'s parents and allowed them to play an \"aggressively participative role\" in the development of the IEPs. And the School District held concifiation conferences to discuss parental complaints and heeded parental requests that a psychological consultant and other professionals be involved in the IEP process. Having determined that the School District had met IDEA's core procedural requirements, the court upheld the hearing officer's conclusion that IEP deficiencies were either harmless or would be remedied by the reimbursement of certain professional fees. We agree. The critical issue in this case is whether S.D.'s parents should be reimbursed for unilaterally placing her in private school. The procedural and technical deficiencies in the IEPs that were identified by the hearing officer and the review officer did not materially affect the resolution of that issue. An IEP should be set aside only if \"procedural inadequacies compromised the pupil's right to an appropriate education, seriously hampered the parents' opportunity to participate in the formulation process, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.\" Roland M., 910 F.2d at 994. See Schuldt v. Mankato Sch. Dist. No. 77, 937 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059, 112 S.Ct. 937, 117 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992); Evans, 841 F.2d at 830-31. That did not happen here. V. Finally, S.D. argues that the district court erred in dismissing her state and federal counterclaims as precluded. IDEA does not \"restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available\" under other federal law, but it does require a claimant to exhaust administrative remedies. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f). When that process produces an administrative decision that is upheld on judicial review under IDEA, principles of issue and claim preclusion may properiy be applied to short-circuit redundant claims under other laws. See University of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 796-99, 106 S.Ct. 3220, 3224-27, 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986); Plough v. West Des Moines Community Sch. Dist., 70 F.3d 512, 515-16 (8th Cir.1995). S.D.'s non-IDEA" } ]

[ { "docid": "13664337", "title": "", "text": "through a comparison of educational opportunities supported by expert testimony, whether the child can be satisfactorily educated in a regular classroom with supplemental services. If it finds that the child cannot be satisfactorily educated in that manner, the court must consider whether the school attempted to mainstream the child to the maximum extent possible. C. Burden of Proof We have always placed the burden of demonstrating compliance with the IDEA on the school district. See Kingwood Township, 205 F.3d at 579; Oberti 995 F.2d at 1219. While this appeal was pending, however, the Supreme Court held that the “burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief.” Schaffer v. Weast, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 528, 537, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005). The Schaffer Court declined to address the issue of whether a state could, by statute, place the burden exclusively upon the school district. Id. New Jersey has no such statute. Nevertheless, appellants contend that the rule in Lascari v. Bd. of Educ., 116 N.J. 30, 560 A.2d 1180 (1989), where the Supreme Court of New Jersey placed the burden on the school district regardless of which party sought relief, is unaffected by Schaffer. Appellants thus attempt to avoid the application of Schaffer by arguing that it “does not provide the rule of law in New Jersey.” (Appellants’ Letter Br.) That argument is unavailing. The Court in Schaffer saw no reason to depart from “the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims,” 126 S.Ct. at 534, leaving for another day whether a state can overcome that rule by statute. Lascari addressed that very question: where, in the absence of a federal or state statutory provision providing otherwise, should the burden of proof rest when the appropriateness of an IEP is challenged? Citing state and federal statutory and regulatory schemes implementing not the IDEA, but its precursor, the Lascari Court determined that placing the burden upon the school district was most appropriate. See Lascari, 116 N.J. at 44-46, 560 A.2d 1180. Schaffer rejected that conclusion. Because" }, { "docid": "8028432", "title": "", "text": "that transfers the burden, as Defendants request, to a school district when the parents or guardian of a disabled child prevail at the administrative proceeding. Indeed, although it appears that the Fifth Circuit has not expressly stated so, it has applied the burden set forth in Michael F. to parents who prevailed below, including in the Michael F. case itself. Id.; see also Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.2000). Defendants, relying on Schaffer v. Weast, argue that the default rule of placing the burden of persuasion on the party seeking relief should apply. 546 U.S. 49, 51, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005). There, the Supreme Court ad dressed the issue of which party in an administrative hearing, requested pursuant to the IDEA, bears the burden of proof. Id. In a narrow holding, the Court stated that the “burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief.” Id. at 62. Although it is clear that the Supreme Court did not address the burden of persuasion in a proceeding such as that before this Court, the logic of Schaffer may extend to placing the burden in this proceeding upon the District; however, it is the Fifth Circuit’s prerogative to conclude as much and, in effect, overturn the implicit holding of Michael F. that appears to bind this Court. In any event, resolution of the question is not outcome determinative, so the Court assumes without holding that Defendants bear the burden of proof in challenging the District’s proposed IEP of June 2004. C. The District’s IEP As set forth above, the first question the Court must address in determining whether Leah’s parents are entitled to reimbursement for withdrawing her from the District and placing her at the TNRC and the UCS is whether “an IEP calling for placement in a public school was inappropriate under the IDEA.” Michael F., 118 F.3d at 248. The inquiry does not turn upon whether the District provided Leah with an education designed to maximize her potential. Id. at 247-48." }, { "docid": "13907227", "title": "", "text": "however, falls on the party challenging the administrative findings. Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 927 F.2d 146, 152 (4th Cir.1991). B. Plaintiffs’ Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Claim The IDEA was enacted “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); see also id. § 1412(a)(1)(A) (making states that provide a free appropriate education to disabled children eligible for federal funds). The requisite free appropriate public education is to be provided by the means of an IEP. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181, 102 S.Ct. at 3038; Tice ex rel. Tice v. Botetourt County Sch. Bd., 908 F.2d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir.1990). The IDEA also requires states that receive IDEA funds to “establish and maintain procedures ... to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of free appropriate public education.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a). If a parent objects to the identification, placement, or evaluation of his or her child, the state must provide an impartial due process hearing. Id. § 1415(f)(1). At that hearing, the parent has the right to be accompanied by counsel, to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and to receive a written record of the hearing and the decision made. Id. § 1415(h)(l)-(4). After the hearing (or the appeal if an appeals process exists at the state level), an aggrieved party may bring an action in a district court, which is empowered to grant appropriate relief based on the preponderance of the evidence. Id. § 1415(i)(2)(A), (i)(2)(B)(iii). In reviewing a state administrative proceeding in an IDEA case, federal courts apply a two-step inquiry. First, the court must decide whether the state complied with the IDEA’S procedural requirements. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. at 3051; see also Tice, 908 F.2d at 1206 (holding that a state’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of § 1415 can be adequate grounds to" }, { "docid": "21073487", "title": "", "text": "parents’ failure to give MCPS written notice prior to enrolling Sarah in private school, as required by state law. The ALJ granted the Motion. Her finding forms the principal basis of the parents’ appeal to this Court. The parties present their arguments by way of Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. II. In Doyle v. Arlington County School Bd., 953 F.2d 100 (4th Cir.1991), the Fourth Circuit, following Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982), discussed the “due weight” a district court must give to state administrative proceedings in IDEA cases. Findings of fact of the hearing officer are considered 'prima facie correct, Doyle, 953 F.2d at 105, and deference is also due the hearing officer’s findings as to the school authority’s compliance with the IDEA’S procedural requirements. Id. at 106, n. 6. Deference, however, has its limits. As the Fifth Circuit held in Teague Independent School District v. Todd L., 999 F.2d 127, 131 (5th Cir.1993): “Although the district court is directed by the statute to give the [ALJs’ factual] findings “due weight,” the statute does not state that the district court must defer to those findings when its own review of the evidence indicates that [the administrative fact finder] erroneously assessed the facts or erroneously applied the law to the facts.” See also Tice v. Botetourt County School Bd., 908 F.2d 1200 (4th Cir.1990); Hudson v. Wilson, 828 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir.1987). III. The relevant statutory notice provisions in this case are these: Under the IDEA: 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii), effective June 4, 1997, provides in pertinent part: The cost of reimbursement [for a unilateral private school placement] described in clause (ii) may be reduced or denied: (1) if— (aa) at the most recent IEP meeting that the parents attended prior to removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not inform the IEP Team that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a free appropriate public education to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in" }, { "docid": "15050453", "title": "", "text": "burden of proof in a district court's review of an administrative decision under IDEA. At the administrative level, it is clear that the party challenging the IEP bears the burden of proof. See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005). We have never distinguished the administrative level from the district court level for purposes of determining who bears the burden of proof. Rather, we have applied the same general rule that the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the IEP regardless of the stage of the proceeding. See Michael F., 118 F.3d at 252 (citing Salley v. St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd., 57 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir.1995); Teague, 999 F.2d at 131; and Christopher M., 933 F.2d at 1289). Accordingly, we hold that at the district court level, as at the administrative level, the party challenging the IEP bears the burden of showing that the IEP and the resulting placement are inappropriate under IDEA. . The hearing officer and district court determined that the June 2004 IEP was inadequate. Though the hearing officer appears to have also addressed whether RISD provided Leah with a free appropriate public education during the 2003-2004 school year, since the district court addressed only whether Leah's June 2004 IEP was adequate, our inquiry is limited to that issue. . Section 1401(8) defines \"free appropriate public education” as special education and related services that— (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge, (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency, (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved, and (D) are provided in conformity with, the individualized education program[J Section 1401(11) defines an IEP, and states that it must be developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with § 1414(d). Under § 1414(d), the IEP must be developed by an \"IEP Team,” which must include a representative of the local educational agency. The local educational agency is required to play an integral role throughout the periodic IEP review and revision process. . However," }, { "docid": "13907239", "title": "", "text": "undisputed evidence shows that RCS did conduct three IEP meetings after the Cones had received these letters, and that the meetings were conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures outlined in the IDEA. In line with the above discussion, the court concludes that RCS did comply with the procedural requirements of the IDEA. 2. Substantive Requirements As noted above, once a reviewing court concludes that the procedural requirements of the IDEA have been met, it must next determine whether the IEP is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3051, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). This standard does not, however, invite the court to “substitute [its] own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which [it] review[s].” Id. at 206, 102 S.Ct. at 3051. Thus courts “should be reluctant indeed to second-guess the judgment of education professionals” in deciding on an IEP and should not disturb an IEP simply because the court “disagree[s] with its content.” Tice ex rel. Tice v. Botetourt County Sch. Bd., 908 F.2d 1200, 1207 (4th Cir.1990). The relatively modest “reasonably calculated” standard of Rowley does not require a school district to maximize a handicapped child’s potential, but merely mandates that the IEP provide some educational benefit. A.B. ex rel. D.B. v. Lawson, 354 F.3d 315, 325-26 (4th Cir.2004); Burke County Bd. of Educ. v. Denton ex rel. Denton, 895 F.2d 973, 980 (4th Cir.1990). When a state, however, imposes a greater substantive requirement, the federal court must review the placement under the more stringent standard. See Burke County, 895 F.2d at 982. North Carolina’s counterpart to the IDEA declares that the state’s policy is to “ensure every child a fair and full opportunity to reach his full potential” and to “provide a free appropriate public education to every child with special needs.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C-106(a), (b). These policies have been interpreted as placing a higher burden on local educational authorities to “eliminate the effects of the handicap, at least" }, { "docid": "23505480", "title": "", "text": "ordered the School District to hire. Athough Decker testified that the tutoring situation with A.S. was progressing, the district court found this situation irrelevant to predicting AS.’s future, as the School District proposed mainstreaming, not private one-on-one tutoring. The district court agreed with the conclusions reached by the ALJ and affirmed the administrative decision. The court found that the ALJ’s decision was complete and thoughtful and its reasoning careful and accurate. The court noted that it would arrive at the same conclusions and reach the same result independently- STANDARD OF REVIEW The School District had the burden of proving compliance with the IDEA at the administrative hearing, including the appropriateness of its evaluation, 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b), and its proposed placement for A.S. Clyde K. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 35 F.3d 1396, 1398 (9th Cir.1994). As the party challenging the administrative ruling, the School District also had the burden of proof in district court. Id. at 1399. There is both a procedural and a substantive test to evaluate compliance with the IDEA Reviewing courts must inquire First,, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? And second, is the individualized education program developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3051, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) (footnote omitted). In evaluating a complaint under the IDEA, the district court “shall receive the record of the [state] administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this as calling for de novo review. Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519, 1524 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 428, 130 L.Ed.2d 341 (1994). However, it has cautioned that this court, like the district court, must give deference to the state hearing officer’s findings, particularly when, as here, they are thorough and careful. Id. This court" }, { "docid": "23587469", "title": "", "text": "those of the school authorities which they review.” Id. at 206, 102 S.Ct. at 3051. Whether a school district has provided a free appropriate public education is a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo. Sch. Dist. No. 21, 938 F.2d at 715. In the absence of a mistake of law, we review the district court’s decision for clear error. Id. at 716. On appeal, the school district bears the burden of proof as the party challenging the outcome of the state administrative hearings. Id. The parties do not dispute that the school district complied with the procedural aspects of the Act. Therefore, on appeal we are faced solely with the issue of whether the IEP developed through those procedures was reasonably calculated to provide Marjorie with educational benefits. The school district contends that, for several reasons, the district court erred in determining that the IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide Marjorie with educational benefits. First, the school district argues that the district court erred by giving undue deference to the decisions of the Level I and Level II hearing officers. As discussed above, in an IDEA case a district court does not utilize the substantial evidence standard which is typically used when reviewing an agency’s decision, but instead must decide independently whether the requirements of the IDEA are met. In doing so, however, the court must give “due weight” to the decisions of the agency officers. ' “Due weight” necessarily implies some sort of deference to the agency’s decision, and considering the officer’s special expertise in education law, we think a sound basis exists for giving deference to the decisions of the hearing officers. The school district argues that the district court was required to give deference to the educators, not the agency officers. Certainly, the district court should have considered the evidence presented by the school district during the agency proceedings and at trial before the court. However, as the district court noted, giving deference to the educators who testified on behalf of the school district would require the court to place Marjorie" }, { "docid": "23459263", "title": "", "text": "erroneously placed the burden of proof on him to establish that the District failed to implement the IEP. Although the ALJ never specified which party bore the burden, even if she did place the burden on Van Duyn, doing so was proper under Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005). The Supreme Court held in Schaffer that “[t]he burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief.” Id. at 537. Van Duyn, as the party objecting to the IEP’s implementation, thus bore the burden of proof at the administrative hearing. Van Duyn contends that Schaffer is inapplicable because it dealt with a challenge to the content rather than the implementation of an IEP, but that is a distinction without a difference. Nothing in Schaffer hinged on the kind of challenge being made to the IEP. Rather, the Court cited “the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims,” holding that “[a]bsent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise, ... we will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.” Id. at 535; see also Stringer v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 803 (8th Cir.2006) (following Schaffer in context of claim that IEP was not being implemented). Neither Schaffer nor the text of the IDEA supports imposing a different burden in IEP implementation cases than in formulation cases. Accordingly, we hold that if the ALJ placed the burden of proof on Van Duyn, that allocation was correct. 2. Interpretation of the IEP Van Duyn next argues that contested terms in the IEP should be interpreted under Oregon contract law, in particular the principle that ambiguities must be resolved in Van Duyn’s favor because the document was drafted by the District for his benefit. This argument, raised for the first time on appeal, is meritless. First, the IEP is entirely a federal statutory creation, and courts have rejected efforts to frame challenges to IEPs as breach-of-contract claims. See, e.g.," }, { "docid": "8028431", "title": "", "text": "1401(9) “cannot be read as applying to parental placements,” where, as here, parents or a guardian place a disabled child in a private residential facility with publicly provided education. Consequently, in reviewing the appropriateness of Leah’s residential placement at the TNRC and the UCS, the Court will address only whether the placement “is generally ... appropriate, even though it is not ‘the exact proper placement required under the Act.’ ” Michael F., 118 F.3d at 248 n. 13 (quoting Alamo Heights, 790 F.2d at 1161). B. Burden of proof In the Fifth Circuit, “a party attacking the appropriateness of an IEP established by a local educational agency bears the burden of showing why the IEP and the resulting placement were inappropriate under the IDEA.” Michael F., 118 F.3d at 252. In this case, Leah’s parents challenged Leah’s IEP in a state administrative proceeding and prevailed. The parties dispute whether the burden still lies with the parents in this proceeding, given that the District appeals the Hearing Officer’s determination. The Court is aware of no authority that transfers the burden, as Defendants request, to a school district when the parents or guardian of a disabled child prevail at the administrative proceeding. Indeed, although it appears that the Fifth Circuit has not expressly stated so, it has applied the burden set forth in Michael F. to parents who prevailed below, including in the Michael F. case itself. Id.; see also Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.2000). Defendants, relying on Schaffer v. Weast, argue that the default rule of placing the burden of persuasion on the party seeking relief should apply. 546 U.S. 49, 51, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005). There, the Supreme Court ad dressed the issue of which party in an administrative hearing, requested pursuant to the IDEA, bears the burden of proof. Id. In a narrow holding, the Court stated that the “burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief.” Id. at 62. Although it is clear that the Supreme Court" }, { "docid": "17683502", "title": "", "text": "author of its own misfortune. In any event, the Court cannot and does not find that the notice provided by Benton compromised the Board’s due process rights or otherwise jeopardized the integrity of the administrative process, so as to warrant reversal of the Administrative Decision. For the foregoing reasons, the Board’s notice objection to the Administrative Decision is overruled. B. Burden of Proof. Next, the Board balks that the Hearing Officer allegedly applied an improper burden of proof at the administrative hearing. According to the Board, the Hearing Officer did not require Benton to present any evidence on the behavioral issue, but instead obligated the Board to bear the burden of establishing the correctness of its exclusion of a behavioral plan from the subject IEPs. (Board Memorandum, at 22-24.) The Eleventh Circuit and, more recently, the Supreme Court have ascribed to a default rule that when a parent challenges the propriety of an IEP, the parent bears the burden of proving its inadequacy. See Schaffer, 126 S.Ct. at 537 (“The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief.”); Devine v. Indian River County School Bd., 249 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir.2001) (“because it is the parents who are seeking to attack a program they once deemed appropriate, the burden rests on the parents in this IEP challenge”). Two potential flaws to the Board’s objection are evident. First, the Court must consider whether the Schaffer default rule is applicable to the specific circumstances presented in this case. Second, if so, the Court must ask the more fundamental questions of whether the Hearing Officer actually did fasten that burden of proof to the Board and whether any erroneous allocation of that burden made a difference in the final analysis. Benton protests that Schaffer is confined on its face to a default rule in circumstances where no state rule purports to shift the burden to the school district. According to Benton, Alabama has just such a burden-shifting regulation; therefore, he contends, Schaffer is inapposite. Indeed, the Schaffer majority recognized that several states (including" }, { "docid": "18848906", "title": "", "text": "to be decided in this circuit. The parents rely on Oberti v. Board of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir.1993), which held that the burden of proof remains on the school even if the school prevails at the administrative hearing. The court in Oberti stated that placing the burden of proof on the school is essential to ensure that parents’ rights under the IDEA aren’t undermined. Id. at 1219. We note, however, that merely because a statute confers substantive rights on a favored group does not mean the group is also entitled to receive every procedural advantage. Absent clear statutory language to the contrary, procedural questions are resolved by neutral principles that are independent of any particular statute’s substantive policy objectives. Allocation of the burden of proof has long been governed by the rule that the party bringing the lawsuit must persuade the court to grant the requested relief. Because we find nothing in the IDEA suggesting that a contrary standard should apply here, we join the substantial majority of the circuits that have addressed this issue by placing the burden of proof on the party challenging the administrative ruling. See Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 991 (1st Cir.1990); Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884, 887 (D.C.Cir.1988); Spielberg v. Henrico County Pub. Sch., 853 F.2d 256, 258 n. 2 (4th Cir.1988). Ill Ryan’s parents allege various procedural violations of the IDEA. We address each of these in turn. A. On March 11, 1992, after Ryan had been suspended twice for assaulting other students, the school hired an aide to observe Ryan’s behavior over a three-day period. The aide was hired at the urging of Ryan’s doctors, who suggested that a firsthand report on his behavioral problems would be helpful in evaluating appropriate responses. Ryan’s parents claim the school violated 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a) because it failed to give them written notice before hiring the aide. The parents contend that hiring the aide constituted a change of Ryan’s educational program, thus - triggering the prior notice requirement of section 300.504(a). We agree with the district court that" }, { "docid": "15050452", "title": "", "text": "this opinion. . These grade level assessments came from Leah’s results on the Texas State Developed Alternative Assessment, a test designed to determine special education students’ academic capabilities in relation to \"mainstream” grade levels. . The resultant IEP included goals of improving Leah's reading comprehension skills to a high third-grade level and her math skills to a fifth-grade level. Strategies to promote Leah's progress included using frequent reward breaks but limiting her time outside the classroom. Specifically, Leah was required to be supervised by school stall at all times and to remain in the classroom unless she had permission to leave. The IEP included remedial methods such as keeping her classroom door closed and using \"physical proximity” to prevent her from exiting without permission. . Prior versions of the Act include the Education of the Handicapped Act, Pub.L. 91-230, 84 Stat 175 (1970) (\"EHA”), and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub.L. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (\"EAH-CA”). . As an initial matter, Leah’s parents ask us to clarify which party bears the burden of proof in a district court's review of an administrative decision under IDEA. At the administrative level, it is clear that the party challenging the IEP bears the burden of proof. See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005). We have never distinguished the administrative level from the district court level for purposes of determining who bears the burden of proof. Rather, we have applied the same general rule that the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the IEP regardless of the stage of the proceeding. See Michael F., 118 F.3d at 252 (citing Salley v. St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd., 57 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir.1995); Teague, 999 F.2d at 131; and Christopher M., 933 F.2d at 1289). Accordingly, we hold that at the district court level, as at the administrative level, the party challenging the IEP bears the burden of showing that the IEP and the resulting placement are inappropriate under IDEA. . The hearing officer and district court determined that the June" }, { "docid": "13907226", "title": "", "text": "the decisions below and stating additional claims. II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Generally, summary judgment is appropriate where an examination of the pleadings, affidavits, and other proper discovery materials before the court demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact, thus entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Where a motion for summary judgment is made in an IDEA case, it “may more aptly be described ... as a motion for summary adjudication.” Hanson ex rel. Hanson v. Smith, 212 F.Supp.2d 474, 480 (D.Md.2002). In conducting this adjudication, courts must make an independent decision based on the evidence presented while giving “due weight” to the proceedings below. Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3051, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982); G. ex rel. R.G. v. Fort Bragg Dependent Sch., 343 F.3d 295, 302 (4th Cir.2003). The burden of proof, however, falls on the party challenging the administrative findings. Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 927 F.2d 146, 152 (4th Cir.1991). B. Plaintiffs’ Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Claim The IDEA was enacted “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); see also id. § 1412(a)(1)(A) (making states that provide a free appropriate education to disabled children eligible for federal funds). The requisite free appropriate public education is to be provided by the means of an IEP. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181, 102 S.Ct. at 3038; Tice ex rel. Tice v. Botetourt County Sch. Bd., 908 F.2d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir.1990). The IDEA also requires states that receive IDEA funds to “establish and maintain procedures ... to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of free appropriate public education.”" }, { "docid": "17683503", "title": "", "text": "administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief.”); Devine v. Indian River County School Bd., 249 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir.2001) (“because it is the parents who are seeking to attack a program they once deemed appropriate, the burden rests on the parents in this IEP challenge”). Two potential flaws to the Board’s objection are evident. First, the Court must consider whether the Schaffer default rule is applicable to the specific circumstances presented in this case. Second, if so, the Court must ask the more fundamental questions of whether the Hearing Officer actually did fasten that burden of proof to the Board and whether any erroneous allocation of that burden made a difference in the final analysis. Benton protests that Schaffer is confined on its face to a default rule in circumstances where no state rule purports to shift the burden to the school district. According to Benton, Alabama has just such a burden-shifting regulation; therefore, he contends, Schaffer is inapposite. Indeed, the Schaffer majority recognized that several states (including Alabama) have laws or regulations affixing the burden in IEP challenges directly on the school district. Schaffer stopped short of deciding whether its default rule must give way in the presence of a state provision to the contrary, reasoning that “[bjecause no such law or regulation exists in Maryland, we need not decide this issue today.” 126 S.Ct. at 537. The Board does not posit that the Schaffer rule would override any Alabama law or regulation to the contrary; therefore, the Court will not sua sponte raise that argument. Instead, the Board’s stance on this point is confined to an assertion that Alabama law is in harmony with Schaffer because it places the burden of proof on the party making the hearing request. (Reply Brief, at 4.) Amazingly, the Board relies on the same Alabama regulation that Benton cites for a diametrically opposite proposition. In that regard, the Board contends that Alabama Administrative Code § 290-8 — 9—.08(8)(c) imposes the burden of proof on the party filing the hearing request, but Benton argues that the" }, { "docid": "23587468", "title": "", "text": "21 v. III. St. Bd. of Educ., 938 F.2d 712, 715 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 957, 117 L.Ed.2d 124 (1992). The standard of review of administrative agency decisions under the IDEA is provided by 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2): In any action brought under this paragraph the court shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the. request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate. Thus, a district court must independently determine whether the requirements of the Act have been satisfied. In developing this standard, Congress specifically rejected language which would have made state administrative findings conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 205, 102 S.Ct. at 3050. However, because courts do not have special expertise in the area of educational policy, they must give “due weight” to the results of the administrative decisions and should not substitute “their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.” Id. at 206, 102 S.Ct. at 3051. Whether a school district has provided a free appropriate public education is a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo. Sch. Dist. No. 21, 938 F.2d at 715. In the absence of a mistake of law, we review the district court’s decision for clear error. Id. at 716. On appeal, the school district bears the burden of proof as the party challenging the outcome of the state administrative hearings. Id. The parties do not dispute that the school district complied with the procedural aspects of the Act. Therefore, on appeal we are faced solely with the issue of whether the IEP developed through those procedures was reasonably calculated to provide Marjorie with educational benefits. The school district contends that, for several reasons, the district court erred in determining that the IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide Marjorie with educational benefits. First, the school district argues that the district court erred by giving undue deference to" }, { "docid": "7757659", "title": "", "text": "a state court or a federal district court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). In evaluating a hearing officer’s decision, this Court must review the record of the administrative proceedings and give due weight to the hearing officer’s decision. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(b)(3); Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034. Moreover, the burden of proof is with the party challenging the administrative determination, who must “ ‘at least take on the burden of persuading the court that the hearing officer was wrong.’ ” Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 521 (D.C.Cir.2005) (quoting Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884, 887 (D.C.Cir.1988)). To determine whether a FAPE has been provided, courts must determine whether: (1) the school complied with the IDEA’S procedures; and (2) the IEP developed through those procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Loren F. v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 349 F.3d 1309, 1312 (11th Cir.2003). Even where a FAPE is not provided, however, courts can nevertheless deny reimbursement if a parent’s own actions frustrated the school district’s efforts. See id. at 1312-13; MM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville County, 303 F.3d 523, 533-35 (4th Cir.2002) (finding that school district was not liable for a failure to timely complete IEP where parents ceased to cooperate in IEP’s completion after placing child in private school); Doe v. Defendant I, 898 F.2d 1186, 1189 n. 1 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that school district was not liable for a failure to timely complete IEP when IEP’s non-completion was attributable to parent’s request that school allow student to perform “on his own for a while”). That is, essentially, what happened here. Plaintiffs allege that DCPS failed to comply with the IDEA’S procedures because DCPS failed to complete the assessment of Sarah’s needs within 120 days as required by District of Columbia law, D.C.Code Section 38-2501(a) (requiring that a school district “assess or evaluate a student who may have a disability and who may require special education services within 120 days from the date that the student was referred for an evaluation or assessment”), and" }, { "docid": "17465719", "title": "", "text": "to the courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review____ The fact that § 1415(e) requires that the reviewing court “receive the records of the [state] administrative proceedings” carries with it the implied requirement that due weight shall be given to these proceedings. 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. at 3050-51. Interpreting this and related passages in Rowley, our circuit has held that a district court should exercise de novo review over the school district’s placement decision, but should accord it “due weight” and “greater deference ... if the procedural requirements of the Act are met. In this way, the court’s encroachment on the basically legislative decisions involving the distribution of educational resources is kept to a minimum.” Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058, 1062 (6th Cir.1983). B. Burden of proof This circuit has recently joined the Fifth Circuit in holding that the party challenging the terms of an IEP should bear the burden of proving that the educational placement established by the IEP is not appropriate. Doe v. Defendant I, 898 F.2d at 1191 (citing Tatro v. Texas, 703 F.2d 823, 830 (5th Cir.1983), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, on other grounds, sub nom. Irving Indep. School Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883, 104 S.Ct. 3371, 82 L.Ed.2d 664 (1984)). Under this rule, Chance and his parents would bear the burden of proof since they seek to add ESY services to his IEP. The Cordreys raise several objections to this conclusion, but none is persuasive. First, they contend that it is Evergreen that seeks tó change Chance's placement because an ESY had been functionally if not formally a part of his IEP by virtue of the Agreement and Mutual Release signed by the parties in June 1986. The Agreement provided that an ESY program was “necessary” for Chance in 1985 and 1986, and that Evergreen would pay for part of these programs and transport Chance to them. As Evergreen points out, however, other provisions of the Agreement plainly undercut the Cordreys’ argument. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement" }, { "docid": "18848905", "title": "", "text": "down, Ryan’s parents insisted that he return to Ballou for the remainder of the school year. Over the summer, a ten-day due process hearing was held pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2). The administrative law judge issued her ruling on September 14, 1992, concluding that the school fully complied with the IDEA. The parents appealed to the district court, which, after hearing additional testimony and reviewing the record of the administrative proceedings, affirmed the ALJ’s decision in all material respects on March 23, 1993. II As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree over who should have borne the burden of proof in the district court. The school clearly had the burden of proving at the administrative hearing that it complied with the IDEA. Ryan’s parents contend the burden of proof remained on the school in the district court as well, even though they were the ones appealing the administrative ruling. Generally, the party challenging an agency’s decision bears the burden of proof. Whether the IDEA calls for an exception to this general principle has yet to be decided in this circuit. The parents rely on Oberti v. Board of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir.1993), which held that the burden of proof remains on the school even if the school prevails at the administrative hearing. The court in Oberti stated that placing the burden of proof on the school is essential to ensure that parents’ rights under the IDEA aren’t undermined. Id. at 1219. We note, however, that merely because a statute confers substantive rights on a favored group does not mean the group is also entitled to receive every procedural advantage. Absent clear statutory language to the contrary, procedural questions are resolved by neutral principles that are independent of any particular statute’s substantive policy objectives. Allocation of the burden of proof has long been governed by the rule that the party bringing the lawsuit must persuade the court to grant the requested relief. Because we find nothing in the IDEA suggesting that a contrary standard should apply here, we join the substantial majority of the circuits that have addressed" }, { "docid": "18848904", "title": "", "text": "was removed from school pursuant to an emergency expulsion order after he assaulted a school staff member. Ryan’s parents, Clyde and Sheila K, agreed with school officials that it was no longer safe for Ryan to remain at Ballou. Ryan’s teachers and school administrators met shortly after his expulsion to discuss available alternatives. They suggested placing Ryan temporarily in an off-campus, self-contained program called Students Temporarily Away from Regular School (STARS), where Ryan would be in a more structured environment and receive more individualized attention. On March 17, 1992, the school notified Ryan’s parents of its recommendation that Ryan be placed in STARS on an interim basis until he could be safely reintegrated into regular school programs. Though Ryan’s parents initially agreed with the school’s proposed change of placement, they subsequently had second thoughts. On March 27, 1992, they requested a due process hearing under Wash.Admin.Code § 392-171-531; on April 6, they formally rejected placement at STARS until a new Individualized Education Program (IEP) had been drafted. After efforts to draft a new IEP broke down, Ryan’s parents insisted that he return to Ballou for the remainder of the school year. Over the summer, a ten-day due process hearing was held pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2). The administrative law judge issued her ruling on September 14, 1992, concluding that the school fully complied with the IDEA. The parents appealed to the district court, which, after hearing additional testimony and reviewing the record of the administrative proceedings, affirmed the ALJ’s decision in all material respects on March 23, 1993. II As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree over who should have borne the burden of proof in the district court. The school clearly had the burden of proving at the administrative hearing that it complied with the IDEA. Ryan’s parents contend the burden of proof remained on the school in the district court as well, even though they were the ones appealing the administrative ruling. Generally, the party challenging an agency’s decision bears the burden of proof. Whether the IDEA calls for an exception to this general principle has yet" } ]

[ { "docid": "14202913", "title": "", "text": "establish a cutoff date for operation of the rule. Furthermore, because the laws governing non-coal mine reclamation have evolved over the years, attempting to determine the precise regulations that governed the reclamation of a particular mine and whether those regulations were sufficiently stringent would create an enormous administrative burden. EPA’s limitation of the exemption for reclaimed non-coal mines was certainly reasonable. See Chemical Mfrs., 870 F.2d at 199; Rybachek, 904 F.2d at 1284. F. Retroactivity AMC argues, next, that EPA’s rule requiring permits for discharges from inactive mines unlawfully imposes retroactive liability on owners and operators of those mines. Agencies generally do not have the authority to issue rules having retroactive effect in the absence of an express Congressional grant of such authority. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). A rule has retroactive effect if “an act lawful at the time it was done” is “rendered unlawful and the actor called to account for a completed, now-condemned deed in the halls of justice.” Ralis v. RFE/RL, Inc., 770 F.2d 1121, 1127 (D.C.Cir.1985). In other words, a retroactive rule is one that alters the past legal consequences of past actions. Bowen, 488 U.S. at 219, 109 S.Ct. at 477 (Scalia, J., concurring). EPA’s storm water rule requires only that owners or operators apply for permits for future discharges from inactive mines. Although the rule may reduce the financial attractiveness of mine ownership, it does not impose liability for past conduct. AMC argues that EPA’s storm water discharge rule is impermissible because it imposes liability on owners of mines where mining activities were conducted only in the past. We disagree. AMC ignores the distinction between merely “affecting rights” and “retroactively imparting an obligation cum liability.” Ralis, 770 F.2d at 1127. A rule with exclusively future effect, such as a change in the tax laws taxing future income from existing trusts, is not made retroactive by the fact that it will “unquestionably affect past transactions (rendering [] previously established trusts less desirable in the future).” Bowen, 488 U.S. at 219-20, 109 S.Ct." } ]

[ { "docid": "23048020", "title": "", "text": "at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1492; Fray, 960 F.2d at 1375. If the statute clearly reveals Congress’s intent that the statute is to apply retroactively, we will give effect to that intent unless such an application would violate the Constitution. If we cannot find any clear congressional intent, we must consider whether the new statute would have a true retroactive effect, i.e., “whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Landgraf, — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1505. If we find that the statute would have a true retroactive effect, the “traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern” in cases that arose before the statute became effective. Id. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also Fray, 960 F.2d at 1374 (“Retroactivity is not favored in the law.”) (quoting Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988)). We cannot find, and the University does not direct our attention to, any evidence of “clear congressional intent” regarding whether § 108 should apply to cases arising before its enactment. The Supreme Court’s analysis in Landgraf of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and its legislative history is largely dispositive. — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1489-96. As the Court noted, the only sections of the Act that address its effective date are § 402(a) and (b), and § 109(c), and the Court was not able to decide on the basis of these sections alone whether Congress intended § 102 to apply retroactively. Having analyzed the entire Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Court concluded that the Act contained no “unambiguous directive” at to § 102. Id. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1496. The same is true for § 108. Section 108 is designed to overrule by act of Congress some aspects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989). But “[e]ven when Congress intends to supersede a rule of" }, { "docid": "22389650", "title": "", "text": "Fifth Amendment forbids Congress from enacting legislation expressly made retroactive when the “retroactive application [of the statute] is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional limitation.” United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 30, 114 S.Ct. 2018, 129 L.Ed.2d 22 (1994) (quoting Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 147, 59 S.Ct. 121, 83 L.Ed. 87 (1937)). As Justice Story observed, the Supreme Court has long disfavored retroactive statutes because “retrospective laws are, indeed generally unjust; and, as has been forcibly said, neither accord with sound legislation nor with the fundamental principles of the social compact.” Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 533, 118 S.Ct. 2131, 141 L.Ed.2d 451 (1998) (quoting 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 1398 (5th ed. 1891)). Retroactive legislation “presents problems of unfairness that are more serious than those posed by prospective legislation, because it can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations and upset settled transactions.” General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 191, 112 S.Ct. 1105, 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992). Thus, due process “protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be compromised by retroactive legislation.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 266, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1999). The Supreme Court limits retroactive statutes under the Due Process Clause as part of its longstanding “prohibition against arbitrary and irrational legislation.” Carlton, 512 U.S. at 30, 114 S.Ct. 2018 (quoting Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 733, 104 S.Ct. 2709, 81 L.Ed.2d 601 (1984)). To satisfy due process, the Court requires that Congress must have enacted a retroactive statute for a legitimate legislative purpose, and retroactively applying the statute must be a rational means to accomplish Congress’ purpose. Carlton, 512 U.S. at 31, 114 S.Ct. 2018. The constitutionality of retroactive legislation is “conditioned upon a rationality requirement beyond that applied to other legislation.” Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 223, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (Scalia, J. concurring) (citing Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 467 U.S. at 730, 104 S.Ct. 2709; Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.," }, { "docid": "13395780", "title": "", "text": "453, 459, 66 L.Ed.2d 368 (1980) (“railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time.”). Thus, if a recipient’s right to future benefits may be terminated by a statute, it follows that an applicant who has never been declared eligible may as well be deprived of an inchoate right. Claimant relies on the definition of “entitled” in Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 112 S.Ct. 2589, 120 L.Ed.2d 379 (1992), a case brought under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901. There, the Supreme Court said that “the normal meaning of entitlement includes a right or benefit for which a person qualifies, and it does not depend on whether the right has been acknowledged or adjudicated.” Id. at 477, 112 S.Ct. at 2595. The question in Cowart was whether a person who had sustained an injury in the workplace was an individual “entitled to compensation” under the Act and, as such, required to obtain his employer’s consent before settling a tort claim against a third party. We note that the word “entitled” does not appear in the effective date provisions of the alcoholism amendment. Furthermore, usage in the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act does not carry over naturally to the circumstances before us. Cowart did not address the retroactivity problems of legislation affecting vested entitlements. More fundamentally, Landgraf discussed a statute that did not disclose Congress’ will on retroactivity. The amendment at issue before us, however, does set out when it will apply in terms that are sufficiently clear to provide necessary guidance. See also Lindh v. Murphy, - U.S. -, -, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (normal rules of construction apply in determinations of a statute’s temporal reach). The amendment focuses on when a claim is filed or adjudicated. We are convinced that, grammatically, “after the date of enactment” modifies the clause, “whose claim is finally adjudicated by the Commissioner.” The amendment thus establishes two separate groups who are affected in different ways. 1. Those whose claims" }, { "docid": "10626140", "title": "", "text": "the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) with the authority to make reasonable rules and regulations that are consistent with the provisions of the U.S. Social Security Act. However, as the Supreme Court cautioned in Bowen v. Georgetown Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988), § 405(a) “contain[s] no express authorization of retroactive rulemaking[,]” id. at 213, 109 S.Ct. 468. Although the parties recognize the precedential effect of Bowen, they disagree on what constitutes retroactive rulemak-ing. The Commissioner contends that application of the rule change to Combs’ claims does not have an impermissible “retroactive effect” because it does not impair any of her substantive or vested rights. The Commissioner argues that the regulation repeal is purely procedural and, therefore, does not affect plaintiffs substantive rights. I disagree. In Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of retro-activity with respect to statutes. There, the Court adopted a presumption against retroactivity because prospectively “accords with widely held intuitions about how statutes ordinarily operate” and “will generally coincide with legislative and public expectations.” Id. at 272, 114 S.Ct. 1483. The Court noted, however, that exceptions exist to the general rule favoring prospectively. As a result, to analyze ret-roactivity, the Court set forth the following framework: (1) whether the statute on its face provides for prospective or retroactive application; (2) in the absence of such an express provision governing the statute’s reach, whether the statute would have retroactive effect; and (3) if the statute would have retroactive effect, whether Congress clearly intended such a retroactive effect, overcoming the presumption of prospectively. Id. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483. The second step of the Landgraf analysis requires a determination of whether application of the Revised Medical Criteria would have “retroactive” effect. 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483; see Portlock v. Barnhart, 208 F.Supp.2d 451, 461 (D.Del. 2002) (“The starting point for the court’s analysis is to determine whether applying the revised regulations in .the manner urged by the SSA in SSR 00-3p would constitute a retroactive application of a rule.”)." }, { "docid": "19884418", "title": "", "text": "264-65, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 855, 110 S.Ct. 1570, 108 L.Ed.2d 842 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring); Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988)). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step analysis to determine whether a statute has an impermissible retroactive effect. We begin by determining whether “ ‘Congress has expressly prescribed’ ” that the statute should apply retroactively. Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2422, 2428, 165 L.Ed.2d 323 (2006) (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483). If there is such a clear indication from Congress, our analysis under Landgraf ends because “it is beyond dispute that, within constitutional limits, Congress has the power to enact laws with retrospective effect.” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 316, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). If Congress has not clearly indicated its intent to apply a statute to prior conduct, however, we presume that the statute applies only prospectively. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483. Using that presumption, we then examine the statute to determine if its application impermissibly “impose[s] some burden on the basis of an act or event preceding the statute’s enactment.” Fernandez-Vargas, 126 S.Ct. at 2428. In deciding Petitioner’s retroactivity claim, we may readily dispose of Land-grafs first step. We have already held that Congress did not clearly indicate that IIRIRA’s repeal of suspension of deportation should operate retroactively. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 601 (9th Cir.2002). Thus, after summarizing Petitioner’s conduct in relation to the law as it stood prior to IIRIRA, we move to the second step of the Landgraf analysis, namely whether IIRIRA has an impermissible retroactive effect as applied to Petitioner. 1. Petitioner’s Conduct As recounted in greater detail above, Petitioner was granted lawful permanent resident status in 1973, thirty-four years ago, based on her marriage to a United States citizen. In 1981, Petitioner was convicted under California law of attempted voluntary manslaughter and discharge of a firearm. She was released from prison in 1985. Petitioner" }, { "docid": "4596708", "title": "", "text": "protest action because the limitation had expired. B. The Restored Limitation on Protests of Civilian Agency Task or Delivery Orders Pursuant to the 2012 NDAA Does Not Divest this Court of Jurisdiction Over Wildflower’s Bid Protest Action that Was Pending When the 2012 NDAA Was Enacted 1. The Supreme Court Has Established a Framework for Analyzing Whether a Statute Is Retroactive Defendant and Govplace argue in the alternative that, even if the limitation had expired, the 2012 NDAA “resurrected” or “reinstated” the limitation on protests of civilian agency task or delivery orders. This limitation, defendant and Govplace argue, withdraws jurisdiction over actions, such as this one, that were pending when the 2012 NDAA was enacted. Def.’s Supplemental Mot. 8-9; Def.’s Supplemental Reply 13 n. 4; Def.-Intervenor’s Supplemental Mot. 5-7; Def.-Intervenor’s Supplemental Reply 6-8. The parties agree that the relevant statutory language is “[a] protest is not authorized.” 41 U.S.C. § 4106(f). The Supreme Court has held that “a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision.” Bradley v. School Bd. of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). The Court has also held that “[r]etroactivity is not favored in the law” and that “congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.” Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). The Supreme Court has often stated that there exists a presumption against retroactivity. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) (“[T]he presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic.”). The Supreme Court has developed a two-step framework to analyze whether a statute is retroactive. See Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30, 37, 126 S.Ct. 2422, 165 L.Ed.2d 323 (2006). First, the court must assess “whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach.” Id. (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483) (internal quotation marks omitted). If Congress" }, { "docid": "10144215", "title": "", "text": "application of subsection 90.629(e), which was not to take effect until March 18, 1996. CCI asserts that, in order to give the revised subsection retroactive effect, it was incumbent on the FCC to “explain how it determined that the balancing of the harms and benefits favor[ed] giving [its] change in policy retroactive application,” Brief for Appellant at 26 (quoting Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v. FCC, 794 F.2d 737, 746 (D.C.Cir.1986)). CCI has confused the law governing the retroactive application of administrative rules developed, as in Yakima, in the course of an agency adjudication with those, such as subsection 90.629(e), that an agency has adopted as the result of a rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). As we pointed out in Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 750, 757 (D.C.Cir.1987), aff'd on other grounds, Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988), the APA requires that legislative rules [i.e., rules adopted pursuant to the notice and comment procedures of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553] be given future effect only. [Therefore], equitable considerations are irrelevant to the determination of whether the [agency’s] rule may be applied retroactively; such retroactive application is foreclosed by the express terms of the APA See also Bowen, 488 U.S. at 216, 109 S.Ct. at 475 (Scalia, J., concurring). By contrast, an agency may give retroactive effect to a new policy or rule adopted in the course of an adjudication so long as the resulting inequities are “counterbalanced by sufficiently significant statutory interests.” Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 821 F.2d at 756 (citing Retail, Wholesale and Dep’t Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380, 390 (D.C.Cir.1972)); Yakima, 794 F.2d at 745-46. It follows from the above that if the FCC had applied subsection 90.629(e) retroactively in this case, that would be the end of the matter because a legislative rule may only be applied prospectively. We are not persuaded, however, that the subsection has been applied retroactively. In the first place, in explaining why it dismissed CCI’s application, the Commission made no mention of the subsection. Rather, it stated that" }, { "docid": "11083516", "title": "", "text": "make amendments affecting multiemployer pension plans retroactive, the legislation expressly stated that the relevant provision “takes effect on April 29, 1980,” approximately five months before passage of the law. Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, Pub.L. No. 96-364, sec. 108(c)(1), § 4402(e)(2)(A), 94 Stat. 1208, 1267; see Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 104 S.Ct. 2709, 81 L.Ed.2d 601 (1984) (rejecting constitutional challenge to retroactive application of these amendments because both language and legislative history clearly indicated intent to apply retroactively). Although HUD's final regulations indicate that ELIHPA is to apply retroactively, that position was adopted only after HUD lost in the district court on this issue. See supra note 2. The agency has provided no other rationale for changing its well-reasoned interim regulation. Although courts generally defer to the views of agencies entrusted with implementing complex federal statutes, \"[t]he degree of deference depends on the thoroughness, validity, and consistency of the agency's reasoning.\" United States v. Markgraf, 736 F.2d 1179, 1184 (7th Cir.1984) (citing Federal Election Comm'n v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37, 102 S.Ct. 38, 45, 70 L.Ed.2d 23 (1981)), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 (1985). HUD's post-litigation turnaround certainly displays no thorough analysis or consistency, and we see no need to defer to its new position. As the Supreme Court has noted, \"[d]eference to what appears to be nothing more than an agency's convenient litigating position would be entirely inappropriate.\" Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 218, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). Furthermore, just as courts must not lightly presume retroactive application of a statute, they also must not lightly presume that Congress has granted an agency authority \"to promulgate retroactive rules unless that power is conveyed by Congress in express terms.\" Id. at 208, 109 S.Ct. at 471. We find no unambiguous grant of such power in EL-IHPA. 2. The 1990 Act We now turn to the recently enacted Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA or the 1990 Act), Pub.L. No. 101-625, tit. VI, subtit. A, 104" }, { "docid": "18925785", "title": "", "text": "value. Before 1980, circumstances of sale adjustments were not made to constructed value. Further, in 1980 comparisons of U.S. sales with FMVs were made on the date of exportation rather than on date of first sale in the United States to an unrelated buyer. Exporter’s sales price (“ESP”) sales were not compared as of date of sale until a change in the law was made in 1984. Plaintiffs’ Brief at 24. In response to the assertion that Commerce applied the current methodologies retroactively to the detriment of Melex, the government states that “Commerce is statutorily required to apply the current methodologies contained in the antidumping statute to Commerce’s administrative review of Me-lex’s entries.” Defendant’s Brief at 22. In its brief, the government asserts that “the statutory language of both [the 1979 and 1984] amendments demonstrates that Congress intended that the portions of the amendments affecting the calculation of FMV apply retroactively to previous entries.” Defendant’s Brief at 24. The issue of whether statutes will be applied to events preceding the effective date of the legislation was recently addressed by the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit which stated: In the absence of statutory direction, this court avoids retroactive application of legislative changes. See Ralden Partnership v. United States, 891 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1989). ‘[Congressional enactments ... will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.’ OAO Corp. v. Johnson, 49 F.3d 721, 725 (Fed.Cir.1995) quoting Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471-72, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). The requirement of Bowen that congressional intent must clearly be shown to overcome the presumption against retroactive application of legislation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1994 decision, Landgraf v. USI Film Products, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events in suit, the court’s first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach. If Congress has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. When, however, the" }, { "docid": "7248095", "title": "", "text": "filed its motion for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. The food stamp recipients appeal. II. We review the district court’s ruling on summary judgment de novo, construing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Oconomowoc Residential Programs Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 300 F.3d 775, 777 (7th Cir.2002). Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The sole issue presented by the parties is whether the application of the Food Stamp Act amendments to pre-1996 overissuances constitutes an impermissible retroactive application of the law. We begin with the recognition that the law disfavors a retroactive application of a statute. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). “Thus, congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.” Id. The first step in determining whether a law applies to conduct occurring prior to the passage of an act is to ascertain whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s reach. Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In this case it is apparent from the face of the amended statute, and both parties agree, that Congress has not expressly stated whether the new provisions of the Act apply to agency error overissuances which occurred prior to enactment of the amendment. The relevant food stamp regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture are likewise silent on this question. See 7 C.F.R. § 273.18. Where there is no congressional directive as to whether the statute should be applied retroactively the court must determine whether the application has a retroactive effect. Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 357, 119 S.Ct. 1998, 144 L.Ed.2d 347 (1999). Deciding whether a statute operates retroactively" }, { "docid": "9893508", "title": "", "text": "issues of statutory interpretation), which is a question of first impression for this Court. II. Analysis A. Retroactive Application The Supreme Court has recognized that though Congress is empowered to enact retroactive legislation, retroactive statutes raise such “special concerns,” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 315, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), that “congressional enactments ... will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result,” Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Consequently, those “cases where [the] Court has found truly ‘retroactive’ effect adequately authorized by statute have involved statutory language that was so clear it could sustain only one interpretation.” Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 328 n. 4, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). In Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), the Supreme Court set forth a two-part test for determining whether a statute applies retroactively. At the first stage, a court must “determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach.” Id. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483. If Congress has done so, the inquiry ends, and the court enforces the statute as it is written. See id. If the statute is ambiguous or contains no express command, the court proceeds to the second stage of the Landgraf test and “determine^] whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, ie., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Id. If the statute, as applied, would have such an effect, it will not be applied retroactively “absent clear congressional intent” to the contrary. Id. In accordance with Landgraf, we begin by looking to the plain language of Section 804 of Sarbanes-Oxley. Because the language of Section 804 does not unambiguously revive previously stale securities fraud claims, and because Section 804’s legislative history does not suggest that Congress intended to provide for retroactive application of the revised" }, { "docid": "22361853", "title": "", "text": "Wilson, and Vaughan, we apply federal law, not state law, in deciding whether to apply the amended § 12-502 retroactively. See West, 481 U.S. at 39; Wilson, 471 U.S. at 269; Vaughan, 927 F.2d at 480; see also Hemmings, 822 F.2d at 691 (borrowing state limitations period and tolling rules but declining to borrow state retroactivity rules in construing federal RICO statute, which is also without a statutory period). C. We examine the contours of federal retroactivity law. Absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, a presumption exists against retroactive application of new statutes. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) (stating that “the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence”); Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (“Retroactivity is not favored in the law.”). Although “pros-pectivity remains the appropriate default rule,” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 272, “deciding when a statute operates ‘retroactively’ is not always a simple or mechanical task.” Id. at 268. The three stage analysis set forth in Landgraf assists the courts in this inquiry. See Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1494 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Landgraf supra, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229). We first determine whether the legislative body expressly stated its intent to apply the new statute retroactively or prospectively. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. Without clear language directing that we apply the new statute retroactively, the court next discerns whether the new statute would have retroactive effect. Id. Three factors inform our decision in this regard: whether the statute “would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to a transaction already completed.” Id.; Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 947, 117 S.Ct. 1871, 138 L.Ed.2d 135 (1997) (stating that the three factors qualify as a “sufficient, rather than a necessary, condition for invoking presumption against retroactivity.”) (emphasis in original). Ultimately, in this second inquiry, we must apply “ordinary" }, { "docid": "18163259", "title": "", "text": "impose new demolition restrictions only upon those West Dallas housing units not “effectively replaced” by section 8 vouchers before the law’s effective date. Id. at 1288. A section 8 voucher “effectively replaced” a housing unit, the court reasoned, if the holder used the voucher to move into a “non-minority area,” as distinguished from a racially identifiable project. Id. Consequently, by the court’s logic, a significant number of housing units were never effectively replaced. The court held that the Anti-Demolition Statute, unlike the Frost Amendment, is a general change in the law and thus constitutional. Id. at 1285. It dismissed HUD’s “technical arguments” for prospective application and concluded that “it is apparent that this statute ... was intended to apply retroactively to pending cases.” Id. But no statutory language is cited by the court to support retroactive application; instead, it asserts that retroactivity “is supported to some degree by the scant legislative history.” Id. As a general proposition, the law disfavors retroactivity. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). Indeed, “congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.” Id.; accord Bennett v. New Jersey, 470 U.S. 632, 639, 105 S.Ct. 1555, 1560, 84 L.Ed.2d 572 (1985) (“statutes affecting substantive rights and liabilities are presumed to have only prospective effect”). The district court apparently overlooked Bowen and instead applied the language of Bradley v. Richmond School Bd., 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974), which instructs that “a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary.” (Emphasis added.) Significantly, however, Bradley expresses no presumption of statutory retroactivity; rather, it binds courts, with some exceptions, to apply legislation enacted while cases are pending decision, not those already decided or those, as here, that may evade decision completely. In brief, Bradley does not contemplate situations in which there has been no adjudication" }, { "docid": "5483598", "title": "", "text": "construed as retroactive unless the act clearly, by express language or necessary implication, indicates that the legislature intended a retroactive application.”). . In Landgraf the Court also addressed and resolved what had been perceived by many as an apparent tension between several of its previous retroactivity decisions. Specifically, in Bradley v. Richmond School Bd., the Court explained that “a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision ...” 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). On the other hand, in Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., the Court stated that \"congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.” 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). The Court explained that, in fact, there is no tension between these two cases because in Bradley, as opposed to Bowen, the statute enacted a merely procedural change affecting the ability to recover attorney's fees and thus was not subject to the general presumption. . In Landgraf, which is the Supreme Court's most recent major statement on retroactivity, Plaintiff sued her employer alleging that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by a coworker. After Plaintiff complained to her superiors about this harassment, the co-worker was transferred to another office. Nevertheless, Plaintiff quit her job and brought suit against her employer. The district court found that Plaintiff had been subjected to illegal sexual harassment, but that Plaintiff had not been constructively discharged. Therefore, the court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief — the only remedy available under Title VII at the time. During the pendency of Plaintiff’s appeal, the 1991 Civil Rights Act was enacted. Section 102 of that Act amended Title VII to permit an intentional discrimination plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive damages. . Clearly, Congress knows how to express clearly its intention that a statute should be applied retroactively. See, DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., 911 F.2d 1377, 1385 n. 7 (10th Cir.1990) (citing statutes that expressly indicate Congress’s" }, { "docid": "10626139", "title": "", "text": "the Patels' prospects for success. Yet neither provision was impermissibly retroactive. Third, notwithstanding National Mining, this court in a subsequent unpublished case has already applied the black lung presumption to pending cases and acknowledged that Sixth Circuit case law inconsistent with the presumption was thereby superseded. See Glen Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 77 Fed.Appx. 878, 883-84 (6th Cir.2003). Although Glen Coal did not explicitly consider retroactivity issues, it nevertheless applied the presumption to a pending case. See id. GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the result of the plurality’s opinion for the claimed disability period post-October 25, 1999. However, I respectfully dissent from the denial of plaintiffs claim for disability benefits for the period of May 30, 1996, through October 25, 1999. Regarding this portion of plaintiffs claim arising prior to the repeal of Listing 9.09, I would remand for a new hearing with instructions to apply 9.09 to the closed period. I. Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(a) provides the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) with the authority to make reasonable rules and regulations that are consistent with the provisions of the U.S. Social Security Act. However, as the Supreme Court cautioned in Bowen v. Georgetown Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988), § 405(a) “contain[s] no express authorization of retroactive rulemaking[,]” id. at 213, 109 S.Ct. 468. Although the parties recognize the precedential effect of Bowen, they disagree on what constitutes retroactive rulemak-ing. The Commissioner contends that application of the rule change to Combs’ claims does not have an impermissible “retroactive effect” because it does not impair any of her substantive or vested rights. The Commissioner argues that the regulation repeal is purely procedural and, therefore, does not affect plaintiffs substantive rights. I disagree. In Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of retro-activity with respect to statutes. There, the Court adopted a presumption against retroactivity because prospectively “accords with widely held intuitions about how statutes ordinarily" }, { "docid": "22366583", "title": "", "text": "established for courts to apply when a statute is silent as to retroactivity and Congress has failed otherwise to indicate its intention. In this endeavor we are, somewhat regrettably, faced with two lines of authority in apparent conflict. In Bradley v. Richmond School Bd., 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974), the Court held that “a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary.” In contrast to Bradley’s retroactivity presumption, in Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988), the Court held that “[rjetroactivity is not favored in the law. Thus, congressional enactments ... will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language clearly requires this result.” Bowen did not overrule, or even refer to, Bradley. Likewise Bradley does not overrule the cases preceding it on which Bowen relied for authority. E.g., Miller v. United States, 294 U.S. 435, 439, 55 S.Ct. 440, 441, 79 L.Ed. 977 (1935) (cited in Bowen, 488 U.S. at 208, 109 S.Ct. at 471). Justice Scalia noted in his concurrence in Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 110 S.Ct. 1570, 108 L.Ed.2d 842 (1990), that these two lines of cases are “in irreconcilable contradiction” and urged the Court to resolve the issue, id. at 841, 110 S.Ct. at 1578 (Scalia, J., concurring), but the Court did not reach the question since it found clear congressional intent to apply the statute at issue prospectively only. Id. at 837-38, 110 S.Ct. at 1577-78. While we tend to agree with Justice Scalia that the lines of cases are “in irreconcilable contradiction,” it is beyond our authority to choose one and disregard the other. Cf. Rodriguez de Quijos v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 1921, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989) (Courts of Appeals must follow Supreme Court case that directly applies and may not depart from it because it" }, { "docid": "18925786", "title": "", "text": "was recently addressed by the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit which stated: In the absence of statutory direction, this court avoids retroactive application of legislative changes. See Ralden Partnership v. United States, 891 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1989). ‘[Congressional enactments ... will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.’ OAO Corp. v. Johnson, 49 F.3d 721, 725 (Fed.Cir.1995) quoting Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471-72, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). The requirement of Bowen that congressional intent must clearly be shown to overcome the presumption against retroactive application of legislation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1994 decision, Landgraf v. USI Film Products, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events in suit, the court’s first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach. If Congress has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. When, however, the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, ie., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result. Landgraf, at-, 114 S.Ct. at 1505. Under this analysis, applying current methodologies to the entries which were made prior to the effective dates of the 1979 and 1984 amendments would “increase a party’s liability for past conduct.” Id. In support of the alleged congressional intent of the retroactive application of the 1979 and 1984 amendments to Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, Commerce provides the following analysis: Pursuant to the Transitional Rule of the 1979 Trade Agreements Act, dumping findings issued under the 1921 Antidump-ing Act and in effect up to January 1, 1980 “shall remain in effect, subject to review under section" }, { "docid": "17255072", "title": "", "text": "v. Southern Stevedoring Co., 78 F.3d 868 (3d Cir.1996) (holding that 33 U.S.C. § 921 did not deprive a district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs constitutional claim as to the lack of a pre-deprivation hearing because the statutory review process would be insufficient to provide him with the full relief to which he might be entitled). In that respect, this case is closer to McNary than Thunder Basin. As such, the District Court did have jurisdiction over appellants’ challenges, to which we now turn. B. Retroactivity Appellants argue that some of the provisions in the new regulations are impermis-sibly retroactive. In particular, appellants cite the following rules: §§ 718.104(d), 718.201(a)(2), 718.201(c), 718.204(a), 725.101(a)(6), 725.101(a)(31), 725.204, 725.212(b), 725.213(c), 725.214(d), 725.219(c), 725.219(d), 725.309(d), and 725.701. We will address each rule in turn. 1. Legal Principles Governing Retroac-tivity The general legal principles governing retroactivity are relatively easy to state, although not as easy to apply. An agency may not promulgate retroactive rules absent express congressional authority. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). A provision operates retroactively when it “impair[s] rights a party possessed when he acted, increased] a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose[s] new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In the administrative context, a rule is retroactive if it “ ‘takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing law, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past.’ ” ’ Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 177 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C.Cir.1999) (quoting Ass’n of Accredited Cosmetology Sch. v. Alexander, 979 F.2d 859, 864 (D.C.Cir.1992)). The critical question is whether a challenged rule establishes an interpretation that “changes the legal landscape.” Id. (quoting Health Ins. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 412, 423 (D.C.Cir.1994)). It is undisputed here that the Secretary was not authorized to promulgate retroactive rules governing BLBA benefits determinations. Hence, the parties" }, { "docid": "22139492", "title": "", "text": "very least, Congress expressly authorized retroactive rule-making and the agency clearly intended that the rule have retroactive effect. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 471, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988). A rule simply clarifying an unsettled or confusing area of the law, on the other hand, does not change the law, but restates what the law according to the agency is and has always been: “It is no more retroactive in its operation than is a judicial determination construing and applying a statute to a case in hand.” Manhattan General Equip. Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 135, 56 S.Ct. 397, 400, 80 L.Ed. 528 (1936); see also Pennzoil Co. v. United States Dep’t of Energy, 680 F.2d 156 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1982), cert. dismissed, 459 U.S. 1190, 103 S.Ct. 841, 74 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1983); Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 7:23 (2d ed. 1979). In Homemakers North Shore, Inc. v. Bowen, we noted the important distinction between a clarifying rule and one that effects a substantive change in the law. Homemakers, 832 F.2d 408, 411 (7th Cir.1987) (citing Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 750, 756-58 (D.C.Cir.1987) (enunciating non-retroactive rule affirmed by Supreme Court in Bowen) aff'd, 488 U.S. 204, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988)). In that case, we held that a clarifying regulation promulgated by the Secretary related back to a dispute brought under an earlier version of the regulation. We reasoned that “[n]ew language need not imply new substance” and that, despite the differing language in the two regulations, the agency had only one position. Homemakers, 832 F.2d at 413. In determining whether a rule is a clarification or a change in the law, the intent and interpretation of the promulgating agency as to the effect of the rule is certainly given great weight. They are not, however, dispositive. If they were, an agency could make a substantive change merely by referring to a new interpretation as a “clarification.” Id. at 412. Accordingly, in Homemakers we reviewed the earlier positions of the Secretary to verify that the “clarification” was not a" }, { "docid": "22191773", "title": "", "text": "the statute in a way that allowed it to exercise its discretion to categorically refuse to reduce the custody time of armed felons. Because its exercise of that discretion was both permissible and reasonable, we defer to it and hold that the Bureau’s discretion was validly exercised. B. Retroactive Application Because we hold that the Bureau may under its discretionary authority categorically exclude felon firearm possessors from early release eligibility, we must determine whether the application of the rule change to the Bowen Group is impermissi-bly retroactive. In this case, the district court correctly concluded that the Bureau wrongfully disrupted the Bowen Group’s settled expectations because they had already been provided with a determination of eligibility prior to the date the amended regulation became effective. Therefore, under Cort, the regulation has impermissible retroactive effect. In Cort, we applied the bedrock principle that “retroactivity is not favored in the law” to determine whether the Bureau could deny early release eligibility to inmates based on drug abuse treatment program changes implemented after the inmates had already been notified that they were eligible for early release. Cort, 113 F.3d at 1084 (quoting Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988)). Because the “settled expectations [of inmates] should not be lightly disrupted,” Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), we held that the program change could not be applied “to prisoners already in the treatment program on the date of its adoption, much less to prisoners who have already been found to be eligible.” See Cort, 113 F.3d at 1086-7. Three considerations were prominent in our decision. We noted first that the language of the change notice provided no indication that the program change was to be applied retroactively. See id. It was also clear that the Bureau intended to render a binding final decision of early release eligibility, subject only to the completion of the 500-hour drug abuse treatment program. See id. at 1085. Finally, we rejected as irrelevant the Bureau’s contention that it could freely" } ]

[ { "docid": "7370386", "title": "", "text": "surprise, regardless of the method class members choose to enforce their rights upon denial of class certification.” Id. at 353, 103 S.Ct. 2392. “Once the statute of limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied. At that point, class members may choose to file their own suits or intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action.” Id. at 354, 103 S.Ct. 2392. There is no dispute that if members of the class in CSS V had filed individual actions after the dismissal of their class action, the statute of limitations would have been tolled for those individual actions. All members of the en banc panel agree on this point. The only question in this case is whether those same plaintiffs should be permitted to aggregate their individual actions into a class action. Strictly speaking, this is not a statute of limitations question at all. It is, rather, a question of whether plaintiffs whose individual actions are not barred may be permitted to use a class action to litigate those actions. Neither American Pipe nor Croivn, Cork & Seal speaks directly to this question, for later-filed individual actions, rather than class actions, were at issue in both of these cases. If class action certification had been denied in CSS V, and if plaintiffs in this action were seeking to relitigate the correctness of that denial, we would not permit plaintiffs to bring a class action. In Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213 (9th Cir.1987), we interpreted American Pipe not to allow tolling when the district court in the previous action had denied class certification, and when the second action sought to relitigate the issue of class certification and thereby to circumvent the earlier denial. Id. at 214. The Second Circuit came to the same conclusion in Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874 (2nd Cir.1987). Other circuits agree with Robbin and Konvek, holding that the filing of an earlier class action does not toll the statute of limitations when the second action is no more than an attempt to relitigate the" } ]

[ { "docid": "19196419", "title": "", "text": "limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied. Crown, Cork & Seal, 462 U.S. at 353-54, 103 S.Ct. at 2397-98. The district court reasoned that there is an exception to the tolling rule announced in American Pipe and Croum, Cork & Seal when the class action relied upon was decertified on grounds that no class representative had standing to bring the claim asserted in the individual suits. We disagree. Insofar as the individual claims are concerned, putative class members should be entitled to rely on a class action as long as it is pending. That reliance is particularly justified in this ease, in which the district court certified a plaintiff class. As the Third Circuit explained in a similar situation: Reliance on the pendency of a certified class action is more reasonable than the reliance on an uncertified class action which [American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal] approve. The certification of the class should discourage, rather than encourage, the proliferation of filings of individual actions. The distinction which is urged on us would produce the very evil which the Court sought to avoid in American Pipe and Croum, Cork & Seal. Consistency with the policies reiterated in Croum, Cork & Seal requires that the tolling of the statute of limitations continue until a final adverse determination of class claims. Edwards v. Boeing Vertol Co., 717 F.2d 761, 766 (3d Cir.1983) (footnote omitted), vacated on other grounds, 468 U.S. 1201, 104 S.Ct. 3566, 82 L.Ed.2d 867 (1984), reinstated, 750 F.2d 13, 14 (3d Cir.1984). If we were to hold otherwise, class members uncertain of the district court’s standing analysis — and there is much uncertainty in this area of the law— “would have every incentive to file a separate action prior to the expiration of his own period of limitations. The result would be a needless multiplicity of actions — precisely the situation that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the tolling rule of American Pipe were designed to avoid.” Crown, Cork & Seal, 462 U.S. at 351," }, { "docid": "19065661", "title": "", "text": "Id. The court looked to district court opinions in two other jurisdictions to support its conclusion “that the statute of limitations is not tolled for purposes of initiating a new class action.” Id. The Andrews court approved the district court’s reasoning with little analysis, quoting short excerpts from Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir.1987), Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d Cir.1987), and Salazar-Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334, 1351 (5th Cir.1985) (Calderon I). Id. at 149. We will say more about these three cases later in this opinion. The Andrews court expressed a concern, similar to that voiced by Justice Powell in his concurrence in Croum, Cork & Seal, that the American Pipe tolling rule “is a generous one, inviting abuse.” Id. (citing 462 U.S. at 354, 103 S.Ct. 2392). Finally, the Andrews court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the plaintiffs’ individual claims were untimely filed, observing that “[e]ven if the Brown plaintiffs second motion for class certification somehow revived or reactivated tolling, it came too late. More than thirty days had gone by in which neither a class action nor a motion for class certification was pending.” Id. at 150. Under American Pipe and Croum, Cork & Seal, the court emphasized that “[i]t is the filing of a class action and the pendency of a motion to certify that suspend the running of a limitations period for putative class members, and the period for filing begins to run anew when class certification is denied.” Id. Ultimately, the Andrews court extended equitable tolling to the plaintiffs on their individual claims, vacated the judgment dismissing the case, and remanded for further proceedings on the individual claims. Id. at 150-52. Our court recently had an opportunity to interpret the meaning of Andrews. See In re Vertrue, 719 F.3d at 478-80. In that case, the success of the purported class action depended on whether the plaintiffs were “entitled to tolling during the pen-dency of a prior putative class action suit.” Id. at 477. We observed that an out-of-circuit district court had dismissed a" }, { "docid": "18049624", "title": "", "text": "members have relied on a prior certification. Andersen, joined by Sands Brothers, cites as authority for its position a number of courts of appeals’ decisions which treat a related, although Cutler argues distinguishable, situation. In those cases the issue was the application of American Pipe tolling to subsequent intervenors or sequential class actions after there had been definitive denials of class certification in the original action. For example, in Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir.1987), an early case in this line, the plaintiffs-appellants had filed a complaint alleging class claims identical theoretically and temporally to those raised in a previously filed class action suit which was denied class certification mainly because of overwhelming manageability difficulties. Appellants ignored the district court’s express finding that the original action was unwieldy, first when attempting to intervene and expand the limited Gordon class, and again when filing, what was essentially a duplicate of the original complaint. Id. at 879. The Second Circuit refused to extend tolling under those circumstances, concluding, “The Supreme Court in American Pipe apd Croivn, Cork certainly did not intend to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to argue and reargue the question of class certification by filing new but repetitive complaints.” Id. The underlying concern in Korwek and the articulated basis for the result was that application of American Pipe tolling to successive attempts to certify a previously rejected class would sanction an endless succession of class filings. Korwek held that American Pipe tolling does not operate to permit plaintiffs to relitigate the propriety of a class action. The great weight of authority has adopted similar reasoning and has rejected the applicability of American Pipe tolling to such successive class actions. See, e.g., Basch v. Ground Round, Inc., 139 F.3d 6, 11-12 (1st Cir.1998) (an action held to be inappropriate for class treatment does not toll statute of limitations for subsequent class actions); Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146, 148-49 (6th Cir.1988) (same); Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir.1987) (same); Salazar-Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334, 1351 (5th Cir.1985) (rejecting American Pipe tolling" }, { "docid": "17160134", "title": "", "text": "court concluded that “the commencement of the original class suit tolls the running of the statute for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status.” Id. at 553, 94 S.Ct. 756. In Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Par ker, 462 U.S. 345, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983), the Court extended American Pipe to allow tolling not only when plaintiffs sought to intervene in a continuing action, but also when they sought to file an entirely new action. The Court noted that “[t]he filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class, not just as to intervenors.” Id. at 350, 103 S.Ct. 2392 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the doctrines of American Pipe and Crown Cork are not without exceptions. In Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213 (9th Cir.1987), we declined to interpret American Pipe to allow tolling when the district court in the previous action had denied class certification, and when the second action merely sought to re-litigate the same issue of class certification and thereby to circumvent the earlier denial of class status. See id. at 214. We note that the issue of class certification was never decided in Anderson, and the current action was filed on behalf of appellants as individuals. Thus, the concerns expressed in Robbin are not germane in this controversy. The appellants are not seeking to re-litigate the issue of class certification and we are convinced that no adverse policy considerations are implicated by tolling the statute of limitations during the pendency of the Anderson case. However, we agree with the district court that whatever tolling applied, it ceased once the deadline for seeking class certification passed on October 15, 1996. The appellants were discharged on September 23, 1995. The Anderson case was filed November 1, 1995, thus 8 days passed before the statute of limitations was tolled. It resumed October 15, 1996 and the plaintiffs filed the instant suit February 27, 1997. Consequently," }, { "docid": "13347152", "title": "", "text": "Civil Procedure 23, like its federal counterpart, assumes that a motion for class certification will be brought “as soon as practicable after the commencement” of a class action. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(A). To permit tolling as urged by Plaintiffs “tests the outer limits of the American Pipe doctrine and ... falls beyond its carefully crafted parameters into the range of abusive options.” Robbins [Robbin] v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.3d [F.2d] 213, 214 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d Cir.1987)) (declining to extend the American Pipe doctrine to include successor class actions); Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. v. INS, 182 F.3d 1053, 1059-61 (9th Cir.1999). Plaintiffs’ position would encourage plaintiffs to file putative class actions in name only, with no intention of actually pursuing the case as a class claim, and delay seeking class certification until the last possible minute. Those plaintiffs would clearly benefit from any resulting delay and frustrate the principal purposes of the class action procedure—“promotion of efficiency and economy of litigation.” Crown, Cork, 462 U.S. at 349, 103 S.Ct. 2392. To account for plaintiffs’ delay, therefore, the district court determined that “tolling is appropriate for the period of time representing the date from which the motion for class certification [was filed] until it was decided,” specifically November 2, 2005 to February 24, 2006. According to the court, “[t]his period of tolling recognizes the careful balancing of the interests of plaintiffs, defendants, and the court system struck in American Pipe and Croum, Cork.” Without the benefit of tolling from the time the Hoffman case was filed, the plaintiffs’ claims asserted in Albano II were untimely. Consequently, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. DISCUSSION The plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in failing to give them the full benefit of American Pipe tolling. The plaintiffs argue that American Pipe is a rule of legal tolling and thus can operate to toll a statute of repose. Indeed, the plaintiffs submit that American Pipe and Crown, Cork established a bright-line rule: Any time a motion to" }, { "docid": "7326057", "title": "", "text": "Rule to Smith’s Class Claims Smith argues in the alternative that the filing of the Title VII complaint in the Jones case tolled the 90-day limitation period for the filing of both her individual claims and her class claims. She bases her argument on the case of Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983), wherein the Supreme Court held: We conclude, as did the Court in American Pipe, that “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” Once the statute of limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied. At that point, class members may choose to file their own suits or to intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action. Id. at 2397 (citation omitted). Smith argues for a broad reading of the Parker holding, i.e., that the filing of a class action tolls the limitation period for all putative class members to bring their own class actions as well as individual actions. Yet the facts, statement of the issue, holding, and analysis of Parker indicate to the contrary. The plaintiff in Parker had filed only an individual action after the district court had denied certification of a class of which he was a putative member. The court expressly limited the issue presented in that case to whether asserted members of a denied class would be permitted “to file individual actions,” id. at 2393 (emphasis added), within the time remaining on their limitation periods after the denial of class certification. A close reading of the holding also suggests its restriction to individual actions: “ ‘[T]he commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.”’ Id. at 2397, quoting American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah," }, { "docid": "17160133", "title": "", "text": "are nonetheless persuaded that the reasoning that informed those decisions is apropos in the instant case. The instant lawsuit was filed February 27, 1997. As we have concluded that the appellants’ claims accrued in September 1995, their claims are barred unless the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of the timely filed Anderson case, in which each of the appellants was a putative class member. Anderson was pled as a class action and the district court set October 15, 1996 as the deadline for the filing of a motion seeking class certification. The Anderson plaintiffs never filed a motion seeking certification and the district court ultimately granted summary judgment for Pirelli. The question before us is whether the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of that action. In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974), the Supreme Court allowed unnamed members of a class to intervene as individual plaintiffs in an individual action that continued after denial of class certification. The court concluded that “the commencement of the original class suit tolls the running of the statute for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status.” Id. at 553, 94 S.Ct. 756. In Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Par ker, 462 U.S. 345, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983), the Court extended American Pipe to allow tolling not only when plaintiffs sought to intervene in a continuing action, but also when they sought to file an entirely new action. The Court noted that “[t]he filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class, not just as to intervenors.” Id. at 350, 103 S.Ct. 2392 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the doctrines of American Pipe and Crown Cork are not without exceptions. In Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213 (9th Cir.1987), we declined to interpret American Pipe to allow tolling when the district court in the previous" }, { "docid": "3706896", "title": "", "text": "v. Fluor Corp., 671 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir.1982). On remand, the district court denied class certification on July 14, 1983, and the action was voluntary dismissed. More than two years later, on January 17, 1986, Robbin filed this action in the Central District of California alleging the same violations as in the first class action. The district court dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, concluding that the prior class action did not toll the statute of limitation for the class action and that California law, Cal. Civ.Proc.Code § 355 (West 1982), operated to time bar Robbin’s individual action. This timely appeal followed. Our review is de novo. Donoghue v. County of Orange, 828 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1987) (dismissal on statute of limitations grounds presents a question of law). DISCUSSION In American Pipe and Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974), the Court held that “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” Id. at 554, 94 S.Ct. at 766 (footnote omitted). After American Pipe, a split developed in the circuits as to whether tolling applied only to putative class members who sought to intervene after a denial of class certification or whether it also applied to any class member who later filed an individual action. Compare Parker v. Crown, Cork and Seal Co., 677 F.2d 391, 394 (4th Cir.1982) (tolling extends to all class members who later filed individual actions), aff'd 462 U.S. 345, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983), with Pavlak v. Church, 681 F.2d 617, 618 (9th Cir.1982) (tolling extends only to class members who intervened or attempted to intervene), vacated and remanded, 463 U.S. 1201, 103 S.Ct. 3529, 77 L.Ed.2d 1382 (1983). The Court resolved this split in Crown, Cork and Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983), by holding that the filing of a class action tolled the applicable statute of" }, { "docid": "19065660", "title": "", "text": "regard to the Brown case. Id. Between July 26 and July 28, 1983, however, the Andrews plaintiffs, who were unnamed members of the Brown class, initiated the administrative process by contacting an EEO counselor, and they later filed suit. Id. Although the Andrews court did not elaborate on the district court’s analysis, the lower court’s opinion establishes that the court applied the 30-day limitations period for filing individual claims to the Andrews plaintiffs, even though they sought class-action relief under the 90-day limitations period. Andrews v. Orr, 614 F.Supp. 689, 691 (S.D.Ohio 1985). The court so held for two reasons. First, a federal regulation implicitly recognized that different members of the same putative class of federal employees could not repeatedly initiate class actions based on the same conduct. Id. at 691-92 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1613.604(b)). Second, the court pointed to the Supreme Court’s statement in Croum, Cork & Seal that American Pipe tolling ends when class certification is denied, and thereafter, class members may file their own suits or intervene in the pending action. Id. The court looked to district court opinions in two other jurisdictions to support its conclusion “that the statute of limitations is not tolled for purposes of initiating a new class action.” Id. The Andrews court approved the district court’s reasoning with little analysis, quoting short excerpts from Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir.1987), Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d Cir.1987), and Salazar-Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334, 1351 (5th Cir.1985) (Calderon I). Id. at 149. We will say more about these three cases later in this opinion. The Andrews court expressed a concern, similar to that voiced by Justice Powell in his concurrence in Croum, Cork & Seal, that the American Pipe tolling rule “is a generous one, inviting abuse.” Id. (citing 462 U.S. at 354, 103 S.Ct. 2392). Finally, the Andrews court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the plaintiffs’ individual claims were untimely filed, observing that “[e]ven if the Brown plaintiffs second motion for class certification somehow revived or reactivated tolling, it came" }, { "docid": "15084619", "title": "", "text": "found in Korivek that the statute of limitations is not tolled for a subsequent class action. The only circuit court opinion cited in Korwek on the point is Salazar-Calderon, which it misstated as holding that the “American Pipe tolling rule does not apply to permit putative class members to file a subsequent class action.” 827 F.2d at 878. The Second Circuit also relied on several district court opinions. The Second Circuit in Korwek provided the most detailed analysis of any circuit court denying tolling for class actions. Its survey of other case law found the “oft-repeated refrain which echoes through these cases compelling: the tolling rule established by American Pipe, and expanded upon by Crown, Cork & Seal, was not intended to be applied to suspend the running of statutes of limitations for class action suits filed after a definitive determination of class certification.” Id. at 879. The application of this “compelling” theme to the facts in Korwek led to a decision not to toll for class claims. In Korwek, the plaintiffs filed effectively the same complaint after their initial certification effort led to a narrower than hoped for class certification. The Second Circuit decided that the Supreme Court “certainly did not intend to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to argue and reargue the question of class certification by filing new but repetitive complaints.” Id. Korwek became the leading case on the issue, and several other circuits have followed Korwek with little additional comment. See, e.g., Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Korwek, Salazar-Calderon, and district court cases cited in Korwek); Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146, 149 (6th Cir.1988) (“The courts of appeals that have dealt with the issue appear to be in unanimous agreement that the pendency of a previously filed class action does not toll the limitations period for additional class actions by putative members of the original asserted class.”); Griffin v. Singletary, 17 F.3d 356, 359 (11th Cir.1994) (citing above cases and noting that after fifteen years of litigation, “we decline to adopt any rule that has the potential for prolonging litigation" }, { "docid": "950318", "title": "", "text": "running of the limitations period for a proposed class member’s individual claims. American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974). In American Pipe, the Supreme Court held that “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” Id. at 554, 94 S.Ct. at 766. The impetus for this rule stems from policy concerns of preserving plaintiffs’ rights and preventing needless litigation. Absent tolling for class members’ individual claims, prospective plaintiffs and class members would be forced to intervene or to file their own suits as an insurance policy to protect against the failure of the putative class member to be certified. In eliminating interventions and suits which often turn out to be unnecessary, tolling promotes judicial economy. However, the Ninth Circuit and every circuit which has addressed the issue have declined to extend this tolling rule to subsequent class claims brought by members of the putative class. Robbin v. Flour Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (1987) (refusing to toll limitations for subsequently filed class claims); Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir.1987) (finding that policy considerations militate against extending tolling to class actions); Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146, 149 (6th Cir.1988) (pendency of previously filed class actions does not toll the limitations period for subsequent class actions by putative members of the original class). In refusing to extend the tolling doctrine to class actions, these courts recognized that the same concerns with preventing unnecessary multiple filings in connection with individual claims do not exist with respect to subsequent class claims. Plaek argues that there is a fundamental distinction between the Robbin line of authority and the instant case. Robbin and like cases all involved attempts to file new suits in order to seek reconsideration of a prior denial of class certification on the merits. In this case, on the other hand, class certification has been granted in a prior case. This difference" }, { "docid": "22181960", "title": "", "text": "as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” Id. at 554, 94 S.Ct. at 766 (footnote omitted). Later the Court applied this rule in a Title VII case and clarified the duration and effect of the tolling. Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 346, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983). There the Court stated that “[o]nce the statute of limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied. At that point, class members may choose to file their own suits or to intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action.” Id. at 354, 103 S.Ct. at 2397-98 (emphasis added). B. We also agree with the district court’s conclusions concerning the plaintiffs’ attempt to gain classwide relief. The courts of appeals that have dealt with the issue appear to be in unanimous agreement that the pendency of a previously filed class action does not toll the limitations period for additional class actions by putative members of the original asserted class. See Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d Cir.1987) (“The Supreme Court ... certainly did not intend to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to argue and reargue the question of class certification by filing new but repetitive complaints.”); Salazar-Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334, 1351 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1035, 106 S.Ct. 1245, 89 L.Ed.2d 353 (1986) (“Plaintiffs have no authority for their contention that putative class members may piggyback one class action onto another and thus toll the statute of limitations indefinitely....”); Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir. 1987) (adopting reasoning of Korwek). These decisions reflect the concern expressed by Justice Powell, concurring separately in Crown, Cork & Seal: “The tolling rule of American Pipe [& Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed. 2d 713 (1974)] is a generous one, inviting abuse.” 462 U.S. at 354, 103 S.Ct. at 2398. The plaintiffs make one contention that is" }, { "docid": "5716124", "title": "", "text": "the class action suspended the applicable statute of limitations for the intervenors. Following American Pipe, a split developed in the circuits as to whether the tolling doctrine applied only to putative class members who sought to intervene after denial of class certification or whether it extended to those class members who later filed individual actions. See, e.g. Pavlak v. Church, 681 F.2d 617 (9th Cir.1982) vacated — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 3529, 77 L.Ed.2d 1382 (1983) (vacated and remanded for consideration in light of Crown Cork); Stull v. Bayard, 561 F.2d 429 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035, 98 S.Ct. 769, 54 L.Ed.2d 783 (1978) (limiting doctrine to intervenors). But see Parker v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 677 F.2d 391 (4th Cir.1982) (extending doctrine to all members). In Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983), the Supreme Court resolved the question and ruled that filing of a class action tolled the statute as to all asserted members of the class, not just as to intervenors. Id. at 2395. The court noted that many of the same inefficiencies that concerned the Court in American Pipe would ensue if the tolling rule were limited to intervenors. A putative class member who feared denial of class certification would still have every incentive to file a separate action prior to expiration of his or her oWn period of limitations. Id. at 2396. The Court thus held that the statute remained tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification was denied. Id. at 2397. The plaintiff in Crown Cork, unlike the plaintiff in this case, filed an individual action. The Court was therefore not presented with the question this court now faces. Nonetheless, the language and reasoning of Crown Cork imply that the Court would not extend the tolling doctrine to class allegations by putative class members in subsequent suits filed after denial of class certification. In its opening sen tence, the Court characterized the issue confronting it as “whether the filing of a class action tolls the" }, { "docid": "8406258", "title": "", "text": "had denied a similar petition. The Court declines to do so here. Thus plaintiff Warburton’s class claims are not time-barred only if the filing of the original class action complaint tolled the limitations period for these subsequent claims. The Court finds that the limitations period was not tolled. The Supreme Court has held that the pendency of a class action tolls the limitations period for a proposed class member’s individual claim. See Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983); American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974). Absent tolling, prospective plaintiffs and potential class members would be forced to intervene or to bring their own individual suits in order to prevent a later time-bar. Thus tolling is necessary to foster judicial economy. Crown, Cork, 462 U.S. at 350, 103 S.Ct. at 2395-96. Equitable tolling is not, however, without its dangers. Justice Powell concurred in Crown, Cork to note that this rule “was a generous one, inviting abuse.” Id. at 354, 103 S.Ct. at 2398 (Powell, J. concurring). Most courts have heeded Justice Powell’s concern and have not extended equitable tolling to this situation where, after a first denial of class certification, a new class representative attempts to bring a subsequent class action. See, e.g., Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146 (6th Cir.1988); Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir.1987) (extension of tolling to class actions falls into “range of abusive options”); Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d Cir.1987) (stating that American Pipe “certainly did not intend to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to argue and reargue the question of class certification by filing new but repetitive complaints”); Salazar-Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334, 1351 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1035, 106 S.Ct. 1245, 89 L.Ed.2d 353 (1986) (finding no authority for the contention that “putative class members may piggyback one class action onto another and thus toll the statute of limitations indefinitely”). The Court finds these cases persuasive. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish these" }, { "docid": "8100312", "title": "", "text": "plaintiffs did nothing to pursue their own claims from 1974 until 1983. The court must decide whether the statute of limitations on their claims ran during that time period. In the case of Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that: “Once the statute of limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied.” Id. at 354, 103 S.Ct. at 2397-98. Similarly, the Supreme Court held in American Pipe & Construc tion Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974) that “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted class members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” Id. at 554, 94 S.Ct. at 766. The intent of the American Pipe suspension rule is to preserve the individual right to sue of members of a proposed class until the issue of class certification has been decided. Crown, Cork & Seal, supra, at 354, 103 S.Ct. at 2398. (Powell, Jr., concurring). Defendants argue that the issue of class certification was decided when this court finally redefined the class in Payne by its order of December 8, 1976. Defendants would, therefore, have the statute of limitations begin running on plaintiffs’ claims as early as December 8,1976 or December 20, 1974, when the court initially redefined the class in Payne to exclude black males. Plaintiffs point to the proposed need for a rule that would not result in a multitude of duplicative filings. They suggest that the putative subclass representatives should not be required to file individual EEOC charges and a new lawsuit while the original plaintiffs in the class action case are still seeking the district court’s reconsideration of the limitations on the class and are challenging those limitations on appeal. The American Pipe decision supports the plaintiffs’ contention and indicates that the functional purpose of a statute of limitations is to prevent" }, { "docid": "22181961", "title": "", "text": "period for additional class actions by putative members of the original asserted class. See Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d Cir.1987) (“The Supreme Court ... certainly did not intend to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to argue and reargue the question of class certification by filing new but repetitive complaints.”); Salazar-Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334, 1351 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1035, 106 S.Ct. 1245, 89 L.Ed.2d 353 (1986) (“Plaintiffs have no authority for their contention that putative class members may piggyback one class action onto another and thus toll the statute of limitations indefinitely....”); Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir. 1987) (adopting reasoning of Korwek). These decisions reflect the concern expressed by Justice Powell, concurring separately in Crown, Cork & Seal: “The tolling rule of American Pipe [& Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed. 2d 713 (1974)] is a generous one, inviting abuse.” 462 U.S. at 354, 103 S.Ct. at 2398. The plaintiffs make one contention that is not mentioned in any of the cited cases. Relying on United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385, 97 S.Ct. 2464, 53 L.Ed.2d 423 (1977), they argue that the time for filing their class claims was tolled until all appeal and intervention rights expired in Brown. They misconstrue the holding of McDonald. In that case the plaintiff was permitted to intervene in an earlier class action of which she was a putative class member solely for the purpose of appealing the court’s denial of class certification. McDonald dealt only with the right to intervene for the purpose of seeking reversal of a denial of class certification; nothing in the opinion supports the view that the American Pipe tolling rule applies to class members who do not intervene to appeal, but seek to initiate a new class action. C. Thus we agree with the district court that the thirty day limitations period for filing individual administrative complaints was tolled during the pendency of the earlier class actions, but that there was no tolling for future class" }, { "docid": "13347151", "title": "", "text": "both the class action suit and the individual class members’ suits.” Shea Homes Arizona Limited Partnership had not been named as a defendant in the Hoffman action; consequently, the Hoffman class action did not toll the time to bring claims against Shea Homes Arizona Limited Partnership. The court then addressed whether American Pipe tolled the statute of repose with respect to the claims brought against the remaining defendants in Albano II. The plaintiffs had argued that the statute of repose should be tolled “for the entire time Hoffman was pending.” However, the court believed that a modified application of the rule was appropriate. It stated that “such prolonged tolling [was] unwarranted” given “that the Hoffman plaintiffs did not seek to certify the class for nearly two and a half years, and that delay was a basis on which the motion to certify was denied.” The district court elaborated: “The tolling rule of American Pipe is a generous one, inviting abuse.” Crown, Cork, 462 U.S. at 354 [103 S.Ct. 2392] (Powell, J., concurring). Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 23, like its federal counterpart, assumes that a motion for class certification will be brought “as soon as practicable after the commencement” of a class action. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(A). To permit tolling as urged by Plaintiffs “tests the outer limits of the American Pipe doctrine and ... falls beyond its carefully crafted parameters into the range of abusive options.” Robbins [Robbin] v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.3d [F.2d] 213, 214 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d Cir.1987)) (declining to extend the American Pipe doctrine to include successor class actions); Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. v. INS, 182 F.3d 1053, 1059-61 (9th Cir.1999). Plaintiffs’ position would encourage plaintiffs to file putative class actions in name only, with no intention of actually pursuing the case as a class claim, and delay seeking class certification until the last possible minute. Those plaintiffs would clearly benefit from any resulting delay and frustrate the principal purposes of the class action procedure—“promotion of efficiency and economy of litigation.” Crown," }, { "docid": "7063490", "title": "", "text": "a tolling of the limitations period. Therefore, I now turn to a discussion of tolling. Tolling of Statute of Limitations It is well-established that the commencement of a.class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations for all members of that class who timely intervene in the action until the application for class certification is denied, at least in cases in which the denial is based on a failure to show that the class is so numerous that individual joinder is impracticable. American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 552, 94 S.Ct. 756, 765, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974), reh’g denied, 415 U.S. 952, 94 S.Ct. 1477, 39 L.Ed.2d 568 (1974). The rationale behind the Supreme Court’s decision in American Pipe was the promotion of efficiency and economy of litigation by not requiring potential class members to make motions to intervene before the statute of limitations expires. Id. 414 U.S. at 553, 94 S.Ct. at 766. Recently in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983) the Supreme Court extended the American Pipe rule and held that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all members of the putative class until class certification is denied permitting such members either to intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action or to file their own action. Id. at -, 103 S.Ct. at 2397. The Supreme Court reasoned that “a putative class member who fears that class certification will be denied would have every incentive to file a separate action prior to the expiration of his own period of limitations. This result would be a needless multiplicity of actions.” Id. In this case, the plaintiff’s causes of action accrued on or about July 31, 1974. The filing of a complaint seeking class action status on September 10,1974 tolled the two-applicable statutes of limitations until class status was denied on June 7, 1979. Thus, because the plaintiffs had close to six years after June 7, 1979 within which to assert their Martin Act claim, their commencement of this" }, { "docid": "19196418", "title": "", "text": "that the charge-filing period was tolled during the pendency of the class action in the Griffin litigation, reasoning that nothing in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974), or Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983), suggested that the tolling rule those cases created “would encompass cases in which the class representatives have no standing to assert claims which are raised in subsequent suits.” We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1117 (11th Cir.1993). The piggyback rule for individual claims is different from that for class actions. The Supreme Court has held that: “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” [American Pipe,] 414 U.S., at 554, 94 S.Ct., at 766. Once the statute of limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied. Crown, Cork & Seal, 462 U.S. at 353-54, 103 S.Ct. at 2397-98. The district court reasoned that there is an exception to the tolling rule announced in American Pipe and Croum, Cork & Seal when the class action relied upon was decertified on grounds that no class representative had standing to bring the claim asserted in the individual suits. We disagree. Insofar as the individual claims are concerned, putative class members should be entitled to rely on a class action as long as it is pending. That reliance is particularly justified in this ease, in which the district court certified a plaintiff class. As the Third Circuit explained in a similar situation: Reliance on the pendency of a certified class action is more reasonable than the reliance on an uncertified class action which [American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal] approve. The certification of the class should discourage, rather than encourage, the proliferation of filings of" }, { "docid": "18973978", "title": "", "text": "that under Rule 23, class actions are “designed to avoid, rather than encourage” repetitious filing. Id. at 550, 94 S.Ct. 756. American Pipe found equitable tolling appropriate precisely because it did not want to punish putative class members who had waited to file an action, as encouraged by Rule 23, and had relied, knowingly or not, on the class litigation only to find that the class was not certified and their time to file independent actions had expired. See 414 U.S. at 551, 94 S.Ct. 756. Although American Pipe itself tolled the statute of limitations only for those who moved to intervene after class certification had been denied, the Supreme Court later extended the doctrine to apply to class members who choose to file separate suits after class certification is denied. See Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983). In Croum, Cork, the Court held that “[o]nce the statute of limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied. At that point, class members may choose to file their own suits or to intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action.” Id. at 354, 103 S.Ct. 2392. In Crown, Cork, the Supreme Court emphasized that without the tolling rule “[a] putative class member who fears that class certification may be denied would have every incentive to file a separate action prior to the expiration of his own period of limitations,” which would result in “a needless multiplicity of actions.” Id. at 350-51, 103 S.Ct. 2392; see also Arneil v. Ramsey, 550 F.2d 774, 783 (2d Cir.1977). Although both American Pipe and Crown, Cork address only actions brought by putative class members after class certification was denied, the Alaska Plaintiffs and Amici urge that the American Pipe doctrine applies as well to plaintiffs who filed individual actions before a class is certified. Although the Second Circuit has not yet decided this issue, district courts in this circuit have held that a plaintiff who chooses to file an action independently of the" } ]

[ { "docid": "18805141", "title": "", "text": "of the property but also explicitly reserved that determination for other proceedings. The bankruptcy court did, of course, judicially transfer all liens and encumbrances on the property to the sale proceeds. The bankruptcy court made no attempt, however, to quiet title to the property in the trustee prior to the sale, as it had in the other two sales, precisely because of the outstanding claims of ownership asserted by the NW 20 purchasers. Moreover, despite instructions by the court, the trustee never instituted proceedings to determine whether he or the contract holders had title to the property. The deed and order confirming sale did not purport to convey more than the trustee had. Consequently, the injunction against the state court proceedings is entirely unnecessary to protect or effectuate the court’s orders, because the orders themselves did not decide the title question. The sort of quiet title action brought by the defendants is precisely the sort of title determination proceeding upon which the court originally conditioned its approval of the sale of the NW 20 property and which the court later waived to enable the trustee to meet the terms of the soon-to-expire earnest money agreement with Bankers. Because the orders permitting sale did not decide the title issue, they do not require an injunction forbidding litigation of that issue for their protection and effectuation. Compare In re Krull, 295 F. 520, 521 (E.D.N.Y.1923) (denying injunction prohibiting third parties from prosecuting any action to oust persons who had purchased leasehold from trustee, on ground that the trustee sold only the “interest of the bankrupts” and “if title of the [purchasers] is attacked in another tribunal, [the] court has no jurisdiction to prevent that tribunal from proceeding to an orderly determination of the rights of the parties”) with Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & Georgia Manufacturing Co., 198 U.S. 188, 195, 25 S.Ct. 629, 632, 49 L.Ed. 1008 (1905) (upholding grant of injunction prohibiting parties to earlier federal foreclosure action from relitigating question of title in state court); and Berman v. Denver Tramway Corp., 197 F.2d 946, 950 (10th Cir.1952) (upholding grant" } ]

[ { "docid": "17147537", "title": "", "text": "anti-SLAPP issue is one of first impression in bankruptcy courts. I. FACTS Appellants Philip and Georgette Raista-no (“Appellants”) sued Appellee Abdoulaye Bah (“Debtor”) in state court in 2001. After participating in a court-ordered mediation, Debtor and Appellants (and other parties) reached a settlement. Appellants, alleging that Debtor breached the settlement agreement, thereafter requested the state court to enter a judgment against Debtor. Debtor opposed Appellants’ request for entry of judgment. Before any judgment was entered, Debtor filed a chapter 11 case. He then commenced an adversary proceeding against Appellants and others for intentional misrepresentation, to determine the nature, extent and validity of liens, for turnover of property of the estate, for turnover of property of the estate held by a custodian, for declaratory relief, for breach of fiduciary duty and for conspiracy to defraud. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them (the “AP Motion”). Appellants argued that Debtor had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 7012 and FRCP 12(b)(6), because the claims against them were barred by issue and claim preclusion and by the statutory litigation privilege set forth in California Civil Code section 47(b). Alternatively, Appellants moved the bankruptcy court to strike the claims against them under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. At a hearing, the bankruptcy court announced that it was denying the AP Motion. The court denied the request to strike the adversary proceeding under the anti-SLAPP statute because the adversary proceeding involved federal bankruptcy questions; the court held that the anti-SLAPP statute is inapplicable in bankruptcy cases, even with respect to pendent state law claims. Appellants filed a premature notice of appeal which became effective under Rule 8002(a) when the bankruptcy court entered its order denying the AP Motion on March 8, 2004. We subsequently issued an “Order re Finality” noting that the denial of the portion of the AP Motion requesting that the adversary proceeding be stricken as a SLAPP suit is immediately reviewable under the collateral order doctrine, citing Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.2003). II. ISSUE Is California’s anti-SLAPP statute applicable in bankruptcy" }, { "docid": "1348656", "title": "", "text": "and equitable to both sides, preclusion principles barred the Trustee from now litigating the issue of whether the Debtor received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the assets transferred. In dismissing the complaint, the bankruptcy court did not specifically rule on the Trustee’s Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which asserted additional preference and turnover actions. Following the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the complaint, Ms. Fordu alleged that the Trustee violated Bankruptcy Rule 9011 by continuing the litigation after the bankruptcy court’s entry of partial summary judgment and requested costs and attorney fees. The bankruptcy court denied Ms. Fordu’s motion. The Trustee appeals the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his complaint (Case No. 97-8020), and Ms. Fordu cross-appeals the court’s denial of her motion for attorney fees and costs (Case No. 97-8021). The Panel reverses the bankruptcy court’s Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment and the Judgment Entry dismissing the Trustee’s complaint. The Panel affirms the bankruptcy court’s denial of Ms. Fordu’s motion for attorney fees and sanctions. The case is remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I.ISSUES ON APPEAL 1. Did the bankruptcy court err by concluding, as a matter of law, that the lottery proceeds were the separate property of Ms. Fordu in which neither the Debtor nor any creditor could claim an interest at the time of the parties’ dissolution? 2. Did the bankruptcy court err in concluding that the Dissolution Decree, which recited that the parties’ transfers in their Separation Agreement were fair, just and equitable, barred the Trustee on the basis of preclusion principles from litigating the issue of reasonably equivalent value? 3. Did the bankruptcy court err by failing to rule on the Trustee’s Third and Fourth Causes of Action? 4. Did the bankruptcy court err in denying Ms. Fordu’s motion for attorney fees and costs? II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1) and the order transferring, with the consent of all parties and the district court, this appeal to" }, { "docid": "18357510", "title": "", "text": "courts broad discretion to determine when it should be applied.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 331 & nn. 14-16, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). Thus, reasonable doubts about what was decided in a prior judgment are resolved against applying issue preclusion. Frankfort Digital Servs., Ltd. v. Kistler (In re Reynoso), 477 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, this is consistent with the rule that preclusion is an affirmative matter as to which the proponent of preclusion has the burden of persuasion and bears the correlative risk of nonpersuasion. See Exxon-Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517; Christopher Klein et al., Principles of Preclusion & Estoppel in Bankruptcy Cases, 79 Am. Bankr. L.J. 839, 882-83 (2005). California law is consistent with federal law on the question of discretionary application of issue preclusion. In California, issue preclusion is not applied automatically or rigidly, and courts are permitted to decline to give issue preclu-sive effect to prior judgments in deference of countervailing considerations of fairness. Lucido v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal.3d 335, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767, 795 P.2d 1223, 1225 (1990); People v. Seltzer, 101 Cal.Rptr. 260, 262 (Cal.App.1972) (collecting cases). The court balances “the need to limit litigation against the right of a fair adversary proceeding in which a party may fully present the facts.” 1 Ann Taylor Schwing, Cal. Affirmative Defenses 2d § 15:8 (2006). Thus, policy considerations may limit use of issue preclusion in any particular instance. Jackson v. City of Sacramento, 117 Cal.App.3d 596, 172 Cal.Rptr. 826, 829 (1981). In the end, the proponent of preclusion bears the persuasive burden and the risk of nonpersuasion. Lucido, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767, 795 P.2d at 1225; Camargo v. Cal. Portland Cement Co., 86 Cal.App.4th 995, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 855 (2001), rev. denied (2001); Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh), 338 B.R. 817, 825 (9th Cir. BAP 2006). Lopez urged the bankruptcy court to consider several factors which he claimed militate against precluding him from contesting that his conduct was willful and malicious. These include alleged lack of decorum in the state court trial, alleged denial of a right" }, { "docid": "4590950", "title": "", "text": "Appellants and within its discretion to deny the Appellants’ motion to reopen the Debtor’s bankruptcy case. B. Res judicata warranted a denial of the Appellants’ motion to reopen the case. The bankruptcy court’s decision can also be affirmed on the basis that reopening the case would have been futile and a waste of judicial resources, because the doctrine of res judicata precludes review of the Nebraska Supreme Court judgment, which is exactly the relief the Appellants sought. The doctrine of res judicata prohibits the re-litigation of claims where: 1) a court of competent jurisdiction rendered the prior judgment, 2) the prior judgment was final and on the merits, 3) both suits involve the same parties (or those in privity with them), and 4) both suits are based upon the same claims or causes of action. The party against whom res judicata is asserted must also have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter in the proceeding that is to be given preclusive effect. The preclusive effect of res judicata includes not only claims and defenses that were offered and received in the first action, but matters which might have been decided. The Nebraska Supreme Court judgment, as well as the trial court’s judgment, satisfies all of these elements. First, the litigation between the Broek-emeiers and the Homeowners resulted in a final judgment on the merits. The trial court entered a summary judgment against the Broekemeiers on March 26, 2007, holding that the restrictive covenants on the property are enforceable and run with the land, and that the bankruptcy Sale Order did not eliminate restrictive covenants. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision on December 5, 2008. Both of those decisions are final and not appealable. Second, as discussed above, the Nebraska State courts had jurisdiction to interpret whether the bankruptcy court’s Sale Order eliminated the restrictive covenants. Third, the state court litigation involved the same parties because Mid-City is in privity with Liberty. In the Eighth Circuit, “[p]rivity denotes mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property.” A privy is “a person so" }, { "docid": "17147536", "title": "", "text": "OPINION MONTALI, Bankruptcy Judge. Defendants moved for dismissal of an adversary proceeding under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012 (incorporating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)) (“FRCP 12(b)(6)”) arguing that the plaintiffs claims were barred by California’s statutory litigation privilege and by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) and res judicata (claim preclusion). In the same motion, the defendants also moved the bankruptcy court to strike the claims against them under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, California’s statute against “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation,” commonly known and referred to herein as the “anti-SLAPP statute.” The bankruptcy court denied the request to dismiss the adversary proceeding under FRCP 12(b)(6) and also denied the request to strike the action under the anti-SLAPP statute. By a memorandum (not for publication) issued concurrently with this opinion, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision on the issues of litigation privilege, issue preclusion and claim preclusion. In this opinion, we reverse the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the anti-SLAPP statute is inapplicable in bankruptcy court and we publish because the anti-SLAPP issue is one of first impression in bankruptcy courts. I. FACTS Appellants Philip and Georgette Raista-no (“Appellants”) sued Appellee Abdoulaye Bah (“Debtor”) in state court in 2001. After participating in a court-ordered mediation, Debtor and Appellants (and other parties) reached a settlement. Appellants, alleging that Debtor breached the settlement agreement, thereafter requested the state court to enter a judgment against Debtor. Debtor opposed Appellants’ request for entry of judgment. Before any judgment was entered, Debtor filed a chapter 11 case. He then commenced an adversary proceeding against Appellants and others for intentional misrepresentation, to determine the nature, extent and validity of liens, for turnover of property of the estate, for turnover of property of the estate held by a custodian, for declaratory relief, for breach of fiduciary duty and for conspiracy to defraud. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them (the “AP Motion”). Appellants argued that Debtor had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 7012 and FRCP 12(b)(6), because the claims against them were" }, { "docid": "21092706", "title": "", "text": "15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966). In this case the question is one of claim preclusion since the administrative expense claim Lang brought by motion was identical to Lang’s cross-claim in the prior adversary proceeding. Claim preclusion will bar a subsequent suit when: “(1) the first suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit was based on proper jurisdiction; (3) both suits involved the same cause of action; and (4) both suits involved the same parties or their privies.” Lovell v. Mixon, 719 F.2d 1373, 1376 (8th Cir.1983). Furthermore, the party against whom res judicata is asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter in the proceeding that is to be given preclusive effect. Plough, 70 F.3d at 517. There is no dispute that the two proceedings at issue in this case involved the same parties and the same cause of action. Therefore, we need only determine: (1) whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to decide the administrative expense claim in the adversary proceeding; (2) whether the bankruptcy court’s order in the adversary proceeding was a final judgment on the merits; and (3) whether Lang had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the administrative expense claim in the adversary proceeding. A. The Bankruptcy Court’s Jurisdiction A claim for an administrative expense pursuant to section 503(b) is a core proceeding for which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Even when contested, however, a 503(b) claim is not properly brought in an adversary proceeding. See Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7001. Such claims are appropriately brought by motion' in the bankruptcy case, and relief is typically granted in contested claims only upon notice and hearing. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9013, 9014; Minn.Bankr.Local Rule 1201. See also Colandrea v. Union Home Loan Corp. (In re Colandrea), 17 B.R. 568, 583 (Bankr.D.Md. 1982) (dismissing 503(b) claim brought as a counterclaim in an adversary proceeding). Indeed, Lang’s second administrative expense claim for the earned premium was made by motion in conformance with both the federal and local bankruptcy rules. Thus, Lang’s initial assertion of its administrative expense claim as" }, { "docid": "18984208", "title": "", "text": "to determine liability between the creditor and the state “could not conceivably alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action or in any way impact upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.” Id. at 547-48 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). We distinguished In re Pegasus Gold Corp., explaining that there we had “found the requisite close nexus to exist where the post-confirmation claims asserted that the defendant breached the Reorganization Plan and where the outcome of those claims could affect the implementation and execution of the Plan.” Id. at 548. Instead, we reasoned, the bankruptcy court in In re Valdez Fisheries had no role in the resolution of the dispute and was “involved only fortuitously because the dispute implicate[d] the terms of a settlement agreement approved by the court as a precondition of the dismissal of [the] bankruptcy.” Id. That statement of our rationale could be substituted here verbatim if we replaced “settlement agreement” with “sale order.” BG Plaza is similarly situated to the seafood processor in In re Valdez Fisheries — • pleading a potentially fraudulent conveyance in state court — and Maldonado is situated similarly to the state of Alaska — as a recipient of property from the bankruptcy estate in a case the bankruptcy court has dismissed and in which it has entered a final decree. There is no doubt that BG Plaza’s claims would undermine the effect of the bankruptcy court’s well-reasoned determination that Sellers did not violate the right of first refusal. However, such attacks in a second court are routine — and routinely rejected, and Jessen offers no convincing argument why that fact alone creates jurisdiction under § 1334(b). See Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4405 (2d ed. 1988) (“Ordinarily both issue preclusion and claim preclusion are enforced by awaiting a second action in which they are pleaded and proved by the party asserting them,” and “[t]he first court does not get to dictate to other courts the preclusion consequences of its own judgment.”). Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not retain" }, { "docid": "1348657", "title": "", "text": "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I.ISSUES ON APPEAL 1. Did the bankruptcy court err by concluding, as a matter of law, that the lottery proceeds were the separate property of Ms. Fordu in which neither the Debtor nor any creditor could claim an interest at the time of the parties’ dissolution? 2. Did the bankruptcy court err in concluding that the Dissolution Decree, which recited that the parties’ transfers in their Separation Agreement were fair, just and equitable, barred the Trustee on the basis of preclusion principles from litigating the issue of reasonably equivalent value? 3. Did the bankruptcy court err by failing to rule on the Trustee’s Third and Fourth Causes of Action? 4. Did the bankruptcy court err in denying Ms. Fordu’s motion for attorney fees and costs? II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1) and the order transferring, with the consent of all parties and the district court, this appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The Panel reviews on a de novo basis the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions, including determinations of state law, Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991), the grant or denial of summary judgment, Martin v. Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 105 F.3d 1090 (6th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3755 (U.S. May 1, 1997) (No. 96-1749), the application of preclusion principles, United States v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 894 F.2d 825 (6th Cir.1990), and the dismissal of causes of action, Joelson v. United States, 86 F.3d 1413 (6th Cir.1996). Under a de novo standard of review, the reviewing court decides an issue as if the court were the original trial court in the matter. Razavi v. Commissioner, 74 F.3d 125, 127 (6th Cir. 1996). A denial of attorney fees under Rule 9011 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Mapother & Mapother, P.S.C. v. Cooper (In re Downs), 103 F.3d 472, 480 (6th Cir.1996). A denial of costs under Bankruptcy Rule 7054(b) is" }, { "docid": "5387734", "title": "", "text": "planning board determination, “could moot appel-lee’s damage claim.” In Duke & Benedict, parties to an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of breach of a contract. Id. at 340. Appellees sought damages and injunctive relief; appellants sought a declaration that they were entitled to convey the at-issue property. Id. The bankruptcy court did not grant summary judgment “but used the opportunity to issue a Declaratory Judgment setting forth the rights and obligations of the parties under the [contract].” Id. The district court noted that the bankruptcy court had “deferred decision” on the issues of appellees’ damages and injunctive relief claims and appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment, “and chose instead to issue a narrow Declaratory Judgment on the question of ‘the rights and the obligations of [the][a]ffected parties [] under the modification agreement with regard to density.’ ” Id. at 342 (emphasis and selected alterations in original). The bankruptcy court “explicitly reserved decision on issues presented by the parties in their summary judgment motions. With respect to appellees’ breach of contract claims, [the bankruptcy court] explained that those issues were ‘really not before me today’ and that consideration of the claims would be ‘premature.’ ” Id. (quoting the bankruptcy court’s hearing transcript). The bankruptcy court also noted that “should the Planning Board impose unduly burdensome conditions on appellants, such as ... conveyance of the ‘entirety of title to the golf course property to someone else,’ it would become an issue for future litigation.” Id. (quoting the bankruptcy court’s hearing transcript). Thus, the bankruptcy court essentially held in abeyance the motions for summary judgment, as “many issues in the underlying adversary proceeding [were] contingent upon future action of the Planning Board and- [could] be revisited once the Planning Board [had] made a final decision.” Id. at 343. Duke & Benedict gives no useful guidance here because the lack of finality in that case was apparent. Ades-Berg also relies on the language of Bogaerts v. Shapiro (In re Litas Intern., Inc.), 316 F.3d 113, 117 (2d Cir.2003), for the proposition that “[w]hen the efficacy of" }, { "docid": "16767934", "title": "", "text": "himself and Natwest concerning the Bank’s interest in the sale of certain of RPC’s intellectual property. In his application, the Trustee stated that accepting the Bank’s offer to pay $40,000 in settlement of the Trustee’s claim would be in the best interests of the estate. The Trustee’s sole objection to the Bank’s request to be paid these proceeds was that the Bank's security interest did not extend to the proceeds of the sale of RPC’s intellectual property. By Order dated May 18, 1987, the Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement. In this action, the Trustee’s complaint alleges claims virtually identical to those asserted by Ross in the Natwest Action based upon the same transactions and occurrences underlying the Natwest Action. The parties in this action, however, have conducted extensive discovery. Defendants Markowitz and Grossman move to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that as Natwest employees acting within the scope of their authority, they are not subject to liability on any of the Trustee’s claims. Natwest moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the grounds of res judicata, judicial estoppel, time bar, and, with respect to the substance of the Trustee’s claims, the absence of genuine issues of material fact as to the Trustee’s failure to establish any of his claims. The Trustee opposes the motion and cross-moves for partial summary judgment in his favor. B. Res Judicata The Court rejects the Bank’s claim that the Trustee’s action is barred by the res judicata effect of the Bankruptcy Court orders entered in connection with the lift-stay litigation at the inception of the bankruptcy case, and subsequent orders entered in connection with the liquidation of RPC’s assets. Central to the application of res judicata to bar a previously unlitigated claim is the requirement that the previously unlitigated claim could and should have been raised and litigated in the earlier action. See Winters v. Lavine, 574 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.1978). This Court concludes that because the Trustee’s lender liability claims could not properly have been raised and fully litigated in connection with, and as a defense to, the Bank’s application to lift" }, { "docid": "19655625", "title": "", "text": "but unlike questions of constitutional standing, it is not obliged to do so. In this case, questions of standing — both constitutional and prudential — were raised in the district court and argued on appeal. One well-established prudential-standing limitation is the principle that a litigant cannot sue in federal court to enforce the rights of third parties. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 17-18, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004); Warth, 422 U.S. at 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197; MainStreet Realtors, 505 F.3d at 746; Massey, 196 F.3d at 739; Retired Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 76 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir.1996). Some courts have described Rule 17’s real-party-in-interest requirement as essentially a codification of this nonconstitutional, prudential limitation on standing. See, e.g., Warnick v. Yassian (In re Rodeo Canon Dev. Corp.), 362 F.3d 603, 607-08 (9th Cir.2004) (withdrawn on other grounds); Ensley v. Cody Res., Inc., 171 F.3d 315, 320 (5th Cir.1999). Here, the district court granted Texor’s motion for summary judgment because Rawoof ran afoul of a particular subset of third-party standing doctrine known as the shareholder-standing rule. This rule holds that a shareholder generally cannot sue for indirect harm he suffers as a result of an injury to the corporation. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal., 493 U.S. at 336, 110 S.Ct. 661; Warth, 422 U.S. at 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197; Flynn v. Merrick, 881 F.2d 446, 449 (7th Cir.1989); Twohy v. First Nat’l Bank of Chi., 758 F.2d 1185, 1194 (7th Cir.1985). The rule does not apply if the corporation’s management has refused to pursue the action for reasons unrelated to good-faith business judgment. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal., 493 U.S. at 336, 110 S.Ct. 661. Another exception to the prohibition on shareholder suits allows a shareholder to pursue an action originating from an injury to the corporation if he has suffered a direct, personal injury independent of the derivative injury common to all shareholders. See id. at 337, 110 S.Ct. 661; Twohy, 758 F.2d at 1194; see also Goldberg v. Michael, 328 Ill.App.3d 593, 262 Ill.Dec. 626, 766" }, { "docid": "18357509", "title": "", "text": "“the need for flexibility in the operative principles, and this recognition has served as the basis for the exceptions to the rule of issue preclusion set forth in § 28.” Restatement(Second) of Judgments, Title E, Introductory Note (1980). The exceptions to the general rule of issue preclusion that are set out in Restatement(Second) § 28 include such flexible concepts as: change in applicable legal context; avoiding inequitable administration of laws; differences in quality or extensiveness of procedures; and lack of adequate opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial action. Id. §§ 28(2), (3) & (5). The discretionary aspect of issue preclusion is settled as a matter of federal law. When faced with a question of the use of issue preclusion in, as here, the offensive context, the Supreme Court, citing a tentative draft of the Restatement(Second) with approval, held: “We have concluded that the preferable approach for dealing with these problems in the federal courts is not to preclude the use of offensive collateral estoppel, but to grant trial courts broad discretion to determine when it should be applied.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 331 & nn. 14-16, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). Thus, reasonable doubts about what was decided in a prior judgment are resolved against applying issue preclusion. Frankfort Digital Servs., Ltd. v. Kistler (In re Reynoso), 477 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, this is consistent with the rule that preclusion is an affirmative matter as to which the proponent of preclusion has the burden of persuasion and bears the correlative risk of nonpersuasion. See Exxon-Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517; Christopher Klein et al., Principles of Preclusion & Estoppel in Bankruptcy Cases, 79 Am. Bankr. L.J. 839, 882-83 (2005). California law is consistent with federal law on the question of discretionary application of issue preclusion. In California, issue preclusion is not applied automatically or rigidly, and courts are permitted to decline to give issue preclu-sive effect to prior judgments in deference of countervailing considerations of fairness. Lucido v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal.3d 335, 272" }, { "docid": "1077559", "title": "", "text": "over the property. Id.; See also In re Oakes, 129 B.R. 477, 479 (Bankr. N.D.Ohio 1991); In re Fricker, 113 B.R. 856, 864 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.l990). Indeed, jurisdiction is considered to be continuing until some action is taken which would necessitate the relinquishment of jurisdiction. In re Oakes, 129 B.R. at 479. The terms of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) give the bankruptcy court “considerable flexibility to fashion relief to protect the interest of both the moving party and the debtor’s estate.” In re Ridgemont Apartment Associates, 105 B.R. at 741 (citations omitted). The bankruptcy court in the case sub judice did fashion relief from the stay by allowing the foreclosure action to proceed and by reserving the right to modify the relief before a judicial sale if necessary to avoid prejudicing or mooting the trustee’s adversary actions. The bankruptcy court acted lawfully in retaining jurisdiction over the property and adjudicating the adversary actions. ISSUE II: DID THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ESTATE OF ROY TOLL? The bankruptcy court failed to enter an order granting or denying the trustee’s motion to substitute the estate of Roy Toll for the decedent. This court will not belabor this order with any detailed discussion of this issue for it believes the issue is not properly before it. The appellants have failed to show their standing to challenge the bankruptcy court’s personal jurisdiction over the estate of Roy Toll. Assuming the appellants have standing, they have waived their issue by waiting until their appeal to present it for the first time. In re Franz, 97 B.R. 603, 605 (D.Kan.1989). Quite simply, the defendants could have advanced this issue before the bankruptcy court but chose not to, and this issue is not one, like subject matter jurisdiction, which may be raised at any time. ISSUE III: DID THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ERR IN RELYING ON THE TESTIMONY OF TIM OHLDE TO DETERMINE CROP INCOME? The standard of review on this issue is found at Bankr.Rule 8013, which reads: On an appeal the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel may affirm, modify, or reverse a bankruptcy judge’s judgment," }, { "docid": "5387733", "title": "", "text": "of that agreement were “conditioned upon confirmation” of the debtor’s reorganization plan by the bankruptcy court. Id. at 289 (citing In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 130 B.R. 910, 926, 927 (S.D.N.Y.1991)). By resolving the securities litigation claims as it did, the district court had left certain parties unable to participate in the debt- or’s reorganization proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 1126(f). Id. at 290. This Court determined that the district court’s order was final as to those parties who had, by virtue of the order approving the settlement, lost any further opportunity to object to the settlement agreement. Id. Drexel Burnham thus did not resolve the question of whether an order confirming a settlement agreement in a bankruptcy court is final despite the agreement’s requirement for approval by other courts. Ades-Berg refers to the order in Mid-Hudson Realty Corp. v. Duke & Benedict, Inc. (In re Duke & Benedict, Inc.), 278 B.R. 334 (S.D.N.Y.2002), as an example of a order that is not final when a future action, in that case a municipal planning board determination, “could moot appel-lee’s damage claim.” In Duke & Benedict, parties to an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of breach of a contract. Id. at 340. Appellees sought damages and injunctive relief; appellants sought a declaration that they were entitled to convey the at-issue property. Id. The bankruptcy court did not grant summary judgment “but used the opportunity to issue a Declaratory Judgment setting forth the rights and obligations of the parties under the [contract].” Id. The district court noted that the bankruptcy court had “deferred decision” on the issues of appellees’ damages and injunctive relief claims and appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment, “and chose instead to issue a narrow Declaratory Judgment on the question of ‘the rights and the obligations of [the][a]ffected parties [] under the modification agreement with regard to density.’ ” Id. at 342 (emphasis and selected alterations in original). The bankruptcy court “explicitly reserved decision on issues presented by the parties in their summary judgment motions. With respect to appellees’" }, { "docid": "3752176", "title": "", "text": "claim in the bankruptcy case. However, ACIC did file a proof of claim based on its potential liability to the Leal Estate as Mr. Kronemyer’s surety. ACIC also filed an adversary proceeding (“Adversary Proceeding”) seeking a determination that whatever amount it might ultimately be obligated to pay on Mr. Kronemyer’s behalf under the bonds it had issued in the guardianship proceeding would be excepted from Mr. Kronemyer’s discharge under § 523(a)(4). In response to a question at oral argument, Mr. Kronemyer advised the Panel that the Leal Estate had been joined as a party plaintiff in the Adversary Proceeding. ACIC filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay (“Motion”), seeking authority for ACIC and the Conservator to proceed in the State Court to final judgment on the Surcharge Request. The Conservator later joined in the Motion. Mr. Kronemyer opposed the Motion on multiple grounds. First, he asserted that the Criminal Court Judgment not only resolved the Surcharge Request, it barred any further action against him by the Leal Estate. Second, Mr. Kronemyer asserted that because ACIC, a subrogated surety, holds no claim against him, ACIC had no standing to bring the Motion. Finally, Mr. Kronemyer asserted that even if ACIC had standing, ACIC could not demonstrate cause for relief from the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court held that ACIC, as a creditor holding a contingent claim, was a party in interest and therefore had standing to bring the Motion. The bankruptcy court determined that “cause” existed to grant the Motion because resolution of the Surcharge Request in the State Court would serve to liquidate, in the forum more familiar with the dispute among the parties, ACIC’s contingent claim in the bankruptcy case. Further, the bankruptcy court concluded that the preclusive effect of the Criminal Court Judgment on the Surcharge Request could be resolved more expeditiously by the State Court. Mr. Kronemyer timely appealed the order granting ACIC relief from the automatic stay. II. JURISDICTION The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(b)(2)(G). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. III. ISSUES Whether the bankruptcy" }, { "docid": "4590949", "title": "", "text": "the jurisdiction to “modify” the Sale Order, there has been no modification of that order. The Nebraska Supreme Court simply interpreted the scope of the Sale Order as it applies to implied covenants running with the land. The fact that the Appellants disagree with the court’s interpretation does not, in and of itself, transform the interpretation into a modification of the Sale Order. In short, § 1334(e) does not limit jurisdiction to interpret the Sale Order exclusively to the bankruptcy court. Perhaps the strongest basis for the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over this dispute is its implicit authority and jurisdiction to interpret or enforce its own prior orders, but that jurisdiction is not exclusive, even with regard to the interpretation of orders approving sales of estate property. Matters not committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts are subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of state courts. Therefore, the Nebraska State courts had jurisdiction to interpret the Sale Order, and the bankruptcy court was therefore correct in its conclusion that alternate relief was available to the Appellants and within its discretion to deny the Appellants’ motion to reopen the Debtor’s bankruptcy case. B. Res judicata warranted a denial of the Appellants’ motion to reopen the case. The bankruptcy court’s decision can also be affirmed on the basis that reopening the case would have been futile and a waste of judicial resources, because the doctrine of res judicata precludes review of the Nebraska Supreme Court judgment, which is exactly the relief the Appellants sought. The doctrine of res judicata prohibits the re-litigation of claims where: 1) a court of competent jurisdiction rendered the prior judgment, 2) the prior judgment was final and on the merits, 3) both suits involve the same parties (or those in privity with them), and 4) both suits are based upon the same claims or causes of action. The party against whom res judicata is asserted must also have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter in the proceeding that is to be given preclusive effect. The preclusive effect of res judicata includes not only" }, { "docid": "18518252", "title": "", "text": "further remedies with respect to the Property, and that the appeals should therefore be dismissed. Wong’s argument and reading of the Stipulation and judgment in the state court action assume too much. The Nelsons, by stipulating to entry of a judgment in state court, did not agree to forego these appeals, all of which were commenced after they entered into the Stipulation. Wong’s state court action was to recover possession of the Property via unlawful detainer, not to quiet title. As the California Supreme Court has explained, “a judgment in unlawful detainer usually has very limited res judicata effect and will not prevent one who is dispossessed from bringing a subsequent action to resolve questions of title or to adjudicate other legal and equitable claims between the parties.” Vella v. Hudgins, 20 Cal.3d 251, 142 Cal.Rptr. 414, 572 P.2d 28, 30 (1977). Further, there is no indication that the parties in this case intended the Stipulation and judgment to settle questions of title. Instead, the Nelsons agreed in the Stipulation that “[a] Writ of Possession for possession only may issue upon entry of the judgment herein.” Because of the limited nature of the remedy sought by Wong in the Unlawful Detainer Action, and the narrow scope of the Nelsons’ agreement in the Stipulation, it is clear that the Nelsons did not intend to forego their right to appeal the bankruptcy court’s orders. For these reasons, we conclude that the Nelsons’ appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the adversary proceeding (BAP No. CC-08-1001) is not moot. C. In contrast, the Nelsons’ appeals of the two orders entered by the court in their bankruptcy case are moot. The Nelsons’ Stay Motion sought alternative relief, either a determination that the stay was in effect on the date of the Foreclosure Sale or an order retroactively imposing the stay under § 105(a). The bankruptcy court denied both alternatives. In the order granting Wong’s No-Stay Motion, the bankruptcy court confirmed that no stay was in effect pursuant to § 362(c)(4)(A)(ii). Review of orders entered in the administration of a bankruptcy case, since dismissed, is" }, { "docid": "12242985", "title": "", "text": "only on the inability of the court to grant effective relief, the conduct of the parties is irrelevant in determining whether a claim is moot. In Gemmill v. Robison (In Matter of Combined Metals Reduction Co.), 557 F.2d 179 (9th Cir.1977), this court analyzed the effect of moving for, but failing to obtain, a stay on a constitutional mootness challenge. There, the bankruptcy trustee had obtained the court’s permission to sell some of the debtor’s property. Id. at 185-86. The debtor sought a stay of the court orders pending appeal; however, the district court denied that request. Id. at 191. This court stated: [W]e are somewhat disturbed by the lower court’s cavalier treatment of the appellant’s application for the stay which would have preserved his appeal. ... However, as a result of the consummation of the sale, it appears that we are powerless to do anything more than simply point out the circumstances of the district court’s ruling.... Given the trial court’s ruling, the transfer of title and the failure to join the transferees as parties, it would appear that this court cannot ... restore the status quo or grant any relief, even if the district court did err.... Id. at 192. Thus, we conclude that plaintiffs request for a stay did not prevent its claims from becoming moot when no stay was, in fact, ordered. ALL CLAIMS RENDERED MOOT Next, plaintiff argues that not all its claims are moot. In the district court, plaintiff sought to challenge several rulings by the bankruptcy court. The only remedy that plaintiff demanded, however, was the return of its property. As noted, because a non-party now owns that property, the district court was powerless to grant that relief. Thus, plaintiffs case is moot no matter how many theories it had in support of its claim for return of the property. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Lender requests sanctions, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (“Rule 11”), against plaintiff for filing a frivolous appeal. Rule 11, however, does not apply to appellate proceedings. See Partington v. Gedan, 923 F.2d 686, 688 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc) (per curiam) (“Rule" }, { "docid": "22174212", "title": "", "text": "Cir. BAP 2004). As a result, stay relief litigation has very limited claim preclusion effect, in part because the ultimate resolution of the parties’ rights are often reserved for proceedings under the organic law governing the parties’ specific transaction or occurrence. Stay relief involving a mortgage, for example, is often followed by proceedings in state court or actions under nonjudicial foreclosure statutes to finally and definitively establish the lender’s and the debt- or’s rights. In such circumstances, the concern of real party in interest jurisprudence for avoiding double payment is quite reduced. Given the limited nature of the relief obtained through a motion for relief from the stay, the expedited hearing schedule § 362(e) provides, and because final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, this Panel has held that a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to enforce a right against property of the estate. United States v. Gould (In re Gould), 401 B.R. 415, 425 n. 14 (9th Cir. BAP 2009); Biggs v. Stovin (In re Luz Int’l, Ltd.), 219 B.R. 837, 842 (9th Cir. BAP 1998). See also Grella, 42 F.3d at 32. 2. Wells Fargo’s Argument Regarding Standing Although expansive, this principle is not without limits. In granting Wells Fargo’s motion for relief from stay, the bankruptcy court found that Wells Fargo had established a “colorable claim” based on two of Wells Fargo’s exhibits: (1) a copy of an assignment of mortgage from GSF (the original lender) to Option One (the “GSF Assignment”); and (2) a copy of an assignment of mortgage from Sand Canyon Corporation formerly known as Option One Mortgage Corporation to Wells Fargo (the “Sand Canyon Assignment”). According to the bankruptcy court, whoever possessed or held rights in the Note was irrelevant. A bankruptcy court’s determinations regarding stay relief are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, Kronemyer, 405 B.R. at 919. The abuse of discretion test involves two distinct determinations: first, whether the court applied the correct legal standard; and second, whether the factual findings supporting the legal analysis were clearly erroneous." }, { "docid": "19655624", "title": "", "text": "court’s power to hear cases. See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975); MainStreet Org. of Realtors v. Calumet City, Ill., 505 F.3d 742, 745 (7th Cir.2007); Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 739 (7th Cir.1999). Prudential-standing doctrine “is not jurisdictional in the sense that Article III standing is.” MainStreet Realtors, 505 F.3d at 747. That is, “if there is no Article III standing, the court is obliged to dismiss the suit even if the standing issue has not been raised,” but “nonconstitution al lack of standing belongs to an intermediate class of cases in which a court can notice an error and reverse on the basis of it even though no party has noticed it and the error is not jurisdictional, at least in the conventional sense.” Id. In other words, the court may raise an unpreserved prudential-standing question on its own, but unlike questions of constitutional standing, it is not obliged to do so. In this case, questions of standing — both constitutional and prudential — were raised in the district court and argued on appeal. One well-established prudential-standing limitation is the principle that a litigant cannot sue in federal court to enforce the rights of third parties. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 17-18, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004); Warth, 422 U.S. at 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197; MainStreet Realtors, 505 F.3d at 746; Massey, 196 F.3d at 739; Retired Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 76 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir.1996). Some courts have described Rule 17’s real-party-in-interest requirement as essentially a codification of this nonconstitutional, prudential limitation on standing. See, e.g., Warnick v. Yassian (In re Rodeo Canon Dev. Corp.), 362 F.3d 603, 607-08 (9th Cir.2004) (withdrawn on other grounds); Ensley v. Cody Res., Inc., 171 F.3d 315, 320 (5th Cir.1999). Here, the district court granted Texor’s motion for summary judgment because Rawoof ran afoul of a" } ]

[ { "docid": "2748655", "title": "", "text": "claim, 139 F. 3d 180, 187 (CA3 1998), and this Court denied certiorari on that issue, see 524 U. S. 982 (1998). The scope of several other federal antidiscrimination measures is defined in nearly identical terms. See §601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000d (prohibiting race discrimination in \"any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”); §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. § 794(a) (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”); and §303 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975,42 U. S. C. §6102 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in \"any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”). Congress enacted the CRRA in response to Part III of our decision in Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U. S. 555, 570-574 (1984), which concluded that Title IX, as originally enacted, covered only the specific program receiving federal funding. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60, 73 (1992) (noting that Congress endeavored, in the CRRA, “to correct what it considered to be an unacceptable decision on our part in Grove City”). Smith suggests that Paralyzed Veterans does not control the question presented here because that case involved a Government enforcement action while this is a private suit. This argument hinges on Smith’s position that the private right of action available under 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a) is potentially broader than the Government’s enforcement authority provided by § 1682. We reject this position. There is no express authorization for private lawsuits in Title IX; in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 717 (1979), we concluded that Congress had intended to authorize a private right of action even though it failed to do so expressly. We think it would be anomalous to assume that Congress intended the implied private right of action to proscribe conduct that Government enforcement may not check. See 20 U. S. C. § 1682 (authorizing federal administrative enforcement by terminating the federal funding of any noncomplying" } ]

[ { "docid": "22886394", "title": "", "text": "program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). While Title IX does not, by its terms, create a private cause of action against the funding recipient, the Supreme Court has implied one, see Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 717, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and it has held that money damages are available in such suits, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). The damages remedy will lie against the funding recipient, however, only when “an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the [funding] recipient’s behalf has actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient’s programs” and responds with “deliberate indifference to the discrimination.” Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998). As with Title VII, “sexual harassment” under Title IX is a form of “discrimination.” See Franklin, 503 U.S. at 74-75, 112 S.Ct. 1028. In the context of student-on-student harassment, the Court has held that the harassment must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.” Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). But other than for student-on-student harassment, the Court has not defined the substantive contours of the harassment forbidden by Title IX. Nonetheless, courts of appeals have looked to the Supreme Court’s Title VII jurisprudence when interpreting Title IX. See, e.g., Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52, 65-66 (1st Cir.2002); Lam v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 122 F.3d 654, 656-57 (8th Cir.1997). Because the Supreme Court implied in Davis that the “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” standard for student-on-student harassment was more demanding than Title VII’s “severe or pervasive” standard for harassment generally, I agree with the majority that the level of harassment required for actionable claims under Title IX in the case" }, { "docid": "22253094", "title": "", "text": "has rec ognized an implied private right of action under Title IX, see Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 691, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and has held that money damages are available in such suits, see Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 65-66, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). “Discrimination” for purposes of Title IX liability, is not limited to disparate provision of programs, aid, benefits or services or inequitable application of rules or sanctions. See 45 C.F.R. § 86.31 (2000). It has, instead, been recognized as also encompassing teacher-on-student hostile educational environment sexual harassment. See Franklin, 503 U.S. at 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028 (holding that teacher’s sexual harassment of student constitutes “discrimination” on the basis of sex); see also Kracunas v. Iona College, 119 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.1997) (“When a teacher sexually harasses a student, that teacher ‘discriminates on the basis of sex’ in violation of Title IX.”) (quoting Franklin, 503 U.S. at 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028) (internal formatting omitted). Hayut seeks money damages as well as corrective action. As such, to survive summary judgment, her Title IX claim needs more than evidence that Professor Young’s conduct created an educational environment sufficiently hostile as to deprive her of “access to the educational opportunities or benefits” provided by SUNY New Paltz. See Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). Hayut must also provide evidence that one or more of the individual defendants, who admittedly are vested with “authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures” on Hayut’s behalf, had “actual knowledge of [the] discrimination ... and fail[ed] adequately to respond.” Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998). We determined above that Hayut presented sufficient evidence in connection with her hostile environment harassment claim against Professor Young to survive summary judgment. We also find that, to the extent the evidence suggests that Professor Young’s conduct (a) discouraged Hayut from more active involvement in his classroom discussions," }, { "docid": "6105071", "title": "", "text": "her sex. Davis argues that the Board’s failure to stop the sexual harassment discriminated against LaShonda and denied her the benefits of her education on the basis of sex. In support of this argument, Davis urges us to apply sexual harassment principles from the more extensive caselaw of Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. In relevant part, Title VII requires an employer to take steps to assure that the working environment of its employees is free from sexual harassment that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Mentor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2405, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (quotation omitted). The Board contends, however, that Title VII principles are not applicable to Title IX cases such as the present one. Enacted in 1972, Title IX was designed to protect individuals from sex discrimination by denying federal financial aid to those educational institutions that bear responsibility for sexually discriminatory practices. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 704 & n. 36, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1961 & n. 36, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citing 117 Cong.Rec. 39252 (1971)). “It is a strong and comprehensive measure which ... is needed if we are to provide women with solid legal protection as they seek education and training for later careers_” Id. at 704 n. 36, 99 S.Ct. at 1961 n. 36 (quoting Sen. Birch Bayh, 118 Cong.Rec. 5806-07 (1972)). To accomplish this goal, employees and students of federally funded educational institutions who are discriminated against on the basis of sex have a private right of action under Title IX for injunctive relief and compensatory damages. Id. at 717, 99 S.Ct. at 1968; Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 75-76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1037-38, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). Moreover, in interpreting Title IX, “[tjhere is no doubt that if we are to give [it] the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.” North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456" }, { "docid": "17386166", "title": "", "text": "education experience were severely and substantially impaired. (Id. ¶ 261). In addition to the specific facts alleged above, Plaintiffs note that Baylor did not have a full-time Title IX coordinator until November 2014. (Id. ¶ 47). Moreover, despite the assaults reported to Baylor by Plaintiffs and others, Baylor claimed to the U.S. Department of Education that zero incidents of sexual assault took place on its campus between 2008 and 2011. (Id. ¶ 40). III. TITLE IX Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discriraina tion on the basis of sex in all federally-funded educational programs. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Specifically, it provides: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any - education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Id. When Congress first passed Title IX more than forty years ago, it had two related objectives: first, Congress wanted to prevent federal funds from being used to support discriminatory practices; second, it wanted to provide individuals “effective protection against those practices,” Cannon v. Univ. of Chic., 441 U.S. 677, 704, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see also 118 Cong. Rec. 5730 (1972) (statement of Senator Birch Bayh) (“The amendment we are debating is a strong and comprehensive measure which I believe is needed if we are to provide women with solid legal protection as they seek education and training for later careers .... As a matter of principle, our national policy should prohibit sex discrimination at all levels of education.”). When private universities like Baylor accept funding through various federal programs, including by enrolling students who receive federal funds to pay for their education, they become subject to the requirements of Title IX. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 466, 119 S.Ct. 924, 142 L.Ed.2d 929 (1999). Title IX is enforceable through an individual’s private right of action and allows for the recovery of damages. Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 639, 119" }, { "docid": "16454412", "title": "", "text": "provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The Supreme Court has held Title IX provides a private cause of action against a recipient of federal funds for discrimination based on sex. Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 708-09, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). However, a recipient of federal funds may only be liable for damages arising from its own misconduct. Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 640, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). For a public university “to incur liability under Title IX, it must be (1) deliberately indifferent (2) to known acts of discrimination (3) which occur under its control.” Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773, 782 (8th Cir.2001) (citing Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290-91, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998) and Davis, 526 U.S. at 642, 119 S.Ct. 1661). Although sexual harassment and sexual abuse clearly constitute discrimination under Title IX, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992), a public university will only be “liable for situations in which it ‘exercises substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs.’ ” Shrum, 249 F.3d at 782 (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 646, 119 S.Ct. 1661). Specifically, the public university’s “deliberate indifference must either directly cause the abuse to occur or make students vulnerable to such abuse, and that abuse ‘must take place in a context subject to the [university’s] control.’” Id. (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 645, 119 S.Ct. 1661). See Gebser, 524 U.S. at 292-93, 118 S.Ct. 1989 (declaring “we will not hold a school district liable in damages under Title IX for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student absent actual notice and deliberate indifference.”); Kinman v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist., 171 F.3d 607, 610" }, { "docid": "22886321", "title": "", "text": "campus. At UNC’s urging, she spent her senior year at another school and was then awarded a UNC degree. Keller settled her claims and took a dismissal with prejudice. Jennings’s case proceeded to the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. She appealed and a divided panel of this court affirmed the judgment. Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., at Chapel Hill, 444 F.3d 255 (4th Cir.2006). We vacated the panel decision and reheard the case en banc. Our review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo. Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 283 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc). II. Jennings claims that UNC discriminated against her in violation of Title IX by allowing Dorrance, the women’s soccer coach, to subject her to severe and pervasive sexual harassment in the women’s soccer program. Title IX provides that “[n]o person ... shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Discrimination under Title IX includes coach-on-student sexual harassment that creates a hostile environment in a school sports program. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (stating that teacher’s sexual harassment of student is covered by Title IX). A private right of action against the institution is implied under Title IX, Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 709, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and money damages are available as a remedy, Franklin, 503. U.S. at 76, 112 S.Ct. 1028. To establish a Title IX claim on the basis of sexual harassment, a plaintiff must show that (1) she was a student at an educational institution receiving federal funds, (2) she was subjected to harassment based on her sex, (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile (or abusive) environment in an educational program or activity, and (4) there is a basis for imputing liability to the institution. See Frazier" }, { "docid": "17072580", "title": "", "text": "an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’ ” Tolton v. American Biodyne, Inc., 48 F.3d 937, 941 (6th Cir.1995) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). III. Discussion a) Jurisdiction As an initial matter, Ohio State again requests that we dismiss Klemencic’s appeal as moot. But, as the motions panel that rejected Ohio State’s earlier motion stated: “[T]he question of whether [Klem-encic] could still prevail on a Title IX claim against [Ohio State] in light of the final judgment in favor of Crawford on the § 1983 claims is intertwined with the merits of the appeal....” Klemencic v. Ohio State, No. 98-3951 (6th Cir. Aug.4, 2000) (order). Therefore, we will evaluate the merits of Klemencic’s Title IX claim against Ohio State. b) Title IX When Congress enacted Title IX in 1972, it had two principal objectives in mind: “[T]o avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices” and “to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices.” Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 704, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Title IX provides, in relevant part: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. ...” 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Title IX is enforceable through a judicially implied private right of action, through which monetary damages are available. See Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist, 524 U.S. 274, 280, 284, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998). “[Ojnly recipients of federal funds may be liable for damages under Title IX.” See Soper, 195 F.3d at 854 (citing Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 640-41, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999)). In Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 74-75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992), the Supreme Court established that a school district can be held" }, { "docid": "21387166", "title": "", "text": "the grounds That the statute provides no private right of action for employees. Title IX states: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (West 1997). Courts are divided as to whether Title IX provides a cause of action not only to students who have suffered sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs, but employees of those programs as well. This issue has not been resolved by the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit. For the reasons set forth below, this Court is persuaded that the remedies of Title IX are limited to student plaintiffs, and Title VII is meant to offer the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination based on sex. The parameters of Title IX have been partially established by three Supreme Court cases: Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982); and Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). In Cannon, the Supreme Court found that Congress had intended a private right of action for a student plaintiff, based on the statutory purpose of “providing] individual citizens effective protection against [discriminatory] practices” at federally funded educational institutions. Id. 441 U.S. at 704-U9. Bell dealt with the issue of whether the Department of Health, Education and Welfare had authority to regulate a school’s employment practices pursuant to Title IX enforcement provisions. Bell, 456 U.S. at 540. The Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s finding that federal funds could be terminated for discrimination visited upon employees, as well as students, of educational programs. 456 U.S. at. 535-36. The Court did not address the availability of a private right of action for employees of such programs. Finally, in Franklin, the Court held that damages were available for a student-plaintiff filing an action for sexual harassment under" }, { "docid": "10739486", "title": "", "text": "expenses of medical treatment and counseling of J.D. as a result of the alleged deprivation of rights under Title IX. 3. Count II against Defendant School District brought under Title IX Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 proscribes discrimination, exclusion, or denial of benefits on the basis of sex in educational institutions or programs which receive federal funding. 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[J”). Defendant School District does not dispute that it is the recipient of federal funding. Title IX encompasses sexual harassment of a student by a teacher and is enforceable through an implied private right of action for damages against a school district. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75-76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); see also, Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Similar to 1983 claims, the Supreme Court has rejected a respondeat superior basis for liability. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 285, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Edüd 277 (1998). To succeed on a Title IX sexual harassment claim, a student must show: (1) quid pro quo sexual harassment, or a sexually hostile educational environment; (2) actual notice by an “appropriate person” who has the authority to take corrective measures; and, (3) a response to the harassment that amounts to deliberate indifference. Bennett v. Pa. Hosp. Sch. of Nurse Anesthesia, No. Civ.A. 01-CV-4098, 2002 WL 32341792 at *3 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 29, 2002) (citing Gebser, 524 U.S. at 291-92, 118 S.Ct. 1989). An “appropriate person” is “an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the ... [district’s] behalf.” Id. at 290, 141 L.Ed.2d 277. “Actual notice” must amount to “actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient’s programs.” Id. It is important to note that knowledge of the mere possibility of harassment" }, { "docid": "17386167", "title": "", "text": "wanted to provide individuals “effective protection against those practices,” Cannon v. Univ. of Chic., 441 U.S. 677, 704, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see also 118 Cong. Rec. 5730 (1972) (statement of Senator Birch Bayh) (“The amendment we are debating is a strong and comprehensive measure which I believe is needed if we are to provide women with solid legal protection as they seek education and training for later careers .... As a matter of principle, our national policy should prohibit sex discrimination at all levels of education.”). When private universities like Baylor accept funding through various federal programs, including by enrolling students who receive federal funds to pay for their education, they become subject to the requirements of Title IX. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 466, 119 S.Ct. 924, 142 L.Ed.2d 929 (1999). Title IX is enforceable through an individual’s private right of action and allows for the recovery of damages. Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 639, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999) (citing Cannon, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946 and Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Public Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992)). The recognition of this private right of action has given rise to two general avenues for Title IX claims. The distinction between these two avenues for Title IX claims—one for claims based on an official policy of discrimination and the other for claims based on an institution’s actual notice of and deliberate indifference to sexual harassment or assault—is particularly relevant here because Plaintiffs use both' avenues to advance their claims. The first avenue is for claims involving an official policy of intentional discrimination, by an institution. See Franklin, 503 U.S. at 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028 (distinguishing claims alleging “intentional discrimination” by an institution from those claims seeking to hold an institution liable for the discriminatory acts of an individual); Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998) (distinguishing claims involving an “official policy” of" }, { "docid": "22933081", "title": "", "text": "that the athletic coaches should inform student-athletes about the applicable sexual harassment policy. Although, a Title IX recipient cannot be held liable for misconduct that occurred before the alleged harasser was affiliated with the recipient, as we explain later, Adams, Dooley, and Har-rick’s preexisting knowledge of Cole’s past sexual misconduct and the student-athletes’ suggestions are relevant when determining whether Williams alleged facts sufficient to survive the defendants’ motion to dismiss her Title IX complaint. Title IX states, in pertinent part: “No person ... shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Although Title IX does not expressly permit private enforcement suits, the Supreme Court has found an implied private right of action for individuals to enforce the mandates of Title IX. Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 717, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The Court also has held that private individuals can obtain monetary damages. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). “ ‘[SJexual harassment’ is ‘discrimination’ in the school context under Title IX” and in certain narrow circumstances, a plaintiff may be able to recover for student-on-student harassment. Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). A plaintiff seeking recovery for a violation of Title IX based on student-on-student harassment must prove four elements. First, the defendant must be a Title IX funding recipient. Floyd v. Waiters, 133 F.3d 786, 789 (11th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 525 U.S. 802, 119 S.Ct. 33, 142 L.Ed.2d 25 (1998), reinstated, 171 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.1999). Second, an “appropriate person” must have actual knowledge of the discrimination or harassment the plaintiff alleges occurred. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998). “[A]n ‘appropriate person’ ... is, at a minimum, an official of the recipient entity with authority to take corrective action" }, { "docid": "18176232", "title": "", "text": "person “shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The Supreme Court has found an implied private right of action in Title IX, with private parties authorized to. seek monetary damages for intentional violations. See Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005) (citing Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 690-93, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). Student claims of sexual harassment by teachers or other students are well-established examples of such suits. See Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290-91, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998) (by a teacher); Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 643, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999) (by a fellow student). Employees of institutions receiving federal financial assistance may also bring private right of action suits, although the boundaries of those claims are less well-defined. See, e.g., Jackson, 544 U.S. at 184, 125 S.Ct. 1497 (finding Title IX allowed retaliation suit by coach who complained about sex discrimination in athletics resources at his high school). Northwestern argues that Title VII preempts employment discrimination claims brought under Title IX, citing Lakoski v. James, 66 F.3d 751, 755 (5th Cir.1995), and Waid v. Merrill Area Public Schools, 91 F.3d 857, 861-62 (7th Cir.1996). In Lakoski, the Fifth Circuit, after extensive legislative history analysis, concluded that Congress did not intend to create a private right of action for employment discrimination under Title IX. 66 F.3d at 757 (“Title VII provided individuals with administrative and judicial redress for employment discrimination, while Title IX empowered federal agencies that provided funds to educational institutions to terminate that funding upon the finding of employment discrimination. In other words, Congress intended to bolster the enforcement of the pre-existing Title VII prohibition of sex discrimination in federally funded educational institutions; Congress did not intend Title IX to create a mechanism by which individuals could" }, { "docid": "9709717", "title": "", "text": "quotation marks omitted). Genuine factual conflicts will necessitate a trial where the resolution of a disputed fact holds the potential to change the outcome of the case. Calero-Cerezo, 355 F.3d at 19. B. Title IX Claim Title IX provides, with exceptions not at issue here, that: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The statute provides for an administrative regulatory scheme directly to enforce the statutory provisions. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 280, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998). In Cannon v. University of Chicago, however, the Supreme Court recognized that Title IX was also enforceable through an implied private right of action. 441 U.S. 677, 717, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The Supreme Court subsequently held that monetary damages are available, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992), and that sexual harassment of a student by a fellow student (“peer-on-peer” harassment) constitutes actionable discrimination under Title IX, Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 646-47, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). The Supreme Court, in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, set forth the standard by which a school system, as a recipient of federal funds, may be held liable for damages under Title IX as a result of peer-on-peer harassment. 526 U.S. at 643-45, 119 S.Ct. 1661. Where, as here, the harassment complained of does not flow directly from an official policy of the school system, no liability for damages will attach unless the district itself is “deliberately indifferent to known acts of student-on-student sexual harassment.” Id. 646-47, 119 S.Ct. 1661. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that this standard would not be satisfied by theories based upon agency principles, vicarious liability, or constructive notice. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 283, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Additionally, it would not present a mere “reasonableness” balancing standard." }, { "docid": "2473712", "title": "", "text": "and failed to begin a prompt investigation. She claims the University also exposed her to harassment and took adverse actions after the rape such as suspending her from the field hockey team and later terminating her. Roe further claims that the University exhibited a pattern of deliberate indifference to sexual assault, arguing that its sexual assault policy was inadequate and that it underreported sexual assaults. In Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., Congress took action against discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program that receives federal funding. The statute provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 NS.C. § 1681(a). Individuals whose Title IX rights have been violated have a private right of action. Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 717, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The Supreme Court has made it clear that sexual harassment is included within the meaning of “discrimination” under Title IX. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 281-82, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998); see also Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). The Supreme Court explained in Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290, 118 S.Ct. 1989, that Title IX damage actions which do not involve an institution’s official policy require a showing that “an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the recipient’s behalf [had] actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient’s programs and fail[ed] adequately to respond.” According to the Court, this failure to respond or deliberate indifference standard is in “rough parallel” to the Title IX administrative enforcement scheme, which is based on “an official decision by the recipient not to remedy the violation.” Id.; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1682 (Title IX administrative enforcement). The Court saw “[c]omparable considerations”" }, { "docid": "3132773", "title": "", "text": "be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving financial assistance____ 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (1995). Courts have interpreted Title IX to prohibit gender discrimination against students enrolled in federally supported educational programs and employees involved in such programs. Murray v. New York Univ. College of Dentistry, 57 F.3d 243, 248 (1995). Under Title IX, an aggrieved individual has an implied right of action, see Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 688-89, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1953-54, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), for both injunctive relief and money damages, see Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 71-73, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1035-37, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). Moreover, the Supreme Court has stated that if courts are to give Title IX “the scope that its origins dictate, [they] must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.” North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 1917-18, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982). B. Actionable Peer-to Peer Sexual Harassment Under Title IX In Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992), the Supreme Court considered a Title IX claim for monetary damages against a school district for its failure to stop the sexual harassment of a student by a teacher. The plaintiff in Franklin alleged that she had been sexually harassed by her high school teacher and that the school district possessed actual knowledge of the teacher’s behavior, but took no action to stop the harassment. The Court acknowledged that “[unquestionably, Title IX placets] on ... [public schools] a duty not to discriminate on the basis of sex.” Franklin, 503 U.S. at 75, 112 S.Ct. at 1037. The Court then drew an analogy between a claim for sexual harassment against a school district under Title IX and a sexual harassment claim against an employer under Title VII. The Court held that just as Title VII creates a cause of action for discrimination on the basis of sex “when a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate" }, { "docid": "17072581", "title": "", "text": "citizens effective protection against those practices.” Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 704, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Title IX provides, in relevant part: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. ...” 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Title IX is enforceable through a judicially implied private right of action, through which monetary damages are available. See Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist, 524 U.S. 274, 280, 284, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998). “[Ojnly recipients of federal funds may be liable for damages under Title IX.” See Soper, 195 F.3d at 854 (citing Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 640-41, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999)). In Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 74-75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992), the Supreme Court established that a school district can be held liable under Title IX where its employee sexually harasses a student and, in Gebser, 524 U.S. at 281, 118 S.Ct. 1989, the Court defined the “contours of that liability.” In Gebser, 524 U.S. at 287-88, 118 S.Ct. 1989, the Supreme Court rejected vicarious liability and constructive notice as bases for Title IX liability. For a plaintiff to proceed on a claim against an educational institution under Title IX, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case showing that: 1) she was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment or a sexually hostile environment; b) she provided actual notice of the situation to an “appropriate person,” who was, at a minimum, an official of the educational entity with authority to take corrective action and to end discrimination; and c) the institution’s response to the harassment amounted to “deliberate indifference.” See Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, 154 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (10th Cir.1998) (citing Gebser, 524 U.S. at 289-91, 118 S.Ct. 1989). c) Analysis The district court applied Gebser and granted summary judgment for Ohio" }, { "docid": "22886322", "title": "", "text": "receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Discrimination under Title IX includes coach-on-student sexual harassment that creates a hostile environment in a school sports program. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (stating that teacher’s sexual harassment of student is covered by Title IX). A private right of action against the institution is implied under Title IX, Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 709, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and money damages are available as a remedy, Franklin, 503. U.S. at 76, 112 S.Ct. 1028. To establish a Title IX claim on the basis of sexual harassment, a plaintiff must show that (1) she was a student at an educational institution receiving federal funds, (2) she was subjected to harassment based on her sex, (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile (or abusive) environment in an educational program or activity, and (4) there is a basis for imputing liability to the institution. See Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52, 66 (1st Cir.2002). We look to case law interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for guidance in evaluating a claim brought under Title IX. See, e.g., Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 651, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999); Franklin, 503 U.S. at 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028. A. Jennings can establish the first element of her Title IX claim without dispute: she was a student at UNC, an institution receiving federal funds. On the second element of her claim, Jennings must proffer facts showing that Dorrance subjected her to harassment (verbal in this case) based on her sex. See 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Sexual harassment occurs when the victim is subjected to sex-specific language that is aimed to humiliate, ridicule, or intimidate. See Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986); Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325, 331-32 (4th Cir.2003). A coach’s sexually charged comments in a team" }, { "docid": "6105095", "title": "", "text": "to respond to student-on-student sexual harassment. BIRCH, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: Although I concur in the court’s affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of Davis’s section 1983 claim, I disagree with the majority’s holding that Davis’s allegations state a valid claim against the Monroe County Board of Education under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 (1990 & Supp.1995) (“Title IX”). This case does not involve allegations that an employee of the school district sexually harassed LaShonda D., but rather that the school district negligently failed to prevent another student from harassing LaShonda. The majority is correct in noting that the Supreme Court has held that “Title IX is enforceable through an implied right of action.” Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 65, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1032, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (citing Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). However, Franklin involved a high-school student’s allegations that a teacher had sexually harassed and assaulted her, and that school officials, who had actual knowledge of the teacher’s conduct, failed to intervene. 503 U.S. at 63-64, 112 S.Ct. at 1031-32. The student-on-student sexual harassment alleged in this case is analytically quite distinct from that in Franklin, and the majority makes an unprecedented extension in holding that Title IX encompasses a claim of hostile environment sexual harassment based on the conduct of a student. There is no indication in the language of Title IX that such a cause of action was intended to be covered by its scope; rather, the statute states that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, ... be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). In this case, the school board, which is clearly an educational “program or activity” under 20 U.S.C. § 1687, is not alleged to have committed any act of harassment against LaShonda, nor is any employee of the school board. Rather, the plaintiff seeks to hold the school board" }, { "docid": "6105072", "title": "", "text": "Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 704 & n. 36, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1961 & n. 36, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citing 117 Cong.Rec. 39252 (1971)). “It is a strong and comprehensive measure which ... is needed if we are to provide women with solid legal protection as they seek education and training for later careers_” Id. at 704 n. 36, 99 S.Ct. at 1961 n. 36 (quoting Sen. Birch Bayh, 118 Cong.Rec. 5806-07 (1972)). To accomplish this goal, employees and students of federally funded educational institutions who are discriminated against on the basis of sex have a private right of action under Title IX for injunctive relief and compensatory damages. Id. at 717, 99 S.Ct. at 1968; Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 75-76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1037-38, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). Moreover, in interpreting Title IX, “[tjhere is no doubt that if we are to give [it] the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.” North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 1918, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982) (quotation omitted). Although the Supreme Court recognized a private right of action under Title IX in 1979, see Cannon, 441 U.S. at 717, 99 S.Ct. at 1968, until recently the denial of financial aid to the institution was the only remedy available to a Title IX plaintiff. Accordingly, early lawsuits brought under Title IX primarily challenged discriminatory practices in athletic programs and admissions policies. See, e.g., id. at 680, 99 S.Ct. at 1949. In 1992, however, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed monetary damages to private plaintiffs for intentional violations of Title IX, see Franklin, 503 U.S. at 76,112 S.Ct. at 1038, increasing the number of Title IX suits brought by employees and students alleging that their educational institutions subjected them to sexual discrimination. In reviewing sexual discrimination claims by teachers and other employees of educational institutions under Title IX, courts have regularly applied Title VII principles. In Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881 (1st Cir.1988), for example, the plaintiff was a" }, { "docid": "17386168", "title": "", "text": "S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999) (citing Cannon, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946 and Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Public Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992)). The recognition of this private right of action has given rise to two general avenues for Title IX claims. The distinction between these two avenues for Title IX claims—one for claims based on an official policy of discrimination and the other for claims based on an institution’s actual notice of and deliberate indifference to sexual harassment or assault—is particularly relevant here because Plaintiffs use both' avenues to advance their claims. The first avenue is for claims involving an official policy of intentional discrimination, by an institution. See Franklin, 503 U.S. at 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028 (distinguishing claims alleging “intentional discrimination” by an institution from those claims seeking to hold an institution liable for the discriminatory acts of an individual); Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998) (distinguishing claims involving an “official policy” of discrimination from those seeking to hold an institution liable for the discriminatory acts of an individual). These claims typically allege a policy of sex discrimination by a school or university in admissions, scholarship administration, or athletic programing. See, e.g., Pederson v. La. State Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 879-82 (5th Cir. 2000) (identifying an intentional violation of Title IX after a university disbanded the ' women’s fasUpitch softball team despite many female students’ interest and ability in the sport and noting that the proper test for determining whether an intentional violation has occurred is whether an instituted “intended to treat [students] differently on the basis of their sex”), The second avenue for Title IX claims is typically used for claims of sexual harassment or assault. The Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment within a school or school program is a form of sex discrimination when the harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprives the victim of educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school. Davis, 526 U.S, at 650, 119 S.Ct." } ]

[ { "docid": "22592525", "title": "", "text": "States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 332, 126 L.Ed.2d 278 (1993). Since the marihuana was not concealed in a hidden compartment,the government contends that the jury was entitled to infer knowledge of the marihuana from the ownership and control of the trailer. Defendants claim, however, that the marihuana was hidden in the trailer, and therefore, other evidence was required to prove knowledge. The threshold issue is whether the. marihuana was “hidden” in the trailer, requiring the government to have produced further evidence of knowledge. We conclude that the marihuana was hidden. The government merely asserts that the marihuana was “stacked in the midst” of the cargo and not “hidden in a secret compartment.” But the control of the vehicle will suffice to prove knowledge only where the drugs “are clearly visible or readily accessible.” United States v. Richardson, 848 F.2d 509, 513 (5th Cir.1988). In Garza, 990 F.2d at 174 nn. 10 & 12, the court determined that drugs concealed in burlap sacks stacked on and behind lime boxes in the trailer of a truck were not in “plain view” or “readily accessible.” The drugs need not be concealed in “hidden compartments,” id. at 174 n. 12; even though the sacks were visible from outside the trailer, the court held that the government was required to show more than control of the vehicle. In Gonzalez-Lira, 936 F.2d at 192, the court required additional proof , of knowledge even though the border agent could smell the marihuana from the rear of the trailer. Here, the marihuana was concealed in boxes that were stacked in spaces between the pallets. The boxes were not visible from outside the trailer and there was no noticeable odor of marihuana. Therefore, the government could not rely upon the control of the vehicle as proof of knowledge of the marihuana. Additional evidence of guilt may come from nervousness, inconsistent statements, implausible stories, or possession of large amounts of cash by the defendants. United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 442 (5th Cir.1993). The government claims that the" } ]

[ { "docid": "22135737", "title": "", "text": "prove that DiazCarreon knowingly possessed and imported marijuana. The Government could have, and did in fact, offer evidence that DiazCarreon was the driver of a vehicle which contained contraband. Knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance often may be inferred from the exercise of control over a vehicle in which the illegal substance is concealed. United States v. Richardson, 848 F.2d 509, 513 (5th Cir.1988); Vergara, 687 F.2d at 62. Here, however, evidence that Diaz-Carreon was the driver of the pickup truck would have been insufficient in itself to support a finding of guilty knowledge. The marijuana in this case was smuggled in hidden compartments which were not clearly visible or readily accessible to the defendant. Under these circumstances, control of the vehicle in which the contraband is cleverly hidden does not support an inference of guilty knowledge; it is at least a fair assumption that a third party might have concealed the controlled substances in the vehicle with the intent to use the unwitting defendant as the carrier in a smuggling enterprise. Thus, in hidden compartment cases, this Court has repeatedly required additional evidence indicating knowledge — circumstances evidencing a consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant. United States v. Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.1988); Richardson, 848 F.2d at 513; United States v. Del Aguila-Reyes, 722 F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir.1983). While Diaz-Carreon’s control of the pickup truck does not in itself constitute sufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed and imported marijuana, the Government in the instant case produced significant additional evidence that tends to establish Diaz-Carreon’s guilty knowledge. Specifically, the Government asserts that the following circumstances adequately evidence the defendant’s consciousness of guilt: (1) Diaz-Carreon’s nervousness; (2) Diaz-Car-reon’s conflicting statements to customs officials; and (3) Diaz-Carreon’s implausible story. Nervousness. Nervous behavior at an inspection station frequently constitutes persuasive evidence of guilty knowledge. See Richardson, 848 F.2d at 513; Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d at 500-01; United States v. Moreno, 579 F.2d 371, 372 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 1217, 59 L.Ed.2d 456 (1979). Nervousness, however, is \"a normal reaction to circumstances" }, { "docid": "22055459", "title": "", "text": "evidence that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge.” United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234, 1236 (5th Cir.1990). We have relied on several factors to meet this other-circumstantial-evidence requirement in hidden compartment cases. See Casilla, 20 F.3d at 606-07 (relying on defendant’s nervousness and his implausible explanations for a false bill of lading); United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 441-42 (5th Cir.1993) (relying on,.inter alia, defendants’ nervousness and inconsistent explanations for their stay in Houston); Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 954-55 (relying on defendant’s nervousness, inconsistent statements, and implausible story); Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d at 1237 (relying on defendant’s contradictory statements to DEA and customs agents). Resio contends that, because none of the additional factors previously relied on by this Court is present in this case, his knowledge of the presence of the concealed marihuana cannot be inferred merely from his control over the vehicle. Resio argues that he exhibited no signs of nervousness during the encounter at the border checkpoint and that he made no inconsistent or implausible statements to the agents conducting the search. We agree that the knowledge element in hidden compartment cases generally cannot be inferred solely from the defendant’s control over the vehicle in which the contraband is concealed. See United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 332, 126 L.Ed.2d 278 (1993); Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 954-55. Moreover, it is undisputed that this is a hidden compartment case. However, we find that there is amply sufficient additional circumstantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that Resio knew that the marihuana was concealed in the truck he was driving. The government introduced documentary evidence at trial that Resio began driving the truck on May 16, 1992, two days after the death of the previous owner. Documentary evidence introduced at trial also showed that Resio completed daily inspection reports on the truck’s condition and made daily log entries. Although the government did not introduce the inspection reports or log entries for December 1992 or March 1993, there is no evidence that Resio did not" }, { "docid": "12317834", "title": "", "text": "to borrow his brother’s truck, he sat on the sidewalk in despair until Javier, his mechanic-friend, came by and offered to loan him a car. According to Cano-Guel, he had known Javier for fifteen years yet knew neither his last name nor the location of his mechanic’s shop. On the basis of these implausible stories and the apparent inconsistencies in statements made by Cano-Guel to customs agents, we find the evidence sufficient to support an inference by the jury that Cano-Guel knew that the Buick contained marijuana. Although we are mindful that “[n]o single piece of circumstantial evidence need be conclusive when considered in isolation,” United States v. Miller, 146 F.3d 274, 281 (1998), we recognize that inconsistent statements and implausible explanations are types of behavior that can reasonably be relied upon as circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge. See Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 955 (discussing inconsistent statements of appellant); Casilla, 20 F.3d at 606 (noting implausible explanation of events offered by appellant). The jury thus drew reasonable and rational inferences from the facts in this case and returned a verdict of guilty. We see no reason to disturb that determination. B. Cano-Guel also argues that the district court erred by failing to include a definition of the term “knowingly” in its instruction to the jury. In particular, he complains that the jury was not instructed that his exercise of control over the Buick, in and of itself, was inadequate to establish that he knowingly possessed the hidden drugs. Because Cano-Guel did not ask the district court for such an instruction, we review the district court’s charge to the jury for plain error. See United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 271, 276 (5th Cir.1994). Under the plain error standard, an appellant must show: (1) that there was error; (2) that it was clear and obvious; and (3) that it affected the appellant’s substantial rights. See United States v. Dupre, 117 F.3d 810, 817 (5th Cir.1997), ceri. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 857, 139 L.Ed.2d 756 (1998); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-36, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1775-79," }, { "docid": "22135736", "title": "", "text": "A conviction for the crime of importation of marijuana requires proof that the defendant knowingly played a role in bringing marijuana from a foreign country into the United States. Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d at 500. In either event, the Government must adduce sufficient evidence of “guilty knowledge,” a requirement Diaz-Carreon contends was not satisfied in the instant case. In considering Diaz-Carreon’s allegations, this Court “must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to the government.” United States v. Prieto-Tejas, 779 F.2d 1098, 1101 (5th Cir.1986). To support a conviction, the evidence need not exclude every hypothesis of innocence, so long as a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc), aff'd, 462 U.S. 356, 103 S.Ct. 2398, 76 L.Ed.2d 638 (1983). “A jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.” Id. In the instant case, the Government had the difficult task to prove that DiazCarreon knowingly possessed and imported marijuana. The Government could have, and did in fact, offer evidence that DiazCarreon was the driver of a vehicle which contained contraband. Knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance often may be inferred from the exercise of control over a vehicle in which the illegal substance is concealed. United States v. Richardson, 848 F.2d 509, 513 (5th Cir.1988); Vergara, 687 F.2d at 62. Here, however, evidence that Diaz-Carreon was the driver of the pickup truck would have been insufficient in itself to support a finding of guilty knowledge. The marijuana in this case was smuggled in hidden compartments which were not clearly visible or readily accessible to the defendant. Under these circumstances, control of the vehicle in which the contraband is cleverly hidden does not support an inference of guilty knowledge; it is at least a fair assumption that a third party might have concealed the controlled substances in the vehicle with the intent to use the unwitting defendant as the carrier in a smuggling enterprise. Thus," }, { "docid": "14826579", "title": "", "text": "strongly, not only that the Government had engaged in a thorough investigation, but also that Gonzalez knew that marijuana was smuggled across the border in tractor-trailer rigs, and indeed that it had been smuggled in his own tractor-trailer. The evidence thus allowed the jury to infer that Gonzalez knew what was in the trailer when he attempted to bring it across the border. While the evidence regarding the prior smuggling certainly carried some risk of prejudice — it may have linked Gonzalez to criminal activity of which he was innocent — that danger was sufficiently reduced by the trial judge’s limiting instruction to the jury, and the defense counsel’s cross-examination of the investigating officer. On the whole, this Court simply cannot say that the trial judge’s weighing of the evidence and decision to admit it amounted to a clear abuse of discretion. B. Sufficiency of the Evidence Gonzalez’ second argument is that the evidence before the jury was not sufficient to allow it to convict him. This argument has little force. Gonzalez’ conviction must be sustained if, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established each of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Brookins, 919 F.2d 281, 284 (5th Cir.1990). The elements which the Government must prove to convict a defendant of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute are 1) knowing 2) possession of marijuana with 3) intent to distribute it. United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 953 (5th Cir.1990). The requirements for proving each of these elements are well settled. 1.Possession Possession may be either actual or constructive and may be proven either by direct or circumstantial evidence. E.g., United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313, 1322 (5th Cir.1989). Constructive possession has been defined as ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband, or over the vehicle in which the contraband was concealed. E.g., United States v. Posner, 868 F.2d 720, 722-23" }, { "docid": "14826581", "title": "", "text": "(5th Cir.1989). 2. Knowledge Similarly, knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance may be inferred from the exercise of control over the vehicle in which it is concealed. United States v. Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.1988). To prove knowledge when the contraband is hidden, however, the Fifth Circuit requires that in addition to mere presence in the vehicle, or control over it, there be circumstances evidencing a consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 954. 3. Intent to distribute Finally, intent to distribute the marijuana may be inferred from the fact that the defendant is in possession of a large amount of it. United States v. Romero-Reyna, 867 F.2d 834, 836 (5th Cir.1989). 4. The evidence There is little question that the evidence before the jury was sufficient to allow it to find that each of these elements were present. Gonzalez owned and drove a truck which hauled a trailer loaded with one and a half tons of marijuana. Gonzalez had keys to the trailer. He was an experienced trucker, but claimed not to have noticed the flaws in the bill of lading. His story about how he came by the trailer was implausible and his story about why he was late in reaching his destination contained inconsistencies. Previously, a truck Gonzalez had owned had been used in an almost identical attempt to smuggle marijuana across the border. Plainly there was enough evidence for the jury to conclude that Gonzalez knew what was in the trailer and that he intended it. for distribution. III. CONCLUSION The evidence concerning the prior smuggling attempt was not shown to be relevant under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) as evidence of a prior act of Gonzalez. Rule 404(b), therefore, did not authorize the admission of that evidence. However, the evidence was relevant to other issues and on other grounds, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it under Rules 401, 402, and 403. Finally, the evidence before the jury — including the evidence concerning the prior smuggling attempt— was sufficient to allow the jury" }, { "docid": "23082143", "title": "", "text": "100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute, and conspiracy to import more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. We begin by noting the familiar standard of review of sufficiency claims, which was articulated by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)—whether, based on the totality of evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, and in a light most favorable to the Government, a rational juror could find all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. With respect to Estrada’s possession and importation convictions, we believe that there was sufficient evidence. To begin with, there is no dispute that he was the driver and only occupant of a car that contained over 100 pounds of marijuana hidden under the back seat. If he in fact knew the drugs were on board and intentionally drove into the United States from Mexico, he is guilty of importation as well as possession. See United States v. Martinez-Mercado, 888 F.2d 1484, 1491 (5th Cir.1989). The evidence that Estrada was in control of the car permits an inference that he knew that the illicit substance was on board. United States v. Richardson, 848 F.2d 509, 513 (5th Cir.1988) (knowledge of the presence of controlled substance “may ordinarily be inferred from the exercise of control over the vehicle in which it is concealed”). However, merely linking Estrada to the vehicle is not by itself sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the car contained marijuana, in view of the fact that the drugs were hidden out of sight; there must be additional evidence to prove the element of knowledge, without which the Government may not constitutionally convict of possession of narcotics. See United States v. Price, 869 F.2d 801, 804 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir.1988). We find that there was circumstantial evidence to show that Estrada knew that the car contained marijuana: Estrada’s extreme nervousness displayed when he was questioned by customs agents and his inconsistent statements given regarding whether he had" }, { "docid": "6422775", "title": "", "text": "that he did not authorize the use of the trailers on February 18. Garcia Flores’ wife claimed that she received a call the evening prior to the arrest from a man named Ramon, who instructed Garcia-Flores to pick up the trailer at A.M. Logistics Services in Laredo. Garcia Flores told Agent Jarrell during his interrogation that he retrieved the trailer from A.M. Logistics and was on his way to Dallas when he stopped at the checkpoint. Garcia-Flores was indicted in Laredo on March 9, 1999 and charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana. A jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict in his first trial. On July 13, 1999, a second jury found Garcia-Flores guilty. He was sentenced to serve sixty-five months in prison, a five-year supervised release term, and a special assessment of $100. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence Appellant argues that the record contains insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and determine whether any reasonable jury could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir.1999) (citing Jack son v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317-18, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). The jury is free to choose among reasonable inferences, but, if the evidence gives “equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, we must reverse the conviction, as under these circumstances a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Reveles, 190 F.3d 678, 686 (5th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir.1996)) (citations omitted; emphasis in original). To prove that Garcia-Flores was guilty of possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute, the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia-Flores (1) knowingly (2) possessed the marijuana in his trailer (3) with the intent to distribute it. See United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1998). Garcia-Flores contests the jury?s determination concerning only the knowledge" }, { "docid": "6422777", "title": "", "text": "element of the crime. We therefore review the evidence to ascertain whether the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia-Flores knew the trailer contained the marijuana. A jury may infer knowledge from the defendant’s control over a vehicle containing contraband unless the drugs are hidden in compartments, in which case proof of the defendant’s knowledge depends on inference and circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Miller, 146 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir.1995). Because the border patrol agents found the drugs hidden underneath electrical supplies in the trailer, there is a “fair assumption that a third party might have concealed the [marijuana] in the [trailer] with the intent to use [Garcia-Flores] as [a] carrier....” United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir.1990). We therefore look to circumstantial evidence to determine whether the record supports the jury’s verdict. Garcia-Flores notes that the record fails to show he was nervous during the initial search of the trailer. The government suggests that Garcia-Flores’ immediate voluntary response and his lack of nervousness is evidence of his guilt. This Court has held that both nervousness and the absence of nervousness could lead the jury to infer knowledge of the contraband when combined with other facts. See Jones, 185 F.3d at 464; Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d at 913. Because under these facts Garcia-Flores’ demeanor during the search could be as consistent with a finding of innocence as with guilt, we will not place any weight on the defendant’s temperament during the search. See Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 545-46. The government introduced evidence at trial to conclusively show that the bills of lading found in the tractor-trailer were fabricated. The bill of lading dated February 18 identified A.M. Logistic Services as the source of the cargo in the trailer. The bill of lading did not correctly identify the company or reveal the appropriate business stamp. The government also introduced a bill of lading involving a shipment of goods to Houston dated February 5. The president of the Houston business testified that his company never" }, { "docid": "22135738", "title": "", "text": "in hidden compartment cases, this Court has repeatedly required additional evidence indicating knowledge — circumstances evidencing a consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant. United States v. Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.1988); Richardson, 848 F.2d at 513; United States v. Del Aguila-Reyes, 722 F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir.1983). While Diaz-Carreon’s control of the pickup truck does not in itself constitute sufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed and imported marijuana, the Government in the instant case produced significant additional evidence that tends to establish Diaz-Carreon’s guilty knowledge. Specifically, the Government asserts that the following circumstances adequately evidence the defendant’s consciousness of guilt: (1) Diaz-Carreon’s nervousness; (2) Diaz-Car-reon’s conflicting statements to customs officials; and (3) Diaz-Carreon’s implausible story. Nervousness. Nervous behavior at an inspection station frequently constitutes persuasive evidence of guilty knowledge. See Richardson, 848 F.2d at 513; Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d at 500-01; United States v. Moreno, 579 F.2d 371, 372 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 1217, 59 L.Ed.2d 456 (1979). Nervousness, however, is \"a normal reaction to circumstances which one does not understand.” Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d at 501. In the absence of facts which suggest that the defendant’s nervousness or anxiety derives from an underlying consciousness of criminal behavior, evidence of nervousness is insufficient to support a finding of guilty knowledge. Ample facts nonetheless exist in the instant case which suggest that Diaz-Carreon’s nervousness derived from an underlying consciousness of criminal behavior. For example, before being told that agents had discovered marijuana in the pickup truck, Diaz-Carreon volunteered, “If the truck is loaded, I didn’t know about it.” The jury could reasonably infer that this simple statement, delivered in a rush of anxiety, indicated that Diaz-Carreon knew of the existence of the marijuana in the truck and hoped to divert suspicion from himself. Inconsistent statements to customs officials. Perhaps the strongest evidence of a criminal defendant’s guilty knowledge is inconsistent statements to federal officials. See, e.g., Richardson, 848 F.2d at 513 (inconsistent statements to Drug Enforcement Agency and Border Patrol agents); Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d at 501 (inconsistent statements to customs inspectors). Inconsistent statements" }, { "docid": "22874220", "title": "", "text": "a charge that is not supported by evidence.” United States v. Ortega, 859 F.2d 327, 330 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1027, 109 S.Ct. 1157, 103 L.Ed.2d 216 (1989). In assessing whether the evidence sufficiently supports the district court’s charge, this Court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Chen, 913 F.2d 183, 186 (5th Cir.1990). A conviction for the crime of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute requires that the Government prove three elements: (1) knowing (2) possession of marijuana (3) with the intent to distribute it. United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 953 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d 496, 500 (5th Cir.1986); United States v. Vergara, 687 F.2d 57, 61 (5th Cir.1982). A conviction for the crime of importation of marijuana requires proof that the defendant knowingly played a role in bringing marijuana from a foreign country into the United States. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 953; Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d at 500. In either event, the Government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal defendant’s “guilty knowledge.” In the instant case, the district court instructed the jury that it could infer guilty knowledge “if the defendant deliberately blinded himself to the existence of a fact.” Record Vol. II at 157 (emphasis added). While the court cautioned the jury that guilty knowledge could not be established merely by evidence of the defendant’s negligence or carelessness, it instructed the jury that it could find guilty knowledge if it determined that “the defendant deliberate ly closed his eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to him.” Id. The district court’s instruction is a common example of a “deliberate ignorance” instruction. This Court has consistently upheld deliberate ignorance instructions as long as sufficient evidence supports their insertion in the charge. Chen, 913 F.2d at 191; United States v. de Luna, 815 F.2d 301, 302 (5th Cir.1987). The term deliberate" }, { "docid": "22055458", "title": "", "text": "Cir.); cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 240, 130 L.Ed.2d 163 (1994). In this appeal, Resio challenges only the knowledge element; contending that the government failed to prove that he knew marihuana was concealed in the fuel tanks of the truck he was driving. Knowledge of the presence of narcotics often may be inferred from the exercise of control over the vehicle in which the illegal drugs are concealed. United States v. Richardson, 848 F.2d 509, 513 (5th Cir.1988) In secret compartment eases, we have generally stated that the knowledge element may not be inferred solely from the defendant’s control of the vehicle in which the contraband is hidden because there “is at least a fair assumption that a third party might have concealed the controlled substances in the vehicle with the intent to use the unwitting defendant as the carrier in a smuggling enterprise.” United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir.1990). Thus, in order to satisfy the knowledge element in hidden compartment cases, this Court has normally required additional “circumstantial evidence that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge.” United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234, 1236 (5th Cir.1990). We have relied on several factors to meet this other-circumstantial-evidence requirement in hidden compartment cases. See Casilla, 20 F.3d at 606-07 (relying on defendant’s nervousness and his implausible explanations for a false bill of lading); United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 441-42 (5th Cir.1993) (relying on,.inter alia, defendants’ nervousness and inconsistent explanations for their stay in Houston); Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 954-55 (relying on defendant’s nervousness, inconsistent statements, and implausible story); Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d at 1237 (relying on defendant’s contradictory statements to DEA and customs agents). Resio contends that, because none of the additional factors previously relied on by this Court is present in this case, his knowledge of the presence of the concealed marihuana cannot be inferred merely from his control over the vehicle. Resio argues that he exhibited no signs of nervousness during the encounter at the border checkpoint and that he made no inconsistent or implausible statements to the agents conducting" }, { "docid": "22326287", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: A jury found Roberto Martinez-Lugo guilty of the importation and possession with the intent to distribute approximately 772 kilograms of marijuana, which was found secreted in the tires of the truck he was driving across the Texas-Mexico border. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict and the propriety of his sentence in light of United States v. Booker, —U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We affirm. Appellant contends first that the evidence showed only that he was hired at random by an unknown man and that he was “duped into driving the tractor-trailer across the border.” In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court asks whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir.1998). We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict. Id. Critical to establishing either the possession or importation offense of which appellant was convicted, the Government must adduce sufficient evidence of his guilty knowledge, which is the element that Martinez-Lugo challenges in this case. Direct evidence of such knowledge is rarely available. When, as here, drugs are found in a “hidden compartment” of a vehicle, there “is at least a fair assumption that a third party might have concealed the controlled substances in the vehicle with the intent to use the unwitting defendant as the carrier in a smuggling enterprise.” Cano-Guel, 167 F.3d at 904-05 (citation omitted). Thus, “additional circumstantial evidence that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge is required.” United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir.1999). Such evidence “may include nervousness, conflicting statements to law enforcement officials, and an implausible story.” Id. Possession of large amounts of cash and the alteration of a vehicle also indicate knowledge of hidden contraband. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 544. Martinez-Lugo gave two conflicting explanations for the circumstances surrounding his arrest. He initially told the inspec tions agent" }, { "docid": "22347809", "title": "", "text": "that appellants knowingly possessed the drugs. A. Possession Possession, as noted previously, may be actual or constructive. Ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband, or over the vehicle in which it was concealed, constitutes constructive possession. Here, Shabazz was driving, and Parker was riding in, the car in which the cocaine was discovered. Parker represented that he owned the vehicle. The two were traveling together, and had been together in Houston for several days. Accordingly, the jury could easily have found that appellants were in constructive possession of the cocaine. B. Knowing We have said that, “Knowledge of the presence of contraband may ordinarily be inferred from the exercise of control over the vehicle in which it is concealed.” United States v. Garcia, 917 F.2d 1370, 1376-77 (5th Cir.1990). In a number of recent cases, we have added that, if the illegal substance is contained in a hidden compartment in the vehicle, we may also require circumstantial evidence that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge. See, e.g., United States v. Pineda-Ortuno, 952 F.2d 98, 102 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1990, 118 L.Ed.2d 587 (1992); United States v. Gonzalez-Lira, 936 F.2d 184, 192 (5th Cir.1991); United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954-55 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234, 1236 (5th Cir.1990). Here, there was additional circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have found that appellants’ possession of the cocaine was knowing. Appellants gave inconsistent accounts of their stay in Houston, were nervous, and became anxious as Officer La-Chance began to search the side of the car where the drugs were found. Shabazz, the driver, gave the officers a false driver’s license.. Similar evidence has been deemed sufficient to support convictions in previous cases. See Pineda-Ortuno, 952 F.2d at 102 (nervousness, conflicting statements, and implausible story); Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 954-55 (same); Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d at 1237 (inconsistent story); United States v. McDonald, 905 F.2d 871, 874 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1002, 111 S.Ct. 566, 112 L.Ed.2d 572 (1990) (nervousness, inconsistent stories, heightened anxiety when search was getting" }, { "docid": "11758078", "title": "", "text": "to distribute the marijuana found in the tractor trailer.” United States v. Sanchez, 252 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir.2001). Jara argues that the government did not produce sufficient evidence that he knew that the marijuana was present in the trailer, asserting that his inculpatory statements stand alone and were insufficient to convict him of possession. Though Jara urges us to apply United States v. Crenshaw, 359 F.3d 977 (8th Cir.2004), Crenshaw recognized only that uncorroborated, unsworn confessions may not be admissible through accomplice testimony, id. at 990. Jara did not contest the admissibility of the inculpatory statements at trial or on appeal. Indeed, Jara’s multi- pie admissions that he knew about the marijuana were introduced through law enforcement officers’, not accomplices’, testimony. And, Jara’s admission to knowledge of a smaller amount of marijuana than was actually present is consistent with a pattern known to law enforcement of suspects attempting to minimize their involvement. Jara’s knowledge of the marijuana is corroborated by Jara having sole control over the vehicle, the physical characteristics of the truck, and the jury’s rejection of Jara’s explanation of the trip. The physical characteristics of the truck belie his assertion of lack of knowledge. The marijuana could be smelled even through its plastic wrapping. There were metal shavings in the trailer. The inside of the trailer did not correspond with a dent visible from the outside of the trailer, indicating the presence of a false compartment. In addition, the inside of the trailer was two feet shorter than the overall trailer length. Finally, the jury found Jara’s explanation of his trip incredible, including his claims that he received a truck, $1,000.00 and a walkie-talkie from a man he only met once and that he was on a supremely unprofitable trip, driving an empty truck to pick up a rejected load of candy. The physical evidence and Jara’s admissions are sufficient to sustain a reasonable jury’s finding that Jara possessed the marijuana found in the trailer. B. Jury Instructions Jara asserts that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on mere presence. A criminal defendant" }, { "docid": "7016187", "title": "", "text": "is a member of another conspiracy, not the one charged in the indictment, then you must acquit that Defendant. In other words, to find a Defendant guilty you must find that he was a member of the conspiracy charged in the indictment and not some other, separate conspiracy. Stutevoss and Lokey maintain that the defense theory reflected in these instructions was supported by the record and that the court’s failure to so instruct is reversible error. It is well-established that a district court has “ ‘substantial latitude in tailoring [its] instructions’ ”. United States v. Terrazas-Carrasco, 861 F.2d 93, 95 (5th Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Kimmel, 777 F.2d 290, 293 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1104, 106 S.Ct. 1947, 90 L.Ed.2d 357 (1986)). Refusal to give a particular instruction is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Id. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested instructions. Its instructions on conspiracy covered the applicable law and did not hinder the appellants from presenting their defenses. Those instructions were based on Pattern Jury Instructions. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, 2.21, 2.22 (West 1990). As quoted in part in section II.A.l., the court charged: Specifically, Count One alleges that beginning on or about February, 1987, and continuing until on or about May 3rd, 1989, in the Western District of Texas, each Defendant unlawfully, willfully and knowingly conspired to distribute more than 100 kilograms [of] marijuana.... In your consideration of the conspiracy offense as alleged in the Indictment, you should first determine from all of the testimony and evidence in the case whether or not the conspiracy existed as charged.... You must determine whether the conspiracy charged in the Indictment existed and, if it did, whether the Defendant was a member of it. If you find that the conspiracy charged did not exist, then you must return a not guilty verdict, even though you find that some other conspiracy existed. This more than adequately presented the defense theory of the case. E. Concerning sentencing, Lokey challenges the district court’s finding on relevant conduct; and, he" }, { "docid": "12317831", "title": "", "text": "marijuana (3) with intent to distribute it. See Lopez, 74 F.3d at 577. Importation of marijuana, in contrast, requires proof that: (1) the defendant played a role in bringing a quantity of marijuana into the United States from a place outside the United States; (2) the defendant knew the substance was marijuana; and (3) the defendant knew the substance would enter the United States. See United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir.1994). To establish either crime, “the government must adduce sufficient evidence of guilty knowledge.” Lopez, 74 F.3d at 577; see also United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 953 (5th Cir.1990). It is rare that direct evidence is available to prove the knowledge element for possession or importation of drugs. See Lopez, 74 F.3d at 577; United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir.1993). Although knowledge may sometimes be inferred solely from control of a vehicle containing drugs, when the drugs are secreted in hidden compartments, as in the present case, the Government must produce additional “circumstantial evidence that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge.” United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir.1995). This requirement stems from the recognition that, in hidden compartment cases, there “is at least a fair assumption that a third party might have concealed the controlled substances in the vehicle with the intent to use the unwitting defendant as the carrier in a smuggling enterprise.” Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 954. In the present case, the Government points to Cano-Guel’s conflicting statements to customs officials and his implausible story as circumstantial proof of his guilty knowledge. According to the Government, Cano-Guel made several conflicting statements to customs officials at the El Paso port of entry. The conflicting statements included (1) telling Inspector Ramos that he was going to the United States to buy “‘groceries’ or a few things” and telling Agent Alpers that he was, going to the doctor, (2) stating that the Buick belonged to a friend and later claiming that it belonged to his mechanic, (3) telling Inspector Klukas that his car was in the" }, { "docid": "6422776", "title": "", "text": "the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir.1999) (citing Jack son v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317-18, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). The jury is free to choose among reasonable inferences, but, if the evidence gives “equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, we must reverse the conviction, as under these circumstances a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Reveles, 190 F.3d 678, 686 (5th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir.1996)) (citations omitted; emphasis in original). To prove that Garcia-Flores was guilty of possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute, the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia-Flores (1) knowingly (2) possessed the marijuana in his trailer (3) with the intent to distribute it. See United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1998). Garcia-Flores contests the jury?s determination concerning only the knowledge element of the crime. We therefore review the evidence to ascertain whether the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia-Flores knew the trailer contained the marijuana. A jury may infer knowledge from the defendant’s control over a vehicle containing contraband unless the drugs are hidden in compartments, in which case proof of the defendant’s knowledge depends on inference and circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Miller, 146 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir.1995). Because the border patrol agents found the drugs hidden underneath electrical supplies in the trailer, there is a “fair assumption that a third party might have concealed the [marijuana] in the [trailer] with the intent to use [Garcia-Flores] as [a] carrier....” United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir.1990). We therefore look to circumstantial evidence to determine whether the record supports the jury’s verdict. Garcia-Flores notes that the record fails to show he was nervous during the initial search of the trailer. The government suggests that Garcia-Flores’ immediate voluntary" }, { "docid": "14826580", "title": "", "text": "sustained if, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established each of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Brookins, 919 F.2d 281, 284 (5th Cir.1990). The elements which the Government must prove to convict a defendant of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute are 1) knowing 2) possession of marijuana with 3) intent to distribute it. United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 953 (5th Cir.1990). The requirements for proving each of these elements are well settled. 1.Possession Possession may be either actual or constructive and may be proven either by direct or circumstantial evidence. E.g., United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313, 1322 (5th Cir.1989). Constructive possession has been defined as ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband, or over the vehicle in which the contraband was concealed. E.g., United States v. Posner, 868 F.2d 720, 722-23 (5th Cir.1989). 2. Knowledge Similarly, knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance may be inferred from the exercise of control over the vehicle in which it is concealed. United States v. Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.1988). To prove knowledge when the contraband is hidden, however, the Fifth Circuit requires that in addition to mere presence in the vehicle, or control over it, there be circumstances evidencing a consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 954. 3. Intent to distribute Finally, intent to distribute the marijuana may be inferred from the fact that the defendant is in possession of a large amount of it. United States v. Romero-Reyna, 867 F.2d 834, 836 (5th Cir.1989). 4. The evidence There is little question that the evidence before the jury was sufficient to allow it to find that each of these elements were present. Gonzalez owned and drove a truck which hauled a trailer loaded with one and a half tons of marijuana. Gonzalez had keys to the trailer. He" }, { "docid": "22135739", "title": "", "text": "which one does not understand.” Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d at 501. In the absence of facts which suggest that the defendant’s nervousness or anxiety derives from an underlying consciousness of criminal behavior, evidence of nervousness is insufficient to support a finding of guilty knowledge. Ample facts nonetheless exist in the instant case which suggest that Diaz-Carreon’s nervousness derived from an underlying consciousness of criminal behavior. For example, before being told that agents had discovered marijuana in the pickup truck, Diaz-Carreon volunteered, “If the truck is loaded, I didn’t know about it.” The jury could reasonably infer that this simple statement, delivered in a rush of anxiety, indicated that Diaz-Carreon knew of the existence of the marijuana in the truck and hoped to divert suspicion from himself. Inconsistent statements to customs officials. Perhaps the strongest evidence of a criminal defendant’s guilty knowledge is inconsistent statements to federal officials. See, e.g., Richardson, 848 F.2d at 513 (inconsistent statements to Drug Enforcement Agency and Border Patrol agents); Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d at 501 (inconsistent statements to customs inspectors). Inconsistent statements are inherently suspicious; a factfinder could reasonably conclude that they mask an underlying consciousness of guilt. In the present case, Diaz-Carreon first told customs officials that he was traveling to Canutillo, Texas, and later told customs officials that he was traveling to Anthony, New Mexico. He initially informed customs officials that he was a resident of Anthony, but later he admitted that he was a resident of Puerta de Anapra, Mexico. Diaz-Carreon’s inconsistent account of these details casts considerable doubt on the veracity of his claim that he was unaware of the presence of the marijuana. Implausible story. This Court has acknowledged that a “less-than-credible explanation” for a defendant’s actions is “part of the overall circumstantial evidence from which possession and knowledge may be inferred.” United States v. Phillips, 496 F.2d 1395, 1398 n. 6 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1056, 95 S.Ct. 2680, 45 L.Ed.2d 709 (1975). During an interview with a special agent of the customs service, Diaz-Carreon asserted that a man named Ruben, whom Diaz-Carreon had known only for a couple" } ]

[ { "docid": "22860595", "title": "", "text": "with intent to distribute, and Bruce and Miserany entered a plea of guilty to that offense. After a colloquy with defendants, the district judge accepted their pleas, and a sentencing date was set for March 26, 1990. Subsequently, Bruce moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1) on the ground that his plea was not “knowingly and intelligently” made because he did not understand the charge to which he had pled. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Bruce to 77 months in prison. Bruce appeals. I Bruce first contends that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the district court improperly participated in the discussion regarding his plea agreement in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(1). The government resists Bruce’s argument both on procedural grounds and on the merits. The government initially urges that Bruce cannot assert the Rule 11(e)(1) issue on appeal because he did not raise it below. Although we generally do not consider issues not raised before the district court, Bruce is entitled to raise his claim for two reasons. First, a district court’s failure to follow Rule 11(e)(1) is “plain error” re viewable for the first time on appeal. The Rule contains a clear command: “[t]he court shall not participate in any [plea] discussions.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(1). The duty to abide by that rule does not arise as the result of any motion made by the defendant; rather, the court is bound by the Rule’s restrictions. A district court’s failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 11(e)(1) is plain error that entitles a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea even if the error is identified for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Adams, 634 F.2d 830, 831, 836 (5th Cir.1981) (raising Rule 11(e)(1) issue sua sponte and reversing on that basis); see also United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 551 (9th Cir.1989) (reviewing claim of judicial misconduct for plain error); Okada, 694 F.2d at 570 n. 8 (noting general rule). Our second reason is more general. In assessing the merits of a Rule 11(e)(1) claim on appeal, “the" } ]

[ { "docid": "6512289", "title": "", "text": "Thus, this argument lacks merit. DISMISSED. FERGUSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority allows the district court to shirk its duties under Rule 11 and Rule 32(a)(2) when a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal a sentence is contained in a plea agreement. While we have held that a defendant may waive his or her right to appeal in a negotiated plea agreement, United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 319, 321-22 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 112 S.Ct. 1488, 117 L.Ed.2d 629 (1992), such a waiver is valid only if it is made voluntarily and knowingly. Id. at 320-21. The majority reduces the analysis of whether or not a waiver of the right to appeal is knowing and voluntary to a cursory look at the plea agreement itself. Such an analysis is particularly inadequate when, as here, the waiver provision is confusingly worded and the defendant is not a native English speaker. Furthermore, the majority overlooks the district court’s transgression of the clear language of Rule 32(a)(2), which says that a judge “shall advise the defendant of any right to appeal the sentence.” I. The trial judge is required to ascertain whether or not the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily entered into a plea agreement because such an agreement involves the waiver of certain constitutional and statutory rights. See United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir.1991), cert. denied — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1488, 117 L.Ed.2d 629 (1992); United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 320 (9th Cir.1990). While the majority correctly notes that Rule 11 does not mandate any particular form for the colloquy between the trial judge and the defendant, it is incumbent upon the judge to canvass the defendant in a manner that ensures that the defendant made a voluntary decision based on an understanding of both the nature of the charges against him and the statutory and constitutional rights he is relinquishing. See McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 465, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1170, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1968) (“[Although the procedure embodied in Rule 11 has not been held to" }, { "docid": "22409960", "title": "", "text": "“the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands ... the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence.” Fed.R.Crim.P. Rule 11(b)(1)(N) (emphasis added). Therefore, we find that the district court committed an error, which was plain, by failing to discuss Mr. Edgar’s waiver of appellate rights. Third, we must determine whether the error affected substantial rights. See Duran, 133 F.3d at 1332. “An error affects substantial rights where the error was prejudicial, that is, if it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” See United States v. Brown, 316 F.3d 1151, 1158 (10th Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). In the context of a plea agreement, an error is prejudicial if the defendant has shown that he would not have pleaded guilty if the district court had complied with Rule 11(b)(1)(N). See Vaughn, 7 F.3d at 1536 (finding that a district court’s omission of an instruction required by then-Rule 11(e)(2) did not affect substantial rights, in part, because the defendant did “not allege that he would not have entered a guilty plea if the court had given the proper warning”). We may consult the whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights. Vonn, 122 S.Ct. at 1055. In the context of appellate waivers, our cases have recognized that the sine qua non of prejudice is whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. See, e.g., Chavez Salais, 337 F.3d at 1173. In determining whether such waivers are knowing and voluntary, we have looked to two sources: (1) the text of the plea agreement and (2) the plea colloquy. Id. Considering these sources, we conclude that Mr. Edgar knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to direct appeal. First, the plea agreement — in plain language— explains the waiver of appellate rights. The plea agreement clearly states that Mr. Edgar waives his right to appeal and to challenge collaterally his “guilty plea and any other aspect of his conviction” and his “sentence as imposed by the Court and the manner in which the" }, { "docid": "22054425", "title": "", "text": "not know exactly what he was giving up with his section 1983 claim, he knew he was giving up a possible benefit in return for a dismissal of pending charges. This knowledge was adequate to make his plea agreement voluntary. Id. The rationale in Rumery applies here. Whatever appellate issues might have been available to Navarro-Botello were speculative compared to the certainty derived from the negotiated plea with a set sentence parameter. He knew he was giving up possible appeals, even if he did not know exactly what the nature of those appeals might be. In exchange, he gained a set sentence. Just because the choice looks different to Navarro-Botello with the benefit of hindsight, does not make the choice involuntary. Similarly, in Johnson v. United States, 838 F.2d 201 (7th Cir.1988), the Seventh Circuit looked at a physician’s written waiver of his right to appeal, made after sen tencing. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that the physician knowingly waived his right to appeal to persuade the court to reduce his sentence and that the waiver was enforceable. We next look at whether Rule 11 was complied with. We reviewed the record and find the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied. It is undisputed that Navarro-Botello entered into the plea agreement that contained an express waiver of his right to appeal. At the plea hearing, in front of counsel, the district judge carefully summarized the provisions of the plea agreement and the offense and noted the maximum possible penalty. Navarro-Bo-tello indicated that he understood. Further, the district court advised Navarro-Bo-tello of the constitutional rights he was forfeiting. Once again, Navarro-Botello indicated that he understood. On this record, we find that Navarro-Botello’s negotiated plea agreement and his guilty plea were knowingly and voluntarily made. See Fed.R.Crim.P.Rule 11(c). III. Waiver of Right to Appeal Next, Navarro-Botello argues that there should be a per se rule invalidating any guilty plea requiring defendants to waive the right to appeal because such a waiver violates both due process and public policy. We disagree. A. Due Process It is well settled that a defendant may affirmatively waive his" }, { "docid": "6512288", "title": "", "text": "Rule 11 colloquy on the waiver of the right to appeal is not a prerequisite to a finding that the waiver is valid; rather, a finding that the waiver is knowing and voluntary is sufficient. See generally Bolinger, 940 F.2d at 480; Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d at 321-22; see also United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 186 & n. 1 (4th Cir.1992) (while district court “would be well advised to specifically discuss with a defendant, during the Rule 11 proceeding, any waiver of appellate rights contained in the defendant’s plea agreement” such discussion is not necessary prerequisite to finding of knowing and voluntary waiver); United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1992). DeSantiago also argues that he did not waive his right to appeal because the district court failed to comply with Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(a)(2), which requires that the court advise a defendant of any right to appeal his sentence. In the plea agreement, DeSantiago was explicitly advised of his right to appeal, and explicitly waived any right to appeal in the agreement. Thus, this argument lacks merit. DISMISSED. FERGUSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority allows the district court to shirk its duties under Rule 11 and Rule 32(a)(2) when a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal a sentence is contained in a plea agreement. While we have held that a defendant may waive his or her right to appeal in a negotiated plea agreement, United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 319, 321-22 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 112 S.Ct. 1488, 117 L.Ed.2d 629 (1992), such a waiver is valid only if it is made voluntarily and knowingly. Id. at 320-21. The majority reduces the analysis of whether or not a waiver of the right to appeal is knowing and voluntary to a cursory look at the plea agreement itself. Such an analysis is particularly inadequate when, as here, the waiver provision is confusingly worded and the defendant is not a native English speaker. Furthermore, the majority overlooks the district court’s transgression of the clear language of Rule 32(a)(2), which says that a judge “shall" }, { "docid": "15296845", "title": "", "text": "States in this plea agreement. The Defendant also waives his right to challenge his sentence or the manner in which it was determined in any collateral attack, including but not limited to a motion brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255. Despite this agreement, Williams now attempts to appeal his sentence. Not surprisingly, the government asks us to dismiss the appeal based on Williams’ promise not to appeal. For the reasons stated herein, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. I. ANALYSIS Williams argues that he is entitled to appeal because he did not knowingly and voluntarily relinquish his right to appeal. Because “[p]lea agreements are governed by ordinary contract principles,” United States v. Barnes, 83 F.3d 934, 938 (7th Cir.1996), “[w]aivers of appeal must stand or fall with the agreements of which they are a part.” United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280, 282 (7th Cir.1995). Thus, “[i]f the agreement is voluntary, and taken in compliance with Rule 11 [of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], then the waiver of appeal must be honored.” Id. at 282. The content and language of the plea agreement itself, as well as the colloquy where necessary, govern our determination as to the validity of the waiver. United States v. Woolley, 123 F.3d 627, 632 (7th Cir.1997). At the outset, while he acknowledges that appeal waivers are generally enforceable, Williams asserts that such waivers in plea agreements are unconstitutional, against public policy, and act as a “subterfuge to Congress’ intent when it enacted the Sentencing Reform Act in 1984.” Not only are these claims unsupported and undeveloped, see United States v. Martinez, 169 F.3d 1049, 1053 (7th Cir.1999) (those claims which are undeveloped need not be addressed), but our own case law shows that they are also without merit. For, “[i]t is well-settled in this Circuit, as well as in virtually every circuit that has considered the question, that defendants may waive their right to appeal as part of a written plea agreement, and we have consistently upheld valid appeal waivers and dismissed the appeals taken in contravention.” Woolley," }, { "docid": "19836551", "title": "", "text": "result in a miscarriage of justice. In this circuit, presentence waivers of appellate rights are enforceable if they meet certain criteria. Teeter, 257 F.3d at 23. First, we require that the defendant enter into the waiver “knowingly and voluntarily.” Id. at 24-25; accord, United States v. Torres-Oliveras, 583 F.3d 37, 40 (1st Cir.2009). In examining whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, the text of the written plea agreement and the change-of-plea colloquy are of critical importance. Teeter, 257 F.3d at 24. We evaluate whether the written plea agreement “contains a clear statement elucidating the waiver and delineating its scope,” and whether the district court “inquire[d] specifically at the change-of-plea hearing into any waiver of appellate rights,” as required by Rule 11(b)(1)(N). Id. Second, even if the waiver is knowing and voluntary, we retain discretion not to enforce the waiver if it would result in a “miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 25; accord Torres-Oliveras, 583 F.3d at 42. 1. Claim of Rule 11(b)(1)(N) Error Sotirion contends that the magistrate judge failed to adequately inform him of the scope of his appellate waiver as instructed by Rule 11(b)(1)(N), and therefore his appellate waiver was not knowing and voluntary. Rule 11(b)(1)(N) states that prior to accepting the defendant’s guilty plea, the court “must address the defendant personally in open court” and “inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following: ... (N) the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence.” This provision was added to Rule 11 in 1999 to aid courts in “ensuring] that waivers of appellate rights are knowing and voluntary.” United States v. Borrero-Acevedo, 533 F.3d 11, 14 (1st Cir.2008) (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. Advisory Committee 1999 Notes). In United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002), the Supreme Court addressed the standard for reviewing a defendant’s unpreserved claim that his guilty plea should be set aside on the basis of Rule 11 error—in that case, the court’s failure to apprise the defendant of his right to counsel if he" }, { "docid": "23600455", "title": "", "text": "because her lawyer failed to discuss the appeal waiver with her prior to the guilty plea hearing. Thus, we examine the record as a whole to determine whether Marcia Woolley voluntarily and knowingly waived her right to appeal. A. The Rule 11 Colloquy at the Time Woolley Entered Her Guilty Plea “Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 dictates that before accepting any guilty plea, the trial court must discuss with the defendant a host of issues, including the waiver of certain constitutional rights, and must ensure that the plea is voluntary.” Agee, 83 F.3d at 884 n. 1 (7th Cir.1996). Rule 11 “require[s] that a defendant’s guilty plea be [made] voluntarily (i.e., not induced by threats or promises of any kind). Thus, the defendant must understand the [nature and the] elements of the crime to which he is pleading, as a guilty plea is an admission of all of the elements of the crime.” United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d 1020, 1024 (7th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). Even though some circuits have held that, when accepting a plea agreement which includes a sentence appeal waiver, the trial judge must conduct a specific colloquy with the defendant addressing the waiver, the law of this Circuit is clear that the court is not required to conduct a specific dialogue with the defendant concerning the waiver, so long as the record contains sufficient evidence for the court to determine if the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her right to appeal. Agee, 83 F.3d at 884 (citing Wenger, 58 F.3d at 282-83). In this case, the record reveals that the trial judge conducted an in-depth inquiry concerning Woolley’s understanding of both the plea agreement and the appeal waiver. The district judge specifically pointed out to Woolley the waiver provision contained within the plea agreement. He inquired of her if she had read the waiver and understood its terms (she stated that she did), and he informed her that she was giving up “any and all rights to appeal” by agreeing to the waiver. He next asked Woolley if she had any questions" }, { "docid": "13354739", "title": "", "text": "KANNE, Circuit Judge. On August 27, 1999, Henry Don Jeffries signed a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to one count of mail fraud, pay restitution in excess of 2.4 mil-lio'n dollars, and waive his appellate rights with respect to sentencing. In return, the government agreed to recommend an acceptance of responsibility reduction and to dismiss the remaining five counts of the indictment. The district court conducted an extensive Rule 11 colloquy and then accepted Jeffries’ plea. At Jeffries’ sentencing hearing, the district court again reviewed the parameters of the plea agreement and then sentenced him to forty-three months imprisonment. Jeffries does not attempt to appeal his sentence, as he clearly waived that right in his plea agreement. Rather, he seeks to invalidate the entire plea by arguing that it was not entered into voluntarily and knowingly. He alleges that his plea agreement is invalid because he did not realize that, if he had gone to trial, he could have appealed any resulting conviction. Jeffries also asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to attack the plea as invalid. He thus seeks to withdraw his plea and go to trial. At least initially, the parties disputed whether Jeffries had the right to seek judicial review of his plea agreement. We have explained, however, that even where a plea agreement waives a defendant’s appellate rights, the defendant is still entitled to appeal if “the agreement is involuntary or otherwise unenforceable.” United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280, 282 (7th Cir.1995). The government now recognizes that Jeffries can challenge the voluntariness of his plea, yet asserts that his plea agreement is valid because it was voluntary and “taken in compliance with Rule 11” of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. Because Jeffries did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we will review the district court proceedings for plain error. See United States v. Gilliam, 255 F.3d 428, 433 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Akinsola, 105 F.3d 331, 333 (7th Cir.1997). Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a district court" }, { "docid": "22690407", "title": "", "text": "2255 post-conviction relief does not waive defendant's right to argue, pursuant to that section, that the decision to enter into the plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Jones v. United States, 167 F.3d 1142, 1145 (7th Cir.1999) (permitting defendant to file a § 2255 petition despite cooperation agreement containing § 2255 waiver because \"[¡justice dictates that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of a cooperation agreement cannot be barred by the agreement itself — the very product of the alleged ineffectiveness”). However, because the issue is not squarely presented in this case on direct appeal, we leave for another day our assessment of whether a waiver such as made by Jeronimo can be challenged through a § 2255 motion questioning the validity of the waiver. . The dissent contends that we do not address whether Jeronimo’s plea \"was knowingly and voluntarily made in light of his lawyer's representations.\" We disagree. We reviewed whether the plea was knowing and voluntary in light of the district court's plea colloquy. Because that colloquy was a model of what needs to be reviewed under Rule 11, the plea was not unknowing or involuntary on its face. The dissent incorrectly urges that we cite no authority,-for the statement that the plea was knowing and voluntary on its face because it satisfied Rule 11. We quoted from Portillo-Cano the rule that a waiver must be honored when the plea agreement is voluntary and taken in compliance with Rule 11. 192 F.3d at 1250. Because the point of Rule 11 is to ensure that a plea is knowing and voluntary, Rule 11 also is authority for our decision. See Fed.R.Crim.P. ll(c)-(d) (2001) (provisions entitled \"Advice to Defendant” and \"Insuring That the Plea is Voluntary”); Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 advisory committee’s note, 1975 Enactment (amended Rule 11(c) and (d) outline advice the court must give the defendant and \"the steps that the court must take to insure that a ... plea has been voluntarily made.”). More precedents might be considered, see, e.g., McCarthy v." }, { "docid": "4841518", "title": "", "text": "agreement as long as three elements are met: (1) “the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights”; (2) “the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights”; and (3) “enforcing the waiver would [not] result in a miscarriage of justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. In his response to the government’s motion, Tanner concedes his appeal is within the scope of the waiver. He argues, however, that the record does not affirmatively show his waiver to be knowing and voluntary and enforcing it would be a miscarriage of justice. “We only enforce waivers that defendants enter into knowingly and voluntarily.” Id. at 1328-29. “Nevertheless, it is the defendant who bears the burden of demonstrating [his] waiver was not knowing and voluntary.” United States v. White, 584 F.3d 935, 948 (10th Cir.2009) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Edgar, 348 F.3d 867, 872-73 (10th Cir.2003) (defendant “has the burden to present evidence from the record establishing that he did not understand the waiver”). In determining whether a defendant waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily, “we especially look to two factors.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. The first factor is “whether the language of the plea agreement states that the defendant entered the agreement knowingly and voluntarily” and the second is whether there was “an adequate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy.” Id. Seizing on that language, Tanner claims we cannot conclude his appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary unless there was a specific discussion about it during the Rule 11 colloquy. That is so, he says, because Rule 11 directs the district court to “inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands ... the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence,” Fed.R.Crim.P. ll(b)(l)(N). He assumes too much. Determining whether a defendant knovsdngly and voluntarily waived his rights is a question of law, see, e.g., United States v. Vidal, 561 F.3d 1113, 1118 (10th Cir.2009) (guilty plea); United States v. Ibarra-Coronel, 517 F.3d 1218, 1221 n. 4 (10th Cir.2008) (plea" }, { "docid": "22054426", "title": "", "text": "was enforceable. We next look at whether Rule 11 was complied with. We reviewed the record and find the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied. It is undisputed that Navarro-Botello entered into the plea agreement that contained an express waiver of his right to appeal. At the plea hearing, in front of counsel, the district judge carefully summarized the provisions of the plea agreement and the offense and noted the maximum possible penalty. Navarro-Bo-tello indicated that he understood. Further, the district court advised Navarro-Bo-tello of the constitutional rights he was forfeiting. Once again, Navarro-Botello indicated that he understood. On this record, we find that Navarro-Botello’s negotiated plea agreement and his guilty plea were knowingly and voluntarily made. See Fed.R.Crim.P.Rule 11(c). III. Waiver of Right to Appeal Next, Navarro-Botello argues that there should be a per se rule invalidating any guilty plea requiring defendants to waive the right to appeal because such a waiver violates both due process and public policy. We disagree. A. Due Process It is well settled that a defendant may affirmatively waive his constitutional rights to have a jury trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, and to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Such waivers are often negotiated as part of a voluntary plea agreement with the Government. Indeed, such waivers in plea bargaining are now accepted as an “important component[] of this country’s criminal justice system.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1627, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 n. 10, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1471 n. 10, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (estimating that 90-95% of all criminal convictions involve guilty pleas). The Supreme Court has found that knowing and voluntary constitutional waivers do not violate due process. Rumery, 480 U.S. at 393, 107 S.Ct. at 1192. Accordingly, if it is not a due process violation for a defendant to waive constitutional rights as part of a plea bargain, then a defendant’s waiver of a nonconstitutional right, such" }, { "docid": "2330793", "title": "", "text": "and the fact that, by pleading guilty, the defendant is waiving a panoply of constitutional rights. To ensure that a guilty plea is voluntary, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d) requires that a federal district court ask the defendant specific questions to determine that the plea is “voluntary and not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from a plea agreement.” A Rule 11 proceeding provides the court with an important tool to gauge the defendant’s vol-untariness and understanding: Rule ll’s provisions specifically seek to ensure that entry of a plea is not a meaningless act. Great care is taken when accepting pleas under Rule 11. Plea agreements are placed on the record, the voluntariness and accuracy of the plea is ascertained, and detailed advice is provided to the defendant concerning his rights and the consequences of his plea as well as a determination that [the] defendant understands these matters. United States v. Ellison, 798 F.2d 1102, 1106 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1038, 107 S.Ct. 893, 93 L.Ed.2d 845 (1987). “The only rational manner in which a judge may determine whether a plea is knowingly and voluntarily made, is to observe the defendant’s demeanor and responses to the court’s questions and to rely on the defendant’s sworn answers.” United States v. Ellison, 835 F.2d 687, 693 (7th Cir.1987) (appeal after remand). The record of a Rule 11 proceeding is “entitled to a presumption of verity.” Key v. United States, 806 F.2d 133, 136 (7th Cir.1986). “To deter abuses in the withdrawal of guilty pleas under Rule 32(d), and to protect the integrity of the judicial process, we have held that ‘rational conduct requires that voluntary responses made by a defendant under oath [when entering a guilty plea] ... be binding.’ ” United States v. McFarland, 839 F.2d 1239, 1242 (7th Cir.) (quoting Ellison, 835 F.2d at 693), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1014, 108 S.Ct. 1750, 100 L.Ed.2d 212 (1988); see also United States v. Caban, 962 F.2d 646, 649-50 (7th Cir.1992) (discussing authorities). 2. Applied to this case Mr. Seybold does not contest that the" }, { "docid": "23126927", "title": "", "text": "to file a requested appeal.”). Here, the government raises the waiver issue. We are satisfied that the plea agreement waived Mr. Viera’s ineffective assistance claim be cause counsel’s alleged failure to file an appeal does not undermine the validity of the plea or the waiver. See Cockerham, 237 F.3d at 1187. 2. Knowing and Voluntary Second, the district court evaluated the language of the plea agreement and the Rule 11 colloquy and determined the waiver was knowing and voluntary. During the Rule 11 colloquy when Mr. Viera entered his plea, he acknowledged that he understood the waiver of appeal and collateral challenges, that his plea was free and voluntary, and that he was guilty as charged. We agree with the district court that nothing in the record suggests that Mr. Viera’s plea or waiver of post-conviction rights was unknowing or involuntary. In his request for COA on another issue, Mr. Viera argues his plea was involuntary because he did not know he would be deported and because he was not eligible for a sentence reduction for completion of a residential drug treatment program. But to the extent this argument is relevant to the appeal issue, our reasons for the denial of COA stated below apply here as well and do not change our view on the voluntariness of the plea. 3. Miscarriage of Justice Finally, Mr. Viera bears the burden of demonstrating that enforcing the waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice. Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327. We have held that a miscarriage of justice through enforcement of a waiver occurs only in one of four situations: “[1] where the district court relied on an impermissible factor such as race, [2] where ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the waiver renders the waiver invalid, [3] where the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, or [4] where the waiver is otherwise unlawful.” Id. (quotations omitted). For the same reasons expressed in the district court order, we agree that none of these factors is implicated here. Mr. Viera thus voluntarily entered into a valid plea agreement that waived" }, { "docid": "21476970", "title": "", "text": "(7th Cir.1995), that a district judge’s failure to address an appeal waiver during the Rule 11 colloquy did not warrant setting aside a plea agreement as involuntary. We noted particularly that “warnings about waivers of appeal are not to be found” in Rule 11, and that “Rule ll’s value is as a formulary.” Id. at 282. We also commented that “[i]f the [plea] agreement is voluntary, and taken in compliance with Rule 11, then the waiver of appeal must be honored.” Id. at 283. Since 1999, a plea taken in compliance with Rule 11 must include the very kind of specific alert to a waiver of the right to appeal that we noted was not required under the rule in 1995. The “formulary” has changed and it now requires more. Thus, the rationale of Wenger is consistent with a finding that because Sura’s acceptance of the plea agreement was not taken in compliance with Rule 11, it also might not have been voluntary. Since the addition of Rule ll(b)(l)(N), we have addressed it in four cases, but three of them were nonprecedential. The decision in United States v. Loutos, 383 F.3d 615 (7th Cir.2004), is the only published opinion in which we have considered that section of the rule (or its 1999 predecessor). Id. at 617-18. In Loutos, however, the defendant objected to the omission and moved to withdraw his guilty plea, and so the question before us was whether the error was harmless, not whether it was plain. Nonetheless, the analysis of Rule 11 in Loutos, and in particular its treatment of waivers of appellate review, remains useful. Loutos first noted that “[t]he purpose of a Rule 11 colloquy is to expose coercion or mistake.” Id. at 619. The court then observed that [t]he validity of a Rule 11 colloquy is based on the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as “the complexity of the charge, the defendant’s level of intelligence, age, and education, whether the defendant was represented by counsel, the judge’s inquiry during the plea hearing and the defendant’s statements, as well as the evidence proffered" }, { "docid": "23600453", "title": "", "text": "117 S.Ct. 2467, 138 L.Ed.2d 223 (1997); United States v. Ogden, 102 F.3d 887 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 349, 133 L.Ed.2d 245 (1995); United States v. Schmidt, 47 F.3d 188 (7th Cir.1995). Indeed, “the right to appeal is a statutory right, and like other rights — even constitutional rights — which a defendant may waive, it can be waived in a plea agreement.” Feichtinger, 105 F.3d at 1190. For an appeal waiver to be valid, it “must be express and unambiguous,” United States v. Hendrickson, 22 F.3d 170, 174 (7th Cir.1994), and the record must clearly demonstrate that it was “made knowingly and voluntarily.” United States v. Agee, 83 F.3d 882, 885 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Wenger); Schmidt, 47 F.3d at 190. Finally, a waiver of the right to appeal does not completely foreclose review of a sentence under all circumstances. As we observed in Schmidt, notwithstanding a valid appeal waiver, “a defendant could appeal his sentence if the trial court relied on a constitutionally impermissible factor[.]” 47 F.3d at 190; see also Feichtinger, 105 F.3d at 1190. To determine whether the defendant’s appeal waiver is valid, we look to the content and the language of the plea agreement itself and refer to the colloquy between the defendant and the judge if necessary. As we stated in Wenger: Most waivers are effective when set out in writing and signed[.] ... Waivers of appeal must stand or fall with the agreements of which they are a part. If the agreement is voluntary, and taken in compliance with Rule 11, then the waiver of appeal must be honored. If the agreement is involuntary or otherwise unenforceable, then the defendant is entitled to appeal. 58 F.3d at 282; see also Schmidt, 47 F.3d at 190. Woolley does not dispute that she signed the written plea agreement containing the appeal waiver; nor does she claim that she was illiterate or was otherwise unable to read and understand the agreement’s terms. Rather, she argues that she did not enter into it voluntarily" }, { "docid": "19836550", "title": "", "text": "Sotirion’s § 2255 petition, we deem it waived. See Barreto-Barreto v. United States, 551 F.3d 95, 98 (1st Cir.2008) (“The government waived the issue of procedural default by not raising it in response to the § 2255 petitions below. We decline to overlook the government’s waiver.”); Oakes v. United States, 400 F.3d 92, 96 (1st Cir.2005) (“[PJrocedural default is an affirmative defense and ... therefore, the government may lose the defense by neglecting to raise it in a response to a habeas petition.”). B. Appellate Waiver The government next contends that Sotirion entered into a valid and enforceable waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence, and therefore his claim of sentencing error is barred. Sotirion argues that the waiver provision is unenforceable because (1) the magistrate judge did not inquire specifically into his waiver of appellate rights at the change-of-plea colloquy, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N), and therefore did not ensure that he entered into the waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and (2) enforcement of the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. In this circuit, presentence waivers of appellate rights are enforceable if they meet certain criteria. Teeter, 257 F.3d at 23. First, we require that the defendant enter into the waiver “knowingly and voluntarily.” Id. at 24-25; accord, United States v. Torres-Oliveras, 583 F.3d 37, 40 (1st Cir.2009). In examining whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, the text of the written plea agreement and the change-of-plea colloquy are of critical importance. Teeter, 257 F.3d at 24. We evaluate whether the written plea agreement “contains a clear statement elucidating the waiver and delineating its scope,” and whether the district court “inquire[d] specifically at the change-of-plea hearing into any waiver of appellate rights,” as required by Rule 11(b)(1)(N). Id. Second, even if the waiver is knowing and voluntary, we retain discretion not to enforce the waiver if it would result in a “miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 25; accord Torres-Oliveras, 583 F.3d at 42. 1. Claim of Rule 11(b)(1)(N) Error Sotirion contends that the magistrate judge failed to" }, { "docid": "21476969", "title": "", "text": "are turned on demonstrating the substan-tiality of any effect on a defendant’s rights: the defendant who sat silent at trial has the burden to show that his “substantial rights” were affected. [United States v.] Olano, 507 U.S. [725,] 734-735 [113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)]. And because relief on plain-error review is in the discretion of the reviewing court, a defendant has the further burden to persuade the court that the error “ ‘seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. at 736 [113 S.Ct. 1770] (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 [56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555] (1936)). 535 U.S. at 62-63, 122 S.Ct. 1043. Under United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004), Sura was “obliged to show a reasonable probability that, but for the [Rule 11] error, he would not have entered the plea.” Id. at 76, 124 S.Ct. 2333. Before Rule 11 was amended, we had held in United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280 (7th Cir.1995), that a district judge’s failure to address an appeal waiver during the Rule 11 colloquy did not warrant setting aside a plea agreement as involuntary. We noted particularly that “warnings about waivers of appeal are not to be found” in Rule 11, and that “Rule ll’s value is as a formulary.” Id. at 282. We also commented that “[i]f the [plea] agreement is voluntary, and taken in compliance with Rule 11, then the waiver of appeal must be honored.” Id. at 283. Since 1999, a plea taken in compliance with Rule 11 must include the very kind of specific alert to a waiver of the right to appeal that we noted was not required under the rule in 1995. The “formulary” has changed and it now requires more. Thus, the rationale of Wenger is consistent with a finding that because Sura’s acceptance of the plea agreement was not taken in compliance with Rule 11, it also might not have been voluntary. Since the addition of Rule ll(b)(l)(N), we have addressed it in four" }, { "docid": "23600454", "title": "", "text": "on a constitutionally impermissible factor[.]” 47 F.3d at 190; see also Feichtinger, 105 F.3d at 1190. To determine whether the defendant’s appeal waiver is valid, we look to the content and the language of the plea agreement itself and refer to the colloquy between the defendant and the judge if necessary. As we stated in Wenger: Most waivers are effective when set out in writing and signed[.] ... Waivers of appeal must stand or fall with the agreements of which they are a part. If the agreement is voluntary, and taken in compliance with Rule 11, then the waiver of appeal must be honored. If the agreement is involuntary or otherwise unenforceable, then the defendant is entitled to appeal. 58 F.3d at 282; see also Schmidt, 47 F.3d at 190. Woolley does not dispute that she signed the written plea agreement containing the appeal waiver; nor does she claim that she was illiterate or was otherwise unable to read and understand the agreement’s terms. Rather, she argues that she did not enter into it voluntarily because her lawyer failed to discuss the appeal waiver with her prior to the guilty plea hearing. Thus, we examine the record as a whole to determine whether Marcia Woolley voluntarily and knowingly waived her right to appeal. A. The Rule 11 Colloquy at the Time Woolley Entered Her Guilty Plea “Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 dictates that before accepting any guilty plea, the trial court must discuss with the defendant a host of issues, including the waiver of certain constitutional rights, and must ensure that the plea is voluntary.” Agee, 83 F.3d at 884 n. 1 (7th Cir.1996). Rule 11 “require[s] that a defendant’s guilty plea be [made] voluntarily (i.e., not induced by threats or promises of any kind). Thus, the defendant must understand the [nature and the] elements of the crime to which he is pleading, as a guilty plea is an admission of all of the elements of the crime.” United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d 1020, 1024 (7th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). Even though some circuits have held that, when accepting" }, { "docid": "21877042", "title": "", "text": "the decisional calculus”) (citing United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280, 282 (7th Cir.1995) (upholding a waiver despite the absence of specific questioning by the court)). Here, the government’s recitation of the terms of the plea agreement, followed immediately by the district court’s inquiry of Ciampi as to whether he understood the import of each of those terms, arguably satisfied the less specific, pre-1999 version of Rule ll. Fourth, it is noteworthy that the district court said nothing else during the plea hearing which remotely would have negated or counteracted its inquiry regarding Ciampi’s understanding of the waiver, or misled Ciampi into any false belief that he was retaining either his right to appeal or to assert a collateral challenge to the gambling conviction. Cf. Teeter, 257 F.3d at 26-27 (finding Rule 11(c) violation, noting that in addition to absence of direct inquiry, the court later confused defendant by asking: “[D]o you also understand that both you and the government will have a right to appeal any sentence I impose?”). Finally, our holding does not rest exclusively upon either the written terms of the plea agreement or the precise words uttered during the plea colloquy. The ultimate test for determining Rule 11(c) compliance continues to be whether, given the totality of the circumstances, it fairly can be said that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. See Teeter, 257 F.3d at 24 (noting that the district court’s failure to make particularized inquiry regarding waiver of rights of appeal, “will constitute error and may serve to invalidate the waiver, depending upon what the record shows as to the defendants’ knowledge (that is, whether the defendant, notwithstanding the absence of a particularized inquiry, understood the full significance of the waiver) and the existence vel non of prejudice”). Here, we are well satisfied that the totality of the circumstances afford no good reason to suppose that Ciampi realistically could have expected that the government would enter into a plea agreement in which it dropped many of the serious counts remaining for retrial, arranged for a reduction in his potential sentence" }, { "docid": "22409964", "title": "", "text": "the essential purpose underlying Rule 11, despite the flawed colloquy. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(N), advisory committee notes to the 1999 amendments (stating that Congress designed Rule 11(b)(1)(N) to ensure that waivers are knowing and voluntary). Thus, because he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement, the district court’s failure to discuss the waiver did not affect Mr. Edgar’s substantial rights. Because Mr. Edgar fails to satisfy the third prong of the plain error review, we have no occasion to decide whether the error below seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467, 117 S.Ct. 1544. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS Mr. Edgar’s direct appeal, refusing to reach the ineffective assistance of counsel argument and holding that the district court’s failure to satisfy the requirements of Rule 11(b)(1)(N) did not constitute plain error. . Numerous courts have recognized the vital role that the Rule 11 colloquy plays in ensuring that a defendant voluntarily and knowingly enters into a plea agreement. See, e.g., United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1046, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (“[R]ule [11 is] meant to ensure that a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary”; it achieves this purpose \"by laying out the steps a trial judge must take before accepting such a plea.”); United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir.2002) (\"Rule 11 ensures that a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary by requiring the district court to follow certain procedures before accepting such a plea.”); United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14, 24 (1st Cir.2001) (\"In explicating the rationale for adopting [Rule 11(b)(1)(N)], the advisory committee made it pellucid that such an inquiry, properly performed, offers considerable assurance of the defendant’s knowledge and volition.”). . This is the first time since its passage that we have addressed how we review Rule 11(b)(1)(N) errors in a binding, published opinion. United States v. Rubio, 231 F.3d 709 (10th Cir.2000), while published after the enactment of Rule 11(b)(1)(N), reviewed a plea entered into prior to the enactment of the Rule. In United" } ]

[ { "docid": "21601576", "title": "", "text": "that the ordinances of all appellants unconstitutionally discriminate against noncommercial speech, we consider in this context only Islip’s ordinance. Because we strike down the Babylon and Hempstead ordinances as unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech, we need not consider their effect upon noncommercial speech. As to Islip’s ordinance, we agree with the district court that it is defective because it impermissibly discriminates against noncommercial speech in favor of commercial speech. As the Metromedia plurality held: Insofar as the city tolerates billboards at all, it cannot choose to limit their content to commercial messages; the city may not conclude that the communication of commercial information concerning goods and services connected with a particular site is of greater value than the communication of noncommercial messages. 453 U.S. at 513, 101 S.Ct. at 2895. After Metromedia struck down San Diego’s ordinance as granting more protection to commercial than noncommercial speech, municipalities responded by adding provisions to their sign ordinances to overcome this defect by permitting noncommercial mes sages wherever commercial messages were allowed. See, e.g., Waynesville, 833 F.2d at 46 (“ ‘Any sign authorized in this ordinance is allowed to contain noncommercial copy in lieu of other copy.’ ”); Raleigh, 792 F.2d at 1271 (virtually identical provision). Not so Islip. Although it would have been a simple matter to draft such a provision, Islip’s ordinance has none. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Islip’s sign ordinance, like that of San Diego a decade ago, violates the First Amendment. The district court properly followed Me-tromedia in concluding that the exceptions to the ban for temporary political signs and for signs identifying a grand opening, parade, festival, fund drive or other similar occasion impermissibly discriminate between types of noncommercial speech based on content. See Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 515, 101 S.Ct. at 2896 (“With respect to noncommercial speech, the city may not choose the appropriate subjects for public discourse ... ”). We find, however, that the town properly provided for an exemption from the ban for signs indicating that real property is for sale or lease. Rather than being an unconstitutional content-based preference for" } ]

[ { "docid": "3131624", "title": "", "text": "the Supreme Court held to be content-based in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981). The Metrome-dia Court ruled that a San Diego billboard ordinance, which generally prohibited billboards in the city but exempted on-site billboards that identified the owner or occupant of the premises or that advertised goods available on the property, was a content-based regulation because it granted commercial speech a greater degree of protection than noncommercial speech. Id. at 513-17, 101 S.Ct. at 2895-97. Here, the sign code makes equally impermissible distinctions between commercial speech and noncommercial speech. The sign code, for example, permits construction signs to be erected 90 days prior to commencement of construction of a project and does not require removal until 10 days after completion of the project. See Article III, section H. Businesses are allowed to advertise upcoming events as far in advance as they choose. Real estate signs are not governed by a durational restriction and may be displayed under the sign code for any length of time. Obsolete commercial signs are permitted to remain posted for up to 80 days after the discontinuance of the business to which the sign pertains. See §§ 25-8 and 25-19. Political signs, however, are only permitted to be erected 30 days prior to the election to which they pertain and must be removed within 7 days of the election. Thus, certain forms of commercial speech are treated more favorably than political speech, and for that reason as well, § 25-45 is a content-based restriction. Other courts, applying Metromedia, have reached similar results. See, e.g., Matthews v. Town of Needham, 764 F.2d 58, 60 (1st Cir.1985) (local bylaw which prohibited political signs but allowed “For Sale” signs, professional office signs, contractors’ advertisements, and signs erected for religious causes impermissible content-based restriction); National Advertising Co. v. Town of Babylon, 900 F.2d 551, 556-57 (2d Cir.) (applying standard of Metromedia plurality in invalidating on First Amendment grounds content-based ordinance favoring commercial speech over noncommercial speech), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 852, 111 S.Ct. 146, 112 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990);" }, { "docid": "15909090", "title": "", "text": "Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000), “[i]t is of no moment that the statute does not impose a complete prohibition. The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree.” Thus, it is beyond peradventure that the temporal restrictions on the display of political signs in Ordinance Section 1325.07 burden speech. B. Section 1325.07 Imposes Content-Based Burden Given that Ordinance Section 1325.07 burdens speech, the Court must next determine whether that section’s prohibition on the display of political (and other temporary) signs more than thirty (30) days before and forty-eight (48) hours after the specific event they publicize or the voting day is a content-neutral or content-based regulation of speech. Arlington, 983 F.2d at 594. “[I]n most cases, whether a law benefits or burdens speech by referring to content on its face is determinative of the law’s content-based or content-neutral character.” Durham, 239 F.3d at 607-08 (discussing Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 643, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994)). Moreover, to be found content-based, a regulation need not discriminate on the basis of a speaker’s point of view. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U.S. 530, 537, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). Rather, the “First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulations extends ... to prohibition of public discussion on an entire topic.” Id. McFadden asserts that Bridgeport’s Ordinance prohibits the display of signs relating to specific subject matters for all but sixty-four (64) days every two years while signs relating to other subject matters may be displayed permanently. Moreover, only by reading the message on a sign may one determine whether that sign is subject to Bridgeport’s temporal ban. Thus, McFadden argues, Section 1325.07 is content-based. He supports that argument by citing to numerous appellate decisions finding content-based restrictions in municipal sign ordinances similar to those of Bridgeport. See, e.g., Solantic, LLC, v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir.2005); Whitton v. City of Gladstone, Missouri, 54 F.3d 1400 (8th Cir. 1995); and Matthews v. Town of" }, { "docid": "7505591", "title": "", "text": "like, not to exceed 60 days. Temporary signs, if illuminated, shall only be indirectly illuminated. There shall be no permit required or fee assessed for said signs. 150-24(E)(10). Signs larger in area than those listed elsewhere in this chapter may be permitted pursuant to special authorization and site plan approval' by the Planning Board.... Content-based “durational limits on signs have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional.” Knoeffler, 87 F.Supp.2d at 333; see also Whitton v. City of Gladstone, Missouri, 54 F.3d 1400, 1405 (8th Cir.1995) (declaring defendant’s ordinance unconstitutional because “the durational limitations which are applicable only to political signs is a content-based restriction”); Christensen v. City of Wheaton, No. 99 C 8426, 2001 WL 214202, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 27, 2001) (reaffirming prior opinion that the “political sign provision ... was content based and the 30 day durational limitation in the ordinance clearly restricted [plaintiffs] political speech in violation of his First Amendment rights”); Curry v. Prince George’s County, Maryland, 33 F.Supp.2d 447, 455 (D.Md.1999) (holding the defendant’s ordinance “unconstitutional insofar as it imposes durational limits with respect to political signs posted by individuals on or about their private residences”). The Hampton-burgh durational limitation is content-based in that it restricts the posting period of signs relating to certain events. While a 60-day posting limit on all temporary signs would pass constitutional scrutiny, Hamptonburgh permits the posting of some temporary signs beyond a 60-day period. See § 150-24(E)(6) (“Temporary, nonilluminated promotional signs not to exceed 12 square feet in total ... accessory to the construction, reconstruction, repair or conversion of a residential or nonresidential use, not to exceed two years or the entire period of construction, etc., whichever is less.”). Accordingly, the pro vision is content-based. Hamptonburgh s stated purpose “to protect the aesthetic character of the town by regulating the size, lighting and placement of signs and time of placement of signs” is insufficient to survive strict scrutiny. (Walsh Aff., Ex. E.) Therefore, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the durational limitation. However, summary judgment is denied with respect to § 120-24(E)(10), for the provision applies to" }, { "docid": "15909093", "title": "", "text": "the district court’s finding that the ordinance was content-based because it authorized certain types of protected speech but prohibited others. Id. at 61. In Whitton, the Eighth Circuit addressed a sign ordinance imposing a temporal ban on the display of political signs more than thirty (30) days before and seven (7) days after an election. Like Matthews, Whitton looked to the plain language of the challenged ordinance and affirmed the district court’s finding that the ordinance was “content-based because it makes impermissible distinctions based solely on the content or message conveyed by the sign. The words on the sign define whether it is subject to the durational limitations in [the ordinance].” Whitton, 54 F.3d at 1404. The court then provided examples to illustrate the content-based character of the challenged ordinance’s temporal restrictions: For instance, in some residentiallyzoned areas of Gladstone, a permanent year round sign expressing support for a particular sports team would not be subject to the durational limitations while an identical sign made of the same material, with the same dimensions and the same colors, and erected on the same spot advocating a particular candidate for office would be. In other residentially-zoned areas of Gladstone, a church may erect a permanent ground sign indicating church activities and times of services for an unlimited duration while the same sign could be posted for a total of only 38 days (30 days before election and seven days after) if it expressed its support for a church member’s political candidacy. Id. In Solantic, the Eleventh Circuit focused on the outlined exceptions to the challenged ordinance, and held that the prohibition imposed by the ordinance on the display of political and other types of signs was content-based on its face. Id. at 1266. As did the ordinance in Whitton, the challenged ordinance in Solantic placed temporal restrictions on the display of political signs relating to elections or referendums while exempting from regulation a range of'signs including governmental signs, directional signs and “memorial” signs, among others. Id. at 1264-65. In reversing the district court’s finding that the defendant city’s sign ordinance was content-neutral," }, { "docid": "15909062", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER KEELEY, District Judge. The question presented in this case is whether provisions of the defendant, City of Bridgeport’s (Bridgeport), sign ordinance, Article 1325 of the Codified Ordinances of Bridgeport (the Ordinance), violate the First Amendment. The plaintiff, Daniel McFadden (McFadden), challenges the constitutionality of Sections 1325.07 and 1325.13 of the Ordinance on free speech grounds. Section 1325.07 prohibits the posting of “temporary” and “political” signs within city limits more than thirty (30) days before and forty-eight (48) hours after the specific event they publicize or the voting day. Section 1325.13 requires individuals to obtain permits from the city prior to displaying any signs, except those exempted from regulation by the Ordinance and “temporary” and “political” signs. Summary of Ruling Section 1325.07 of Bridgeport’s Ordinance is unconstitutional. By limiting the time period an individual may post political signs within the City of Bridgeport, Section 1325.07 burdens speech. Furthermore, that burden is content-based since the Ordinance’s temporal restrictions apply only to limited categories of signs based on what those signs say. Moreover, because the City’s asserted interests in regulating temporary and political signs are not compelling, Section 1325.07 of Bridgeport’s Ordinance fails to satisfy strict constitutional scrutiny and violates the First Amendment on its face. Requiring individuals to obtain permits prior to engaging in protected speech also violates the First Amendment if no standards and procedures exist to determine the award of those permits. Nevertheless, this opinion does not reach the merits of McFadden’s challenge to Bridgeport’s permit requirement as an unconstitutional prior restraint on an individual’s freedom to engage in political speech through the display of political signs. That challenge has been rendered moot by Bridgeport’s subsequent amendment of the Ordinance. Although subsequent amendment or repeal of an ordinance does not necessarily moot a challenge to its preamendment language, such action likewise does not automatically necessitate review on the merits. Because the Court finds little likelihood that Bridgeport will reenact the pre-amendment version of Section 1325.13 (requiring individuals to obtain written approval and a permit from the city prior to displaying political signs), and because the current" }, { "docid": "3131623", "title": "", "text": "the same colors, and erected on the same spot advocating a particular candidate for political office would be. In other residentially-zoned areas of Gladstone, see § 25-28(A)(3), a church may erect a permanent ground sign indicating upcoming church activities and times of services for an unlimited duration while the same sign could be posted for a total of only 38 days (30 days before election and seven days after) if it expressed its support for a church member’s political candidacy. Finally, businesses in Gladstone’s commercially-zoned areas may erect signs advertising upcoming events as far in advance of the event as they choose while identical signs supporting political candidates must follow the durational restrictions of § 25-45. See also Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85, 97 S.Ct. 1614, 52 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977) (invalidating as impermissible content-based restriction township ordinance prohibiting “For Sale” and “Sold” signs). Section 25415 is also constitutionally suspect because it grants certain forms of commercial speech a greater degree of protection than noncommercial political speech, a practice which a plurality of the Supreme Court held to be content-based in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981). The Metrome-dia Court ruled that a San Diego billboard ordinance, which generally prohibited billboards in the city but exempted on-site billboards that identified the owner or occupant of the premises or that advertised goods available on the property, was a content-based regulation because it granted commercial speech a greater degree of protection than noncommercial speech. Id. at 513-17, 101 S.Ct. at 2895-97. Here, the sign code makes equally impermissible distinctions between commercial speech and noncommercial speech. The sign code, for example, permits construction signs to be erected 90 days prior to commencement of construction of a project and does not require removal until 10 days after completion of the project. See Article III, section H. Businesses are allowed to advertise upcoming events as far in advance as they choose. Real estate signs are not governed by a durational restriction and may be displayed under the sign code for any length" }, { "docid": "11728445", "title": "", "text": "exemption for temporary signs in residential zones is not content based. Indeed, the provision creating this exemption explicitly demands content neutrality. See LOC § 47.08.300(B)(1) (“In any residential zone temporary signage shall be allowed for each and every lot. This signage shall not be restricted by content, but is usually and customarily used to advertise real estate sales, political or ideological positions, garage sales, home construction or remodeling, etc.”) (emphasis added). Section 47.08.300(B) imposes only temporal and size restrictions on temporary signs. For example, homeowners may erect a temporary sign concerning any topic whatsoever on their property without a permit so long as that sign goes up not more than 90 days prior to an election, stays up not more than five days following the election and is no larger than six square feet. See LOC § 47.08.300(B)(1)(a). Likewise, a homeowner may put up “[o]ne temporary sign not exceeding six square feet provided the sign is removed within fifteen days from the sale, lease or rental of the property or within seven days of completion of any construction or remodeling.” LOC § 47.08.300(B)(1)(b). Such exemptions indicate the City’s recognition that during certain times, more speech is demanded by the citizenry because of the event (e.g., a real estate transaction or election) but the City does not limit the substance of this speech in any way. The exemption for temporary signs does not manifest the City’s desire to prefer certain types of speech or regulate signage by its content. Therefore, this exemption, too, is content neutral. Neither the speaker-nor event-based exemptions implicate Foti insofar as neither requires law enforcement officers to “read a sign’s message to determine if the sign is exempted from the ordinance.” Foti, 146 F.3d at 636. In the speaker category, officers decide whether an exemption applies by identifying the entity speaking through the sign without regard for the actual substance of the message. In the case of event-based exemptions to the permitting process, the officer must determine only whether a specific triggering event has occurred and if the temporary sign has been erected within the specified time" }, { "docid": "7505603", "title": "", "text": "examining the opinion, the Second Circuit stated that given that commercial speech is afforded less protection than other types of protected speech, the plurality concluded that it would be improper to prefer commercial speech over noncommercial speech. This is, in essence, what the city did by preferring onsite advertising, a type of commercial speech, over all other types of speech, including noncommercial speech. Town of Niagara, 942 F.2d at 147. In light of the applicable Second Circuit precedent, we grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the ground that by exempting certain commercial signs from the ordinance requirements, Middletown impermissibly favored certain temporary signs over others on the basis of their content. 8. Village of Chester Plaintiff challenges the following provision of the Chester Code, Signs, § 98-19: G. Signs permitted in any district. The following signs shall be permitted in any district and shall not require a permit: }¡í S»! ‡ # % # (3) Political campaign signs announcing the candidates seeking public political office and other data pertinent hereto, up to an area of sixteen (16) square feet for each premises. These signs shall be confined within private property and removed within seven (7) days after the election for which they were displayed. The ordinance permits the posting of temporary construction signs up to a maximum of thirty-two square feet that must be removed within fourteen days of the beginning of the intended use of the project. See § 98 — 19(G)(1). There is little doubt that the size limitations are content-based. See City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 429, 113 S.Ct. 1505, 123 L.Ed.2d 99 (1993) (a regulation is content-based when the content conveyed determines whether the speech is subject to the restriction). The First Amendment proscribes municipal favoritism of one form of speech over another, even if the ordinance merely allows one entity to post larger signs than another on the basis of the sign’s content. See North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce v. City of North Olmsted, 86 F.Supp.2d 755, 772 (N.D.Ohio 2000) (“[T]he City could properly regulate the size of" }, { "docid": "7505581", "title": "", "text": "165 F.Supp.2d 403, 422-23 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (noting that “[w]hen ... faced with a city ordinance which exempted signs placed by civic, philanthropic, educational, and religious organizations on their lots from regulations applied to other non-commercial signs ... the Seventh Circuit did not read Supreme Court precedent as requiring a local legislature to make a voluminous record in order to justify such common-sense exceptions”) (citations and quotations omitted). Contrary to plaintiffs argument, our decision here is consistent with Knoejfler, where we struck down a municipal sign ordinance because several classes of signs were exempted from a permit requirement. 87 F.Supp.2d at 330. There, the “classes of exempted signs [were] distinguished based upon the content of the signs,” see id., whereas here no such content-based exemptions exist. The requirement that an applicant post a refundable deposit with the municipality furthers Greenwood Lake’s significant interests in aesthetics and maintaining property values. The deposit is innocuously designed to ensure prompt removal of the temporary political signs or to cover the expense of removal and effects no genuine burden on First Amendment rights. We therefore hold that the permit fees are a reasonable content-neutral restriction on speech narrowly tailored to further a significant government interest and grant the motion of defendant Greenwood Lake for summary judgment as to this issue. c. Durational, Numerical and Size Limitations Plaintiff argues that Greenwood Lake impermissibly imposes a durational requirement on political signs because they must be removed within twenty days following an election. She also argues that the numerical and size limitations imposed in the statute are similarly unconstitutional. While content-based durational, numerical and size limitations may be unconstitutional, see, e.g., Knoeffler, 87 F.Supp.2d at 333; Arlington County Republican Comm. v. Arlington County, 983 F.2d 587 (4th Cir.1993), no such determination is necessary here because Greenwood Lake’s durational, numerical and size limitations are content-neutral. A careful reading of the ordinance reveals that all temporary signs have a durational limit. See § 120-42(J)(1) (“Permits for temporary signs may be issued ... for a period of 14 days”). In fact, temporary political signs receive preferential treatment in that they must be" }, { "docid": "15909071", "title": "", "text": "to achieve the City’s substantial interests because adequate alternative channels for political speech, such as marching, pamphleteering, and advertising, exist and because it does not have a content-discriminatory motive. Finally, . regarding Section 1325.13, Bridgeport argues that its February 28, 2005 amendments to the Ordinance moot McFadden’s prior restraint argument because permits are no longer required prior to the display of political signs. In his reply brief, (Doc. No. 10), McFadden does not contest the amended Ordinance’s parallel application to both “temporary” and “political” signs. Rather, he asserts that political (and other temporary) signs are prohibited for all but sixty-four days every two years while signs authorized by other sections of the Ordinance may be displayed permanently. Thus, McFadden concludes that whether a sign is authorized for display by Bridgeport’s Ordinance depends on what that sign says. If a sign relates to a political candidacy or an event, it is banned outside a narrowly constricted time period. III. Discussion The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.... ” U.S. Const, amend. I. Moreover, “[t]he freedom of speech ... which [is] secured by the First Amendment against abridgement by the United States, [is] among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are secured to all persons by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a State.” Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 195, 112 S.Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992). Those rights and liberties are also protected from abridgment by the political subdivisions of the states. Whitton v. City of Gladstone, Missouri, 54 F.3d 1400, 1402 (8th Cir.1995)(citing Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938)). Thus, the First Amendment protects a citizen’s freedom of speech against abridgement by a municipal corporation through operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, McFadden asserts that Bridgeport has abridged his freedom of speech by enacting certain provisions of its sign ordinance. Such First Amendment challenges are no stranger to the courts. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has “often faced the problem of" }, { "docid": "7505588", "title": "", "text": "he or she deems appropriate. By failing to protect against this possibility, Greenwood Lake has rendered its sign ordinance unconstitutional. Accordingly, we grant summary judgment on behalf of plaintiff with respect to this issue. 2. Village of Goshen Plaintiff alleges that the following provisions of the Goshen Code, Art. VII, Sign Regulations, should be declared unconstitutional: 7.7.4. Political or campaign signs. Signs or posters advertising the name of a candidate for election are permitted subject to the following requirements: 7.7.4.1. Size of sign. No such sign shall be greater in area than nine square feet., 7.7.4.2. Contents of permit application .... ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 7.7.4.3. Erection Date. No political sign shall be placed or erected more than 28 days prior to a primary election or general election. ❖ 7.7.4.6. Bond. A cash bond of fifty ($50.00) dollars shall be deposited with the Village Clerk and accompanying the political sign application. The cash bond shall be refunded provided that all political signs erected or placed within the Village of Goshen on public property are removed within seven (7) days of the election.... 7.7.4.7. Fines. The failure to remove all political signs within seven (7) days after the election or cessation of the activity stated in the permit, shall result in the applicant being subject to a fine in the amount of $25.00 for each week the signs are not removed post-election.... Unlike the challenged provisions in the Greenwood Lake ordinance, Gosh-en’s ordinance does not differentiate between permanent and temporary signs without reference to content. While the ordinance does regulate the size and permit requirements for “permanent signs,” see §§ 7.1.1., 7.2.1., the ordinance imposes no such restrictions on a content-neutral category of “temporary signs” that includes temporary political signs. Although the Goshen code includes a section entitled “Temporary and special purpose signs” and states that “[t]here shall be no permit fee for a temporary sign.” Section 7.7.3., Goshen imposes additional regulations on a distinct category of signs entitled “Political or campaign signs.” (Bergstein Aff., Ex. 4.) This clearly reflects a desire to regulate certain signs on the basis of" }, { "docid": "8389583", "title": "", "text": "decorations. (11) Merchandise, displays behind storefront windows so long as no part of the display moves or contains flashing lights. (12) Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings and dates of erection when cut into any masonry surface or when constructed of bronze or other incombustible materials and attached to the surface of a building. (13) Signs incorporated into machinery or equipment by a manufacturer or distributor, which identify or advertise only the product or service dispensed by the machine or equipment, such as signs customarily affixed to vending machines, newspaper racks, telephone booths, and gasoline pumps. (14) Public warning signs to indicate the dangers of trespassing, swimming, animals, or similar hazards. (15) Works of art that do not constitute advertising. (16) Signs carried by a person; and (17) Religious displays (e.g. nativity scenes). § 27-580. Second, § 27-583(b) exempts only from the sign code’s permit requirement a variety of types of temporary signs. Exempt signs include: (1) On-site for sale/renVlease signs; (2) Grand opening signs; (3) Construction-site identification signs; (4) Signs to indicate the existence of a new business or business location; (5) On-site signs to announce or advertise such temporary uses as fairs, carnivals, circuses, revivals; sporting events, festivals or any public, charitable, educational or religious event; and (6) Election or political campaign related-signs. B. Solantic says that the sign code is a facially unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech, since it exempts from its regulations some categories of signs, based on their content, but not others. Because most (though not all) of the exemptions from the sign code are based on the content — rather than the time, place, or manner — of the message, we are constrained to agree with Solantic that the sign code discriminates against certain types of speech based on content. In evaluating the constitutionality of an ordinance restraining or regulating speech, “we first inquire whether the Ordinance is content-neutral.” Burk v. Augusta-Richmond County, 365 F.3d 1247, 1251 (11th Cir.2004); see also One World One Family Now v. City of Miami Beach, 175 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir.1999) (“It is only if we find" }, { "docid": "7505589", "title": "", "text": "removed within seven (7) days of the election.... 7.7.4.7. Fines. The failure to remove all political signs within seven (7) days after the election or cessation of the activity stated in the permit, shall result in the applicant being subject to a fine in the amount of $25.00 for each week the signs are not removed post-election.... Unlike the challenged provisions in the Greenwood Lake ordinance, Gosh-en’s ordinance does not differentiate between permanent and temporary signs without reference to content. While the ordinance does regulate the size and permit requirements for “permanent signs,” see §§ 7.1.1., 7.2.1., the ordinance imposes no such restrictions on a content-neutral category of “temporary signs” that includes temporary political signs. Although the Goshen code includes a section entitled “Temporary and special purpose signs” and states that “[t]here shall be no permit fee for a temporary sign.” Section 7.7.3., Goshen imposes additional regulations on a distinct category of signs entitled “Political or campaign signs.” (Bergstein Aff., Ex. 4.) This clearly reflects a desire to regulate certain signs on the basis of their content. In response, Goshen argues only that the ordinance is designed to “control the proliferation of signs which environmentally impact on the Village and interfere with site distance and the safety of persons traveling on Village streets and highways.” (Id.) However, even assuming that Goshen presents a compelling government interest, the regulation is not narrowly tailored so as to overcome the strong presumption of unconstitutionality. See Knoeffler, 87 F.Supp.2d at 330 (holding that content-based permit requirement did not pass constitutional strict scrutiny). While we sympathize with Goshen’s interest in maintaining an aesthetically pleasing community free of the nuisance of copious political signs, in an effort to do so they may not single out political signs for differential treatment. Accordingly, we grant plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and declare the provisions regulating political signs unconstitutional. 3. Town of Hamptonburgh Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the following provision of the Hampton-burgh Code, Art. VIII, Board of Appeals, § 150-24: 150-24(E)(9). [Permitted Signs.] Temporary signs relating to events such as election, benefit events, fund-raising projects and the" }, { "docid": "7505599", "title": "", "text": "days, whichever is less, by the person responsible for removal and disposed of properly or they will be removed by the Building Inspector and the costs of removal shall be paid for by the person designated as responsible for removal. The Warwick ordinance contains language similar to that found in the Walkill ordinance, but presents an issue similar to that presented by the New Windsor Code. See infra Parts III.A.4.-5. The ordinance exempts certain signs, including political signs, from the permit requirements provided that certain durational and size requirements are met. The relevant inquiry here is whether the additional requirements are imposed based on the content of the signs. Because the ordinance exempts, on the basis of content, other classes of signs without imposing durational or size requirements, strict scrutiny applies. See § 145-82(A)(5) (no durational requirement for non-illuminated warning, private drive, posted or no trespassing signs); (8) (no durational requirement for temporary non-illuminated “For Sale,” “For Rent,” or real estate signs and signs of a similar nature); (10) (longer durational limitation for holiday decorations); (11) (no durational requirement for certain signs at gasoline stations.) On its face, the Warwick ordinance singles out political signs for special treatment, and the asserted interests in aesthetics and public safety cannot justify such an intrusion on the First Amendment. See Knoeffler, 87 F.Supp.2d at 331. Accordingly, we grant summary judgment for plaintiff with respect to the Warwick ordinance. 7. City of Middletown The Middletown Code, Ch. 91, Signs, imposes restrictions on temporary signs. See § 91.15. For example, a temporary sign may be posted as long as it does not exceed twelve square feet, and as long as it is removed within fourteen days of the conclusion of the event that the sign was promoting. See §§ 91.15(G), (I). A permit is required if a temporary sign is posted in a public right-of-way and, presumably, if the sign is permanent. See § 91.15(H). As discussed earlier with respect to Greenwood Lake, content-neutral restrictions are permissible if they further a significant government interest and leave open alternative channels of communication. Here, Middletown’s restrictions on" }, { "docid": "7505597", "title": "", "text": "and accompanying permit fees, for all signs. However, several classes of signs are exempt. While some of the exempted classes are content-neutral, see § 249 — 11(D)(10), other exempted classes are defined on the basis of content of the signs. See §§ 249-11(D)(7) -(9), (11). Although we believe that certain signs designed to serve the public interest, such as traffic signs, are properly excluded from the permit requirement, the challenged ordinance has broader application. For example, the ordinance exempts from the permit requirements temporary commercial signs to promote sales of real estate or agricultural products. Accordingly, the ordinance must be deemed content-based and we are compelled to declare it unconstitutional as Walkill proffers no compelling interest in the restriction on political signs. Furthermore, we reject Walkill’s argument that political signs may be excluded from the permit requirement if they “convey an opinion or some other message other than that directing attention to a product, service, place, activity, person, institution, business or solicitation.” (Walkill Rule 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1.) Presumably this is because such a sign would not constitute a “sign” as defined by the ordinance. However, this is no different from arguing that verbal campaign speech is not subject to the sign ordinance, a proposition that is uncontroversial but irrelevant. As a result, we grant plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to Walkill’s permit requirement for political signs. 6. Village of Warwick Plaintiff challenges the following provision of the Warwick Ordinance, Art. VIL, Signs: § 145-82(A). Exempt' signs. These signs may be erected and maintained without permits or fees ... # 12. Political and promotional posters, banners, promotional devices and similar signs, not exceeding four (4) square feet in the residential districts nor sixteen (16) square feet in the business districts, providing; a. Placement shall not exceed thirty (30) days, and a period of eleven (11) months shall elapse between the last day of one period of showing and the first day of the next. ífí # # % % # c. The signs shall be removed within three (3) days of the end of the event or thirty (30)" }, { "docid": "7505590", "title": "", "text": "their content. In response, Goshen argues only that the ordinance is designed to “control the proliferation of signs which environmentally impact on the Village and interfere with site distance and the safety of persons traveling on Village streets and highways.” (Id.) However, even assuming that Goshen presents a compelling government interest, the regulation is not narrowly tailored so as to overcome the strong presumption of unconstitutionality. See Knoeffler, 87 F.Supp.2d at 330 (holding that content-based permit requirement did not pass constitutional strict scrutiny). While we sympathize with Goshen’s interest in maintaining an aesthetically pleasing community free of the nuisance of copious political signs, in an effort to do so they may not single out political signs for differential treatment. Accordingly, we grant plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and declare the provisions regulating political signs unconstitutional. 3. Town of Hamptonburgh Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the following provision of the Hampton-burgh Code, Art. VIII, Board of Appeals, § 150-24: 150-24(E)(9). [Permitted Signs.] Temporary signs relating to events such as election, benefit events, fund-raising projects and the like, not to exceed 60 days. Temporary signs, if illuminated, shall only be indirectly illuminated. There shall be no permit required or fee assessed for said signs. 150-24(E)(10). Signs larger in area than those listed elsewhere in this chapter may be permitted pursuant to special authorization and site plan approval' by the Planning Board.... Content-based “durational limits on signs have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional.” Knoeffler, 87 F.Supp.2d at 333; see also Whitton v. City of Gladstone, Missouri, 54 F.3d 1400, 1405 (8th Cir.1995) (declaring defendant’s ordinance unconstitutional because “the durational limitations which are applicable only to political signs is a content-based restriction”); Christensen v. City of Wheaton, No. 99 C 8426, 2001 WL 214202, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 27, 2001) (reaffirming prior opinion that the “political sign provision ... was content based and the 30 day durational limitation in the ordinance clearly restricted [plaintiffs] political speech in violation of his First Amendment rights”); Curry v. Prince George’s County, Maryland, 33 F.Supp.2d 447, 455 (D.Md.1999) (holding the defendant’s ordinance “unconstitutional insofar as it imposes durational limits" }, { "docid": "7505598", "title": "", "text": "would not constitute a “sign” as defined by the ordinance. However, this is no different from arguing that verbal campaign speech is not subject to the sign ordinance, a proposition that is uncontroversial but irrelevant. As a result, we grant plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to Walkill’s permit requirement for political signs. 6. Village of Warwick Plaintiff challenges the following provision of the Warwick Ordinance, Art. VIL, Signs: § 145-82(A). Exempt' signs. These signs may be erected and maintained without permits or fees ... # 12. Political and promotional posters, banners, promotional devices and similar signs, not exceeding four (4) square feet in the residential districts nor sixteen (16) square feet in the business districts, providing; a. Placement shall not exceed thirty (30) days, and a period of eleven (11) months shall elapse between the last day of one period of showing and the first day of the next. ífí # # % % # c. The signs shall be removed within three (3) days of the end of the event or thirty (30) days, whichever is less, by the person responsible for removal and disposed of properly or they will be removed by the Building Inspector and the costs of removal shall be paid for by the person designated as responsible for removal. The Warwick ordinance contains language similar to that found in the Walkill ordinance, but presents an issue similar to that presented by the New Windsor Code. See infra Parts III.A.4.-5. The ordinance exempts certain signs, including political signs, from the permit requirements provided that certain durational and size requirements are met. The relevant inquiry here is whether the additional requirements are imposed based on the content of the signs. Because the ordinance exempts, on the basis of content, other classes of signs without imposing durational or size requirements, strict scrutiny applies. See § 145-82(A)(5) (no durational requirement for non-illuminated warning, private drive, posted or no trespassing signs); (8) (no durational requirement for temporary non-illuminated “For Sale,” “For Rent,” or real estate signs and signs of a similar nature); (10) (longer durational limitation for holiday decorations);" }, { "docid": "3131622", "title": "", "text": "—, 113 S.Ct. 1505, 1516-17, 123 L.Ed.2d 99 (1993). In Cincinnati, the Supreme Court evaluated the constitutionality of an ordinance which prohibited newsraeks distributing commercial handbills but allowed newsraeks selling newspapers. Id. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 1516. The Supreme Court held that “[u]nder the city’s newsrack policy, whether any particular newsrack falls within the ban is determined by the content of the publication resting inside that newsrack. Thus, by any commonsense understanding of the term, the ban in this case is ‘content-based.’” Id. at —-—, 113 S.Ct. at 1516-17. Simply stated, § 25-45 is content-based because it makes impermissible distinctions based solely on the content or message conveyed by the sign. The words on a sign define whether it is subject to the durational limitations in § 25^45. For instance, in some residentially-zoned areas of Gladstone, see § 25-28(B)(l), a permanent year around ground sign expressing support for a particular sports team would not be subjected to the durational limitations while an identical sign made of the same material, with the same dimensions and the same colors, and erected on the same spot advocating a particular candidate for political office would be. In other residentially-zoned areas of Gladstone, see § 25-28(A)(3), a church may erect a permanent ground sign indicating upcoming church activities and times of services for an unlimited duration while the same sign could be posted for a total of only 38 days (30 days before election and seven days after) if it expressed its support for a church member’s political candidacy. Finally, businesses in Gladstone’s commercially-zoned areas may erect signs advertising upcoming events as far in advance of the event as they choose while identical signs supporting political candidates must follow the durational restrictions of § 25-45. See also Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85, 97 S.Ct. 1614, 52 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977) (invalidating as impermissible content-based restriction township ordinance prohibiting “For Sale” and “Sold” signs). Section 25415 is also constitutionally suspect because it grants certain forms of commercial speech a greater degree of protection than noncommercial political speech, a practice which a plurality of" }, { "docid": "11728455", "title": "", "text": "Code is a valid content-neutral restriction on the time, place or manner of speech, narrowly tailored to serve the City’s significant interests without impermissibly limiting the alternative channels for communication. “[T]he ordinance does not create an unacceptable threat to the ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, ro bust, and wide-open.’ ” Id. at 817, 466 U.S. 789 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). IV. Commercial/Noncommercial Speech Distinction “[A]n ordinance is invalid if it imposes greater restrictions on noncommercial than on commercial billboards or regulates noncommercial billboards based on their content.” Nat’l Adver. Co. v. City of Orange, 861 F.2d 246, 248 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 513, 516, 101 S.Ct. 2882). Plaintiffs claim that various subsections of section 47.08.300, regulating temporary signs in residential zones, violate Metromedia’s rule. ' Section 47.08.300 contains a list of events (e.g., an election or the sale, lease or rental of a property), the occurrence of which allows a resident to erect a temporary sign, not exceeding listed dimensions, for a limited time period. The City states that temporary signs need not concern a specific, enumerated topic, such as the sale of property, but can be about any subject matter so long as the sign is displayed during the relevant time period and is within the Code’s size limits. The sections challenged do not indicate the City’s preference for commercial speech nor do they regulate based on the content of speech. See LOC § 47.08.300(B)(1) (“This signage shall not be restricted by content....”). Rather, the regulations exempt signs from the Code’s permit requirement during certain events. For example, 90 days prior to an election and five days afterwards, a resident may erect a temporary sign not exceeding six square feet without a permit. § 47.08.300(B)(1)(a). The City insists that the temporary sign could contain a purely commercial message so long as it meets the Code’s temporal and size limitations. The district court was convinced by the City’s argument, stating, “it is a fair" }, { "docid": "15909094", "title": "", "text": "same colors, and erected on the same spot advocating a particular candidate for office would be. In other residentially-zoned areas of Gladstone, a church may erect a permanent ground sign indicating church activities and times of services for an unlimited duration while the same sign could be posted for a total of only 38 days (30 days before election and seven days after) if it expressed its support for a church member’s political candidacy. Id. In Solantic, the Eleventh Circuit focused on the outlined exceptions to the challenged ordinance, and held that the prohibition imposed by the ordinance on the display of political and other types of signs was content-based on its face. Id. at 1266. As did the ordinance in Whitton, the challenged ordinance in Solantic placed temporal restrictions on the display of political signs relating to elections or referendums while exempting from regulation a range of'signs including governmental signs, directional signs and “memorial” signs, among others. Id. at 1264-65. In reversing the district court’s finding that the defendant city’s sign ordinance was content-neutral, the appellate court observed: The fact that these content-based provisions take the form not of regulations but of exemptions from regulations is immaterial. Id. at n. 13 (emphasis in original). In this case, the City of Bridgeport ignores the case law cited by McFadden and asserts that the temporal restrictions found in Section 1325.07 are content-neutral regulations of speech because they apply equally to all temporary and political signs, and because Bridgeport’s interests in aesthetics and traffic safety have nothing to do with the content of those signs. Bridgeport further attempts to establish the content-neutrality of Section 1325.07 by arguing that it satisfies the standard necessary for content-neutral regulations to comport with the Constitution. In doing so, it looks to dicta from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Arlington. In Arlington, a group of political candidates and county citizens challenged various provisions of an Arlington County, Virginia zoning ordinance on First Amendment grounds. 983 F.2d at 588. One of those provisions limited the number of “[temporary noncommercial signs” authorized for display in residential areas. Id. at" } ]

[ { "docid": "22275365", "title": "", "text": "may terminate the whole or any part of the contract by written notice— (ii) if the Contractor fails to perform any of the other provisions of this contract, or so fails to make progress as to endanger performance of this contract in accordance with its terms, and in either of these two circumstances does not cure such failure within a period of 10 days (or such longer period as the Contracting Officer may authorize in writing) after receipt of notice from the Contracting Officer specifying such failure. In the circumstances here, the elapsed time cannot be counted solely from the failure to deliver at the end of December 1960 until January 16,1961. The defendant did not terminate because of the December failure which was apparently unknown to the higher authorities, but because of the lack of delivery at the end of November. Moreover, once the November failure was waived, as it was, the defendant had either to agree with plaintiff upon a new delivery schedule or clearly set a new schedule. Bailey Specialized Buildings, Inc. v. United States, supra, 186 Ct. Cl. at 79-82, 404 F. 2d at 359-360. That was never done in this case. Authorities relied upon by the Government do not alter these conclusions. In Zoda v. United States, 148 Ct. Cl. 49, 180 F. Supp. 419 ‘(1960), the Government gave the contractor a cure notice setting a definite date for compliance, and seven days thereafter terminated the contract for default when it appeared not only that plaintiff h'ad not met the requirements of the notice but also had informed the Government that production could not commence because of financial difficulties. In the case before us Seaview was not given a cure notice following the Government’s election to waive the delivery delinquency, and furthermore gave every indication that it intended to perform the contract. In James E. Kennedy, Trustee, v. United States, 164 Ct. Cl. 501 (1964), the day after passing the second monthly delivery installment without any acceptable deliveries to that time, the contractor advised the Government that full scale operations could not be conducted “until" } ]

[ { "docid": "21341755", "title": "", "text": "termination was improper and that it should be rescinded. The letter suggested that the CO should mitigate damages by inspecting and purchasing all completed goods in plaintiffs possession. The letter asserted the items could have been completed and available for final inspection on January 29, 1992, if the QAR had inspected the parts on January 27, 1992. The letter also recited numerous reasons the contract specifications were defective or obsolete, and plaintiffs failure to deliver was the result of delays in the Government’s actions on the requests for deviation/waiver. On March 24, 1992, the CO responded that the letter was erroneous on the facts relative to plaintiffs status as of January 27, 1992, to complete manufacturing of the sediment strainers and was wrong as to requirements of the drawings and specifications. The CO denied the request to reconsider and rescind the termination for default. There is no dispute that the contract required delivery on January 24,1992, and that plaintiff did not meet that date. The Default article for fixed-price supply contracts authorized the CO to terminate the contract when the contractor fails to deliver within the time specified or extended. FAR § 52.249-8(a)(l)(i). The termination was not for failure to make progress (FAR § 52.249 — 8(a)(l)(ii)) or for failure to perform any other provision of the contract (FAR § 52.249 — 8(a)(l)(iii)) and a 10-day cure notice (FAR § 52.249-8(a)(2)) was not required. The CO took no action that could be construed as a waiver of the delivery date. FAR § 49.402-3(c). The Government’s right to terminate a contract for failure to perform includes the right to insist upon the scheduled delivery date. The cure notice provision typically solely applies to performance failures other than the failure to make delivery. See Universal Fiberglass Corp. v. United States, 210 Ct.Cl. 206, 537 F.2d 393, 398 (1976). In deciding whether to terminate a contract for default, the CO is required to exercise discretion to ensure that termination is in the best interest of the Government. Nuclear Research Corp. v. United States, 814 F.2d 647 (Fed.Cir.1987). When plaintiff materially breached the contract" }, { "docid": "15404790", "title": "", "text": "lacked authority to issue the default notices, and that the notices were to “be treated as a legal nullity.” Id. at 190. The facts and contract clauses leading to this conclusion were detailed in the Court’s earlier decision. BearingPoint filed a new action in this Court on August 24, 2007. In count one of its complaint, BearingPoint sought a declaratory judgment that the unauthorized DOI default terminations should be converted to terminations for convenience. BearingPoint relied upon the commercial items “termination for cause” provision in its GSA contract, which states “[i]f it is determined that the Government improperly terminated this contract for default, such termination shall be deemed a termination for convenience.” Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) § 52.212—4(m). On November 9, 2007, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and remanded to GSA to obtain a Contracting Officer’s final decision. See RCFC 52.2; 41 U.S.C. § 605(e)(5). GSA’s Contracting Officer issued a final decision on December 19, 2007, after which BearingPoint filed an amended complaint. The GSA Contracting Officer determined that the default termination of the DOI task order was justified, and that BearingPoint was not entitled to any relief on its July 28, 2006 certified claim. On January 14, 2008, BearingPoint filed its motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that “a procedurally defective, unauthorized termination for default results in a termination for convenience.” Pl.’s Motion at 4 (citing Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., ITT Def. Comm. Div. v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 37, 509 F.2d 541 (1975); Timberland Paving & Constr. Co. v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 653 (1985)). Defendant opposed BearingPoint’s motion on February 14, 2008, arguing that material facts are in dispute, and that DOI’s issuance of the unauthorized default notice did not extinguish the Government’s right through GSA’s Contracting Officer to terminate the task order for default where adequate cause existed. Defendant cited eases holding that harmless technical defects in an otherwise proper default termination do not require automatic conversion to a termination for convenience. See, e.g., State of Fla., Dep’t of Ins. v. United States, 81 F.3d 1093, 1098 (Fed.Cir.1996); DCX, Inc. v. Perry," }, { "docid": "6583969", "title": "", "text": "complete any material requirement of the contract within the time specified in the contract (including any extensions); (2) Fails to make progress to a degree that this failure endangers performance of the contract; (8) Fails to perform any other contract provision; or (4) Fails to give adequate assurances as required by 6.2.5. USPSPM 6.9.3.b. Violation of any of these provisions is sufficient grounds for a termination for default. USPSPM 6.9.3. Defendant cited Southeastern’s failure to make adequate progress, to perform several contract provisions, and to give adequate assurances, as reasons for terminating plaintiff for default. Plaintiff argues that the default termination was improper because: (1) the notice of default termination was defective; (2) delays causing default were excusable; (3) the Contracting Officer abused his discretion in terminating plaintiff for default; and (4) defendant waived its right to terminate for default. A. Formal Defects in the Termination for Default Notice Plaintiff argues that the termination for default should be converted to one for convenience of the government. The basis for this assertion is that the notice of default did not contain a mandatory clause stating plaintiffs appeal rights under the Contracts Dispute Act. The Manual states that all final decisions issued by contracting officers regarding contract disputes must contain a paragraph that sets forth the contractor’s appeal rights. USPSPM 6.8.3.g. The notice of default termination issued by the Postal Service to Southeastern did not contain this clause. We find the lack of such a paragraph in the termination notice a technical deficiency that is insufficient to overturn a decision otherwise properly made. The focus of decisions which address technical deficiencies of a contracting officer’s final decision is the harm to the plaintiff. Transamerica Ins. Corp. v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 418, 423-24 (1993). In Philadelphia Regent Builders v. United States, 634 F.2d 569, 225 Ct.Cl. 234 (1980), a contractor sought to have a default termination nullified and converted to one for convenience because of technical deficiencies in the notice of default termination, including an incorrect contract number, failure to include appeal rights, and the lack of a signature by the contracting" }, { "docid": "21341756", "title": "", "text": "terminate the contract when the contractor fails to deliver within the time specified or extended. FAR § 52.249-8(a)(l)(i). The termination was not for failure to make progress (FAR § 52.249 — 8(a)(l)(ii)) or for failure to perform any other provision of the contract (FAR § 52.249 — 8(a)(l)(iii)) and a 10-day cure notice (FAR § 52.249-8(a)(2)) was not required. The CO took no action that could be construed as a waiver of the delivery date. FAR § 49.402-3(c). The Government’s right to terminate a contract for failure to perform includes the right to insist upon the scheduled delivery date. The cure notice provision typically solely applies to performance failures other than the failure to make delivery. See Universal Fiberglass Corp. v. United States, 210 Ct.Cl. 206, 537 F.2d 393, 398 (1976). In deciding whether to terminate a contract for default, the CO is required to exercise discretion to ensure that termination is in the best interest of the Government. Nuclear Research Corp. v. United States, 814 F.2d 647 (Fed.Cir.1987). When plaintiff materially breached the contract by its failure to deliver, the CO’s determination to terminate the contract for default because the Government no longer required the goods was logical. Plaintiff contends the contract drawings and specifications' were defective because of the “gun metal” requirement, which caused delays to rework or replace the castings. The Government, according to plaintiff, was responsible for the failure to deliver because defective specifications allegedly made timely production impossible or commercially impracticable. As a result, plaintiff claims that it either was not in default, or the default was excusable, and that the default should be reversed and converted to a Termination for Convenience of the Government under FAR § 52.249-8(g). Plaintiff supports its allegation of defective specifications by an expert’s report, dated April 29, 1993, by a metals and materials consultant. Even if it were assumed that the report was prepared by a person who could be qualified as an expert, and who was familiar with the production of sediment strainers, the report is in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the DCSC quality assurance directorate." }, { "docid": "15404800", "title": "", "text": "Court did not reach in dismissing BearingPoint’s first action for lack of jurisdiction, BearingPoint, 77 Fed.Cl. 189, or a procedural error where the defaulted contractor has shown harm or prejudice resulting from the error. BearingPoint, however, has failed to present uncontroverted facts demonstrating that it would prevail on the merits of the default termination, or that it suffered prejudice resulting from the procedurally defective termination. Consequently, BearingPoint has not established by its motion that the DOI default was “improper” for purposes of converting the default to a termination for convenience. BearingPoint cites Timberland Paving & Construction Co. v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 653 (1985), in support of its motion. The Court agrees that Timberland is factually similar to BearingPoint’s case, but nevertheless finds it distinguishable. In Timberland, the Court determined after a trial on the merits that the person who issued a default termination was not the contracting officer at the time of the notice, and therefore that the default notice was unauthorized. 8 Cl.Ct. at 658-59. As here, the Court ruled that the default termination was a nullity, but it retained jurisdiction because plaintiffs money claims were intertwined with the unauthorized default. Id. at 659 n. 16. Timberland, however, did not involve a subsequent final decision by an authorized contracting officer. Under those circumstances, described as “strange and narrow,” the Court converted the unauthorized default termination to a termination for convenience. Id. Here, of course, there has been no trial on the merits, and a GSA Contracting Officer has issued a final decision following DOFs default termination of the task order. In weighing potential outcomes, it is possible that a constructive termination for convenience may have occurred, or that DOI or GSA breached the contract in failing to provide any timely notice to BearingPoint after treating the Task Order 3 as ended. See Linan-Faye Constr. Co. v. Housing Auth. of Camden, 49 F.3d 915, 923 (3rd Cir.1995) (citing Maxima Corp. v. United States, 847 F.2d 1549 (Fed.Cir.1988)); Scott Timber Co. v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 130, 142 (2005); Best Foam Fabricators, Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 627, 638" }, { "docid": "2698345", "title": "", "text": "to follow certain provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation before he terminated the contract. The Board found that the termination contracting officer adhered to both the terms of the contract and the requirements of the applicable procedural regulations. Once again, we uphold the Board’s findings as supported by the evidence before it. The first regulatory provision that DCX complains was not followed is 48 C.F.R. § 49.402-3(a), which requires the contracting officer to obtain legal review before terminating a contract. The termination contracting officer testified that he obtained the required legal review before terminating the contract, although he was not able to state with certainty which attorney reviewed the proposed termination action. DCX argues that the termination contracting officer’s testimony was incredible, but that contention is baseless. The witness was firm in asserting that a legal review was conducted, and in light of the large number of contracts he handled over a several-year period, it is hardly surprising that he could not recall all the details of the legal review. The second regulatory provision on which DCX relies, 48 C.F.R. § 49.402-3(f), requires a contracting officer to consider various factors before exercising his discretion to terminate a contract when the contractor is in default. In this case, the termination contracting officer’s contemporaneous memorandum and hearing testimony demonstrate that he addressed the pertinent regulatory factors and found that they did not counsel against termination under the circumstances of this case. Moreover, the factors in section 49.402-3(f) that contracting officers are directed to consider before terminating contracts are not prerequisites, to a valid termination. Although compliance or noncompliance with section 49.402-3(f) may aid a Board of Contract Appeals or a court in determining whether a contracting officer has abused his discretion in terminating a contract for default, see Darwin Constr. Co. v. United States, 811 F.2d 593, 598 (Fed.Cir.1987); Fairfield Scientific Corp. v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 167, 611 F.2d 854, 862 (1979), the regulation does not confer rights on a defaulting contractor. A contracting officer’s failure to consider one or more of the section 49.402-3® factors therefore does not require that" }, { "docid": "7915124", "title": "", "text": "conditions of the Default Clause (FAR 52.249-8) and Part I, Section H, Paragraph 21, Additional Default Provisions, of the contract. (App. at 1988.) Empire urges that, once it began work on May 24, 1993, the notice was no longer effective since the only default it identified was the failure to resume construction, and a new notice was required. That is not correct. In Halifax Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 915 F.2d 689 (Fed.Cir.1990), we addressed and rejected a similar argument. In Halifax, the contractor received a cure notice providing that failure to start performance on the specified date “will be grounds for immediate termination for default.” Id. at 690. The contractor argued “that the letter [was] legally inadequate because it fail[ed] to specify the defects that formed the basis for the default.” Id. at 691. However, we held that the notice was sufficient because it was apparent from the circumstances that the contractor “had sufficient notice of the asserted defects.” Id. Thus, under Halifax, if the contractor has actual notice of the nature of the government’s concerns and its intention to terminate for default if those concerns are not rectified, default termination is permissible without a formal cure notice, at least so long as the contractor has previously received a formal, written cure notice directed to a related concern. See also Am. Marine Upholstery Co. v. United States, 170 Ct.Cl. 564, 345 F.2d 577, 581 (1965) (holding that a cure notice’s failure to “specify the particular failure for which [the government] might terminate the contract” did not render the notice defective because the contractor “had sufficient notice” of the government’s intent to terminate the contract for default). In this case, Empire received a formal, written cure notice showing that the Air Force’s primary concern was “the successful completion of the MacDill Avenue Co-generation Facility in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract,” including the termination date. (App. at 1988.) In addition, the contracting officer repeatedly stated that an extension of the termination date “was unacceptable” and that, at a minimum, Empire had to substantially perform the contract by" }, { "docid": "21665274", "title": "", "text": "Government seeks to uphold the default termination on the ground that the contractors were not making progress toward the December 1991 first flight schedule. Plaintiffs argue that the Navy’s unilateral schedule was unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. If so, legally they could not have been terminated on that ground. Alternatively, they argue that the new schedule was waived. The Government may terminate a contractor for default based on failure to make progress toward meeting an enforceable schedule. FAR 49.402-l(a). For a unilateral schedule to be enforceable, the Gov ernment must follow certain procedures when establishing the new schedule. DeVito, 413 F.2d at 1154. The time for performance must be “both reasonable and specific from the standpoint of the performance capabilities of the contractor at the time the notice is given.” Id.; see also International Tel. & Tel., etc. v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 37, 509 F.2d 541, 549 (1975). The reasonableness requirement in DeVito is based on what the Government “knew or should have known....” ITT, 509 F.2d at 550. The burden is on defendant to show that it “reestablished a new delivery schedule reasonable in the circumstances, upon a failure to comply with which it properly based the termination for default.” Jack Spires & Sons Electrical Co. Inc., 87-3 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 20,069 at 101,627, 1987 WL 45930 (Aug. 10, 1987). The contractors argue that Captain Elberfeld, the Navy A-12 Program Manager, did not establish a reasonable schedule. According to plaintiffs, the unilateral schedule was intended to serve as a “placeholder” because it did not provide revised dates for flight testing or contract completion. Moreover, plaintiffs contend that the Navy was aware that General Dynamics was having trouble manufacturing composite parts, and that the in-house system that General Dynamics was using for schedule projections was unreliable. The contractors employed a “P/2” computer system to create an internal manufacturing schedule. Plaintiffs argue that while the P/2 system did set a first flight schedule, the system was not reliable. It did not account for manufacturing problems or unexpected technical issues, for example. Weight reduction efforts and porosity problems resulted in increased complexity" }, { "docid": "15404795", "title": "", "text": "“Termination” (stating that the requirements of Part 49 “do not apply when terminating contracts for commercial items,” but may be used as “guidance to the extent that Part 49 does not conflict with this section”). When a contractor such as Bearing-Point challenges a default termination on the basis of procedural errors, the contractor must show the existence of harm or prejudice that it suffered due to the Government’s error. In some instances, the harm or prejudice to the contractor is readily apparent, and the default termination is converted to a termination for convenience. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., ITT Def. Comm. Div. v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 37, 509 F.2d 541 (1975) (Government’s failure to issue required cure notice prevented contractor from curing defects); DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct.Cl. 979, 413 F.2d 1147 (1969) (Government waived delivery schedule by failing to terminate within reasonable time, where contractor continued performance in reliance upon Government’s waiver). In other cases, the procedural errors are regarded as harmless technical defects. State of Fla., Dep’t of Ins. v. United States, 81 F.3d 1093, 1098 (Fed.Cir.1996) (failure to include appeal rights in default notice found to be harmless error); DCX, Inc. v. Perry, 79 F.3d 132, 135 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“[Contracting Officer’s failure to consider one or more of the [FAR] section 49.402-3(f) factors does not require that a default termination be converted into a termination for the convenience of the government.”); Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“[H]arm should accompany a defect in an otherwise proper termination notice in order for the contractor to seek relief based on that defect.”); Philadelphia Regent Builders v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 234, 634 F.2d 569, 572 (1980) (default notice lacking proper contract number and date, failing to state that the notice constituted a decision under the Disputes clause, and the lack of a contracting officer signature, found to be harmless technical defects). In the present case, BearingPoint did not make any showing of harm or prejudice in its motion for partial summary judgment. BearingPoint argued simply that DOFs unauthorized default termination should be regarded as" }, { "docid": "11952119", "title": "", "text": "Padula apparently stopped paying its subcontrators and conditions at the project began to deteriorate rapidly. The Postal Service stopped the progress payments to Padula at that time and initiated the process that led to Padula’s termination. The appellant does not provide any basis for concluding that the Postal Service violated a duty to Southeastern by making progress payments to Padula before September 1988. Second, there is no evidentiary support for the appellant’s assertion that the Postal Service misrepresented the quality or extent of Padula’s work during the time Padula was on the job. In response to Southeastern’s periodic inquiries regarding Padula’s work, the Postal Service reported that there were problems with the work and that the project was somewhat behind schedule. When Padula’s performance fell off in September 1988, the Postal Service warned Southeastern that Padula was experiencing significant difficulties and that the condition of the project was “deteriorating.” Pursuant to Southeastern’s request, the Postal Service agreed to withhold Padula’s September 2, 1988, progress payment as well as any subsequent payment requests. Accordingly, there is no factual support for the appellant’s arguments that Southeastern is entitled to relief because of Postal Service misrepresentations about Padula’s performance, or that Southeastern’s failure to complete the project promptly after taking over the work in October 1988 should be excused because of Postal Service malfeasance in administering the contract with Padula. C The appellant argues that Southeastern’s termination for default must be converted into a termination for the convenience of the government because the termination notice failed to advise Southeastern of its appeal rights. See 41 U.S.C. § 605(a). The trial court held that the omission of any reference in the termination notice to the contractor’s appeal rights violated the Contract Disputes Act, but that on the facts of this case the violation was harmless. See Philadelphia Regent Builders v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 234, 634 F.2d 569, 573 (1980) (“To nullify this termination for default solely on the ground of these harmless technical defects would grant plaintiff an entirely unwarranted windfall.”); see also Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F.3d 1573, 1579 (1996)" }, { "docid": "6583970", "title": "", "text": "of default did not contain a mandatory clause stating plaintiffs appeal rights under the Contracts Dispute Act. The Manual states that all final decisions issued by contracting officers regarding contract disputes must contain a paragraph that sets forth the contractor’s appeal rights. USPSPM 6.8.3.g. The notice of default termination issued by the Postal Service to Southeastern did not contain this clause. We find the lack of such a paragraph in the termination notice a technical deficiency that is insufficient to overturn a decision otherwise properly made. The focus of decisions which address technical deficiencies of a contracting officer’s final decision is the harm to the plaintiff. Transamerica Ins. Corp. v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 418, 423-24 (1993). In Philadelphia Regent Builders v. United States, 634 F.2d 569, 225 Ct.Cl. 234 (1980), a contractor sought to have a default termination nullified and converted to one for convenience because of technical deficiencies in the notice of default termination, including an incorrect contract number, failure to include appeal rights, and the lack of a signature by the contracting officer. The court stated that while it did not “favor sloppy practices nor approve of violations of the procurement regulations,” it would not nullify a valid termination for default solely because of “harnlless technical defects.” Philadelphia Regent Builders, 634 F.2d at 572-73. To do so would “grant plaintiff an entirely unwarranted windfall.” Id. 634 F.2d at 573. In particular, the court noted that the omission of the appeal rights did not harm the plaintiff because he was able to file a timely appeal. Plaintiff was not “harmed” by the omission of its appeal rights in the notice of default termination because Southeastern received a final decision and its appeal was heard in this court. Plaintiff cites the legislative history of the CDA to show that the notice of appeal rights is especially important “for small contractors who may not be well versed in Government contracting procedures.” Contract Disputes: Hearings on H.R. 664 and Related Bills Before the Subcomm. on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st Sess." }, { "docid": "15404791", "title": "", "text": "of the DOI task order was justified, and that BearingPoint was not entitled to any relief on its July 28, 2006 certified claim. On January 14, 2008, BearingPoint filed its motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that “a procedurally defective, unauthorized termination for default results in a termination for convenience.” Pl.’s Motion at 4 (citing Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., ITT Def. Comm. Div. v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 37, 509 F.2d 541 (1975); Timberland Paving & Constr. Co. v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 653 (1985)). Defendant opposed BearingPoint’s motion on February 14, 2008, arguing that material facts are in dispute, and that DOI’s issuance of the unauthorized default notice did not extinguish the Government’s right through GSA’s Contracting Officer to terminate the task order for default where adequate cause existed. Defendant cited eases holding that harmless technical defects in an otherwise proper default termination do not require automatic conversion to a termination for convenience. See, e.g., State of Fla., Dep’t of Ins. v. United States, 81 F.3d 1093, 1098 (Fed.Cir.1996); DCX, Inc. v. Perry, 79 F.3d 132, 135 (Fed.Cir.1996); Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1996); Philadelphia Regent Builders v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 234, 634 F.2d 569, 572 (1980). BearingPoint filed a reply on March 3, 2008, and the Court heard oral argument on March 20, 2008. The issue presented by BearingPoint’s motion is whether the unauthorized DOI default termination requires automatic conversion to a termination for convenience by operation of law. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), and the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 609(a). Discussion A. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56(e) if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Atwood-Leisman v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 142, 147 (2006). The burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists rests with the moving party." }, { "docid": "2698346", "title": "", "text": "which DCX relies, 48 C.F.R. § 49.402-3(f), requires a contracting officer to consider various factors before exercising his discretion to terminate a contract when the contractor is in default. In this case, the termination contracting officer’s contemporaneous memorandum and hearing testimony demonstrate that he addressed the pertinent regulatory factors and found that they did not counsel against termination under the circumstances of this case. Moreover, the factors in section 49.402-3(f) that contracting officers are directed to consider before terminating contracts are not prerequisites, to a valid termination. Although compliance or noncompliance with section 49.402-3(f) may aid a Board of Contract Appeals or a court in determining whether a contracting officer has abused his discretion in terminating a contract for default, see Darwin Constr. Co. v. United States, 811 F.2d 593, 598 (Fed.Cir.1987); Fairfield Scientific Corp. v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 167, 611 F.2d 854, 862 (1979), the regulation does not confer rights on a defaulting contractor. A contracting officer’s failure to consider one or more of the section 49.402-3® factors therefore does not require that a default termination be converted into a termination for the convenience of the government. The Boards of Contract Appeals have embraced that view in a number of cases, and we agree. See, e.g., William A. Hulett, 93-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 25,389, at 126,459 (1992); National Medical Staffing, Inc., 92-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 24,-837, at 123,918-19 (1992); Metroplex Indus. Constructors, Inc., 89-3 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 22,-174, at 111,574 (1989); Lafayette Coal Co., 89-3 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 21,963, at 110,482 (1989); Douglas County Aviation, Inc., 85-3 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 18,257, at 91,655 (1985); Spectrum Leasing Corp., 85-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 17,822, at 89,199 (1984); International Elecs. Corp., 76-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 11,817, at 56,430 (1976). DCX argues that the termination contracting officer acted rashly by terminating the contract on July 13 without considering the reasons for the delay. As the officer testified, however, the government had already given DCX an extension of time within which to produce the First Article Test Report. The contracting officer agreed to forbear termination until July 12, as requested by DCX. When" }, { "docid": "15404794", "title": "", "text": "show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Massey v. Del Labs., Inc., 118 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed.Cir.1997). B. Analysis of Default Termination Issues A default termination “is a drastic sanction,” and the Government is held strictly accountable for its actions in enforcing this sanction. Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759, 765 (Fed.Cir.1987) (citing J.D. Hedin Constr. Co. v. United States, 187 Ct.Cl. 45, 408 F.2d 424, 431 (1969); Schlesinger v. United States, 182 Ct.Cl. 571, 390 F.2d 702, 709 (1968)). See also H.N. Bailey & Assocs. v. United States, 196 Ct.Cl. 156, 449 F.2d 387, 391 (1971) (same). In challenging default terminations, contractors typically contend that: (1) a procedural error renders the default unenforceable; or (2) considering the merits of performance, the contractor either was not in default, or its performance deficiencies were excusable. Extensive regulations describe the factors to be considered and the procedures to be followed in terminating a contract for default. See FAR Subpart 49.4, “Termination for Default.” But see FAR § 12.403, “Termination” (stating that the requirements of Part 49 “do not apply when terminating contracts for commercial items,” but may be used as “guidance to the extent that Part 49 does not conflict with this section”). When a contractor such as Bearing-Point challenges a default termination on the basis of procedural errors, the contractor must show the existence of harm or prejudice that it suffered due to the Government’s error. In some instances, the harm or prejudice to the contractor is readily apparent, and the default termination is converted to a termination for convenience. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., ITT Def. Comm. Div. v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 37, 509 F.2d 541 (1975) (Government’s failure to issue required cure notice prevented contractor from curing defects); DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct.Cl. 979, 413 F.2d 1147 (1969) (Government waived delivery schedule by failing to terminate within reasonable time, where contractor continued performance in reliance upon Government’s waiver). In other cases, the procedural errors are regarded as harmless technical defects. State of Fla., Dep’t of Ins. v. United" }, { "docid": "15404796", "title": "", "text": "States, 81 F.3d 1093, 1098 (Fed.Cir.1996) (failure to include appeal rights in default notice found to be harmless error); DCX, Inc. v. Perry, 79 F.3d 132, 135 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“[Contracting Officer’s failure to consider one or more of the [FAR] section 49.402-3(f) factors does not require that a default termination be converted into a termination for the convenience of the government.”); Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“[H]arm should accompany a defect in an otherwise proper termination notice in order for the contractor to seek relief based on that defect.”); Philadelphia Regent Builders v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 234, 634 F.2d 569, 572 (1980) (default notice lacking proper contract number and date, failing to state that the notice constituted a decision under the Disputes clause, and the lack of a contracting officer signature, found to be harmless technical defects). In the present case, BearingPoint did not make any showing of harm or prejudice in its motion for partial summary judgment. BearingPoint argued simply that DOFs unauthorized default termination should be regarded as “improper” under FAR § 52.212-4(m), resulting in automatic conversion to a termination for convenience. BearingPoint’s proposed findings of uncontroverted facts accompanying the motion similarly did not include any facts showing harm or prejudice. When Defendant asserted in its response to the motion that BearingPoint failed to demonstrate any harm or prejudice, Bearing-Point then included the following “prejudice” arguments in its reply: (1) by delaying more than two years before GSA issued its final decision, the Government significantly extended the period for which BearingPoint must disclose the default terminations in responding to any new solicitations; (2) the two-year delay had a negative impact on BearingPoint’s ability to prepare for and present its defenses to the terminations; and (3) BearingPoint could not, and did not, receive fair consideration of its excusable delay defenses from GSA where DOI already had terminated Task Order 3 and ended Bearing-Point’s performance. Pl.’s Reply at 9-11. See also Oral Arg., Mar 20, 2008 at 9-17. BearingPoint ultimately may be able to show that it suffered harm or prejudice from the unauthorized DOI" }, { "docid": "6583968", "title": "", "text": "according to the original contract plans and specifications. In exercising this option to complete the contract, Southeastern stepped into the shoes of Padula. In essence, it became the contractor. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United States, 16 Cl.Ct. 142, 153 (1988); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States, 845 F.2d 971, 974 (Fed.Cir.1988). Regulations governing the termination for default in this case are set forth in the United States Postal Service Procurement Manual (USPSPM), Publication 41 (1987). This Manual governs all procurements of property and services made by the Postal Service. 39 C.F.R. § 601.102. It is issued pursuant to statutory authority, and therefore has the force and effect of law. 39 U.S.C. § 401; DeMatteo Construction Co. v. United States, 600 F.2d 1384, 1391, 220 Ct.Cl. 579 (1979). The Manual provision covering termination for default of fixed-price contracts provides: Under the Termination for Default Clause, the Postal Service has the right ... to terminate all or any part, of a contract without regard to severability or contract obligations when the contractor: (1) Fails to complete any material requirement of the contract within the time specified in the contract (including any extensions); (2) Fails to make progress to a degree that this failure endangers performance of the contract; (8) Fails to perform any other contract provision; or (4) Fails to give adequate assurances as required by 6.2.5. USPSPM 6.9.3.b. Violation of any of these provisions is sufficient grounds for a termination for default. USPSPM 6.9.3. Defendant cited Southeastern’s failure to make adequate progress, to perform several contract provisions, and to give adequate assurances, as reasons for terminating plaintiff for default. Plaintiff argues that the default termination was improper because: (1) the notice of default termination was defective; (2) delays causing default were excusable; (3) the Contracting Officer abused his discretion in terminating plaintiff for default; and (4) defendant waived its right to terminate for default. A. Formal Defects in the Termination for Default Notice Plaintiff argues that the termination for default should be converted to one for convenience of the government. The basis for this assertion is that the notice" }, { "docid": "11952120", "title": "", "text": "no factual support for the appellant’s arguments that Southeastern is entitled to relief because of Postal Service misrepresentations about Padula’s performance, or that Southeastern’s failure to complete the project promptly after taking over the work in October 1988 should be excused because of Postal Service malfeasance in administering the contract with Padula. C The appellant argues that Southeastern’s termination for default must be converted into a termination for the convenience of the government because the termination notice failed to advise Southeastern of its appeal rights. See 41 U.S.C. § 605(a). The trial court held that the omission of any reference in the termination notice to the contractor’s appeal rights violated the Contract Disputes Act, but that on the facts of this case the violation was harmless. See Philadelphia Regent Builders v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 234, 634 F.2d 569, 573 (1980) (“To nullify this termination for default solely on the ground of these harmless technical defects would grant plaintiff an entirely unwarranted windfall.”); see also Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F.3d 1573, 1579 (1996) (“harm should accompany a defect in an otherwise proper termination notice in order for the contractor to seek relief based on that defect”); Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. United States, 735 F.Supp. 1059, 1063 (C.I.T. 1990) (relief may be granted based on omission of statutorily required notification of right to sue only if party was prejudiced by the absence of the notification), aff'd and adopted, 923 F.2d 838 (Fed.Cir.1991). We agree with the trial court that the absence of notification of appeal rights in the termination notice was harmless error, for several reasons. Southeastern had actual notice of its appeal rights at the time it received the termination letter, because those rights were explicitly set forth both in the termination notice to Padula, which was read by Southeastern’s representative, and in the original bonded contract. Moreover, the appellant’s only allegation of prejudice on appeal is that the defective notice caused Southeastern to lose its right to appeal to the Board of Contract Appeals following the termination. The appellant, however, challenged the Postal Service’s actions by appealing" }, { "docid": "11952121", "title": "", "text": "(“harm should accompany a defect in an otherwise proper termination notice in order for the contractor to seek relief based on that defect”); Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. United States, 735 F.Supp. 1059, 1063 (C.I.T. 1990) (relief may be granted based on omission of statutorily required notification of right to sue only if party was prejudiced by the absence of the notification), aff'd and adopted, 923 F.2d 838 (Fed.Cir.1991). We agree with the trial court that the absence of notification of appeal rights in the termination notice was harmless error, for several reasons. Southeastern had actual notice of its appeal rights at the time it received the termination letter, because those rights were explicitly set forth both in the termination notice to Padula, which was read by Southeastern’s representative, and in the original bonded contract. Moreover, the appellant’s only allegation of prejudice on appeal is that the defective notice caused Southeastern to lose its right to appeal to the Board of Contract Appeals following the termination. The appellant, however, challenged the Postal Service’s actions by appealing from the denial of its 1990 payment request. The contracting officer’s letter denying that claim clearly spelled out the appellant’s right to appeal either to the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals or to the Court of Federal Claims. The appellant has not pointed to any possible injury that it may have suffered as a result of appealing from the denial of its payment request, rather than from the termination notice. As the appellant acknowledges, it has been able to challenge the default termination in the course of this litigation, and it made an informed choice to litigate this case in the Court of Federal Claims rather than before the Board of Contract Appeals. We therefore agree with the trial court that the appellant has failed to make a plausible claim of prejudice stemming from the defect in the termination notice. Contrary to the appellant’s assertions, Ris-co Co. v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 806, 610 F.2d 742 (1979), does not require that the default termination be converted into a termination for the convenience for the" }, { "docid": "21665273", "title": "", "text": "weight and meeting the contract schedule.” McDonnell Douglas Corp., 35 Fed.Cl. at 362. The Navy was aware in early 1990 that the contractors would not meet the delivery date for the first aircraft, but it took no action to terminate the contract then. Id. ‘When a due date has passed and the contract has not been terminated for default within a reasonable time, the inference is created that time is no longer of the essence so long as the constructive election not to terminate continues and the contractor proceeds with performance.” DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct.Cl. 979, 413 F.2d 1147, 1154 (1969). Defendant waived its right to terminate plaintiffs for default based on the delivery schedule set forth in the original agreement. It elected to permit plaintiffs to continue working several months past June 1990 and thereby surrendered its right to terminate for that reason. Id. at 1153. The Navy issued contract modification P00046 unilaterally on August 17, 1990, setting first flight for December 31, 1991. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 35 Fed.Cl. at 362. The Government seeks to uphold the default termination on the ground that the contractors were not making progress toward the December 1991 first flight schedule. Plaintiffs argue that the Navy’s unilateral schedule was unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. If so, legally they could not have been terminated on that ground. Alternatively, they argue that the new schedule was waived. The Government may terminate a contractor for default based on failure to make progress toward meeting an enforceable schedule. FAR 49.402-l(a). For a unilateral schedule to be enforceable, the Gov ernment must follow certain procedures when establishing the new schedule. DeVito, 413 F.2d at 1154. The time for performance must be “both reasonable and specific from the standpoint of the performance capabilities of the contractor at the time the notice is given.” Id.; see also International Tel. & Tel., etc. v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 37, 509 F.2d 541, 549 (1975). The reasonableness requirement in DeVito is based on what the Government “knew or should have known....” ITT, 509 F.2d at 550. The burden is on defendant to" }, { "docid": "6977101", "title": "", "text": "723 n. 7 (citing Northrop Carolina, Inc. v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 670, 553 F.2d 105 (1977)). The CO allowed the required minimum of 10 days in the notice, and actually waited 19 days before terminating the contract. Hannon has not demonstrated that her choice of this amount of time was arbitrary or capricious. The CO testified that the timing of her actions was intended to save the government time and Hannon wasted effort. Hannon had not offered to comply and was not working to reduce the size of the load banks. This was not a circumstance in which Hannon was trying to cure its defective performance but was cut short by the end of the cure period. C. Exercise of Discretion 1. Decision to Terminate for Default Plaintiff also asserts that the default termination was improper because the CO failed to properly exercise her discretion to terminate and because her decision did not have a reasonable basis. This court evaluates the CO’s conduct to determine if it was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Darwin Constr., 811 F.2d at 597. Even if a contractor is technically in default, a CO may not automatically terminate the contract. See id. Instead, she must consider whether such action is in the best interest of the government. Nuclear Research Corp. v. United States, 814 F.2d 647, 649 (Fed.Cir.1987). She does so in part by considering the seven factors set out in 48 C.F.R. § 49-402-3(f). Fairfield Scientific Corp. v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 167, 182, 611 F.2d 854, 862 (1979). Plaintiff has focused on two of these factors in claiming that the CO abused her discretion. The first of them required her to consider “[t]he urgency of the need for the supplies or services and the period of time required to obtain them from other sources, as compared with the time delivery could be obtained from the delinquent contractor.” 49 C.F.R. § 49.402-3(f)(4). The CO testified that she did not recall making an inquiry into the urgency of the need for these load banks, or into the time it would take a" } ]

[ { "docid": "5996225", "title": "", "text": "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BUCKLO, District Judge. The plaintiffs, Marci Ann Goldstein (“Ms. Goldstein”), Wayne Goldstein, and Judith Goldstein, filed their complaint against the defendants, Kinney Shoe Corporation (“Kinney”), Wade Abed, Eric Dregne, Kevin Romano a/k/a Ehab Moustafa, and Brian Duda, on September 22, 1995. On November 8, 1995, Messrs. Abed, Dregne, Moustafa, and Duda filed their answers, defenses, and counterclaims to the complaint. Each of them asserted counterclaims alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Duda also set forth a counterclaim for battery. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. For the reasons discussed below, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied. Defamation In their motion, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants fail to adequately allege defamation per se. They contend that the defendants were obligated to provide the exact language of the allegedly defamatory statements. Federal pleading standards generally require a plaintiff (or counter-plaintiff) pleading a state law defamation claim to recite the specific words alleged to be defamatory. Pelech v. Klaff-Joss, LP, 828 F.Supp. 525, 534 (N.D.Ill.1993) (citing Vantassell-Matin v. Nelson, 741 F.Supp. 698, 707 (N.D.Ill.1990)). The purpose of requiring in haec verba pleading is to enable the defendant (or counter-defendant) to responsively plead. Id. Here, although the defendants did not enclose the allegedly defamatory statements in quotation marks, there is nothing to indicate that they have not set forth the plaintiffs’ actual words. Moreover, the plaintiffs have sufficient information to construct a responsive pleading. They are on notice that the defendants seek to hold them liable for pub lishing accusations that the defendants sexually abused Ms. Goldstein. Accordingly, I will not dismiss the defendants’ defamation counterclaims on the grounds that they do not allege the exact words of the statements. See id.; Vantassell-Matin, 741 F.Supp. at 708. The plaintiffs next argue that the defendants have not alleged to whom they made the statements. “Publication is an essential element of a cause of action for libel or slander. The only requirement for publication is that the defamatory statements be communicated to a third person.” Jones v. Britt Airways, Inc., 622 F.Supp. 389, 391 (N.D.Ill.1985)." } ]

[ { "docid": "17500103", "title": "", "text": "allegation that defendants “have made, and continue to make, these and other similarly false and derogatory statements about Plaintiffs” is insufficiently specific to support a claim for defamation. (D. Br. 22, quoting Compl. ¶ 137.) Plaintiffs have not attempted to argue that the complaint states a claim for defamation based on any statement other than the challenged e-mail. (See P. Br. 28-30.) Accordingly, the Court construes the defamation complaint as being based solely on that communication. As the complaint, so construed, states a claim for relief, defendants’ motion to dismiss Count IX must be denied. IV. The Individual Defendants In addition to the motions above, which are made by both Marubeni and the individual defendants, particular individual defendants move to dismiss certain counts of the complaint as to them. These motions will be granted in part and denied in part. A. Sakamoto and Saito Defendants Kazuhiko Sakamoto and Masami Saito move to dismiss the defamation count (Count IX) as to them, on the ground that the complaint alleges that the allegedly defamatory e-mail was sent by another defendant, Shigemasa Sonobe, and not by them. The motion will be granted. Defendants argue that plaintiffs must provide “sufficient notice' of the defamatory statements in order to allow the defendant to defend himself,” and that plaintiffs fail to identify defamatory statements made by them. (Indiv. D. Br. 4, citing Odom v. Columbia Univ., 906 F.Supp. 188, 196-97 (S.D.N.Y.1995.)) This argument is not on point: the complaint is quite specific about the language from the e-mail in question that plaintiffs claim is defamatory. The problem, rather, is that the complaint is totally vague about what role Sakamoto and Saito are supposed to have played in the uttering of the e-mail. Sakamoto and Saito assert that since the e-mail was sent by Sonobe, they cannot be held liable in defamation. Neither side cites any authority clearly upholding or rejecting a defamation claim based on an aiding and abetting theory. Nevertheless, the fact that the e-mail was sent from Sonobe’s account should not insulate from liability others who directly participated in the decision to send it." }, { "docid": "4320040", "title": "", "text": "of the federal procedural rule “... alters the mode of enforcing state-created rights_” Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 473, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 1145, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965). Therefore, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), not CPLR 3016(a) supplies the standard of specificity applicable to the defamation pleading in this case. Kelly v. Schmidberger, 806 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir.1986) (“... in federal diversity cases ... ‘the mode of pleading defamation is governed by Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P.’ ”) (citations omitted); Geisler v. Petrocelli, 616 F.2d 636, 640 (2d Cir.1980) (“... the mode of pleading defamation [in a diversity case] is governed by Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P.”). This Court now considers whether plaintiff has pleaded defamation with req uisite specificity pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), “... the test of a complaint’s sufficiency is whether it is detailed and informative enough ‘to enable defendant to respond and to raise the defense of res judicata if appropriate.’ ” Kelly v. Schmidberger, 806 F.2d at 46 (quoting Geisler, 616 F.2d at 640). In its Response Affidavit, defendant argues that plaintiff’s defamation cause of action fails to meet the requisite specificity under federal law. Defendant cites Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co., 713 F.Supp. 533 (N.D.N.Y.1989), where the Northern District dismissed plaintiff’s defamation cause of action because the Complaint failed to reference the allegedly defamatory statements, the plaintiff failed to specify who made the comments, when they were made, the context in which they were made, whether the statements were made to a third party, whether the statements were written or oral and, generally, failed to “... set forth in any manner whatsoever the words which [plaintiff claimed were] actionable so as to give defendants notice of the statements at issue.” Id., at 545. In this case, however, plaintiff’s Complaint alleges what the statement was, that it was spoken and approximately when it was made. Although the Complaint does not specify which agent(s) of defendant spoke the allegedly defamatory words and which agent(s) of defendant heard the words, this Court concludes that the Complaint is specific enough to enable defendant to “ ‘... respond and to raise the defense" }, { "docid": "22638855", "title": "", "text": "reasonable person could view that photo of Evel and Krystal Knievel, and the unidentified young woman, captioned with the phrase quoted, and believe a longtime daredevil now seeks money by living less on motorcycles and more off of women. Because I believe that a reasonable person could view this photo and its caption as defamatory of the Knievels, I respectfully dissent. I A. Defamation, Constitutional Limitations and Pleading Requirements To make out a case for defamation under Montana law, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) that the published material was false; (2) that defendants are chargeable with fault in the publication; (3) that actual injury to [plaintiff] ensued for which he may recover his actual damages; and (4)[ ] that the publication was made by defendants with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth or falsities thereof.” Madison v. Yunker, 180 Mont. 54, 67, 589 P.2d 126, 132 (1978). Courts have held that, to comport with the First Amendment, only statements that can “reasonably be interpreted to state actual facts about an individual” are capable of defamatory meaning and are therefore actionable. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Cochran v. New York Post, 58 F.Supp.2d 1113, 1121 (C.D.Cal.1998) (noting that “the threshold question is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the statement is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false”). A court may properly determine “whether a statement is fairly susceptible of a defamatory meaning when presented with a motion to dismiss.” Cochran, 58 F.Supp.2d at 1120. In general, however, a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (emphasis added). Moreover, the court must read the complaint generously and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, accepting the" }, { "docid": "81445", "title": "", "text": "Distress Plaintiffs claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress are subject to the very strict standard set forth in New York State law. Liability will only be found where conduct is “so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Bender v. City of New York, 78 F.3d 787, 790-91 (2d Cir.1996). Plaintiff has not outlined any conduct which fits the Bender standard. This Court finds that even if all Defendants’ alleged bad acts were taken as true, those acts do not rise to the level necessary to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York state law. The Court further notes that Plaintiffs allegations are in substance, a reiteration of Plaintiffs belief that he was unfairly terminated. New York law does not recognize tort claims for wrongful discharge, accordingly, a plaintiffs attempt to disguise such a claim as one for intentional infliction of emotional distress will not succeed. See Murphy v. American Home Products Corporation, 58 N.Y.2d 293, 303, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86 (1983). 2) Defamation Plaintiff asserts that Defendants began defaming him sometime after December 16, 1996. (Comply 39.) The alleged defamatory statements were made in “letters to Plaintiff’ and in “false statements and accusations to Plaintiff in the presence of other employees, and also to their lawyers concerning Plaintiffs employment and profession.” Id. Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff need not plead a defamation claim in considerable detail, but must concisely state the basis of his claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Broome v. Biondi, No. 96 Civ. 0805, 1997 WL 83295, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 1997). As a practical matter, each pleading must be specific enough to “afford defendant sufficient notice of the communication complained of to enable him to defend himself.” Kelly v. Schmidberger, 806 F.2d 44, 45 (2d Cir.1986)(citing Liguori v. Alexander, 495 F.Supp. 641, 647 (S.D.N.Y.1980)). As applied to defamation claims, this requires a plaintiff to merely state" }, { "docid": "685839", "title": "", "text": "g., Foltz v. Moore McCormack Lines, Inc., 189 F.2d 537 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 871, 72 S.Ct. 106, 96 L.Ed. 655 (1951) and Simpson v. Oil Transfer Corp., 75 F.Supp. 819, 822 (N.D.N.Y.1948), which indicated that such particularity was required, were based, in part, on the assumption that state pleading requirements controlled in diversity cases. However, at least since Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965), it has been clear that Rule 8(a), F.R.Civ.P., requiring a short and plain statement of the claim for relief, and not state law, controls the form of pleading'state law claims in federal court. See 5 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1245. Since Hanna, the Court of Appeals has not addressed the question of the specificity required of defamation complaints, and the lower courts in this circuit have differed on whether defamatory statements need be set forth in haec verba. Compare Pirre v. Printing Developments, Inc., 432 F.Supp. 840, 843 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (Knapp, J.) with Drummond v. Spero, 350 F.Supp. 844, 845 (D.Vt.1972). What is clear, however, is that the allegations of the complaint must afford defendant sufficient notice of the communications complained of to enable him to defend himself. See Pirre v. Printing Developments, Inc., supra, 432 F.Supp. at 843; Mueller v. Rayon Consultants, Inc., 170 F.Supp. 555, 557-58 (S.D.N.Y.1959) (Dawson, J.). In view of the past history of the parties’ numerous confrontations involving plaintiff’s personnel file, I view with some skepticism defendant’s claim that he cannot fathom which material in those files are alleged to be defamatory. Nevertheless, the complaint does fail to refer to those statements with any specificity. Plaintiff has indicated willingness to amend the complaint in this respect. Therefore, plaintiff will be granted 30 days from the date that notice of this decision is printed in the New York Law Journal to amend the complaint to set forth the allegedly defamatory statements in haec verba. Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim is also grounded on Heller’s official immunity. A federal officer is absolutely immune from liability for tortious conduct" }, { "docid": "4606084", "title": "", "text": "to artificially raise and fix and maintain prices by establishing minimum prices for various catfish and catfish products, setting the date such prices should go into effect, adhering to such minimum prices and monitoring and enforcing compliance with the agreed upon minimum prices. Complaint, pgs. 7-10. The sufficiency of a complaint is governed foremost by Rule 8(a)(2) which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief—” It is well settled that the statement of the claim should provide the defendant with fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, 85 (1957). In a Sherman Act claim, a blanket allegation of a conspiracy is deemed insufficient to place the defendant “on notice” of the claim in order for defendant to formulate an adequate responsive pleading. Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1387 (10th Cir.1980); Larry R. George Sales Co. v. Cool Attic Corp., 587 F.2d 266, 273 (5th Cir.1979); California Dump Truck Owners Ass’n v. Associated General Contractors, 562 F.2d 607, 615 (9th Cir.1977). Yet, by the same token, there is no requirement of an “inordinate level of factual specificity.” Mountain View Pharmacy, 630 F.2d at 1388. In the case sub judice, the defendants received much more than a generic allegation of conspiracy, and the complaint more than satisfies Rule 8(a)(2) standards. For example, defendants received notice that the plaintiffs allege; a conspiracy among them to establish minimum prices for catfish and catfish products; agreements to adhere to the established minimum prices; agreements to set dates in which minimum prices were to be implemented; and, monitoring and enforcing compli.ance with the agreed upon minimum prices. As a means to this end, plaintiffs allege that beginning in 1981 and continuing through 1990, company representatives from the defendant companies engaged in meetings and telephone conversations where discussions occurred and decisions were made as to the prices to be charged for catfish and the dates of implementation. In 1983, it is alleged" }, { "docid": "4462386", "title": "", "text": "“while the defamation need not be plead in haec ver-ba, a pleading is only sufficient if it adequately identifies ‘the purported communication, and an indication of who made the communication, when it was made, and to whom it was communicated.’ ” Ready v. Nike, Inc., 116 F.Supp.2d 428, 439 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (quoting Broome v. Biondi, No. 96 Civ. 0805, 1997 WL 83295, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 1997)). “The central concern is that the complaint afford defendant sufficient notice of the communications complained of to enable him to defend himself.” Kelly v. Schmidberger, 806 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir.1986) (internal quotations omitted). Mere eonclusory statements that the claimant was disparaged by false statements are insufficient to state a defamation claim. See Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 271 (2d Cir.1999) (affirming dismissal of plaintiffs unsupported claim of defamation that defendant “said ‘something bad’ about him to client”); Ford v. Clement, 834 F.Supp. 72, 78 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd 29 F.3d 621 (2d Cir.1994) (finding allegations of defamation insufficient where they failed to “give [defendant] any notice whatsoever of the communications at issue”). The only possible basis for a defamation claim in this case is plaintiffs’ alleged “portray[al] [of plaintiff] as a goldigger,” specifically by their alleged public statements that Stouffer’s claims are “absurd,” “ridiculous,” and “meritless.” (Def.’s Mem. at 16; Counterclaims ¶¶ 117, 118.) Stouffer’s claim is deficient for two reasons. First, she completely fails to identify who made the alleged statements, at what times or places, and to whom the statements were made. Cf. Ready, supra, 116 F.Supp.2d at 439 (dismissing defamation claim that asserted “a series of defamatory statements without identifying the substance of those statements, by whom they were made, or to whom they were communicated”); Ives v. Guilford Mills, 3 F.Supp.2d 191, 199 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (dismissing defamation claim where it did not identify with precision who at defendant company made the alleged statements, at what times or places, and to whom the statements were made). Second, the alleged statements are statements of opinion, rather than fact, and the former are not protected under New York law." }, { "docid": "8927589", "title": "", "text": "868 (2009)) (internal quotations and alteration omitted). A motion to dismiss should be granted when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the ' non-moving party, the counterclaim faiis to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. When determining the sufficiency of'a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the • Court is required to consider only the allegations on the face of pleading. Nonetheless, “[djocuments that are attached to the [pleading] or incorporated in it by reference are deemed part of the pleading and may be considered.” Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir.2007). The Court can only consider documents outside of the pleading if the documents are integral to the pleading or subject to judicial notice. Global Network Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of N.Y., 458 F.3d 150, 156 (2d Cir.2006). B. Defamation Under New York law, a claim for defamation must allege: (1) a false statement of fact, (2) about the [complainant], (3) published to a third party without authorization or privilege, (4) through fault amounting to at least negligence, and (5) causing defamation per se or a special harm. Gristede’s Foods, Inc. v. Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Nation et al, No. 06-CV-1260, 2009 WL 4547792, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009). (Matsumoto, J.) (internal citations omitted). A statement that “tend[s] to injure another in his or her trade, business or profession” is defamatory per se. Stern v. Cosby, 645 F.Supp.2d 258, 273 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (citing Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 435, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344 (1992)). Although a plaintiff need not plead a defamation claim in considerable detail, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a concise statement of the basis of a claim. Ahmed v. Gelfand, 160 F.Supp.2d 408, 416 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (Johnson, J.). A plaintiff need not plead a defamatory statement in haec verba, but the pleadings must be sufficient to “afford the defendant sufficient notice of the communications complained of to enable him to defend himself.” Kelly v. Schmidberger, 806 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir.1986) (citing Liguori v. Alexander, 495 F.Supp. 641, 647 (S.D.N.Y.1980)). Ordinarily, this requires a plaintiff pleading defamation claims" }, { "docid": "5054953", "title": "", "text": "argue that the Complaint contains no allegation of a defamatory communication nor any allegation of the publication of such communication, essential elements of the tort of defamation under Pennsylvania law. Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F.2d 264, 270 (3d Cir.1980). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8343-8344 (setting forth the elements of a cause of action in defamation). Defendants, in effect, urge that the defamation claim be dismissed for failure to plead with specificity. This approach, however, contravenes the spirit of notice pleading incorporated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the teaching of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). In Conley, the Supreme Court reiterated the basis for deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss: “A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Id. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. at 101-102. See generally 2A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 12.08 (2d ed. 1979). The Second Circuit, addressing a similar argument involving a defamation claim, stated: It is sufficient for dismissal purposes that appellant has advanced colorable claims of having been identified and described by defamatory comment. [T]he mode of pleading defamation is governed by Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P. which requires only that plaintiff’s charges be set forth in a short and concise statement, detailed only to the extent necessary to enable defendant to respond and to raise the defense of res judicata if appropriate. Geisler v. Petrocelli, 616 F.2d 636; 639-40 (2d Cir.1980). Accord DiTeodoro v. Durand Intern., 566 F.Supp. 273, 274 (E.D.Pa.1983); Zerpol Corp. v. DMP Corp., 561 F.Supp. 404, 412 (E.D.Pa.1983). The Court finds that plaintiff’s claim of defamation suffices under these liberal standards. C. Contract Claim Count III of plaintiff’s complaint alleges that “[d]efendant breached its contractual obligation to deal with plaintiff in good faith”, Complaint at ¶ 49, and “defendant failed to deal with plaintiff fairly.” Complaint at ¶ 50. Absent a specification of definite duration, a contract of employment" }, { "docid": "7340556", "title": "", "text": "N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). McGreal claims that the allegations have damaged her personal and professional reputation because “veracity and integrity” are required traits in her nursing profession and political career. (R.l, Compl. ¶¶ 51-52.) In order to constitute defamation per se under the third category, which is what McGreal seems to be alleging, the accusations must attack McGreal’s integrity in performing her employment duties. Cody v. Harris, 409 F.3d 853, 857 (7th Cir.2005). Attacks on McGreal’s personal integrity and character are not defamation per se. Id. at 858. The allegations in the complaint are words and phrases without any context; no clues are given as to when, how, or to whom the allegedly defamatory language was allegedly published. The Court is unable to determine whether the accusations constitute defamation per se, and McGreal did not plead a claim for defamation per quod in the alternate. A plaintiff must provide more than “abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements.” Swanson, 614 F.3d at 405 (quoting Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir.2009)). Aside from the snippets of accusations quoted above, the entirety of McGreal’s defamation per se claim recites that (R. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 51-52.) This “abstract recitation” combined with the context-free quotes do not provide fair notice to the Village Defendants of the grounds upon which McGreal’s claim for relief rests. McGreal has failed to “present a story that holds together.” Swanson, 614 F.3d at 404. Even drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of McGreal and reading the pro se complaint liberally, the Court is unable to find that McGreal has alleged facts sufficient to make out a claim for defamation per se. See, e.g., Adams v. Pull’r Holding Co., LLC, No. 09 C 7170, 2010 WL 1611078, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 20, 2010) (recognizing that liberal pleading standards do not require plaintiffs to include the allegedly defamatory statements verbatim in the complaint, but that “[i]t is, however," }, { "docid": "7340555", "title": "", "text": "communicable disease; (3) words that impute a person is unable to perform or lacks integrity in performing her or his employment duties; (4) words that impute a person lacks ability or otherwise prejudices that person in her or his profession; and (5) words that impute a person has engaged in adultery or fornication. Solaia Tech., LLC v. Specialty Pub. Co., 221 Ill.2d 558, 304 Ill.Dec. 369, 852 N.E.2d 825, 839 (2006). When filed in federal court, a claim for defamation per se is held to “the usual rules for notice pleading established by Rule 8.” Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 322 F.3d 918, 926 (7th Cir.2003). Thus, in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in federal court, a defamation per se claim must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 697, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). McGreal claims that the allegations have damaged her personal and professional reputation because “veracity and integrity” are required traits in her nursing profession and political career. (R.l, Compl. ¶¶ 51-52.) In order to constitute defamation per se under the third category, which is what McGreal seems to be alleging, the accusations must attack McGreal’s integrity in performing her employment duties. Cody v. Harris, 409 F.3d 853, 857 (7th Cir.2005). Attacks on McGreal’s personal integrity and character are not defamation per se. Id. at 858. The allegations in the complaint are words and phrases without any context; no clues are given as to when, how, or to whom the allegedly defamatory language was allegedly published. The Court is unable to determine whether the accusations constitute defamation per se, and McGreal did not plead a claim for defamation per quod in the alternate. A plaintiff must provide more than “abstract" }, { "docid": "8910210", "title": "", "text": "central concern is that the complaint ‘afford defendant sufficient notice of the communications complained of to enable him to defend himself.’ Id. at 46 (citations omitted). Application of those guidelines to plaintiff’s amended complaint mandates the conclusion that it is woefully lacking in the requisite specificity — even under the most liberal rules of pleading. As defendants persuasively contend: [Pjlaintiff fails to refer to any statements which he alleges to be defamatory. His defamation claim consists solely of the vague, conclusory statement that defendants defamed him by speaking or writing or circulating malicious, untrue and damaging comments about his job performance. Plaintiff does not specify who made the comments, does not specify when they were made, fails to allude to the context in which they are alleged to have been made, significantly does not indicate whether or when they were communicated to a third party, does not allege whether they were written or oral, and does not set forth in any manner whatsoever the words which he claims are actionable so as to give defendants notice of the statements at issue. Defendants’ Memorandum of Law at p. 26-27. For all of those reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s defamation cause of action is granted. In sum, plaintiff’s defamation cause of action should be dismissed in its entirety. Insofar as plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges defamatory remarks prior to November 1, 1987, those claims are time barred; and any defamatory remarks made after November 1, 1987 must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) A claim for IIED is subject to a very strict legal standard. Defendants’ conduct must be “ ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.’ ” Martin v. Citibank, N.A., 762 F.2d 212, 220 (2d Cir.1985) (quoting Fischer v. Maloney, 43 N.Y.2d 553, 558, 402 N.Y.S.2d 991, 373 N.E.2d 1215 (1978) (quoting Restatement (2d) Torts § 46(1)). The only allegation to" }, { "docid": "18762863", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: Appellant commenced a defamation action based on allegedly libelous statements contained in his personnel record which were published to prospective employers. The complaint contained a copy of the allegedly libelous material but stated only general information as to its publication. The district court ordered appellant to file an amended complaint within fifteen days, to specifically name and identify the individuals to whom the material was published and the dates of publication. Appellant filed an amended complaint listing several persons and varying time periods, ranging from one month to four years, during which the material was published. The district court dismissed appellant’s complaint because he failed to set forth specific allegations to support his claim under Florida law and the amended complaint was not filed within the prescribed time period. Although Florida substantive law applies to this diversity action, Church of Scientology of California v. Cazares, 638 F.2d 1272, 1286 (5th Cir.1981), federal procedural law governs. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 465-74, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 1140-45, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965). While Florida requires, perhaps wisely, specific allegations of publication in the complaint, see e.g., Buckner v. Lower Florida Keys Hospital District, 403 So.2d 1025, 1027-28 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981), cert. denied, 412 So.2d 463 (Fla.1982), Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, 155 So.2d 711, 715-16 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1963), under Hanna a federal court need not adhere to a state’s strict pleading requirements but should instead follow Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). 5 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1245 (1985 Supp.). In contrast to Florida’s strict pleading requirements, Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(a)(2), simply requires that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This requirement means the complaint need only “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Appellant’s original complaint satisfied this liberal pleading standard: the complaint reproduced the allegedly defamatory statement and generally described its publication, stating it was communicated to personnel within the defendant" }, { "docid": "685840", "title": "", "text": "F.Supp. 844, 845 (D.Vt.1972). What is clear, however, is that the allegations of the complaint must afford defendant sufficient notice of the communications complained of to enable him to defend himself. See Pirre v. Printing Developments, Inc., supra, 432 F.Supp. at 843; Mueller v. Rayon Consultants, Inc., 170 F.Supp. 555, 557-58 (S.D.N.Y.1959) (Dawson, J.). In view of the past history of the parties’ numerous confrontations involving plaintiff’s personnel file, I view with some skepticism defendant’s claim that he cannot fathom which material in those files are alleged to be defamatory. Nevertheless, the complaint does fail to refer to those statements with any specificity. Plaintiff has indicated willingness to amend the complaint in this respect. Therefore, plaintiff will be granted 30 days from the date that notice of this decision is printed in the New York Law Journal to amend the complaint to set forth the allegedly defamatory statements in haec verba. Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim is also grounded on Heller’s official immunity. A federal officer is absolutely immune from liability for tortious conduct that falls short of a constitutional violation when he acts within the outer limits of his official authority and when the action is discretionary. Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959); (defamation); Sami v. United States, 617 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (defamation); Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enterprises v. Smithsonian Institution, 566 F.2d 289 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915, 98 S.Ct. 3144, 57 L.Ed.2d 1160 (1978) (defamation); Huntington Towers, Ltd. v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863, 870 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1012, 98 S.Ct. 726, 54 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978); Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co. v. Floete, 299 F.2d 655, 658 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 1862, 10 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1963). This rule remained unaffected by Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), which held that only qualified immunity attaches to a federal employee who commits a constitutional tort. In order to clothe Heller with absolute immunity, then, his actions must be" }, { "docid": "8927590", "title": "", "text": "and (5) causing defamation per se or a special harm. Gristede’s Foods, Inc. v. Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Nation et al, No. 06-CV-1260, 2009 WL 4547792, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009). (Matsumoto, J.) (internal citations omitted). A statement that “tend[s] to injure another in his or her trade, business or profession” is defamatory per se. Stern v. Cosby, 645 F.Supp.2d 258, 273 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (citing Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 435, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344 (1992)). Although a plaintiff need not plead a defamation claim in considerable detail, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a concise statement of the basis of a claim. Ahmed v. Gelfand, 160 F.Supp.2d 408, 416 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (Johnson, J.). A plaintiff need not plead a defamatory statement in haec verba, but the pleadings must be sufficient to “afford the defendant sufficient notice of the communications complained of to enable him to defend himself.” Kelly v. Schmidberger, 806 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir.1986) (citing Liguori v. Alexander, 495 F.Supp. 641, 647 (S.D.N.Y.1980)). Ordinarily, this requires a plaintiff pleading defamation claims to state “the substance of the purported communication, who made the communication, when it was made, and to whom it was communicated.” Ahmed, 160 F.Supp.2d at 416; Broome v. Biondi No. 96-CV-805, 1997 WL 83295, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 1997) (Carter, J.). 1. Absolute Privilege Under New York Common Law New York has traditionally accorded an absolute privilege to oral or written communications made in the course of judicial proceedings and which relate to the litigation. Consequently, a statement made in the course of a judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged under New York common law so long as it is considered material and pertinent to the litigation. Conte v. Newsday, Inc., 703 F.Supp.2d 126, 146 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (Bianco, J.); see Martirano v. Frost, 25 N.Y.2d 505, 507, 307 N.Y.S.2d 425, 255 N.E.2d 693 (1969) (“[A] statement, made in open court in the course of a judicial proceeding, is absolutely privileged if, by any view or under any circumstances, it may be considered pertinent to the litigation.”). The absolute privilege attaches to every step of the" }, { "docid": "5054952", "title": "", "text": "punitive damages are not recoverable under the ADEA. Dean v. American Sec. Ins. Co., 559 F.2d 1036, 1039-40 (5th Cir.1977) (en banc); Walker v. Pettit Const. Co., Inc., 605 F.2d 128, 130 (4th Cir.1979). See also Kelly v. American Standard, Inc., 640 F.2d 974, 979 (9th Cir.1981) (“[t]he award of liquidated damages is in effect a substitution for punitive damages and is intended to deter intentional violations of the ADEA.”). Likewise, courts of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have rejected the view that the statute contemplates the availability of punitive damages. Boddorff v. Publicker Industries, Inc., 488 F.Supp. 1107, 1113-14 (E.D.Pa.1980); Wagner v. Sperry Univac, Div. of Sperry Rand Corp., 458 F.Supp. 505, 517-18 (E.D.Pa.1978); Platt v. Burroughs Corp., 424 F.Supp. 1329, 1336 (E.D.Pa.1976). The Court concludes that the clear weight of authority precludes, as a matter of law, punitive damages under the ADEA. B. Defamation Claim [4] Plaintiff’s Complaint avers that “[a]s a result of defendants’ actions, ... plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation and humiliation and continues to suffer same.” Complaint 1146. Defendants argue that the Complaint contains no allegation of a defamatory communication nor any allegation of the publication of such communication, essential elements of the tort of defamation under Pennsylvania law. Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F.2d 264, 270 (3d Cir.1980). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8343-8344 (setting forth the elements of a cause of action in defamation). Defendants, in effect, urge that the defamation claim be dismissed for failure to plead with specificity. This approach, however, contravenes the spirit of notice pleading incorporated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the teaching of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). In Conley, the Supreme Court reiterated the basis for deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss: “A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Id. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. at 101-102. See generally 2A Moore’s Federal Practice" }, { "docid": "23065276", "title": "", "text": "duty is discharged by such an assumption unless the obligee also agrees to discharge the original obligor.” J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Contracts § 768 n.74 (1977) (see cases cited therein.) . These examples are not to be viewed as exhaustive, but only suggestive of facts which might support the conclusion that what in substance occurred was a new sale by Xerox to the appellants as purchasers within the Act. . Appellants’ amended complaint essentially alleges that defendant Xerox was selling the 800-type machines new at $2,500 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and was selling the same new machines in Atlanta, Georgia, and other geographic locations at a discriminatory price. We, like other courts which have considered similar factual allegations, conclude that these allegations are sufficient under the RobinsonPatman Act. See Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1388-89 (10th Cir. 1980); J. W. Burress, Inc. v. JLG Indus., Inc., 491 F.Supp. 15, 16 (W.D.Va.1980); Palmer News, Inc. v. ARA Serv., Inc., 476 F.Supp. 1176, 1184 (D.Kan.1979); Eye Encounter, Inc. v. Contour Art, Ltd., 81 F.R.D. 683, 686, 687, 690 (E.D.N.Y.1979). The liberal rules of pleading embodied in Fed. R.Civ.P. 8 are as applicable to claims in antitrust or price discrimination cases as they are in any other case. Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, supra, 630 F.2d at 1386; New Home Appliance Center, Inc. v. Thompson, 250 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1957). All that is required is a short, plain statement of facts sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of the basis of the claim, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Moreover, in antitrust cases, where the proof is largely in the control of the defendant, Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962), “dismissals prior to giving the plaintiff ample opportunity for discovery should be granted very sparingly.” Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 746, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 1853, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976). In the instant case, further particularization of appellants’ allegations" }, { "docid": "3723295", "title": "", "text": "701 (1992)). Plaintiff does not identify any specific false statements in support of her defamation claim. While the Second Circuit does not require a plaintiff to plead the exact alleged defamatory words, Kelly v. Schmidberger, 806 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir.1986), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint must provide sufficient information to enable a defendant to respond. Fed .R.Civ.P. 8; see Kelly, 806 F.2d at 46. In Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co., 713 F.Supp. 533, 545 (N.D.N.Y.1989), aff'd, 108 F.3d 462 (2d Cir.1997), the court dismissed the defamation count because the pleadings lacked the requisite specificity by failing to state the speaker of the statements, the context in which the statements were made, when the statements were made, whether the statements were written or verbal, and whether the statements were communicated to a third party. Id. The court further stated that the pleadings did not set forth “in any manner whatsoever” the alleged defamatory statements. Id. Plaintiff’s pleadings are remarkably similar to the complaint in Wanamaker. The sole statement in the amended complaint supporting plaintiff’s defamation claim is that defendant’s actions defamed her reputation as a radiology technician. In her brief opposing defendant’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff makes a conclusory statement that the evidence supports her defamation claim. She also contends that her “discharge by its very nature was published” because she was at work one day and not the next so her co-workers and friends “must have learned of her discharge.” She never describes, even generally, any allegedly false statements made by defendant in connection with the discharge. Thus, she never gave defendant notice of the subject matter to which it could potentially assert a defense, including the defense of qualified privilege. Accordingly, this Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for defamation. See Croslan v. Housing Auth. of New Britain, 974 F.Supp. 161, 169-70 (D.Conn.1997) (granting defendant’s summary judgment motion on a defamation count because the complaint failed to state the claim with sufficient specificity where the plaintiff failed to provide the detail necessary to determine which statements were" }, { "docid": "21565572", "title": "", "text": "of plaintiff’s claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The purpose of a modern complaint is “to give opposing parties fair notice of the basis of the claim against them so that they may respond to the complaint, and to apprise the court of sufficient allegations to allow it to conclude, if the allegations are proved, that the claimant has a legal right to relief.” Perington Wholesale, 631 F.2d at 1371. To dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “The trial court must conclude ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ ” Id. at 1372 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). With the above standards in mind, we address in turn the sufficiency of the counts charged in the complaint. A. Conspiracy to Restrain Trade In Count I, Monument Builders charges defendant cemeteries and cemetery associations with a horizontal conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. We must determine whether the complaint makes sufficient allegations of conspiracy, and whether it alleges illegal practices under section 1. “The pleading standard set by Rule 8(a)(2) does not change from case to case.... However, while the pleading standard does not vary, what constitutes sufficient notice to enable a defendant to formulate a responsive pleading does change from case to case. To provide adequate notice, a complaint in a complex, multi-party suit may require more information than a simple, single party case.” Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1386-87 (10th Cir.1980). In Mountain View, which defendants cite heavily, we dismissed portions of a multi-party antitrust conspiracy complaint as inadequate. The differences between the Mountain View complaint and that filed by Monument Builders are striking. The plaintiffs in Mountain View sued a large number of drug companies for unfair trade practices in relation to certain products. In none of their claims did the" }, { "docid": "81446", "title": "", "text": "not succeed. See Murphy v. American Home Products Corporation, 58 N.Y.2d 293, 303, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86 (1983). 2) Defamation Plaintiff asserts that Defendants began defaming him sometime after December 16, 1996. (Comply 39.) The alleged defamatory statements were made in “letters to Plaintiff’ and in “false statements and accusations to Plaintiff in the presence of other employees, and also to their lawyers concerning Plaintiffs employment and profession.” Id. Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff need not plead a defamation claim in considerable detail, but must concisely state the basis of his claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Broome v. Biondi, No. 96 Civ. 0805, 1997 WL 83295, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 1997). As a practical matter, each pleading must be specific enough to “afford defendant sufficient notice of the communication complained of to enable him to defend himself.” Kelly v. Schmidberger, 806 F.2d 44, 45 (2d Cir.1986)(citing Liguori v. Alexander, 495 F.Supp. 641, 647 (S.D.N.Y.1980)). As applied to defamation claims, this requires a plaintiff to merely state the substance of the purported communication, who made the communication, when it was made, and to whom it was communicated. Broome, 1997 WL 83295, at *1-2. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to meet the pleading requirements necessary to sustain a claim for defamation. This Court agrees. Plaintiff does not identify which Defendant made the supposedly defamatory statements, when the statements were made, or to which “other employees” the statements were communicated. Accordingly, Plaintiffs defamation claims cannot stand. E. Fair Labor Standards Act Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216 (“ § 216”). Section 216 creates a private cause of action for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). Under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), an employer is prohibited from discriminating against any employee because such “employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.” 29 U.S.C. §" } ]

[ { "docid": "22605233", "title": "", "text": "amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation.” § 7 (b), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b). Petitioner strives to find a contrary congressional intent by comparing the ADEA with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seg. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), which petitioner maintains does not provide for jury trials. We, of course, intimate no view as to whether a jury trial is available under Title VII as a matter of either statutory or constitutional right. See Curtis v. Loether, supra, at 197. However, after examining the provisions of Title VII, we find petitioner’s argument by analogy to Title VII unavailing. There are important similarities between the two statutes, to be sure, both in their aims — the elimination of discrimination from the workplace — and in their substantive prohibitions. In fact, the prohibitions of the ADEA were derived in haec verba from Title VII. But in deciding whether a statutory right to jury trial exists, it is the remedial and procedural provisions of the two laws that are crucial and there we find significant differences. Looking first to the statutory language defining the relief available, we note that Congress specifically provided for both “legal or equitable relief” in the ADEA, but did not authorize “legal” relief in so many words under Title VII. Compare § 7 (b), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b), with 42 U. S. C. § 2000-5 (g) (1970 ed., Supp. V). Similarly, the ADEA incorporates the FLSA provision that employers “shall be liable” for amounts deemed unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation, while under Title VII, the availability of backpay is a matter of equitable discretion, see Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S., at 421. Finally, rather than adopting the procedures of Title VII for ADEA actions, Congress rejected that course in favor of incorporating the FLSA procedures even while adopting Title VIPs substantive prohibitions. Thus, even if petitioner is correct that Congress did not intend there to be jury trials under Title VII, that fact sheds" } ]

[ { "docid": "22449613", "title": "", "text": "would have been advisable to repeat the gist of the latter language in the interrogatory, the instructions and the interrogatory, read together, were adequate. In this context the words “a reason,” as used in the interrogatory, meant a reason which made a difference and hence were sufficient. Our view is fortified by undisputed evidence, including testimony of Dr. Johnson and Messrs. Metzger and Hedrick, as well as tape recordings of conversations between Ms. Geller and the various defendants, that the “key factor” was the “sixth step” policy. The principal of the school, Dr. Johnson, testified that she “rendered an excellent service. I have nothing but praise for her.” Equitable Relief We next turn to Ms. Geller’s contention that the district court erred in denying her equitable relief beyond the damages award ed by the jury. Title 29 U.S.C. § 626(c)(1) provides, “Any person aggrieved [by an alleged violation of the ADEA] may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this chapter.” Section 626(b) defines the available legal and equitable relief as “including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability of amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section.” The Supreme Court, defining which forms of relief were legal and which equitable so that it could determine which should be submitted to a jury, has noted that § 626 “does not specify which of the listed categories of relief are legal and which are equitable. However, since it is clear that judgments compelling ‘employment, reinstatement of promotion’ are equitable, see 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice Par. 38.-21 (1977), Congress must have meant the phrase ‘legal relief’ to refer to judgments ‘enforcing .. . liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation.’ ” Lorillard v. Pons, supra, 434 U.S. at 583 n.11, 98 S.Ct. at 871 n.11. Judge Blumenfeld viewed reinstatement as inappropriate because he interpreted the jury’s decision granting damages equal to one year’s salary at Bugbee School as a" }, { "docid": "10950266", "title": "", "text": "charging age and religious discrimination. Similar considerations apply to the cause of action asserted against the individuals under the ADEA. That act requires as a prerequisite to the commencement of action that 60 days’ notice of intent to file such action be given to the Secretary of Labor who “shall promptly notify all persons named therein as prospective defendants in the action and shall promptly seek to eliminate any alleged unlawful practice by informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion.” Under the circumstances the motion by the individual defendants to dismiss the third cause of action is granted. Thus there remain only the two causes of action against Corning based upon age and religious discrimination, and as to these we next consider Coming’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial. It is clear that in Title VII cases there is no right to a jury trial. The underlying rationale of the various cases which have held that in Title VII cases a jury trial is not required is that the statute authorizes reinstatement with back pay, a form of restitution, clearly an equitable remedy. Thus, the narrow issue is whether plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on his ADEA cause of action. Since plaintiff under his ADEA cause of action also seeks, among other relief, reinstatement and back pay, logically the same result should follow as in Title VII cases, and the trial should be non-jury. Plaintiff, however, urges that he is entitled to a jury trial on his ADEA claim, based upon a distinction which he professes to see between Title VII and the ADEA. Title VII, as already noted, grants the court power to order reinstatement, back pay “or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.” Under the ADEA the Court’s power is to “grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this [Act], including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be minimum unpaid wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section.” Accordingly, plaintiff argues that" }, { "docid": "5866976", "title": "", "text": "of ADEA provides that ”[a]ny act prohibited under section 623 of this title[, which lists the practices prohibited by ADEA,] shall be deemed to be a prohibited act under section 215 of this title[, which lists the acts prohibited by FLSA.]\" 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 582, 98 S.Ct. 866, 871, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978). . Section 216(b) of FLSA states in part that ”[a]ny employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). . Section 217 of FLSA provides that ”[t]he district courts ... shall have jurisdiction ... to restrain violations of section 215 of this title, including in the case of violations of section 215(a)(2) of this title the restraint of any withholding of payment of minimum wages or overtime compensation found by the court to be due to employees under this chapter....” 29 U.S.C. § 217. . ADEA provides that ”[a]mounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this chapter shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for the purposes of sections 216 and 217 of this title [FLSA]: Provided, That liquidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations of this chapter. In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement, or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section.” 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (emphasis added). . Sanchez, 37 F.3d at 725 (\"Liquidated damages under ADEA are punitive in nature.”). . It is important to note that ADEA’s statutory scheme is different from a general tort action in that the latter involves a" }, { "docid": "22213600", "title": "", "text": "of the Fair Labor Standards Act, we conclude that the parties were entitled to a jury trial. Cleverly v. Western Electric Co., 69 F.R.D. 348 (W.D.Mo.1975); Chilton v. National Cash Register Co., 370 F.Supp. 660 (S.D.Ohio 1974); cf. Morelock v. NCR Corp., 546 F.2d 682 (6th Cir. 1976); Pons v. Lorillard, 69 F.R.D. 576 (M.D.N.C.1976); Developments in the Law — Title VII, 84 Harv.L. Rev. 1109, 1265-1269 (1971). PAIN AND SUFFERING DAMAGES While recognizing that no specific provision in the statute or decisional law authorized recovery for emotional and psychic distress, the district court submitted that item of damages to the jury. The trial judge reasoned that the ADEA created a new tort and conferred broad remedial authority upon the courts to redress statutory transgressions. We recognize the thoughtful approach utilized by the district court and the policy reasons which could be cited to support its position. We differ, however, because we believe the statutory plan of enforcement is inconsistent with the district court’s expansive interpretation. As we have seen, the ADEA incorporates part of the enforcement powers of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the FLSA, the employer is liable to the employee for “unpaid minimum wages or . unpaid overtime compensation” and that amount may be doubled to provide for “liquidated damages.” In addition, that statute provides for injunctive relief to restrain violations. After the references to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the ADEA correlates the two statutes by stating: “Amounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this chapter shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for purposes of sections 216 and 217 of this title: Provided, That liquidated damages shall be payable in cases of willful violations . . . 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). In addition, the court is given jurisdiction to grant such “legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this" }, { "docid": "22096050", "title": "", "text": "Violations of the ADEA do not typically involve an employer’s failure to pay minimum or overtime wages. A discriminatory refusal to hire or promote workers on the basis of age is likely to result in monetary damages less precisely measurable. Section 7(b) of the ADEA defines available monetary relief only in terms of “amounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this chapter.” Such amounts “shall be enforced” as are unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA enforcement provisions incorporated by reference. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). Liquidated damages under the ADEA are available only in case of “willful violations” of the statute. In addition, § 7(b) empowers the courts to grant such “legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section.” The “amounts owing” to a victim of age discrimination are not further defined by statute. Thus, the scope of pecuniary relief available under the ADEA must be ascertained from examination of the whole statutory scheme. Damage standards should effectuate the purposes of anti-discrimination statutes. See generally Rogers v. Exxon Research & Engineering Co., 550 F.2d 834, 839-42 (3d Cir. 1977). Monetary awards exacted from employers who practice unlawful discrimination serve two primary functions. First, the prospect of economic penalties more certainly deters illegal employment practice than does exposure to injunctive relief or prospective equitable remedies such as reinstatement. Second, economic exactions recompense individuals for injuries inflicted by employers’ discriminatory conduct. These prophylactic and compensatory purposes are the basis of most recent anti-employment discrimination legislation, including the ADEA and Title VII. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 417-21, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975); H.R.Rep. No. 805, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1967), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1967, p. 2213. Thus, the Supreme Court’s mandate on the exercise of trial court’s discretion in granting monetary relief in Title VII suits, as stated in Albemarle," }, { "docid": "20062588", "title": "", "text": "certainly authorizes equitable relief, the Supreme Court quickly gave the word “court” a broader meaning than “judge.” In Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 98 S.Ct. 866, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978), Justice Marshall, writing for the Court, held that the ADEA does provide a right to trial by jury. In that case, the plaintiff had sought both reinstatement and lost wages. The Court carefully avoided purporting to decide the question of entitlement to jury trial in Title VII cases, by saying: We, of course, intimate no view as to whether a jury trial is available under Title VII as a matter of either statutory or constitutional right. Lorillard 434 U.S. at 583-4, 98 S.Ct. at 872. Nevertheless, the rationale employed by the unanimous Court in Lorillard very well fits Title VII. Justice Marshall proceeded to say that ADEA provides for “legal ” relief in the form of back wages, thus arguably triggering the absolute right to jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. He followed this by saying that Congress “did not authorize ‘legal’ relief in so many words under Title VII.” Id. at 584, 98 S.Ct. at 872 (emphasis supplied). This language is susceptible to being read as an implicit recognition by Justice Marshall that a claim for “back wages” constitutes, “in so many words, legal relief.” By the simple device of characterizing a remedy as “legal” in one statute and as “equitable” in another statute, Congress, if permitted to do so, could simultaneously abrogate the Seventh Amendment and Rule 38(a), F.R. Civ.P., in any newly created cause of ac tion. It is at this point where the battle lines must be drawn. The amici employers here argue that all Title VII relief has been declared “equitable,” while the amici employees respond, “How can that be”? Long before the present Supreme Court’s Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987), and Granfinanciera S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989), discussed in this court’s opinion of August 14, 1989, the Supreme Court decided Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369" }, { "docid": "20062586", "title": "", "text": "USX, that some courts employed this language in § 2000e-5(g) as a means for construing the statute early on to preclude trial by jury. Cheatwood v. S. Cen. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 303 F.Supp. 754, 755-56 (M.D.Ala.1969); Hayes v. Seaboard Coastline R.R., 46 F.R.D. 49, 52-53 (S.D.Ga.1969); and Culpepper v. Reynolds Metals Co., 296 F.Supp. 1232, 1235 (N.D.Ga. 1969), rev’d on other grounds, 421 F.2d 888 (5th Cir.1970). Significant, if humorously ironic, the employer demanded the jury in all three of these cases cited here by an amicus employer. These cases were decided in the very early, tentative, years of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Out of these cases, however, grew the pervasive assumption, never adopted nor confirmed by the Supreme Court, that neither party is entitled to trial by jury in a Title VII case. Even USX concedes, at p. 10 of its brief: The absence of a statutory right to trial by jury does not necessarily preclude a finding that the Seventh Amendment right extends to actions brought pursuant to Title VII. What the Supreme Court Has Said and Has Not Said Long after Title VII had been construed by several lower federal courts to preclude jury trial because of the statutory reference to “court,” the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether or not the Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires trial by jury, even though Congress in the ADEA did not speak to the issue any more than it did in Title VII. The pertinent portion of that Act was, for all intents and purposes, identical to the language of Title VII relied upon by Hartford and USX. It provides in its enforcement section: In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (emphasis supplied). Interpreting this statute, which" }, { "docid": "17123609", "title": "", "text": "(5th Cir. 1969); cf. Marshall v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co., 413 F.Supp. 663 (D.Del.1976). There are significant differences between the statutory language authorizing remedial relief in Title VII cases and the language of 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), (c) which incorporates by reference sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216, 217. Title VII provides in relevant part: “[T]he court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay . . . , or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) provides in relevant part: “. . .In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section.” Similarly, 29 U.S.C. § 626(c) provides in relevant part: “Any person may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this chapter The contrast between the two statutes is striking. The clear inference from the wording of the Title VII section is that Congress contemplated only equitable relief and hence the award of any monetary relief can only be viewed as part of that equitable remedy. Section 626, however, equally clearly permits a party to seek legal relief and Congress characterized it as such. Just as the Supreme Court in Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974), found the analogy between Title VII and Title VIII cases inapposite insofar as the right to a jury trial was concerned, this Court finds the defendant’s suggested analogy between Title VII and ADEA cases similarly unconvincing. Finally, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s claim for" }, { "docid": "23343050", "title": "", "text": "that court, and the court was not given an opportunity to correct its alleged error, we will not consider the issue on appeal. VII Cooper raises a single issue in his cross-appeal — whether the district court erred by refusing to double Cooper’s front pay award in computing liquidated damages. We affirm the district court’s denial. Section 7(b) of the ADEA sets forth two types of relief available to an ADEA plaintiff. The section provides in relevant part: “The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced in accordance with ... section[ ] ... 216 ... of this title_ Amounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this chapter shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for purposes of section[] 216_ Provided, That liquidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations of this chapter. In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section.” 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). Section 16, from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), provides in relevant part: “Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Parsing the statutory language of § 626(b) reveals that it provides two types of relief. First is “amounts owing” as unpaid wages or unpaid overtime compensation. Section 216(b) instructs that the items to be doubled as liquidated damages are unpaid wages or unpaid overtime compensation. Thus for a monetary award to qualify for doubling as liquidated damages it must be an “amount owing” under § 626(b). The second type of relief permitted, including front" }, { "docid": "20062587", "title": "", "text": "VII. What the Supreme Court Has Said and Has Not Said Long after Title VII had been construed by several lower federal courts to preclude jury trial because of the statutory reference to “court,” the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether or not the Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires trial by jury, even though Congress in the ADEA did not speak to the issue any more than it did in Title VII. The pertinent portion of that Act was, for all intents and purposes, identical to the language of Title VII relied upon by Hartford and USX. It provides in its enforcement section: In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (emphasis supplied). Interpreting this statute, which certainly authorizes equitable relief, the Supreme Court quickly gave the word “court” a broader meaning than “judge.” In Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 98 S.Ct. 866, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978), Justice Marshall, writing for the Court, held that the ADEA does provide a right to trial by jury. In that case, the plaintiff had sought both reinstatement and lost wages. The Court carefully avoided purporting to decide the question of entitlement to jury trial in Title VII cases, by saying: We, of course, intimate no view as to whether a jury trial is available under Title VII as a matter of either statutory or constitutional right. Lorillard 434 U.S. at 583-4, 98 S.Ct. at 872. Nevertheless, the rationale employed by the unanimous Court in Lorillard very well fits Title VII. Justice Marshall proceeded to say that ADEA provides for “legal ” relief in the form of back wages, thus arguably triggering the absolute right to jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. He followed this by saying that Congress “did not authorize ‘legal’ relief in" }, { "docid": "8692092", "title": "", "text": "recovery of emotional and physical damages under Title VII is granted. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim against defendant Weber is denied. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s demand for jury trial on her claim for back-pay under the EPA is denied. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s demand for jury trial on her claim for liquidated damages under the EPA is granted. . Because the FLSA does not authorize injunctive relief in individual actions, see p. 7, infra, no analogy between the FLSA and Title VII exists in this regard. . Indemnification of corporate officers for intentional illegal conduct is generally prohibited as a matter of public policy. See, e.g., Cal. Corp.Code § 317; 13 Fletcher Cyclopedia of Private Corporations §§ 6045.1-6045.3 (Wolf ed. 1970). . Section 260 provides: “In any action commenced prior to or on or after May 14, 1947 to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, or liquidated damages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in section 216 of this title.” . Although the ADEA, like the EPA, is enforced according to the provisions of the FLSA, the Court has discretion with respect to all relief, . including backpay, under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b): “In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this" }, { "docid": "4943884", "title": "", "text": "as amended in 1972. In summary, it is the opinion of the Court that the ADEA creates a statutory tort, and empowers the Court to employ a wide range of legal and equitable remedies in the exercise of the broad remedial discretion normally associated with actions arising from intentional torts. The Congressional history and cases decided under this and analogous civil rights statutes clearly contemplate redress of the emotional and psychological injury proved in this case by the relief awarded by the jury. The verdict of the jury, as remitted by plaintiffs on the motion for a new trial, will stand. II. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Title 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) provides as follows: (b) The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures provided in sections 211(b), 216 (except for subsection (a) thereof), and 217 of this title, and subsection (c) of this section. Any act prohibited under section 623 of this title shall be deemed to be a prohibited act under section 215 of this title. Amounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this chapter shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for purposes of sections 216 and 217 of this title: Provided, That liquidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations of this chapter. In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. Before instituting any action under this section, the Secretary shall attempt to eliminate the discriminatory practice or practices alleged, and to effect voluntary compliance with the requirements of this chapter through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion. It is clear from this section that the ADEA incorporates the cited enforcement provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, here particularly Title 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). LaChapelle" }, { "docid": "15400830", "title": "", "text": "subsection (a)), and 217 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that are incorporated into the ADEA. The pertinent provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), provides: (b) Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Section 216(b) has never been interpreted to allow damage awards beyond those specifically enumerated in the statute. Vazquez, 579 F.2d at 109. Thus, damages for pain and suffering have never been awarded under the FLSA. Except for slight modifications that are not applicable here, Congress intended to incorporate fully the remedies and procedures of the FLSA, Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 582, 98 S.Ct. 866, 871, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978). Since Congress is presumed to be aware that this provision had never allowed damages for pain and suffering, Lorillard, 434 U.S. at 581, 98 S.Ct. at 870; Vazquez, 579 F.2d at 110, it is reasonable to say that it did not intend for such damages to be allowed under section 626(b). Fiedler, however, claims that he should be provided relief under that portion of section 626(b) that provides: [T]he court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. The authorization of “legal or equitable relief” must be read in “conjunction with the other provisions of the Act, the policies they further and the enforcement framework they envision.” Dean, 559 F.2d at 1038. We have considered the legislative history of the Act, the unavailability of pain and suffering damages under the FLSA, and the frustration of the clear congressional preference for administrative disposition of administrative claims that allowing pain and suffering damages would cause. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(c);" }, { "docid": "20316771", "title": "", "text": "procedures provided in sections 211(b), 216 (except for subsection (a) thereof), and 217 of this title, and subsection (c) of this section. Any act prohibited under section 623 of this title shall be deemed to be a prohibited act under section 215 of this title. Amounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this chapter shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for purposes of sections 216 and 217 of this title: Provided, That liquidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations of this chapter. In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (1970). The remedial provisions of Title VII státe that “the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay . . ., or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g) (1970 ed., Supp. II). Plaintiff argues that it is apparent that Title VII remedies, including back pay, are denominated forms of “equitable relief,” while section 626(b) empowers courts “to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate.” The result of this argument is that actions for back pay under Title VII are “equitable” while under the Age Discrimination Act, they are “legal.” The right to trial by jury should not be dependent upon a slight degree of difference in statutory terms. In Curtis the Supreme Court compared the two statutes (Title VIII and Title VII) and found a “sharp contrast” in their remedial provisions. Section 812 clearly authorized actions to enforce “legal rights” within the Supreme" }, { "docid": "17123608", "title": "", "text": "Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959). Indeed the Court in Dairy Queen expressly dealt with a contention very similar to the one urged here: “[The holding in Beacon Theatres], of course, applies whether the trial judge chooses to characterize the legal issues presented as ‘incidental’ to equitable issues or not.” (footnote omitted) Dairy Queen v. Wood, supra 369 U.S. at 473, 82 S.Ct. at 897. See also Thermo-Stitch, Inc. v. Chemi-Cord Processing Corp., 294 F.2d 486, 491 (5th Cir. 1961). The defendant contends that ADEA cases are closely analogous to cases decided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). Various courts of appeals have held that a party is not entitled to a jury trial in an action seeking back pay and reinstatement under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). See Robinson v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1006, 92 S.Ct. 573, 30 L.Ed.2d 655 (1972); Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1969); cf. Marshall v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co., 413 F.Supp. 663 (D.Del.1976). There are significant differences between the statutory language authorizing remedial relief in Title VII cases and the language of 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), (c) which incorporates by reference sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216, 217. Title VII provides in relevant part: “[T]he court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay . . . , or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) provides in relevant part: “. . .In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts" }, { "docid": "10950267", "title": "", "text": "with back pay, a form of restitution, clearly an equitable remedy. Thus, the narrow issue is whether plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on his ADEA cause of action. Since plaintiff under his ADEA cause of action also seeks, among other relief, reinstatement and back pay, logically the same result should follow as in Title VII cases, and the trial should be non-jury. Plaintiff, however, urges that he is entitled to a jury trial on his ADEA claim, based upon a distinction which he professes to see between Title VII and the ADEA. Title VII, as already noted, grants the court power to order reinstatement, back pay “or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.” Under the ADEA the Court’s power is to “grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this [Act], including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be minimum unpaid wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section.” Accordingly, plaintiff argues that since Congress has provided for legal as well as equitable relief in ADEA actions for damages, he is entitled to the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial. His position for the purported distinction finds support in two rulings in the Third and Fourth Circuits and in a number of District Courts whereas the Sixth Circuit holds that an ADEA litigant is not entitled to a jury trial. Upon analysis of these cases with their conflicting views, and considering the essential purposes of the ADEA, I am persuaded that an action for violation of the Act is governed by the same factors which underlie Title VII violations and that there is no right to trial by jury. As has been observed, “[w]ith a few minor exceptions the prohibitions of [the ADEA] are in terms identical to those of Title VII . except that ‘age’ has been substituted for ‘race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’ ” And in rejecting the claim of a right to a jury trial in ADEA cases, another court commented that" }, { "docid": "20314682", "title": "", "text": "injury as does Title VII; that Title VII authorizes only equitable actions; that plaintiffs have no right to a jury under Title VII, and therefore, plaintiffs cannot obtain a jury trial under the ADEA. Defendant relies on Morelock v. NCR Corp., 546 F.2d 682 (6th Cir. 1976), and Pons v. Lorillard, 69 F.R.D. 576 (M.D.N.Car.1976), rev’d, 549 F.2d 950 (4th Cir. 1977). With all respect, we, find the reasoning of courts which have allowed jury trials in ADEA actions to be more persuasive. Bertrand v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 419 F.Supp. 1123, 1131-32 (N.D.Ill.1976); Cleverly v. Western Electric Co., 69 F.R.D. 348 (W.D.Mo.1975); Chilton v. National Cash Register Co., 370 F.Supp. 660 (S.D.Ohio 1974). Plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial on demand if the ADEA creates legal rights and remedies and plaintiffs seek legal as well as equitable relief. See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 195, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974). If plaintiffs demand both legal and equitable relief, they are entitled to a jury trial on the legal issues first. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962); Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959). By its own terms, the ADEA authorizes legal remedies: In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employ ment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). The fact that there is some overlap in the equitable remedies which may be granted under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), and the remedies under § 626 of the ADEA does not allow us to disregard the unambiguous language of § 626. Plaintiffs have taken advantage of the broad remedial powers of § 626 and demanded a declaratory judgment, reinstatement, injunctive relief, back pay, attorneys fees and costs. Most significantly, plaintiffs seek" }, { "docid": "3532602", "title": "", "text": "ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Alleging violation of her rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1970), appellant Frances P. Pons sued her employer, Lorillard, a Division of Loew’s Theatres, Inc., for injunctive reinstatement, lost wages, liquidated and punitive damages, costs and attorney’s fees. Lorillard’s motion to strike Pons’ demand for a jury trial on the issue of lost wages was sustained by the District Court and an interlocutory appeal of the order was allowed. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); FRAP 5. Our task is to determine whether the Seventh Amendment provision for trial by jury “[i]n suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars” applies to a claim under the Age Act for lost wages. Analysis of the problem begins with the language of the Congress. In relevant part, sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), (c) state: “(b) ... In any action brought to enforce this [Act] the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this [Act], including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. “(c) Any person aggrieved may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this chapter: . . (Emphasis added). Our holding is that the inclusion of the phrase “legal . . . relief” empowers a Federal court to grant complainants the Constitutional right to a jury. I. At the outset, we are urged to hold that Age Act complaints should follow the pattern of denial thus far adopted in enforcing the provisions against employment discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. We decline. Design for decision on this issue is to be found in Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974), declaring the availability of" }, { "docid": "20314683", "title": "", "text": "Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962); Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959). By its own terms, the ADEA authorizes legal remedies: In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employ ment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). The fact that there is some overlap in the equitable remedies which may be granted under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), and the remedies under § 626 of the ADEA does not allow us to disregard the unambiguous language of § 626. Plaintiffs have taken advantage of the broad remedial powers of § 626 and demanded a declaratory judgment, reinstatement, injunctive relief, back pay, attorneys fees and costs. Most significantly, plaintiffs seek $20,000 in damages for each plaintiff. Although reinstatement, injunctive relief, attorneys fees and costs are undoubtedly equitable remedies, declaratory relief and money damages are legal remedies. Defendant contends that the only form of damages , which plaintiffs can recover is back pay and back pay is equitable. Plaintiffs have not specified what type of damages they seek. Through pretrial disclosures, defendants may discover whether plaintiffs seek only back pay or whether they also ask for punitive damages, damages for physical suffering, damages for mental humiliation, or damages for some other injury flowing from the mass layoffs of July 11, 1975. See Murphy v. American Motors Sales Corp., 410 F.Supp. 1403 (N.D.Ga.1976) (sustaining demand for jury trial and claim for punitive damages). But see Rogers v. Exxon Research and Engineering Co., 550 F.2d 834 (3d Cir. 1977) (damages for pain and suffering held not compensable under ADEA, but claim for lost wages characterized as legal relief). Defendant’s motion to strike the jury demand is denied without prejudice to renew it if, at the close of discovery," }, { "docid": "20316770", "title": "", "text": "have to be tried to a jury. The Supreme Court’s decision in Curtis lends impetus towards a different result. Because a claim for monetary damages is not always legal, there is not necessarily a mixed claim at law and equity in an action for injunctive reinstatement and lost wages. What confronts the Court here is not a mixed claim, but a single cause of action which must be characterized as either legal or equitable. If the claim for lost wages is an integral part of an equitable remedy of reinstatement, then it makes no difference that monetary damages are involved. In her attempt to persuade the Court that the issue of lost wages is triable to a jury, the plaintiff argues that the remedial provisions of the Age Discrimination Act and Title VII are critically distinct, as were the remedial provisions of Title VIII and Title VII in Curtis v. Loether. Section 626(b) of the Age Discrimination Act states that “[t]he provisions of this chapter shall be enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures provided in sections 211(b), 216 (except for subsection (a) thereof), and 217 of this title, and subsection (c) of this section. Any act prohibited under section 623 of this title shall be deemed to be a prohibited act under section 215 of this title. Amounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this chapter shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for purposes of sections 216 and 217 of this title: Provided, That liquidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations of this chapter. In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (1970). The remedial provisions of Title VII státe that “the court may" } ]

[ { "docid": "23122087", "title": "", "text": "& (e).” [App. 223.] Although the Secretary has the burden of proving that the work is equal, Congress in prescribing “equal” work intended to codify a remedial measure which requires not that jobs be identical, but only that they must be substantially equal. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., supra, 421 F.2d 259, 265, cert. denied 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64; Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hospital, 5 Cir. 1970, 436 F.2d 719, 725. And the Equal Pay Act applies to jobs held in immediate succession, as well as simultaneously. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) requires equal pay for “equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility and which are performed under similar working conditions.” In Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hospital, supra, this Court surveyed the expanding number of cases wrestling with the critical criterion of “equal effort,” and described the emerging doctrine as holding that, “jobs do not entail equal effort, even though they entail most of the same routine duties, if the more highly paid job involves additional tasks which (1) require extra effort, (2) consume a significant amount of the time of all those whose pay differentials are to be justified in terms of them, and (3) are of an economic value commensurate with the pay differential.” 436 F.2d at 725. Thus, employers may not be permitted to frustrate the purposes of the Act by calling for extra duty from male employees only occasionally, or by requiring male employees to perform tasks normally done by full-time personnel at a lower rate of pay. The district court found that the primary responsibilities of the data processing room supervisor included: managing the activities of department employees, adjusting malfunctioning data processing machines, and assuming responsibility for departmental errors and priorities. [App. 217.] Both Blavier and Mrs. Wooley performed these functions. Blavier testified in the district court that while serving as data processing room supervisor he performed several extra duties in addition to management of the data processing department. He worked several hours on Saturday mornings taking orders and delivering merchandise to customers. [App." } ]

[ { "docid": "16063200", "title": "", "text": "testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on any industry committee. The court allowed DOL to amend the complaint to include a retaliation claim, and ordered back pay and reinstatement for Dr. Max McKinney. II. PLAINTIFF’S PRIMA FACIE CASE In order to make out a prima facie case under the Act, the plaintiff must show “that an employer pays different wages to employees of opposite sex ‘for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.’ ” Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)). The jobs held by employees of opposite sexes need not be identical, rather they must only be “substantially equal.” Id. at 203-04 n. 24, 94 S.Ct. at 2232 n. 24, Hodgson v. Behrens Drug Company, 475 F.2d 1041, 1049 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 822, 94 S.Ct. 121, 38 L.Ed.2d 55 (1973). It is important to bear in mind that the prima facie case is made out by comparing the jobs held by the female and male employees and showing that these jobs are substantially equal, not by comparing the skills and qualifications of the individual employees holding those jobs. Hein v. Oregon College of Education, 718 F.2d 910, 914 (9th Cir.1983); Peltier v. City of Fargo, 533 F.2d 374, 377 (8th Cir.1976); EEOC v. McCarty, 578 F.Supp. 45, 47 n. 1 (D.Mass.1983); 29 C.F.R. § 800.125. The plaintiff carries the burden of proof on this issue. Corning Glass Works, 417 U.S. at 195, 94 S.Ct. at 2228. The court below determined that plaintiff met this burden. Our role is to decide if this determination was “clearly erroneous” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. Morgado v. Birmingham-Jefferson County Civil Defense Corps, 706 F.2d 1184, 1188 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 715, 79 L.Ed.2d 178 (1984). Hein v. Oregon College of Education, 718 F.2d at 913; Orahood v. Board of Trustees, 645 F.2d 651, 654 (8th Cir.1981)." }, { "docid": "3262245", "title": "", "text": "of good faith in her employment contract. Defendants contend that neither action is cognizable under New York law. I. COUNT II: EQUAL PAY ACT. The EPA prohibits employers from compensating employees of one sex at a lower rate than employees of the opposite sex “for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility and which are performed under similar working conditions,” except in four situations not relevant here. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). The work in question must be “equal,” not merely comparable; Congress did not intend for courts to compare the value of different jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 800.120 (1984); Hodgson v. Corning Glass Works, 474 F.2d 226, 231 (2d Cir. 1973), affd, 417 U.S. 188, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974); Nulf v. International Paper Co., 656 F.2d 553, 561 (10th Cir. 1981). The jobs need not be identical, though. It is sufficient if the job functions are substantially equal. See id.; Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1979), affd, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981); Usery v. Columbia Univ., 568 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1977). The standard of comparison is actual job content, not job titles or descriptions. Gunther, 623 F.2d at 1309; Marshall v. Building Maint. Corp., 587 F.2d 567, 571 (2d Cir.1978); Rossini v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc., 597 F.Supp. 1120, 1154 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Defendants argue that plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of a genuine dispute regarding any fact material to her EPA claim that would warrant a trial on the merits. They say that plaintiff has not been able to point to a single male employee of Chase who performed substantially equal work but was paid more than plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that one Neil Owen was paid a higher salary than she for work substantially equal to hers. Owen submitted an affidavit outlining the nature of the job he performed while he was employed at Chase. According to Owen’s affidavit, 60-80% of his time was spent doing various tasks in connection with updating, refining, and supervising use of Chase’s" }, { "docid": "23453201", "title": "", "text": "industry has been based on an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman even though his duties are the same.” S.Rep.No. 176, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1963). The solution adopted was quite simple in principle: to require that “equal work will be rewarded by equal wages.” Ibid. In addition to depressing the wages of women, certain other social and economic consequences result from this kind of discrimination. See Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Company, 421 F.2d 259, 265, and n. 11 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). The analysis of a claim of unequal pay for equal work is essentially the same under both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. Strecker v. Grand Forks Cty. Soc. Serv. Bd., 640 F.2d 96, 99 (8th Cir. 1980). But see Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir. 1979), aff’d -U.S.-, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981). The standard of review applicable to such a claim of unequal pay for equal work is the clearly erroneous rule of Fed.R., Civ.P., 52(a). Brennan v. Owensboro-Daviess Cty. Hosp., etc., 523 F.2d 1013, 1015 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 973, 96 S.Ct. 2170, 48 L.Ed.2d 796 (1976). To establish a claim of unequal pay for equal work a plaintiff has the burden to prove that the employer “pays different wages to employees of opposite sexes ‘for equal work on jobs the performance of which require equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.’ ” Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, supra, 417 U.S. at 195, 94 S.Ct. at 2228. Congress did not intend through use of the phrase “equal work” to require that the jobs be identical. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Company, supra, 421 F.2d at 265. Instead, to effectuate the remedial purposes of the Equal Pay Act, only substantial equality of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions is required. Id. at 265. Whether the work of nurse’s aides and orderlies is substantially equal" }, { "docid": "8162762", "title": "", "text": "before she left for maternity leave in October 1988. . \"[D]ifferences in skill, effort or responsibility which might be sufficient to justify a finding that two jobs are not equal within the meaning of the EPA if the greater skill, effort, or responsibility has been required of the higher paid sex, do not justify such a finding where the greater skill, effort, or responsibility is required of the lower paid sex.” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.14(a). See also 29 C.F.R. § 1620.14(b) for an \"illustration of the concept.” Section 1620.14(b), formerly 29 C.F.R. § 800.122(b), was cited by the Ninth Circuit in Hein v. Oregon College of Education, 718 F.2d 910, 917 (9th Cir.1983). In Hein, the court found that one of the plaintiff employees had additional administrative duties that had no counterpart among her male comparator's duties. The court held that the plaintiff's additional responsibilities did not remove her claim from the ambit of the Equal Pay Act, citing the following interpretive regulation: [Wjhere employees of opposite sexes are employed in jobs in which the duties they are required to perform and the working conditions are substantially the same, except that an employee of one sex is required to perform some duly or duties involving a higher skill which an employee of the other sex is not required to perform, the fact that the duties are different in this respect is insufficient to remove the jobs from the application of the equal pay standard if it also appears that the employer is paying a lower wage rate to the employee performing the additional duties notwithstanding the additional skill which they involve. 29 C.F.R. § 800.122(b). . Cf. Autry v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources, 820 F.2d 1384, 1385 (4th Cir.1987) (noting that a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII requires showing a connection between race and the adverse employment decision). . In County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981), the Supreme Court \"determined that failure to prove the equal work standard of the. Equal Pay Act did not" }, { "docid": "23453200", "title": "", "text": "than the other orderlies. They testified that they spent two or three hours each day doing maintenance work such as cleaning air conditioning filters, yard work and carrying away trash. Otherwise, the duties of the management related orderlies resembled those of the other orderlies. II • Nucare contends that the work of its nurse’s aides and orderlies was not substantially equal within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act or Title VII. In the alternative, Nucare contends that one of the exemptions enunciated in the Equal Pay Act is applicable. We conclude that the findings of fact of the district court in support of its resolution of these issues were not clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). In Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188,195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974), the Supreme Court wrote: Congress’ purpose in enacting the Equal Pay Act was to remedy what was perceived to be a serious and endemic problem of employment discrimination in private industry — the fact that the wage structure of “many segments of American industry has been based on an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman even though his duties are the same.” S.Rep.No. 176, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1963). The solution adopted was quite simple in principle: to require that “equal work will be rewarded by equal wages.” Ibid. In addition to depressing the wages of women, certain other social and economic consequences result from this kind of discrimination. See Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Company, 421 F.2d 259, 265, and n. 11 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). The analysis of a claim of unequal pay for equal work is essentially the same under both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. Strecker v. Grand Forks Cty. Soc. Serv. Bd., 640 F.2d 96, 99 (8th Cir. 1980). But see Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir. 1979), aff’d -U.S.-, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981). The standard of review applicable" }, { "docid": "17186678", "title": "", "text": "600 F.2d 335 (2d Cir. 1978), cert, denied, 441 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2162, 60 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1979). But see Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Vorhes, 564 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1977); LaChapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1975). . Compare Angelo v. Bacharach Instrument Co., 555 F.2d 1164, 1174 (3d Cir. 1977) (quoting remarks of Rep. Frelinghuysen and Rep. Goo-dell) with Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 265 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970) (quoting Senate and House Reports in support of “substantially equal” standard). . Senate Report at 3; H.R.Rep.No.309, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1963) [hereinafter, House Report ]; Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 201, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2231, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974). See generally Murphy, Female Wage Discrimination: A Study of the Equal Pay Act 1963-1970, 39 U.Cin.L.Rev. 615 (1970). . Sullivan, The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Making and Breaking a Prima Facie Case, 31 Ark.L. Rev. 545 (1978). . See, e.g., Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Kenosha Unified School Dist. No. 1, 620 F.2d 1220 (7th Cir. 1980); Horner v. Mary Inst., 613 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980); Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1979), aff’d on other grounds, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981); Brennan v. South Davis Community Hosp., 538 F.2d 859 (10th Cir. 1976); Brennan v. Owensboro-Daviess County Hosp., Inc., 523 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom. Owensboro-Daviess County Hosp., Inc. v. Usery, 425 U.S. 973, 96 S.Ct. 2170, 48 L.Ed.2d 796 (1976); Hodgson v. Coming Glass Works, 474 F.2d 226 (2d Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974); Hodgson v. Fairmont Supply Co., 454 F.2d 490 (4th Cir. 1972); Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hosp., 436 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1970); Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). The First Circuit appears not to" }, { "docid": "22941631", "title": "", "text": "changes before filling job openings, as appellant in effect argues. Employees must assume responsibility for making application for positions when the position openings are known. In cases where, as here, the job opening was not announced, then the employee must demonstrate that the employer was aware of her availability for the position. To survive a motion for summary judgment, the employee is required to articulate specific facts indicating that despite the employer’s awareness of her job availability, she was not hired because of impermissible considerations under Title VII and the ADEA. Foster failed to meet this burden by presenting facts showing that Arca-ta’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring her, which was her stated position of unavailability for the job, was pretextual. Because Foster failed to produce evidence from which we could infer that Arca-ta’s reason for not considering her was pretextual, we need not address whether pretext was demonstrated in connection with Arcata’s other claimed reasons. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court on this issue. III. CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATORY WAGES: EQUAL PAY ACT, TITLE VII, AND ADEA A. Equal Pay Act Appellant also challenges the district court’s dismissal of her claim under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (1982). That statute prohibits an employer from engaging in sex-based wage discrimination by paying different wages to employees of different sexes within any establishment for jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Coming Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974); Spaulding v. University of Washington, 740 F.2d 686, 696-99 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 511, 83 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maricopa County Community College District, 736 F.2d 510, 513 (9th Cir.1984); Hein v. Oregon College of Education, 718 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir.1983); Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1979), aff'd on other grounds, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981). The district court determined that appellant was precluded as a matter of" }, { "docid": "18642777", "title": "", "text": "based on any other factor than sex, provided that Magnavox, while paying a wage rate differential in violation of such act was not permitted, in order to comply with the law, to reduce the wage-rate of any of its employees. C. The burden was on the plaintiff-Secretary to have shown herein that Magnavox pays different wages to employees of different sexes for equal work on jobs which require equal skill, effort and responsibility and which are performed under similar working conditions. Corning Glass Company v. Brennan (1974), 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228, 41 L.Ed.2d 1, 10[4], D. “Equal work,” in that context, supra, required that the plaintiff-Secretary show that the jobs involved, while perhaps not identical, were substantially equal. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Company, CA3d (1970), 421 F.2d 259, 265[2], certiorari denied (1970), 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64. E. If the plaintiff-Secretary carried his burden of showing that Magnavox pays workers of one sex more than workers of the opposite sex for equal work, then the burden shifted to Magnavox to have shown that the differential is justified under one of the aforementioned four exceptions in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, supra, 417 U.S. at 196, 94 S.Ct. at 2229, 41 L.Ed.2d at 11[5]. F. (1) Even a clear violation of the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., by Magnavox in the 1960s, by its hiring only females for some jobs and only males for other jobs does not bear upon the issue sub judice, whether Magnavox indulged the payment of unequal compensation for the doing of substantially equal jobs on the basis of the sex of the respective employees. (2) The Equal Pay Act of 1963 did not prohibit Magnavox’ hiring employees purely on the basis of sex. G. “ * * * [J]obs do not entail equal effort, even though they entail most of the same routine duties, if the more highly paid job involves additional tasks which (1) require extra effort, (2) consume a significant amount of the time of all those" }, { "docid": "22941632", "title": "", "text": "PAY ACT, TITLE VII, AND ADEA A. Equal Pay Act Appellant also challenges the district court’s dismissal of her claim under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (1982). That statute prohibits an employer from engaging in sex-based wage discrimination by paying different wages to employees of different sexes within any establishment for jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Coming Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974); Spaulding v. University of Washington, 740 F.2d 686, 696-99 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 511, 83 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maricopa County Community College District, 736 F.2d 510, 513 (9th Cir.1984); Hein v. Oregon College of Education, 718 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir.1983); Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1979), aff'd on other grounds, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981). The district court determined that appellant was precluded as a matter of law from succeeding on her Equal Pay Act claim because Arcata’s Nellis and Fort Ord offices were distinct and separate establishments. We review the court’s grant of summary judgment on this basis de novo and affirm. The term “establishment” is not expressly defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1982); however, the Supreme Court has held that it refers to a “distinct physical place of business,” as opposed to an entire business or enterprise. A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 496, 65 S.Ct. 807, 808, 89 L.Ed. 1095 (1945) (construing “retail establishment” exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(2)). This interpretation was adopted by the Secretary of Labor for purposes of administering the Equal Pay Act. 29 C.F.R. 800.108 (1982); Jacobson v. Pitman-Moore, Inc., 573 F.Supp. 565, 568 (D.Minn.1983); Gerlach v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 448 F.Supp. 1168, 1172 (E.D.Mich.1978). When considering the single establishment issue, federal courts have consistently rejected the extension of the statutory establishment requirement to separate offices of an employer that" }, { "docid": "2388276", "title": "", "text": "by employees of the opposite sex.” (Emphasis added). The Equal Pay Act specifically prohibits an employer from discriminating “between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees . at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex . . . for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions . . . ” Burden The plaintiffs argue that they perform the same duties as males did who previously performed car marking duties and that the job requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and are performed under similar working conditions as was the former male car markers’ job. In such a case, the plaintiff must carry the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that this is true. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974); Brennan v. Corning Glass Works, 480 F.2d 1254, 1258 (3rd Cir. 1973); Hodgson v. Corning Glass Works, 474 F.2d 226, 231 (2nd Cir. 1973); Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hospital, 436 F.2d 719, 722 (5th Cir. 1970); Shultz v. American Can Company-Dixie Products, 424 F.2d 356, 360 (8th Cir. 1970); Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 266 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert, denied 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). The spirit behind the Equal Pay Act legislation was set out in Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 265 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert, denied 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). “ * * * Congress in prescribing ‘equal’ work did not require that the jobs be identical, but only that they must be substantially equal. Any other interpretation would destroy the remedial purposes of the Act. ‘The Act was intended as a broad charter of women’s rights in the economic field. It sought to overcome the age-old belief in women’s inferiority and to eliminate the depressing effects on living standards of reduced wages for female workers and the economic and social consequences" }, { "docid": "1737126", "title": "", "text": "The Board has violated and is continuing to violate §§ 6(d) and 15(a)(2) of the Act by discriminating, within an establishment, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to female custodial maids (now called “Building Service Workers”) in such establishment at salaries and resulting rates less than the salaries and hourly rates at which it pays male custodial workers in such establishment, “for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) 4. As set forth in Findings of Fact 8, 9 and 10, supra, a pay differential in favor of custodial workers, an all male class, over custodial maids, an all female class, has continued to exist at all times pertinent to this action. 5. Work performed by custodial workers and custodial maids has been, at all pertinent times, equal in skill, effort and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. The Court of Appeals of this Circuit has held in Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 265 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970), that “equal work” does not mean “identical work,” but only that the jobs “must be substantially equal.” As that Court noted (421 F.2d at 265): Any other interpretation would destroy the remedial purpose of the Act. The Act was intended as a broad charter of women’s rights in the economic field. It sought to overcome the age- old belief in women’s inferiority and to eliminate the depressing effects on living standards of reduced wages for female workers and the economic and social consequences which flow from it. In Wheaton the company’s male and female selector packers both performed a number of common duties in tending the glass ovens, but the district court had found their jobs to be unequal because the men performed some sixteen additional tasks, much like the situation here where some custodial workers at times perform certain duties that the maids do not do. The extra tasks in" }, { "docid": "2388277", "title": "", "text": "Works, 474 F.2d 226, 231 (2nd Cir. 1973); Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hospital, 436 F.2d 719, 722 (5th Cir. 1970); Shultz v. American Can Company-Dixie Products, 424 F.2d 356, 360 (8th Cir. 1970); Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 266 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert, denied 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). The spirit behind the Equal Pay Act legislation was set out in Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 265 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert, denied 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). “ * * * Congress in prescribing ‘equal’ work did not require that the jobs be identical, but only that they must be substantially equal. Any other interpretation would destroy the remedial purposes of the Act. ‘The Act was intended as a broad charter of women’s rights in the economic field. It sought to overcome the age-old belief in women’s inferiority and to eliminate the depressing effects on living standards of reduced wages for female workers and the economic and social consequences which flow from it.’ ” The term “equal” as used in 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) does not mean identical. See, Hodgson v. Golden Isles Convalescent Homes, Inc., 468 F.2d 1256, 1258 (5th Cir. 1972), “a substantial identity of job functions”; Hodgson v. Miller Brewing Company, 457 F.2d 221, 227 (7th Cir. 1972), “equal pay standard depends ... on actual job requirements and performances”; Shultz v. American Can Company-Dixie Products, 424' F.2d 356, 360 (8th Cir. 1970) “substantially equal”; Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 265 (3rd Cir. 1970); 29 C.F.R. 800.120, 800.-122, 800.127. In Brookhaven, the standard was succinctly explained: “As the doctrine is emerging, jobs do not entail equal efforts [and skill and responsibilities] even though they entail most of the same routine duties, if the more highly paid job involves additional tasks which (1) require extra effort [skill and responsibility], (2) consume a significant amount of time for all those whose pay differentials are to be justified in terms of them, and (3) are of an economic value commensurate with the" }, { "docid": "5341505", "title": "", "text": "unlawful employment practice under this sub-chapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is autho rized by the provisions of section 206(d) of Title 29. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (the Act), provides: No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions * * * . We note at the outset that the provisions of Title VII regarding sex discrimination in the area of compensation must be construed in harmony with the Equal Pay Act. Orr v. Frank R. MacNeill & Son, Inc., 511 F.2d 166, 170 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 865, 96 S.Ct. 125, 46 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975); Ammons v. Zia Co., 448 F.2d 117, 119 (10th Cir. 1971); Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 266 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970); Usery v. Bettendorf Community School District, 423 F.Supp. 637, 639 (S.D. Iowa 1976); Howard v. Ward County, 418 F.Supp. 494, 503 (D.N.D.1976). This court in Katz v. School District of Clayton, Missouri, 557 F.2d 153, 156 (8th Cir. 1977), recently stated the following concerning the Act: A prima facie case of violation of the Act is established where it is shown that “the employer [has paid] workers of one sex more than workers of the opposite sex for equal work.” Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 196, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974). Equal work under the Act means “jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility," }, { "docid": "16810653", "title": "", "text": "the same procedural posture as in this case. We concluded that the action should be reviewed as if the case had been tried on the written record. 512 F.2d at 113. The clearly erroneous standard was applied to the trial court’s ultimate findings of fact, which were based on inferences made from the undisputed written record. Id. at 111. We apply the same standard here. See Schwarzer, Summary Judgment Under the Federal Rules, 99 F.R.D. 465, 490-492 (1984). The “deceptively simple” principle of the Equal Pay Act is that employees doing equal work should be paid equal wages, regardless of sex. Hein, 718 F.2d at 913. To establish a prima facie case of wage discrimination, a plaintiff must show that the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex for substantially equal work. Id. (citing Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974)). To be “substantially equal,” the jobs need not be identical, but must require similar skills, effort and responsibility performed under similar conditions; it is actual job performance requirements, rather than job classifications or titles, that is determinative. Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1979), aff'd on other grounds, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981). Once a plaintiff offers sufficient evidence showing substantial equality in jobs and a disparity in wages, the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to show that the disparity is permitted by one of the four statutory exceptions to the Equal Pay Act: “(i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); see Hein, 718 F.2d at 913. We have little difficulty concluding that the district court did not clearly err in finding Contreras showed that she performed work substantially equal to that of the male financial aid assistants, except for lower pay. The question whether Maricopa offered sufficient proof of its “factor other than sex” defense" }, { "docid": "20326820", "title": "", "text": "“substantially equal.’’ “Any other interpretation would destroy the remedial purposes of the Act.” Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 265 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). “As the doctrine is emerging, jobs do not entail equal effort [and skill and responsibility], even though they entail most of the same routine duties, if the more highly paid job involves additional tasks which (1) require extra effort [and skill and responsibility], (2) consume a significant amount of the time of all those whose pay differentials are to be justified in the terms of them, and (3) are of an economic value commensurate with the pay differential.” Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hospital, supra, 436 F.2d at 725. In evaluating the evidence presented by the Secretary in this case, we are mindful that under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) we must accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous but that conclusions of law come to us clothed with a lighter presumption of validity. Shultz v. American Can Co.-Dixie Products, 424 F.2d 356, 360 n. 6 (8th Cir. 1970). We think that the Secretary has sustained his burden of proving that the jobs performed by Mr. Mason and the three female employees for the pay and during the period in question required substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility. The transcript shows that Mr. Mason worked at the stock desk with Mrs. Villers and Mrs. Chipps during the period in question and that his work at the center section was “[p]retty generally the same” (App. 107) as that at the two end sections maintained by the two women. The district court found as a fact that in addition to his stock desk duties Mr. Mason performed 16 tasks not performed by Mrs. Villers and Mrs. Chipps, and concluded that these additional tasks justified Mr. Mason’s higher salary. We think that none of these tasks either alone or in combination with others justifies Mr. Mason’s higher pay. For convenience of analysis these additional 16 tasks may be grouped as follows :" }, { "docid": "17186679", "title": "", "text": "Comm’n v. Kenosha Unified School Dist. No. 1, 620 F.2d 1220 (7th Cir. 1980); Horner v. Mary Inst., 613 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980); Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1979), aff’d on other grounds, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981); Brennan v. South Davis Community Hosp., 538 F.2d 859 (10th Cir. 1976); Brennan v. Owensboro-Daviess County Hosp., Inc., 523 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom. Owensboro-Daviess County Hosp., Inc. v. Usery, 425 U.S. 973, 96 S.Ct. 2170, 48 L.Ed.2d 796 (1976); Hodgson v. Coming Glass Works, 474 F.2d 226 (2d Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974); Hodgson v. Fairmont Supply Co., 454 F.2d 490 (4th Cir. 1972); Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hosp., 436 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1970); Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). The First Circuit appears not to have decided the question. . Very few cases have raised this question. In Hodgson v. Daisy Manufacturing Co., 317 F.Supp, 538 (W.D.Ark.1970), aff’d in part and rev’d on other grounds in part, 445 F.2d 823 (8th Cir. 1971), the court found a violation where male gun assemblers were paid higher wages for assembling larger gun barrels with somewhat larger but slower presses than those employed by the women assemblers. See also Ridgway v. United Hospitals-Miller Division, 563 F.2d 923 (8th Cir. 1977) (job of female surgical assistant in opthamology substantially equal to job of male surgical assistant in urology, since both involved similar work with delicate instruments); Usery v. Allegheny County Institution Dist., 544 F.2d 148 (3d Cir. 1976), cert, denied, 430 U.S. 946, 97 S.Ct. 1582, 51 L.Ed.2d 793 (1977), (jobs of beauticians and barbers substantially equal, even though the former used different tools such as curlers and hair irons). In Angelo v. Bacharach Instrument Co., 555 F.2d 1164 (3d Cir. 1977), the court held that female light assemblers had not carried their burden" }, { "docid": "1737127", "title": "", "text": "in Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 265 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970), that “equal work” does not mean “identical work,” but only that the jobs “must be substantially equal.” As that Court noted (421 F.2d at 265): Any other interpretation would destroy the remedial purpose of the Act. The Act was intended as a broad charter of women’s rights in the economic field. It sought to overcome the age- old belief in women’s inferiority and to eliminate the depressing effects on living standards of reduced wages for female workers and the economic and social consequences which flow from it. In Wheaton the company’s male and female selector packers both performed a number of common duties in tending the glass ovens, but the district court had found their jobs to be unequal because the men performed some sixteen additional tasks, much like the situation here where some custodial workers at times perform certain duties that the maids do not do. The extra tasks in Wheaton included, but were not limited to, the lifting and stocking of heavy or bulky cartons and materials, moving goods with a handtruck, climbing over cartons stacked on pallets, and performing minor mechanical adjustments such as attaching metal' clips' to glass containers or unjamming overhead conveyors and automatic belts. The Third Circuit, in reversing the district court, approved the rule that “different tasks which are only incidental and occasional would not justify a wage differential.” 421 F.2d at 265, n. 10. The Court also stated: “. . . There is, therefore, no basis for an assumption that all male selector-packers performed any or all of these 16 additional tasks.”; and the Court also noted that there was no indication these duties had “consumed a substantial amount of their time.” 421 F.2d at 263. That “equal work” means work of “substantial equality” is by now abundantly clear. Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hospital, 436 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1970); Hodgson v. Fairmont Supply Company, 454 F.2d 490 (4th Cir. 1972); Hodgson v. Square D. Co., 459 F.2d" }, { "docid": "20326819", "title": "", "text": "equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Fairmont denied that Mr. Mason and the female employees performed the same job, insisting that Mr. Mason did tasks not done by the women which required greater ■ skill, effort, and responsibility. Fairmont. also contended that Mr. Mason’s sales trainee status was “a factor other than sex” justifying his higher salary under section 6(d) (1) (i) (iv) of the Act, set out above. The district court dismissed the Secretary’s complaint. We reverse and remand for calculation of the wages due Mrs. Villers, Mrs. Chipps, and Mrs. Olson and for issuance of an injunction against further violation of the Act and withholding of wages due under the Act. The Secretary carries the burden of proving equality of jobs. Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hospital, 436 F.2d 719, 722 (5th Cir. 1970). He need not show that what Mr. Mason and the three female employees did for the pay and during the period in question was identical; rather, he must show that what they did required equal skill, effort, and responsibility. “Equal” means “substantially equal.’’ “Any other interpretation would destroy the remedial purposes of the Act.” Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, 265 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970). “As the doctrine is emerging, jobs do not entail equal effort [and skill and responsibility], even though they entail most of the same routine duties, if the more highly paid job involves additional tasks which (1) require extra effort [and skill and responsibility], (2) consume a significant amount of the time of all those whose pay differentials are to be justified in the terms of them, and (3) are of an economic value commensurate with the pay differential.” Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hospital, supra, 436 F.2d at 725. In evaluating the evidence presented by the Secretary in this case, we are mindful that under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) we must accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous but that conclusions of law come to us clothed with a lighter presumption of validity." }, { "docid": "23577322", "title": "", "text": "Based on these findings, the district court held the VSO and VSOA jobs were substantially equal, and that no factors other than sex (the State proffered wartime veteran status and education, but presses only the former), existed to warrant the salary disparity between the positions. Accordingly, the district court held the State violated both the Equal Pay Act (as to Fallon) and Title VII (as to both Fallon and the class). II. A. Equal Pay Act Prima Facie Case The Equal Pay Act provides in part: No employer ... shall discriminate ... between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees ... at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex ... for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. ... 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). To establish a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) that different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex; (2) that the employees do equal work which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and (3) that the employees have similar working conditions. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974); Epstein v. Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury, 739 F.2d 274, 277 (7th Cir.1984). To succeed, a plaintiff “must establish, based upon ‘actual job performance and content— not job titles, classifications or descriptions that the work performed ... is substantially equal.’ ” EEOC v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, 709 F.2d 1195, 1197 (7th Cir.1983) (quoting Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1979), aff'd, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981)). The work need not be identical; it is sufficient if the duties are “substantially equal.” Epstein, 739 F.2d at 277. Whether two jobs require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and are performed under similar working conditions is a factual determination. EEOC v. Madison Community Unit School District No. 12, 818 F.2d 577," }, { "docid": "16810654", "title": "", "text": "conditions; it is actual job performance requirements, rather than job classifications or titles, that is determinative. Gunther v. County of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1979), aff'd on other grounds, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981). Once a plaintiff offers sufficient evidence showing substantial equality in jobs and a disparity in wages, the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to show that the disparity is permitted by one of the four statutory exceptions to the Equal Pay Act: “(i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); see Hein, 718 F.2d at 913. We have little difficulty concluding that the district court did not clearly err in finding Contreras showed that she performed work substantially equal to that of the male financial aid assistants, except for lower pay. The question whether Maricopa offered sufficient proof of its “factor other than sex” defense is more troublesome, but our concerns are not such that we are left with the firm conviction that the district court arrived at a mistaken conclusion of fact. See Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 719 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir.1983). A. Prima Facie Case Maricopa does not sharply dispute the EEOC’s and Contreras’s establishment of a prima facie ease. In a 1980 letter to the EEOC, Kintz, Contreras’s supervisor, and Carson, the Dean of Students, stated that since 1977 she had been performing the same job as two male financial aid assistants at other Maricopa colleges. Carson repeated that conclusion in a later memorandum. Contreras offered competent evidence to show that she was paid a lower salary than the financial aid assistants. We believe this is sufficient evidence to sustain the plaintiff’s prima facie showing of wage discrimination. See Katz v. School District of Clayton, 557 F.2d 153, 156 (8th Cir.1977) (plaintiff established prima facie case when she showed she worked beyond her job description as an assistant teacher and began to perform duties" } ]

[ { "docid": "18220328", "title": "", "text": "concern of Pennsylvania, as opposed to the interests of New Jersey, is unquestionably the greater. Thus, the defendant University’s motion to dismiss must be denied since the plaintiff could conceivably recover in excess of $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs. II. DEFENDANT DRUG COMPANIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In their joint motion for summary judgment, the defendants Cyanamid and Tenneco contend that the plaintiff’s wrongful death and survival actions are barred by the New Jersey statutes of limitations governing negligence and breach of warranty actions. The defendant’s motion raises initially the question whether Pennsylvania or New Jersey limitations statutes govern the plaintiff’s causes of action. Since jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship, this Court must apply Pennsylvania choice of law rules to determine whether to apply the Pennsylvania (forum) statute of limitations or the applicable New Jersey statute. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945). Generally, Pennsylvania courts apply the forum state limitations statute. Freeman v. Lawton, 353 Pa. 613, 46 A.2d 205 (1946); Rosenzweig v. Heller, 302 Pa. 279, 153 A. 346 (1931). However, the Pennsylvania courts, and therefore this Court, do recognize a specific exception whenever the Pennsylvania so-called “borrowing” statute is applicable to the cause of action at issue. See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., 372 F.2d 18 (3rd. Cir. 1966). The “borrowing” statute provides that: “When a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws of the state * * in which it arose, such bar should be a complete defense to an action thereon brought in any of the courts of the commonwealth.” [Emphasis added] 12 P.S. § 39. The statute requires an answer to two questions: [1] where did the causes of action arise? and [2] are the causes of action totally barred by the laws of the state in which it arose ? In the case sub judiee, the plaintiff’s decedent, a New Jersey resident, received the allegedly negligent Thorotrast injection in Pennsylvania in 1944. He claims that he did not discover the injury caused" } ]

[ { "docid": "23288706", "title": "", "text": "all this as it may, this general rule is firmly embedded in our law. But as might be expected, some legislatures and courts, perhaps recognizing that in light of the rationale of the underlying conflict-of-laws doctrine it is anomalous to classify across-the-board statutes of limitation as “procedural,” have created exceptions to the rule so categorizing such statutes. A legislative example are the so-called “borrowing statutes” which require the courts of the forum to apply the statute of limitations of another jurisdiction, often that where the cause of action arose, when the forum’s statute has been tolled. See Note, Legislation Governing the Applicability of Foreign Statutes of Limitation, 35 Col.L.Rev. 762 (1935). A court-made exception, and the one with which we are concerned here, is that where the foreign statute of limitations is regarded as barring the foreign right sued upon, and not merely the remedy, it will be treated as conditioning that right and will be enforced by our courts as part of the foreign “substantive” law. See Beale, Conflict of Laws §§ 604.3, 605.1 (1935). Such exceptions operate pro tanto to give the result which commentators have advocated. It is not always easy to determine whether a foreign statute of limitations should be regarded as “substantive” or “procedural,” for the tests applied by the courts are far from precise. In The Harrisburg, 1886, 119 U.S. 199, 7 S.Ct. 140, 30 L.Ed. 358, the Supreme Court held “substantive” a limitation period contained in a wrongful death statute, emphasizing that “the liability and the remedy are created by the same statutes, and the limitations of the remedy are therefore to be treated as limitations of the right,” 119 U.S. at page 214, 7 S.Ct. at page 147. It now appears settled that limitation periods in wrongful death statutes will be regarded as “substantive.” Restatement of Conflict of Laws § 397. And the rule of The Harrisburg has been stated to apply not merely to rights to sue for wrongful death, but to any statute-created right unknown to the common law. See Zellmer v. Acme Brewing Co., 9 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d" }, { "docid": "22672471", "title": "", "text": "remedy. Statutes of per-emption destroy the cause of action itself. That is to say, after the limit of time expires the cause of action no longer exists; it is lost.” G. Stumberg, Principles of Conflict of Laws 146-147 (3d ed. 1963): “The traditional reaction in Conflict of Laws . . . has been that ordinarily limitation is procedural. This view was taken by the Dutch jurists, and where the question arises out of a general statute, it is the view generally accepted by Anglo-American courts. The result is that in the absence of a statute to the contrary in most jurisdictions, when the claim is based upon foreign facts, even though the foreign period of limitation has not run, the plaintiff may not recover if the time allowed for suit at the forum has expired. Conversely, if the foreign period has expired, suit may nevertheless be brought at the forum if the time specified there has not run.’’ (Footnotes omitted.) Accord, Restatement of Conflict of Laws §§ 603-604 (1934); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 142, 143 (1971); 3 J. Beale, Conflict of Laws § 584.1 (1935); B. Currie, Conflict of Laws 232-234, 255 (1963); A. Ehrenzweig, Conflict of Laws 428-436 (1962); H. Goodrich, Conflict of Laws 267 (4th ed. 1964); Ailes, Limitation of Actions and the Conflict of Laws, 31 Mich. L. Rev. 474 (1933); Comment, The Statute of Limitations and the Conflict of Laws, 28 Yale L. J. 492 (1919). While still sitting on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Mr. Justice Harlan said: “In actions where the rights of the parties are grounded upon the law of jurisdictions other than the forum, it is a well-settled conflict-of-laws rule that the forum will apply the foreign substantive law, but will follow its own rules of procedure.” Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Co., 220 F. 2d 152, 154 (CA2 1955). Mr. Justice Harlan went on to hold that a Panamanian statute of limitations was not applicable where a Panamanian statutory right was being enforced under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal District Court. The majority supports its" }, { "docid": "9578538", "title": "", "text": "however, agreed only that “the substantive law of Nebraska controls the case.” The stipulation does not require the application of Nebraska procedural law or prohibit the application of the procedural law of Kansas. It contains no express provision indicating that the parties agreed to be bound by Nebraska limitations statutes, to the exclusion of those provided by Kansas, the forum jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s argument that Kansas law in toto is inapplicable due to the stipulation must be rejected. Of course, the separate question of whether the specific statute at issue here, the last clause of K.S.A. 60-513(b), is procedural or substantive remains to be resolved, and is discussed below. The plaintiff also argues for the application of an exception to the lex fori rule. Under this exception, where a right of action is created by a foreign state statute which also creates a limitations period specifically applicable to that right, the limitations period of the foreign state is viewed as a substantive limitation on that right and may be applied by the forum state. See, e.g., RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, § 143 comment c. This exception to the general rule provides that where the statute creates a right and also incorporates a limitation upon the time within which the suit is to be brought, the limitation qualifies the right so that it becomes a part of the substantive law rather than the procedural, and that unless suit is brought within the time allowed by statute, no right of action can be maintained even though the law of the forum provides for a longer period of limitation. Jenkins v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 643 F.Supp. 17 (D.Idaho 1985), vacated on other grounds, Meyer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 820 F.2d 329 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting California v. Copus, 158 Tex. 196, 309 S.W.2d 227, 231, cert. denied, 356 U.S. 967, 78 S.Ct. 1006, 2 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1958)). The plaintiff’s argument must be rejected. The Nebraska wrongful death statute requires that actions under the statute be brought “within two years after the death of such person.” Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-810. The original" }, { "docid": "665376", "title": "", "text": "begins its consideration with Sections 142 and 143, Restatement of the Law, Second, “Conflict of Laws 2d”, page 396: # 142. Statutes of Limitation of Forum (1) An action will not be maintained if it is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, including a provision borrowing the statute of limitations of another state. (2) An action will be maintained if it is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, even though it would be barred by the statute of limitations of another state, except as stated in # 143. # 143. Foreign Statute of Limitations Barring the Right An action will not be entertained in another state if it is barred in the state of the otherwise applicable law by a statute of limitations which bars the right and not merely the remedy. Under “Comments” pertaining to Section 142(1), it is stated that, as between states, application of subsection (1) is permissible under full faith and credit. Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co., 345 U.S. 514, 73 S.Ct. 856, 97 L.Ed. 1211. In the comments on Subsection (2), it is stated that, except for Section 143, each state determines for itself when a claim becomes stale, and hence maintenance of an action in the state of the forum is not ordinarily precluded by the fact that it is barred by the statute of limitations of another state, unless the bar of this latter statute is made applicable by a borrowing statute of the forum. As to Section 143, the comments under this section indicate that application of the rule depends upon the local law of the forum, that is, it is for the courts of each state to determine the circumstances in which the rule is applicable. Mississippi’s so-called “borrowing statute”, Section 15-1-65, is as follows: “When a cause of action has accrued in some other state or in a foreign country, and by the law of such state or county, or of some other state and county where the defendant has resided before he resided in this state, an action thereon cannot be maintained" }, { "docid": "22293078", "title": "", "text": "laws rule called for the application of its own limitation rather than that of the place of the accident. Deeming himself bound by the Pennsylvania conflicts rule, he ordered summary judgment for the respondent. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. We granted certiorari limited to the question whether this Pennsylvania conflicts rule violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Federal Constitution. The states are free to adopt such rules of conflict of laws as they choose, Kryger v. Wilson, 242 U. S. 171 (1916), subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and other constitutional restrictions. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a state to adopt any particular set of rules of conflict of laws; it merely sets certain minimum requirements which each state must observe when asked to apply the law of a sister state. Long ago, we held that applying the statute of limitations of the forum to a foreign substantive right did not deny full faith and credit, McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312 (1839); Townsend v. Jemison, 9 How. 407 (1850); Bacon v. Howard, 20 How. 22 (1857). Recently we referred to “. . . the well-established principle of conflict of laws that ‘If action is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, no action can be maintained though action is not barred in the state where the cause of action arose.’ Restatement, Conflict of Laws § 603 (1934).” Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe, 331 U. S. 586, 607 (1947). The rule that the limitations of the forum apply (which this Court has said meets the requirements of full faith and credit) is the usual conflicts rule of the states. However, there have been divergent views when a foreign statutory right unknown to the common law has a period of limitation included in the section creating the right. The Alabama statute here involved creates such a right and contains a built-in limitation. The view is held in some jurisdictions that such a limitation is so intimately connected with the right that it must be" }, { "docid": "14277757", "title": "", "text": "state, territory, district, or foreign jurisdiction has expired or that period of limitation that applies to that action under the laws of this state has expired. Ohio Rev.Code § 2305.05 (2005). . At oral argument, Plaintiff conceded that the rigid substantive/procedural approach irrefutably led to widespread forum shopping, and that courts were loathe to allow such blatant manipulation of the judicial system by plaintiffs. . The Plaintiff and Defendant still dispute whether the claim actually accrued in Illinois or Ohio, so, even if the Defendant were able to convince the Court to apply the borrowing statute retroactively, it would still have to prove that Illinois was the state \"more significantly related” to the parties and their litigation. . Restatement § 6 lays out the general factors relevant to a choice-of-law inquiry, which include: (2)(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems; (b) the relevant policies of the forum; (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue; (d) the protection of justified expectations; (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law; (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result; and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6. A borrowing statute is evidence that a state wants to eliminate the problem of \"forum shopping.” . In DeLoach, the court wrote: As the court of appeals explained, the revised Restatement displaced the traditional substantive/procedural analysis concerning statutes of limitations with the choice-of-law interest factor analysis stated in [Restatement] section 6. However, the court failed to recognize the Section 142 does not simply import the pure interest analysis of section 6. Rather, revised section 142 begins with the general rule that the limitations period of the forum will apply; unless exceptional circumstances make such a result unreasonable and, in cases in which the claim will not be barred under the forum's statute, either of the conjunctive factors stated in section 142(2) not satisfied. See 960 P.2d at 631. (citing New England Tel. & Tel." }, { "docid": "22672470", "title": "", "text": "should not create interstitial federal common law when the Congress has directed that a whole body of state law shall apply. These cases were decided in the era before Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, n. 5. The first case involving nonretroactive application of state law concerned interpretation of the Mississippi Constitution. Rowan v. Runnels, 5 How. 134. We do not hold here that Rodrigue, in its entirety, must be applied nonretroactively. Rather, we hold.only that state statutes of limitations, applicable under Rodrigue’s interpretation of the Lands Act, should not be applied retroactively. Retroactive application of all state substantive remedies under Rodrigue would not work a comparable hardship or be so inconsistent with the purpose of the Lands Act. Guillory v. Avoyelles R. Co., 104 La. 11, 15, 28 So. 899, 901 (1900): “When a statute creates a right of action and stipulates the delay within which that right is to be executed, the delay thus fixed is not properly speaking one of prescription, but is one of peremption. “Statutes of prescription simply bar the remedy. Statutes of per-emption destroy the cause of action itself. That is to say, after the limit of time expires the cause of action no longer exists; it is lost.” G. Stumberg, Principles of Conflict of Laws 146-147 (3d ed. 1963): “The traditional reaction in Conflict of Laws . . . has been that ordinarily limitation is procedural. This view was taken by the Dutch jurists, and where the question arises out of a general statute, it is the view generally accepted by Anglo-American courts. The result is that in the absence of a statute to the contrary in most jurisdictions, when the claim is based upon foreign facts, even though the foreign period of limitation has not run, the plaintiff may not recover if the time allowed for suit at the forum has expired. Conversely, if the foreign period has expired, suit may nevertheless be brought at the forum if the time specified there has not run.’’ (Footnotes omitted.) Accord, Restatement of Conflict of Laws §§ 603-604 (1934); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws" }, { "docid": "21091656", "title": "", "text": "action accruing without [New York] state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state [of New York] or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued,” unless plaintiff is a New York resident. Id. The parties are not New York companies, and the plant breakdown occurred in California. The Builder asserts that because the claims “accrued” in California, § 202 directs the borrowing of California’s statute of limitations, which is stricter than New York’s and allegedly bars the claims. Judge Kaplan rejected this argument. He ruled that § 202 is inapplicable because the contract’s selection of a New York arbitration venue precludes arbitration outside New York. In his view, § 202 was designed to protect New York defendants from time-barred foreign claims. Foreign claimants who were barred from bringing the claims where they arose might be tempted to resuscitate them by taking advantage of more generous New York limitation periods. Section 202 was designed to foreclose such forum shopping by requiring the New York courts to apply the shorter foreign statutes in these circumstances. Here, because the forum selection clause designates New York as the exclusive venue for arbitration, there is no issue of forum shopping. In Judge Kaplan’s view, because the Insurers never had the option to bring the Owner’s claims in California, the anti-forum-shopping policies underlying § 202 would have no application to their action. New York would simply treat this as an arbitration appropriately sought in New York, rather than as an improper effort to resuscitate a lapsed California claim. In refusing to apply § 202, Judge Kaplan relied primarily on the analysis set forth in Stafford v. International Harvester Co., 668 F.2d 142 (2d Cir.1981). In Stafford, the plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, had been injured in an accident in Pennsylvania when the steering mechanism on his tractor truck failed. Plaintiff brought suit in New York against a mechanic shop which had performed repairs on the steering mechanism; the relevant Pennsylvania statute of limitations provided a shorter period than New York’s and would have" }, { "docid": "8357703", "title": "", "text": "longer statute of limitations to an action barred where it arose cannot be justified in terms of forum interest, at least where the parties’ connection with the forum is no more than tangential. In the Wells situation, the forum has an interest in preventing the prosecution of an action its own legislature would characterize as stale; in the situation before us it is highly unlikely any of Mississippi’s interests would be served by sustaining a cause of action longer than the state which created it. That the language of Wells rests upon a sound logical base only in fact situations analogous to that encountered by the Court in Wells has not gone unnoticed by the commentators: In the final analysis, [We/Is] does not represent a satisfactory approach to the problem of the application of the forum’s statutes of limitations. Although the case involved only a refusal by the forum to apply the foreign jurisdiction’s longer statute of limitations, little of the Court’s language reflects any awareness that the issues might be different when the forum rejects the foreign jurisdiction’s shorter statute of limitations. One might therefore suggest a simple constitutional rule with respect to the statutes of limitations in cases where the forum has no substantive interests: The forum may be justified in using its own statute of limitations to bar a cause of action that is still good in the state which created it, but a state should be forbidden from entertaining a cause of action after it is dead in the state which created it. Martin, Constitutional Limitations, supra, at 220-21. Application of a forum’s limitations rule to bar suits on admittedly valid and existent extrastate claims has a different theoretical justification [than use of the forum’s longer statute]. Access to forum courts is a matter for forum law to determine. Any state may bar suits on extrastate claims on the same limitations grounds it uses to bar suits on domestic claims. The full faith and credit clause is not violated by exclusions, and certain social policies may be served by them. The forum’s limitations rules represent its" }, { "docid": "23317096", "title": "", "text": "significant relationship” test. Despite these academic exhortations, we recognize that borrowing statutes interpreted in accordance with the accrual approach produce several meaningful policy advantages. First, borrowing statutes impede forum shopping. As one federal court sitting in diversity explained, the objective of Pennsylvania’s borrowing statute is “simply to insure that a plaintiff who sues in Pennsylvania obtains no greater rights than those given in the state where his cause of action arose.” Wilt v. Smack, 147 F.Supp. 700, 704 (E.D.Pa.1957); see also Stuart v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 158 F.3d 622, 627 (2d Cir.1998) (“[T]he purpose of the borrowing statute — preventing forum shopping by plaintiffs seeking the holy grail of the longer period — is best served by applying the period of the foreign state, regardless of how it is denominated.”); Faigin v. Doubleday Dell Publ’g Group, Inc., 98 F.3d 268, 271 (7th Cir.1996) (observing “the antipathy to forum shopping reflected in Wisconsin’s borrowing statute (in all such statutes, really)”); Siegemund v. Shapland, 247 F.Supp.2d. 1, 6 n. 17 (D.Me.2003) (“Borrowing statutes, enacted by states to prevent forum shopping, ‘enable the forum to borrow and use the statute of limitations of another state in determining the timeliness of an action.’ ”) (quoting Hossler v. Barry, 403 A.2d 762, 765 (Me.1979)); Flowers v. Carville, 112 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1208 (D.Nev.2000) (“Borrowing statutes are designed to prevent forum shopping.”). An accrual-based approach makes forum shopping impossible because the statute of limitations that governs in the forum where the cause of action accrued will apply no matter where the plaintiff files suit. In contrast, allowing plaintiffs to file suit in any state that has significant contacts with the dispute encourages plaintiffs to shop for the forum with the longest statute of limitations. Although limiting the operation of a borrowing statute to only those instances where a state has the most significant connection with the lawsuit helps make forum shopping somewhat more difficult, many modern commercial transactions transcend state boundaries. If a contract is negotiated in Michigan between an Ohio company and a Kentucky company, with performance scheduled in Tennessee, determining which state has the “most”" }, { "docid": "21091657", "title": "", "text": "York courts to apply the shorter foreign statutes in these circumstances. Here, because the forum selection clause designates New York as the exclusive venue for arbitration, there is no issue of forum shopping. In Judge Kaplan’s view, because the Insurers never had the option to bring the Owner’s claims in California, the anti-forum-shopping policies underlying § 202 would have no application to their action. New York would simply treat this as an arbitration appropriately sought in New York, rather than as an improper effort to resuscitate a lapsed California claim. In refusing to apply § 202, Judge Kaplan relied primarily on the analysis set forth in Stafford v. International Harvester Co., 668 F.2d 142 (2d Cir.1981). In Stafford, the plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, had been injured in an accident in Pennsylvania when the steering mechanism on his tractor truck failed. Plaintiff brought suit in New York against a mechanic shop which had performed repairs on the steering mechanism; the relevant Pennsylvania statute of limitations provided a shorter period than New York’s and would have barred the claims. Applying § 202, the district court borrowed the Pennsylvania limitation period and dismissed the suit as untimely. This court reversed on appeal. The mechanic shop had no ties to Pennsylvania that could subject it to personal jurisdiction there. We noted that, under the circumstances, an attempt to sue that defendant in New York does not constitute the sort of forum shopping that the borrowing statute was intended to prevent. Id. at 151-53. We therefore held that § 202 did not bar the suit against the mechanic shop. Under Stafford, “in order to effectuate the purpose which the [borrowing] statute was designed to serve” § 202 applies “only to statutes of limitations of states where suit could have been brought,” i.e., only where defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction. Id. at 151 (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, we held that a cause of action cannot “accrue” for borrowing statute purposes in a jurisdiction where the defendant is not amenable to suit. Id. at 153. Judge Kaplan found the Stafford rationale for bypassing the borrowing" }, { "docid": "1802740", "title": "", "text": "The liability and the remedy are created by the same statutes, and the limitations of the remedy are therefore to be treated as limitations of the right.” However, especially in “full faith and credit cases,” restrictions in a wrongful death statute providing that the right shall be enforceable only by suit brought in the courts of the State creating the right, or within a certain time, are ordinarily disregarded, and the rule followed that a transitory cause of action can be asserted and enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction in another State. Dumbauld, The Constitution of the United States (1964) 391-92. As stated in Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co., 345 U.S. 514, 517, 73 S.Ct. 856, 97 L.Ed. 1211 (1953), the generally accepted rule of conflicts of law is that the forum State applies its own statute of limitations. Rosenzweig v. Heller, 302 Pa. 279, 285, 153 A. 346 (1931); Chernoff v. Sunshine Packing Corp., 210 F.Supp. 717, 718 (W.D.Pa.1962); Gordon v. Loew’s Inc., 247 F.2d 451, 454 (C.A. 3, 1957); Restatement, Conflicts, 603; Goodrich, Handbook of the Conflict of Laws (4th ed. by Eugene F. Scoles, 1964) 152-55. The statute of limitations is thus conceived of as being “procedural” and relating to the “remedy,” rather than as “substantive.” A federal court applies the conflicts rule of the State where it sits. Except that Wells did not involve a death in admiralty waters, it is on all fours with the case at bar. And this distinction does not appear to lead to any different conclusion. The Pennsylvania “borrowing statute” (12 P.S. § 39) has no applicability here, since the West Virginia statutory period is longer than that of the forum. Accordingly, we hold that the law of the forum is determinative and that the action must be dismissed. . Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co., 345 U.S. 514, 515-517, 73 S.Ct. 856, 97 L.Ed. 1211 (1953). . For illustrative cases where that statute applied, see Karagiannis v. Shaffer, 96 F.Supp. 211, 212 (W.D.Pa.1951) ; Mack Trucks Inc. v. Bendix-Westinghouse Co., 372 F.2d 18, 20 (C.A. 3, 1967)." }, { "docid": "2047114", "title": "", "text": "statute of limitations of the forum, even though it would be barred by the statute of limitations of another state, except as stated in § 143. § 143. FOREIGN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARRING THE RIGHT An action will not be entertained in another state if it is barred in the state of the otherwise applicable law by a statute of limitations which bars the right and not merely the remedy. Both Restatements recognize that a forum may have a borrowing statute directing the forum to apply the limitations statute of another jurisdiction. See original Restatement, § 604, Comment b; Second Restatement, § 142, supra, and Comment f. And both Restatements recognize that a forum statute of limitations should not extend the life of a foreign statutory cause of action (e.g., one for wrongful death) which contains its own integral limitations period, one which is said to define the \"right” rather than simply to limit the \"remedy.\" See original Restatement, § 605; Second Restatement, § 143, supra. . Lorenzen, The Statute of Limitations and the Conflict of Laws, 28 Yale L.J. 492, 496-97 (1919). In the 1949 edition of his standard treatise on conflicts, Judge Goodrich, for many years a member of this court, cited Professor Loren-zen’s \"valuable” article as cogent authority, running counter to the prevailing forum-oriented orthodoxy. Goodrich, Conflict of Laws (3d ed. 1949) 241 n. 51. . Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc., 305 A.2d at 418. . Id. . “The New Jersey courts have been in the forefront of those states which have enlarged the circumstances in which residents can recover for personal injuries.” Schum v. Bailey, supra, 578 F.2d at 504 (Appendix to concurring opinion of Gibbons, J.). . For a relentlessly detailed, and somewhat strident, critique of the New Jersey choice-of-law decisions, see Klein, A Critical Analysis of New Jersey’s Domicile-Driven Choice of Law Methodology, 17 Seton Hall L.Rev. 204 (1987). . Since Mr. Warner’s New Jersey domicile is dispositive of the statute of limitations question, it is unnecessary to consider whether the Inn’s activity in soliciting New Jersey patrons, see footnote 1, supra, gives independent support" }, { "docid": "1910126", "title": "", "text": "claims, even when the claims are brought under the substantive law of a foreign state. See First Restatement § 603-604. Last, New Mexico has no borrowing statute. a. The Colorado Statute of Limitations Applicable to Breach of the Duty to Market Hydrocarbons Bars Merely the Remedy, Not the Riyht. The Plaintiffs half-heartedly argue that, if “it would be fundamentally unfair to apply the New Mexico statute of limitations to the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ claims under wells in Colorado,” the Court should apply the Colorado statutes of limitations. Response Supp. at 2 (citing Lujan v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 69 F.3d at 1515-16). The case they cite does not rely on the “fundamentally unfair” distinction to come to the conclusion it does, but rather highlights another point of analysis. In Lujan v. Regents of the University of California, the Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico’s wrongful death statute of limitations must be “treated as” substan tive — i.e., the foreign state that supplies the substantive law also supplies the statute of limitations — because wrongful death limitations “do[ ] not merely bar the remedy for the violation of a right but limit[ ] or condition[] the right itself.” 69 F.3d at 1516-17 (citing Wall v. Gillett, 1956-NMSC-060, ¶ 4, 61 N.M. 256, 298 P.2d 939, 940). This analysis is consistent with both the First and Second Restatement approach to choice-of-law analysis. See First Restatement § 605 (“If by the law of the state which has created a right of action, it is made a condition of the right that it shall expire after a certain period of limitation has elapsed, no action begun after the period has elapsed can be maintained in any state.”); Second Restatement § 143 (“An action will.not be entertained in another state if it is barred in the state of the otherwise applicable law by a statute of limitations which bars the right and not merely the remedy.”). The Second Restatement offers the following guidance to determine whether a statute of limitations bars the right or merely the remedy: [I]t is for the forum" }, { "docid": "1910088", "title": "", "text": "because parties to a lawsuit do not usually think about matters of judicial administration before entering, into legal transactions, they do not usually place reliance on the applicability of specific state rules. See Estate of Gilmore, 124 N.M. at 124, 946 P.2d at 1133 (citing Second Restatement § 122 cmt. a.). For these reasons, there is no danger in applying the forum state’s rules in such procedural matters. See Estate of Gilmore, 124 N.M. at 124, 946 P.2d at 1134. Furthermore, “ ‘[ejnormous burdens are avoided when a court applies its own rules, rather than the rules of another state, to issues relating to judicial administration, such as the proper form of action, service of process, pleading, rules of discovery, mode of trial and execution and costs.’ ” Estate of Gilmore, 124 N.M. at 123, 946 P.2d at 1134 (quoting Second Restatement § 122 cmt. a). The Supreme Court of New Mexico has adopted the First Restatement approach to choice-of-law analyses, see United Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp., 108 N.M. 467, 469, 775 P.2d 233, 235 (“New Mexico adheres to a traditional conflicts of law analysis contained in Restatement (First) of Conflicts of Law (1934).”), but for the purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitation, the First and Second Restatement come out the same way: in the absence of a “borrowing statute” enacted by the forum state that adopts foreign states’ statutes of limitations when applying their substantive law, the statute of limitations of the forum state governs all disputes even when another state supplies the substantive law. Compare First Restatement §§ 603-604 (“If action is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, no action can be maintained though action is not barred in the state where the cause of action arose.... If action is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, an action can be maintained, though action is barred in the state where the cause of action arose.”) with Second Restatement § 142(“(1) An action will not be maintained if it is barred by the statute of limitations of the" }, { "docid": "21068928", "title": "", "text": "is inappropriate at this stage, but that summary judgment is warranted as to Counts V to VII. A. Timeliness of wrongful death and tort actions (Counts I-IV) Under Pennsylvania law, plaintiff had two years after Mrs. Hoppe’s death to timely file this action, or until September 27, 2004. 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5524. As this action was not commenced until September 26, 2005, it will be time-barred unless the limitations period is tolled for one year. I find that at this stage, summary judgment as to the issue of tolling is premature and the case will proceed to discovery. 1. Which statute of limitations applies As a threshold matter, Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for wrongful death and personal injury actions applies to this action. A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules regarding statutes of limitations. See Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945); Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 760 F.2d 481, 487 (3d Cir.1985). Pursuant to Pennsylvania’s so-called “borrowing statute,” Pennsylvania applies its own statute of limitations to causes of action that accrued in a foreign jurisdiction, unless the foreign jurisdiction’s statute of limitations is shorter. 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5521(b). Here, Pennsylvania’s limitations period for personal injury and wrongful death actions is shorter than Wisconsin’s. Compare 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5524(2),(7) (two years) loith Wis. Stat. Ann. § 893.54(2) (three years). Therefore, Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations applies. Pennsylvania case law indicates that plaintiffs wrongful death and survival actions accrued upon Mrs. Hoppe’s death on September 27, 2002. “In Pennsylva nia, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff could have first maintained the action to a successful conclusion.... Generally speaking, in a suit to recover damages for personal injuries, this right arises when the injury is inflicted.” Fine v. Checcio, 582 Pa. 253, 870 A.2d 850, 857 (2005) (internal citations omitted). Wrongful death actions invariably accrue at the time of the decedent’s death, as the decedent’s death is the actionable injury. Pastierik v. Duquesne Light Co., 514 Pa. 517, 526" }, { "docid": "1910128", "title": "", "text": "courts to determine whether a foreign statute of limitations bars the right and not merely the remedy. The almost invariable prerequisite is that the liability sought to be enforced must have been created by statute. Once this requirement has been met, the usual test is whether, in the opinion of the forum, the limitation provision was directed to the right “so specifically as to warrant saying that'it qualified the right.” Davis v. Mills, 194 U.S. 451, 454 [24 S.Ct. 692, 48 L.Ed. 1067] (1904). Other tests have at times been employed, such as whether the statute of limitations has attributes in the state of its enactment which the forum would characterize as substantive, as that the defense need not be pleaded or that the obligation cannot be revived after the statutory period has elapsed. The most common illustration of a situation where a statute of limitations will usually be held to bar the right is when a statute creates but a single right of action and also contains a provision limiting the time in which actions under the statute may be brought. Wrongful death statutes are typical examples of statutes of this sort. Second Restatement § 143 cmt. c. The Court must next identify which statutes of limitations to analyze. The Plaintiffs appear to ask, not merely that the Court apply the Colorado statute of limitations, class-wide, to the one claim arising under Colorado state law, but rather that, the Court should apply Colorado statutes of limitations to all claims — including the eight claims arising under New Mexico law — as to all wells located in Colorado. See Response Supp. at 1-5. The Court can find no support for the application of a foreign state’s statute of limitations to a claim brought under the forum state’s substantive law. Such a result would be unsound: if the factors informing a choiice-of-law analysis were to weigh so strongly in favor of the foreign state that the forum court concluded it was necessary to apply even a principally procedural provision, such as a statute of limitations, then it would likely find it" }, { "docid": "1910125", "title": "", "text": "of limitations. 1. New Mexico Law, Not Colorado Law, Supplies All Statutes of Limitations. New Mexico law supplies the controlling statutes of limitations for all claims, including the eleventh cause of action, which arises under Colorado substantive law, because of the following reasons. First, a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply the same statutes of limitations that a state court of the forum state would apply to the case. See Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. at 109, 65 S.Ct. 1464. Second, New Mexico uses the First Restatement approach to choice-of-law analyses in most circumstances. See United Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp., 1989-NMSC-030, ¶ 9, 775 P.2d at 235 (“New Mexico adheres to a traditional conflicts of law analysis contained in Restatement (First) of Conflicts of Law (1934).”). Third, the First Restatement provides that, in the absence of a “borrowing statute” — a forum-state statute that adopts the statute of limitations of foreign states when applying their substantive law — the statute of limitations of the forum state controls all claims, even when the claims are brought under the substantive law of a foreign state. See First Restatement § 603-604. Last, New Mexico has no borrowing statute. a. The Colorado Statute of Limitations Applicable to Breach of the Duty to Market Hydrocarbons Bars Merely the Remedy, Not the Riyht. The Plaintiffs half-heartedly argue that, if “it would be fundamentally unfair to apply the New Mexico statute of limitations to the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ claims under wells in Colorado,” the Court should apply the Colorado statutes of limitations. Response Supp. at 2 (citing Lujan v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 69 F.3d at 1515-16). The case they cite does not rely on the “fundamentally unfair” distinction to come to the conclusion it does, but rather highlights another point of analysis. In Lujan v. Regents of the University of California, the Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico’s wrongful death statute of limitations must be “treated as” substan tive — i.e., the foreign state that supplies the substantive law also supplies the statute of limitations —" }, { "docid": "2047113", "title": "", "text": "the South Jersey Ski Club and other ski groups, the Inn has regularly sought the patronage of American vacationers, particularly including those from New Jersey. . In the original Restatement, the relevant provisions are Sections 603 and 604: § 603. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF FORUM. If action is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, no action can be maintained though action is not barred in the state where the cause of action arose. § 604. FOREIGN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. If action is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, an action can be maintained, though action is barred in the state where the cause of action arose. In the Second Restatement, the relevant provisions are Sections 142 and 143: § 142. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF FORUM (1) An action will not be maintained if it is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, including a provision borrowing the statute of limitations of another state. (2) An action will be maintained if it is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, even though it would be barred by the statute of limitations of another state, except as stated in § 143. § 143. FOREIGN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARRING THE RIGHT An action will not be entertained in another state if it is barred in the state of the otherwise applicable law by a statute of limitations which bars the right and not merely the remedy. Both Restatements recognize that a forum may have a borrowing statute directing the forum to apply the limitations statute of another jurisdiction. See original Restatement, § 604, Comment b; Second Restatement, § 142, supra, and Comment f. And both Restatements recognize that a forum statute of limitations should not extend the life of a foreign statutory cause of action (e.g., one for wrongful death) which contains its own integral limitations period, one which is said to define the \"right” rather than simply to limit the \"remedy.\" See original Restatement, § 605; Second Restatement, § 143, supra. . Lorenzen, The Statute of Limitations and the Conflict" }, { "docid": "1910089", "title": "", "text": "P.2d 233, 235 (“New Mexico adheres to a traditional conflicts of law analysis contained in Restatement (First) of Conflicts of Law (1934).”), but for the purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitation, the First and Second Restatement come out the same way: in the absence of a “borrowing statute” enacted by the forum state that adopts foreign states’ statutes of limitations when applying their substantive law, the statute of limitations of the forum state governs all disputes even when another state supplies the substantive law. Compare First Restatement §§ 603-604 (“If action is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, no action can be maintained though action is not barred in the state where the cause of action arose.... If action is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, an action can be maintained, though action is barred in the state where the cause of action arose.”) with Second Restatement § 142(“(1) An action will not be maintained if it is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, including a provision borrow ing the statute of limitations of another state. (2) An action will be maintained if it is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, even though it would be barred by the statute of limitations of another state, except as stated in § 143.”). The only exception is if the statute of limitations of the foreign state “bars the right and not merely the remedy,” in which case the action is barred regardless of the forum chosen. Second Restatement § 143 (“An action will not be entertained in another state if it is barred in the state of the otherwise applicable law by a statute of limitations which bars the right and not merely the remedy.”). Accord First Restatement § 605 (“If by the law of the state which has created a right of action, it is made a condition of the right that it shall expire after a certain period of limitation has elapsed, no action begun after the period has elapsed can be maintained in" } ]

[ { "docid": "22872378", "title": "", "text": "retains an economic interest shall not receive percentage depletion, but instead must take capital gains treatment for the royalties received under that contract. The result of this in the typical lessor-lessee situation is that the lessee is entitled to the entire depletion allowance on the gross income from the property. Respondent contract miners make no contention that they are lessees or the sublessees of Paragon. However, they claim that they are entitled to a portion of the percentage depletion because they have somehow acquired an economic interest in the coal in place. This test was first enunciated in Palmer v. Bender, 287 U. S. 551, 557 (1933), and has since become the touchstone of decisions determining the eligibility of a party to share in the depletion allowance. The contract miners contend that their investments of time and money in developing these mines bring them within the meaning of our cases. We believe that Parsons v. Smith, supra, completely settles this question against them. In Parsons, the Court enumerated seven factors to be considered in determining whether the coal-mining contracts there involved gave the contract miners any capital investment or economic interest in the coal in place. They were: “(1) that [the contract miners’] investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable — not in the coal in place; (2) that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation— not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to [the contract miners] any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and that [the contract miners] could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that [the contract miners] wer'e not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, on the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered" } ]

[ { "docid": "7793480", "title": "", "text": "the property (computed without allowance for depletion).” Section 613 (b) (4) provides that, in the case of coal, the percentage depletion rate is 10 percent. It is well settled that to be entitled to a deduction for depletion a taxpayer must own an “economic interest” in the mineral deposit mined as distinguished from a mere economic or pecuniary advantage derived from production under a contractual relation to the owner of the resources. Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co., 303 U.S. 362, 367; Palmer v. Bender, 287 U.S. 551, 557; Commissioner v. Southwest Exploration Co., 350 U.S. 308, 314. See also Income Tax Regs., sec. 1.611-1 (b) (1). In the more recent case of Parsons v. Smith, 359 U.S. 215 (1959), decided concurrently with Huss v. Smith, in each of which coal strip miners, operating as a partnership under contract, were denied a depletion deduction, the Supreme Court stated: By their contracts, which were completely terminable without cause on short notice, petitioners simply agreed to provide the equipment and do the work required to strip mine coal from designated lands of the landowners and to deliver the coal to the latter at stated points, and in full consideration for performance of that undertaking the landowners were to pay to petitioners a fixed sum per ton. Surely those agreements do not show or suggest that petitioners actually made any capital investment in the coal in place, or that the landowners were to or actually did in any way surrender to petitioners any part of their capital interest in the coal in place. * * * The Supreme Court listed seven factors in support of its conclusion: (1) Petitioners’ investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable — not in the coal in place; (2) their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation — not depletion; (3) the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged" }, { "docid": "21339996", "title": "", "text": "some of which was usable for road building. In one case the agreement was terminable at will by either party on ten days’ notice; in the other, by the owner on thirty days’ written notice. As to each taxpayer, the Court held the depletion deduction unavailable. After stating that the rationale of the depletion deduction was to permit an owner of a depletable resource to recapture his capital interest over the period of depletion, the Court stated that, except for apportionment when permitted by statute, only one person the owner or the person having a capital investment or an economic interest in the capital asset in place, was entitled to the deduction. The taxpayers were held to have an economic advantage but not a capital investment or economic interest in the coal in place and, hence, the deduction was denied them. After pointing out that their “contracts * * * were completely terminable without cause on short notice * * * \" (p. 224, 79 S.Ct. p. 662) the Court answered taxpayers’ argument that their contractual right to mine coal and the use of their equipment, skills and organizations should be regarded as the making of a capital investment and the acquisition of an economic interest in the coal in place, by saying (p. 225, 79 S.Ct. p. 663): “ * * * the asserted fiction is opposed to the facts (1) that petitioners’ investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable— not in the coal in place; (2) that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation— not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and that petitioners could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that petitioners were not to have any part of the proceeds" }, { "docid": "3566825", "title": "", "text": "important factor to consider is whether, under the contract, the taxpayer has the right to exhaust the mineral deposit to completion or whether, through a contract provision which empowers the owner to terminate the contract at will, the taxpayer is subject to the owner’s will. Whitmer v. Comm’r, 443 F.2d 170, 173 (3d Cir.1971); see also Costantino, 445 F.2d at 409. In determining that certain miners did not possess an economic interest in coal in place, the Court in Paragon Jewel noted that (1) the miners’ investments were in movable equipment rather than in the coal in place; (2) their equipment investments could be recovered through depreciation rather than by depletion; (3) the contracts between the miners and the landowners were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) the landowners retained all the capital interest in the coal in place, rather than surrendering any portion to the miners; (5) the landowners owned the coal at all times, even after it was mined, precluding the miners from selling or keeping any of it; (6) the landowners retained all proceeds from the sale of the coal; and, (7) the miners could look only to the landowners for all sums due under their contracts. Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Comm’r, 380 U.S. at 633-34, 85 S.Ct. at 1211-12, citing Parsons v. Smith, 359 U.S. at 225, 79 S.Ct. at 663. Applying the Paragon Jewel Coal factors to the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Gulf has an economic interest in the Iranian hydrocarbons under the 1973 Agreement. The Consortium members invested substantial capital, under the 1954 Agreement, in Iranian plant assets and facilities which, at the time of the 1973 Agreement, the members had not fully recovered. Some of these assets (e.g., buildings) were obviously not movable. Because Iran held legal title to all assets since the 1951 nationalization, Gulf could not have depreciated any of those assets to recoup the invested capital. Also, other than Iran and NIOC, the Consortium held the exclusive right, through the trading companies, to sell the minerals, thereby demonstrating that it clearly retained a right" }, { "docid": "6583504", "title": "", "text": "* * 53. ... International controlled ILC’s disposition of the timber subject to the cutting contracts, and ILC had no independent control over the disposition of the timber subject to the cutting contracts. International made all disposition determinations prior to the time a cutting contract was executed with ILC. Jt. Stip. ¶¶ 48, 53 (emphasis added). In fact, during 1973 through 1979, “... ILC disposed of the harvested materials pursuant to log and pulpwood sales agreements---- The logs and pulpwood were delivered as predetermined by International either to an International facility in the United States, to CIP [IP’s wholly owned Canadian subsidiary], or to unrelated Canadian purchasers.” Jt. Stip. ¶ 65. The contracts between ILC and third parties specified a price per unit of timber that was the same price per unit of timber ILC was obligated to pay IP under the parallel cutting contracts. Thus, unlike the subsidiary in Georgia-Pacific, ILC was unalterably obligated to transfer the timber cut and hauled under the cutting contracts to third parties predetermined by IP and at a fixed price established by IP. The fixed price received by ILC was then remitted by ILC directly and in full to IP. Examining the second element required for a finding of an “economic interest,” this court finds that ILC did not look to the severance of the timber for a return on a capital investment in the timber. Finding that taxpayers failed to meet this prerequisite for obtaining an “economic interest” in coal, the U.S. Supreme Court examined seven elements of the parties’ contract mining transactions in Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner, 380 U.S. 624, 85 S.Ct. 1207, 14 L.Ed.2d 116 (1965), and Parsons v. Smith, 359 U.S. 215, 79 S.Ct. 656, 3 L.Ed.2d 747 (1959). These elements are: (1) that [the contract miners’] investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable — not in the coal in place; (2) that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation — not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to" }, { "docid": "7259560", "title": "", "text": "“By their contracts, which were completely terminable without cause on short notice, petitioners simply agreed to provide the equipment and do the work required to strip mine coal from designated lands of the landowners and to deliver the coal, to the latter at stated points, and in full consideration for performance of that undertaking the landowners were to pay to petitioners a fixed sum per ton. Surely those agreements do not show or suggest that petitioners actually made any capital investment in the coal in place, or that the landowners were to or actually did in any way surrender to petitioners any part of their capital interest in the coal in place.” The opinion in the Parsons case goes on to list seven facts which negatived the strippers’ claims that, their contractual rights amounted to a capital interest and thereby an acquisition of an economic interest in the coal in place. They are : (1) that petitioners’ investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable — not in the coal in place: (2) that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation — not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and that petitioners could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that petitioners were not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, on the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered, which was, as stated in Huss [255 P. 2d 600], agreed to be in “full compensation for the full performance of all work and for the furnishing of all [labor] and equipment required for the work”; and (7) that petitioners, thus, agreed to look only to the landowners for all sums" }, { "docid": "6583502", "title": "", "text": "return is the functional equivalent of the investment opportunity and risk test of Giustina.” Id. at 659. Based on the facts in Georgia-Pacific, the Ninth Circuit found that, as in Giustina, the contracts between Georgia-Pacific and its subsidiary provided for “the purchase of a specified amount of timber at a predetermined price. The purchasers [were] thus able to sell the timber in the open market and possess the investment opportunity and risk of ownership.” Id. at 658-59. Therefore, in these circumstances, the lessee acquired an “economic interest” in the timber sufficient to entitle it to depletion deductions. The court emphasized, moreover, that “[e]ven a minor opportunity to sell in the market is enough to give a timber cutter an economic interest in the timber.” Id. (citing Thornberry Construction Co. v. United States, 217 Ct.Cl. 196, 576 F.2d 346 (1978)). At first blush, application of the foregoing analysis in Georgia-Pacific, which somewhat mirrors the present case, would appear to support the existence of an “economic interest” held by ILC in the timber transferred pursuant to its cutting contracts with IP. This is so because ILC transferred the timber cut and hauled the timber from IP’s property to third-party purchasers who made payments to ILC pursuant to parallel cutting contracts and log sales agreements. Therefore, it blandly appears that ILC possessed an investment opportunity and risk under the cutting contracts to sell the timber to third parties in the open market, thereby conferring on it (ILC) an “economic interest” in the timber. Upon a closer examination of the stipulated facts, however, the present ease is distinguishable from Georgicir-Pacific. Here at bar, ILC received payments from third parties for the transfer of timber, but those payments were not the product of sales by-ILC in the open market. Rather, the indisputable facts establish that, prior to executing the cutting contracts with ILC, IP had determined where and to whom ILC would deliver the timber. Specifically, the parties have agreed in the explicit joint stipulations that: 48. At all times throughout the years at issue, International exercised complete control over ILC. * * * *" }, { "docid": "3074404", "title": "", "text": "oil deposits * * * 350 U.S. at page 317, 76 S.Ct. at page 400. And whatever conclusions one might reach on the facts here concerning factors (1) and (2) in the Supreme Court’s analysis of the strip mining cases, Parsons v. Smith (Huss v. Smith), 1959, 359 U.S. 215, 79 S.Ct. 656, 663, 3 L.Ed.2d 747, 754, factors (3) through (7) decisive because absent there, are equally decisive because present here. “ * * * (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and that petitioners could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that petitioners were not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, on the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered, which was, as stated in Huss * * *, agreed to be in ‘full compensation for the full performance of all work and for the furnishing of all [labor] and equipment required for the work’; and (7) that petitioners, thus, agreed to look only to the landowners for all sums to become due them under their contracts. The agreement of the landowners to pay a fixed sum per ton for mining and delivering the coal ‘wras a personal covenant and did not purport to grant [petitioners] an interest in the [coal in place].’ ” Return of La Gloria’s .“Capital” Depends Solely on Extraction of Gas. In considering the Palmer v. Bender return of “capital” factor, the term capital can refer to two things: (a) the amount of money (or assets) contributed in the acquisition of the interest in oil-gas; or (b) the return of that portion of the thing acquired (oil-gas) which represents one’s ownership in the thing itself. The latter refers," }, { "docid": "3566824", "title": "", "text": "Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Comm’r, 380 U.S. 624, 633-34, 85 S.Ct. 1207, 1211-12, 14 L.Ed.2d 116 (1965); Parsons v. Smith, 359 U.S. 215, 225, 79 S.Ct. 656, 663, 3 L.Ed.2d 747 (1959). See also Costantino v. Comm’r, 445 F.2d 405, 409 (3d Cir.1971). More recently, in Freede v. Comm’r, 864 F.2d 671, 674 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 52, 107 L.Ed.2d 21 (1989), the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit discussed five different factors to be considered. See also Tidewater Oil Co., 339 F.2d at 637. All of the factors enumerated by the courts are simply considerations that we may examine in determining the existence of an economic interest in the particular case before us. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized the problems that arise in applying these stated principles to the peculiar circumstances of each ease. Paragon Jewel Coal Co., 380 U.S. at 627, 85 S.Ct. at 1208. In the past, we have utilized the Paragon Jewel Coal factors in determining whether an economic interest exists, noting that perhaps the most important factor to consider is whether, under the contract, the taxpayer has the right to exhaust the mineral deposit to completion or whether, through a contract provision which empowers the owner to terminate the contract at will, the taxpayer is subject to the owner’s will. Whitmer v. Comm’r, 443 F.2d 170, 173 (3d Cir.1971); see also Costantino, 445 F.2d at 409. In determining that certain miners did not possess an economic interest in coal in place, the Court in Paragon Jewel noted that (1) the miners’ investments were in movable equipment rather than in the coal in place; (2) their equipment investments could be recovered through depreciation rather than by depletion; (3) the contracts between the miners and the landowners were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) the landowners retained all the capital interest in the coal in place, rather than surrendering any portion to the miners; (5) the landowners owned the coal at all times, even after it was mined, precluding the miners from selling or keeping any of it; (6) the" }, { "docid": "6583503", "title": "", "text": "cutting contracts with IP. This is so because ILC transferred the timber cut and hauled the timber from IP’s property to third-party purchasers who made payments to ILC pursuant to parallel cutting contracts and log sales agreements. Therefore, it blandly appears that ILC possessed an investment opportunity and risk under the cutting contracts to sell the timber to third parties in the open market, thereby conferring on it (ILC) an “economic interest” in the timber. Upon a closer examination of the stipulated facts, however, the present ease is distinguishable from Georgicir-Pacific. Here at bar, ILC received payments from third parties for the transfer of timber, but those payments were not the product of sales by-ILC in the open market. Rather, the indisputable facts establish that, prior to executing the cutting contracts with ILC, IP had determined where and to whom ILC would deliver the timber. Specifically, the parties have agreed in the explicit joint stipulations that: 48. At all times throughout the years at issue, International exercised complete control over ILC. * * * * * * 53. ... International controlled ILC’s disposition of the timber subject to the cutting contracts, and ILC had no independent control over the disposition of the timber subject to the cutting contracts. International made all disposition determinations prior to the time a cutting contract was executed with ILC. Jt. Stip. ¶¶ 48, 53 (emphasis added). In fact, during 1973 through 1979, “... ILC disposed of the harvested materials pursuant to log and pulpwood sales agreements---- The logs and pulpwood were delivered as predetermined by International either to an International facility in the United States, to CIP [IP’s wholly owned Canadian subsidiary], or to unrelated Canadian purchasers.” Jt. Stip. ¶ 65. The contracts between ILC and third parties specified a price per unit of timber that was the same price per unit of timber ILC was obligated to pay IP under the parallel cutting contracts. Thus, unlike the subsidiary in Georgia-Pacific, ILC was unalterably obligated to transfer the timber cut and hauled under the cutting contracts to third parties predetermined by IP and at a" }, { "docid": "7793481", "title": "", "text": "from designated lands of the landowners and to deliver the coal to the latter at stated points, and in full consideration for performance of that undertaking the landowners were to pay to petitioners a fixed sum per ton. Surely those agreements do not show or suggest that petitioners actually made any capital investment in the coal in place, or that the landowners were to or actually did in any way surrender to petitioners any part of their capital interest in the coal in place. * * * The Supreme Court listed seven factors in support of its conclusion: (1) Petitioners’ investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable — not in the coal in place; (2) their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation — not depletion; (3) the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and petitioners could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) petitioners were not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, on the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered, which was to be in full compensation for the full performance of all work and for the furnishing of all labor and equipment required for the work; and (7) petitioners agreed to look only to the landowners for all sums to become due them under their contracts. The facts in the instant case are closely analogous to those in the Parsons and Hms cases, and are therefore controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in those cases. Petitioners’ investments were in the equipment used in connection with the mining operations, all of which was movable, and the cost of which was recoverable through depreciation. All other expenditures of the partnership were entered as expenses in" }, { "docid": "6583497", "title": "", "text": "deposits or standing timber. An economic interest is possessed in every case in which the taxpayer has acquired by investment any interest in mineral in place or standing timber and secures, by any form of legal relationship, income derived from the extraction of the mineral or severance of the timber, to which he must look for a return of his capital. Treas.Reg. § 1.611-1(b)(1) (emphasis added). In short, this regulation sets forth a two-pronged test for determining when a taxpayer is allowed to take a depletion deduction in standing timber. First, the taxpayer must own an “economic interest” in standing timber which the taxpayer has “acquired by investment.” Second, the taxpayer must derive income from the harvesting of the timber from which the taxpayer seeks a return of capital. This test, originally set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Palmer v. Bender, 287 U.S. at 557, 53 S.Ct. at 226, has been consistently employed in subsequent depletion cases respecting both oil and mineral deposits and standing timber. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States, 648 F.2d 653, 657-58 (9th Cir.1981) (timber depletion); Food Machinery and Chemical Corp. v. United States, 172 Ct.Cl. 313, 322-23, 348 F.2d 921, 926 (1965) (oil depletion). Defendant contends that ILC’s transactions with IP under the cutting contracts satisfied the two-pronged “economic interest test” of Treas.Reg. § 1.611-1(b)(1), thereby qualifying ILC for depletion deductions under the regulations. First, defendant asserts that ILC acquired an interest in standing timber by capital investment when it executed the cutting contracts and acquired the timber from IP. ILC’s capital investment was made, allegedly, by assuming the obligation under the contracts to pay IP for the timber when harvested. Second, defendant avers that ILC looked to the income derived from exercising its cutting rights granted under the contracts for the subsequent disposition of the timber to third parties under ILC’s log sales agreements and consequent return of its investment. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that ILC did not acquire an economic interest in the timber, but merely, and primarily, served superficially to facilitate a “pass through” pricing arrangement and to insulate" }, { "docid": "22867524", "title": "", "text": "in place. But that fiction cannot be indulged here, for it is negated by the facts. To recapitulate, the asserted fiction is opposed to the facts (1) that petitioners’- investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable — not in the coal in place; (2) that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation — not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even'after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and. that petitioners could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that petitioners were not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, oh the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered, which was, as stated in Huss, agreed to be in “full compensation for the full performance of all work and for the furnishing of all [labor] and equipment required for the work”; and (7) that petitioners, thus, agreed to look only to the landowners for all sums to become due. them under their contracts. The agreement of the landowners to pay a fixed sum per ton for mining and delivering the coal “was a personal covenant and did not purport to grant [petitioners] an interest in the [coal in place].” Helvering v. O’Donnell, 303 U. S. 370, 372. Surely these facts show that petitioners did not actually make any capital investment in, or acquire any economic interest in, the coal in place, and that they may not fictionally be regarded as having done so. “Undoubtedly,, [petitioners] through [their] contracts obtained an economic advantage fronv[their] production of the [coal], but that is not sufficient. The controlling fact is that [petitioners] had no interest in the [coal] in place.” Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co., 303 U. S., at 368. Of course, the" }, { "docid": "6583498", "title": "", "text": "653, 657-58 (9th Cir.1981) (timber depletion); Food Machinery and Chemical Corp. v. United States, 172 Ct.Cl. 313, 322-23, 348 F.2d 921, 926 (1965) (oil depletion). Defendant contends that ILC’s transactions with IP under the cutting contracts satisfied the two-pronged “economic interest test” of Treas.Reg. § 1.611-1(b)(1), thereby qualifying ILC for depletion deductions under the regulations. First, defendant asserts that ILC acquired an interest in standing timber by capital investment when it executed the cutting contracts and acquired the timber from IP. ILC’s capital investment was made, allegedly, by assuming the obligation under the contracts to pay IP for the timber when harvested. Second, defendant avers that ILC looked to the income derived from exercising its cutting rights granted under the contracts for the subsequent disposition of the timber to third parties under ILC’s log sales agreements and consequent return of its investment. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that ILC did not acquire an economic interest in the timber, but merely, and primarily, served superficially to facilitate a “pass through” pricing arrangement and to insulate it (IP) from excessive tort liability in Canada. Plaintiff asserts that ILC could not, in fact, have obtained an economic interest in the standing timber because ILC was contractually bound to dispose of the timber according to the explicit instructions of IP and, thus, was not free to look to the open market to sell the timber for its own account. Accordingly, plaintiff argues, ILC obtained merely an “economic advantage” rather than an “economic interest” in the timber pursuant to Palmer v. Bender, 287 U.S. 551, 53 S.Ct. 225, 77 L.Ed. 489 (1933), and Treas.Reg. § 1.611-1(b). In Georgia-Pacific, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether, pursuant to a timber cutting contract between Georgia-Pacific and its wholly owned subsidiary, the subsidiary acquired an “economic interest” sufficient to entitle it to depletion deductions in the transferred timber. Under the timber cutting contract, the subsidiary agreed to cut a certain amount of timber on Georgia-Pacific’s property and pay Georgia-Pacific $150 for each thousand board feet cut. 648 F.2d at 654. The timber" }, { "docid": "7259561", "title": "", "text": "that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation — not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and that petitioners could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that petitioners were not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, on the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered, which was, as stated in Huss [255 P. 2d 600], agreed to be in “full compensation for the full performance of all work and for the furnishing of all [labor] and equipment required for the work”; and (7) that petitioners, thus, agreed to look only to the landowners for all sums to become due them under their contracts. * * * It is evident that the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the cancellation feature of such contracts created a change in the legal atmosphere. This is amply demonstrated by the decision 'Of the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Stallard, 273 F. 2d 847 (C.A. 4, 1959), which came after Parsons v. Smith, supra. In the Stallard case the taxpayer was engaged in the strip mining of coal under a contract which was can-celable by either party upon 30 days’ written notice. The taxpayer was obligated to acquire heavy equipment at a cost of $300,000, in addition to equipment already owned by him, in order to perform the contract work. The Fourth Circuit, in holding that the taxpayer did not possess an economic interest in the coal in place by virtue of the contract, stated that among the number of circumstances which have been considered important factors in deciding cases of this nature, “Perhaps the most important is whether the producer has the right under the contract" }, { "docid": "6072057", "title": "", "text": "Parsons to mine the tract to exhaustion but, on the contrary, provided that either party might terminate the arrangement on ten days’ notice if it desired to quit. If Rockhill should cancel, Parsons would have the privilege of taking out and being paid for such coal as had been uncovered. The operations continued for sometime, whereupon Parsons gave notice and quit the work at a time when large amounts of coal still remained in the tract. Parsons’s investment ranged from $60,000 to $250,000 during the period of the operation. The equipment was movable and there was no evidence that it was not usable for other purposes. The taxpayers contended that by their contract to mine the coal, and particularly by their contribution of equipment and organization, they, in legal effect, made a capital investment and ac-; quired an economic interest in the mineral and were entitled to take a deduction for depletion. In answer to this contention, the Court said (359 U.S. at page 224, 79 S.Ct. at page 662, 3 L.Ed.2d 747): “We take a different view. It stands admitted that before and apart from their contracts, petitioners had no investment or interest in the coal in place. Their asserted right to the deduction rests entirely upon their contracts. Is there anything in those contracts to indicate that petitioners made a capital investment in, or acquired an economic interest in, the coal in place, as distinguished from the acquisition of a mere economic advantage to be derived from their mining operations? We think it is quite plain that there is not. “By their contracts, which were completely terminable without cause on short notice, petitioners simply agreed to provide the equipment and do the work required to strip mine coal from designated lands of the landowners and to deliver the coal to the latter at stated points, and in full consideration for performance of that undertaking the landowners were to pay to petitioners a fixed sum per ton. Surely those agreements do not show or suggest that petitioners actually made any capital investment in the coal in place, or that" }, { "docid": "6583505", "title": "", "text": "fixed price established by IP. The fixed price received by ILC was then remitted by ILC directly and in full to IP. Examining the second element required for a finding of an “economic interest,” this court finds that ILC did not look to the severance of the timber for a return on a capital investment in the timber. Finding that taxpayers failed to meet this prerequisite for obtaining an “economic interest” in coal, the U.S. Supreme Court examined seven elements of the parties’ contract mining transactions in Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner, 380 U.S. 624, 85 S.Ct. 1207, 14 L.Ed.2d 116 (1965), and Parsons v. Smith, 359 U.S. 215, 79 S.Ct. 656, 3 L.Ed.2d 747 (1959). These elements are: (1) that [the contract miners’] investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable — not in the coal in place; (2) that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation — not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to [the contract miners] any capital investment in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and that [the contract miners] could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that [the contract miners] were not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, on the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered ...; and (7) that [the contract miners], thus, agreed to look only to the landowners for all sums to become due them under their contracts. Paragon Coal, 380 U.S. at 633-34, 85 S.Ct. at 1212, quoting Parsons, 359 U.S. at 225, 79 S.Ct. at 663. These elements were reviewed by the U.S. Court of Claims, under facts similar to those presented in the case at bar, in Thornberry, 217 Ct.Cl. at 206-10, 576 F.2d at 352-54; see" }, { "docid": "22867523", "title": "", "text": "which were completely terminable without cause on short notice, petitioners simply agreed to provide the equipment and do the work required to strip mine coal from designated lands'of the landowners and to deliver the coal to the latter at stated points, and in full consideration for performance of that undertaking the landowners were to pay to petitioners a-fixed sum per ton. Surely those agreements do not show or suggest that petitioners actually made any capital investment in the coal in place, or that the landowners were to or actually did in any way surrender to petitioners any part of their capital interest in the coal in place. Petitioners do not factually assert otherwise. Their claim to the contrary is based wholly upon an asserted legal fiction. As stated, they claim that their contractual right to mine coal from the designated lands and the use of their equip-, ment,\" organizations and skills in doing so, should be regarded as the making of a capital investment in, and the acquisition of an economic interest in, the coal' in place. But that fiction cannot be indulged here, for it is negated by the facts. To recapitulate, the asserted fiction is opposed to the facts (1) that petitioners’- investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable — not in the coal in place; (2) that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation — not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even'after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and. that petitioners could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that petitioners were not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, oh the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered, which was, as stated in" }, { "docid": "6583512", "title": "", "text": "paid. The third-party purchasers were required by the log sales agreements to pay for the timber before it was removed from IP’s premises. ILC “did not retain any logs under the cutting contracts for any purpose,” nor did it process any of the timber. Jt. Stip. ¶ 57. IP required payment for the timber from ILC only upon ILC’s receipt of payment from third parties who were obligated to pay ILC for the timber. Moreover, all payments made by third-party purchasers under ILC’s parallel cutting contracts were equal to what ILC paid other third parties to cut and haul the timber, plus stumpage rates charged by IP. In fact, ILC did not report gain or loss with respect to IP’s timber dispositions. ILC was required to pay only for that timber cut and sealed under its cutting contracts with IP. There is no indication in this case that ILC shared in the return of IP’s capital investment in the standing timber, but only that IP engaged in a contractual relationship with ILC to dispose of the timber at a predetermined price that was, in turn, due IP. In other words, the loss or destruction of the timber stands after ILC entered into its cutting contracts with IP would not have resulted in a loss to ILC. See Palmer v. Bender, 287 U.S. at 558, 53 S.Ct. at 227. Thus, although the timber represented a reservoir of capital investment to IP, IP did not surrender a capital interest in the standing timber to ILC. Therefore, although the parties “did not memorialize in writing their pass through pricing arrangement,” Jt. Stip. ¶ 59, the terms of the parties’ transactions show that IP intended to use ILC merely as an intermediary and shield against excessive tort liability and not as a bona fide transferee of ownership in timber. According to the foregoing stipulated facts, therefore, the parties have stated their agreement so as to obviate the need for trial on the issue of whether ILC had the opportunity to freely dispose of the timber in the market place during the years 1973 through" }, { "docid": "6583499", "title": "", "text": "it (IP) from excessive tort liability in Canada. Plaintiff asserts that ILC could not, in fact, have obtained an economic interest in the standing timber because ILC was contractually bound to dispose of the timber according to the explicit instructions of IP and, thus, was not free to look to the open market to sell the timber for its own account. Accordingly, plaintiff argues, ILC obtained merely an “economic advantage” rather than an “economic interest” in the timber pursuant to Palmer v. Bender, 287 U.S. 551, 53 S.Ct. 225, 77 L.Ed. 489 (1933), and Treas.Reg. § 1.611-1(b). In Georgia-Pacific, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether, pursuant to a timber cutting contract between Georgia-Pacific and its wholly owned subsidiary, the subsidiary acquired an “economic interest” sufficient to entitle it to depletion deductions in the transferred timber. Under the timber cutting contract, the subsidiary agreed to cut a certain amount of timber on Georgia-Pacific’s property and pay Georgia-Pacific $150 for each thousand board feet cut. 648 F.2d at 654. The timber cutting contract, moreover, designated the subsidiary as “buyer” and the parent as “seller.” Id. at 654, 656. Payment was required, however, only upon the subsidiary’s removal of the timber and, at that time, title to the timber passed to the subsidiary. Id. As in the present case, the parent corporation, Georgia-Pacific Corp., recognized capital gains on the disposal of the standing timber pursuant to § 631(b), and the Internal Revenue Service sought to apply Treas.Reg. § 1.1502-13(c)(4) to recharacterize those gains as ordinary income. Id. at 654. The Ninth Circuit held for the government, finding that the parties engaged in a “deferred intercompany transaction” whereby the subsidiary acquired a sufficient economic interest in the timber to entitle the subsidiary to depletion deductions in the timber. Id. at 659. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit distinguished an “economic interest” from a “pecuniary advantage” stating: The Supreme Court has held that a mineral lessee has an economic interest in the minerals and is entitled to claim depletion if the lessee looks to the sale of the minerals" }, { "docid": "21339997", "title": "", "text": "contractual right to mine coal and the use of their equipment, skills and organizations should be regarded as the making of a capital investment and the acquisition of an economic interest in the coal in place, by saying (p. 225, 79 S.Ct. p. 663): “ * * * the asserted fiction is opposed to the facts (1) that petitioners’ investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable— not in the coal in place; (2) that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation— not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely terminable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and that petitioners could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that petitioners were not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, on the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered, which was, as stated in Huss, agreed to be in ‘full compensation for the full performance of all work and for the furnishing of all [labor] and equipment required for the work’; and (7) that petitioners, thus, agreed to look only to the landowners for all sums to become due them under their contracts. The agreement of the landowners to pay a fixed sum per ton for mining and delivering the coal ‘was a personal covenant and did not purport to grant [petitioners] an interest in the [coal in place].’ Hel-vering v. O’Donnell, 303 U.S. 370, 372 [58 S.Ct. 619, 82 L.Ed. 903].” We deem the Parsons case controlling of the case at bar if the case at bar be treated as arising for the first time. Indeed, following the Parsons case, this Court decided United States v. Stallard, 273 F.2d 847 (4 Cir., 1959), which applied the Parsons case to" } ]

[ { "docid": "22681358", "title": "", "text": "decisions of the courts of Maryland and Pennsylvania follow the common law and are in accord in respect of the character and incidents of tenancy by the entirety. In legal contemplation the tenants constitute a unit; neither can dispose of any part of the estate without the consent of the other; and the whole continues in the survivor. In Maryland, such a tenancy may exist in personal property as well as in real estate. These decisions establish a state rule of property, by which, of course, this court is bound. Warburton v. White, 176 U. S. 484, 496. 1. The contention that, by including in the gross estate the value of property held by husband and wife as tenants by the entirety, the tax pro tanto becomes a direct tax — that is a tax on property — and therefore invalid without apportionment, proceeds upon the ground that no right in such property is transferred by death, but the survivor retains only what he already had. Section 201 imposes the tax “upon the transfer of the net estate ”; and if that section stood alone, the inclusion of such property in the gross estate of the decedent probably could not be justified by the terms of the statute. But § 202 definitely includes the property and brings it within the reach of the words imposing the tax; so that a basis for the constitutional challenge is present. Prior decisions of this court do not solve the problem thus presented, though what was said in Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 337-339; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 348; and Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 271, constitutes helpful aid in that direction. Death duties rest upon the principle that death is the “ generating source ” from which the authority to impose such taxes takes its being, and “ it is the power to transmit or the transmission or receipt of property by death which is the subject levied upon by all death duties.” Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 56," } ]

[ { "docid": "22045695", "title": "", "text": "the tax is § 301 (a); and by that provision the tax is laid “ upon the transfer of the net estate of every decedent dying after the enactment of this act.” The event which gives rise to the tax is the death of the decedent, with the resulting transfer of his estate either by will or the law relating to intestacy. When, therefore, § 302 (c) includes within the purview of § 301 (a) a transfer inter vivos “ intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death,” it does so upon the theory that such a transfer in effect is testamentary — that is to say, a substitute for either a disposition by will or a passing in virtue of intestacy. “ But such a transfer, not so made, embodies a transaction begun and completed wholly by and between the living, taxable as a gift (Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U. S. 124), but obviously not subject to any form of death duty, since it bears no relation whatever to death. The ‘ generating source ’ of such a gift is to be found in the facts of life and not in the circumstance of death. And the death afterward of the donor in no way changes the situation; that is to say, the death does not result in a shifting, or in the completion of a shifting, to the donee of any economic benefit of property, which is the subject of a death tax, Chase Nat. Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 338; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 346; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 271; nor does the death in such case bring into being, or ripen for the donee or anyone else, so far as the gift is concerned, any property right or interest which can be the subject of any form of death tax. Compare Tyler v. United States, 281 U. S. 497, 503. Complete ownership of the gift, together with all its incidents, has passed during the life of both donor ,and donee," }, { "docid": "10427527", "title": "", "text": "Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 337, 38 S.Ct. 540, 62 L.Ed. 1142. Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579, 581, 61 S.Ct. 759, 85 L.Ed. 1055; Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788; Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 308 U.S. 39, 43, 47, 60 S.Ct. 51, 84 L.Ed. 20; Helvering v. F. & R. Lazarus & Co., 308 U.S. 252, 255, 60 S.Ct. 209, 84 L.Ed. 226; Burnet v. Guggenheim, 288 U.S. 280, 287, 53 S. Ct. 309, 77 L.Ed. 748; Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103, 111, 53 S.Ct. 74, 77 L.Ed. 199; Palmer v. Bender, 287 U.S. 551, 555, 557, 558, 53 S.Ct. 225, 77 L.Ed. 489; Burnet v. Leininger, 285 U.S. 136, 142, 52 S.Ct. 345, 76 L.Ed. 663; Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378, 50 S.Ct. 336, 74 L.Ed. 916; Chase Nat. Bank v. United States, 278 U.S. 327, 334—335, 336, 338, 49 S.Ct. 126, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339, 346, 348, 49 S.Ct. 123, 73 L.Ed. 410, 66 A.L.R. 397; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U.S. 260, 261, 48 S.Ct. 225, 72 L.Ed. 565; Lederer v. Stockton, 260 U.S. 3, 8, 43 S.Ct. 5, 67 L.Ed. 99. “The broad sweep of this language [sec. 22(a)] indicates the purpose of Congress to use the full measure of its taxing power within those definable categories” (Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788). Commissioner of Internal Revenue, v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177, 65 S.Ct. 591; Helvering v. American Dental Co., 318 U.S. 322, 329, 63 S.Ct. 577, 87 L Ed. 785; Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U.S. 154, 169, 63 S.Ct. 140, 87 L.Ed. 154; Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461, 468, 60 S.Ct. 631, 84 L.Ed. 864; Helvering v. Wood, 309 U.S. 344, 347, 60 S.Ct. 551, 84 L.Ed. 796; Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 U.S. 1, 9, 56 S.Ct. 59, 80 L.Ed. 3, 101 A.L.R. 391; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 166, 45 S.Ct. 475, 69 L.Ed. 897; Eisner v. Macomber, 252" }, { "docid": "22317759", "title": "", "text": "form of death duty, since it bears no-relation\" whatever to death. The “ generating source ” of such a gift is to be found in the facts of life and not in the circumstance of death. And the death afterward of the donor in no way changes the situation; that is to say, the death does not result in a shifting, or in the completion of a shifting, to the donfee of any economic benefit of property, which is the subject of a death tax, Chase Nat. Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 338; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 346; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 271; nor does the death in such case bring into being, or ripen for the donee or anyone else, so far as the gift is concerned, any property right or interest which can be the subject of any form of death tax. Compare Tyler v. United States, 281 U. S. 497, 503. Complete ownership of the gift, together with all its incidents, has passed during the life of both donor and donee, and no interest of any kind remains to pass to one or cease in the other in consequence of the death which happens' afterward. The phrase “ in contemplation of or intended to take effect ... at or after his death,” found in the provisions of § 302 (c) of the act of 1926 and prior acts, as applied to fully executed gifts inter vivos, puts them in the same category for purposes of taxation with gifts causa mortis. In this light, the meaning and purpose of the provision were considered, in a recent decision of this court dealing with the Revenue Act of 1918. United States v. Wells, 283 U. S. 102, 116-117, 118: “The dominant purpose is to reach substitutes for-testamentary dispositions and thus to prevent the evasion of the estate tax. Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U. S. 531, 542; Milliken v. United States, ante, p. 15. As the transfer may otherwise have all the indicia of a valid gift inter vivos, the" }, { "docid": "2949006", "title": "", "text": "difficult through the faculty of imagination to suppose such extreme eases; however, it seems necessary that we should attempt to decide the supposed ease here. It is quite possible that, should such a case arise and a don- or by such process attempt to bring the trust within the principle of May v. Heiner, the courts might quite readily imply a fraudulent attempt to defeat taxation and refuse to give effeet to that particular point of the instrument. Counsel in argument have discussed numerous decisions of the Supreme Court in connection with the various phases of the case, particularly the following decisions: Young Men’s Christian Association of Columbus, Ohio et al. v. Davis et al., 264 U. S. 47, 44 S. Ct. 291, 68 L. Ed. 558; Shukert v. Allen, 273 U. S. 545, 47 S. Ct. 461, 71 L. Ed. 764, 49 A. L. R. 855; Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U. S. 531, 47 S. Ct. 710, 71 L. Ed. 1184, 52 A. L. R. 1081; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 48 S. Ct. 225, 72 L. Ed. 565; Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 49 S. Ct. 126, 73 L. Ed. 405, 63 A. L. R. 388; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 49 S. Ct. 123, 73 L. Ed. 410, 66 A. L. R. 397; May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238, 50 S. Ct. 286, 74 L. Ed. 826, 62 A. L. R. 1244. A careful study of all of these cases leads us to the conclusion that, where a donor in creating a trust irrevocably disposes of the trust estate both as to- title and beneficial enjoyment of income, the trust estate should not be included in the gross estate in computing the tax. But where in creating the trust, the donor reserves during life the enjoyment of the income of the trust, that to cease or to pass to another only on the donor’s death, then the value of the trust estate yielding such income is properly included in the gross estate. It follows from" }, { "docid": "11315880", "title": "", "text": "cited.] ***** \"The two contracts must be considered together. To say they are distinct transactions is to ignore actuality, for it is conceded on all sides and was found as a fact by the Board of Tax Appeals that the ‘insurance’ policy would not have been issued without the annuity contract. * * * “Considered together, the contracts wholly fail to spell out any element of insurance risk. * * *” The Supreme Court then held the proceeds were taxable under § 302(c), “as a transfer to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after death.” Accordingly, so far as the first question is concerned, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reversed. See, also, Keller’s Estate v. Commissioner, 312 U.S. 543, 61 S.Ct. 651, 85 L.Ed. 1032, affirming 3 Cir., 113 F.2d 833. On the second question, the Commissioner argues, “The value at the decedent’s death of the joint and survivor annuity contracts should be included in the gross estate of the decedent.” He urges “that these simultaneous transactions constituted in the aggregate a substitute for a testamentary disposition, * * *” within the purview of § 302(c). The Federal Estate Tax is levied upon the privilege of transmission of property at death. Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U.S. 260, 270, 48 S.Ct. 225, 72 L.Ed. 565. It is “death duties,” as distinguished from a legacy or succession tax. It does not tax the interest to which the legatees and devisees succeed on death, but the interest which ceased by reason of death; what is imposed is an excise upon the transfer of an estate upon death of the owner. Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531, 537, 47 S.Ct. 710, 71 L.Ed. 1184, 52 A.L.R. 1081; Young Men’s Christian Ass’n v. Davis, 264 U.S. 47, 50, 44 S.Ct. 291, 68 L.Ed. 558; Edwards v. Slocum, 264 U.S. 61, 62, 44 S.Ct. 293, 68 L.Ed. 564; Knowl-ton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47, 49, 20 S.Ct. 747, 44 L.Ed. 969. The Supreme Court, in Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339, 347, 49 S.Ct. 123, 125, 73" }, { "docid": "11033888", "title": "", "text": "enjoyment thereof is subject at the date of his death to any change through the exercise of a power to alter, amend, revoke, or terminate, or where any such power is relinquished in contemplation of decedent’s death, must be included in the value of the gross estate of the decedent for estate taxation purposes. But because Mary Tetzlaff, the wife, was still living at the date of his death, decedent had no power, from whatever source acquired, to alter, amend, revoke or terminate the enjoyment of the property and income transferred by this trust, and the Tax Court in conformity to the express terms of the trust agreement and of subdivision (d) of the Act so held. The real subject of taxation of this nature has been acutely familiar to the courts since its exercise. It is thus admirably and succinctly stated by Mr. Justice Stone in Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U.S. 327, 338, 49 S.Ct. 126, 129, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388: “Termination of the power of control at the time of death inures to the benefit of him who owns the property subject to the power and thus brings about, at death, the completion of that shifting of the economic benefits of property which is the real subject of the tax, just as effectively as would its exercise.” Compare Klein v. United States, 283 U. S. 231, 234, 51 S.Ct. 398, 75 L.Ed. 996. So here, no power of control m decedent existing at the date of decedent’s death, there were no economic benefits to shift and support the tax. It is uniformity recognized that “the power of taxation is a fundamental and imperious necessity of all government, not to be restricted by mere legal fictions.” Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, 503, 50 S.Ct. 356, 359, 74 L.Ed. 991, 69 A.L.R. 758. In that case Mr. Justice Sutherland referring to the opinion of Mr. Justice White in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 57, 20 S.Ct. 747, 44 L.Ed. 969, says: “The question here, then, is, not whether there has been, in" }, { "docid": "1339193", "title": "", "text": "but we think that the method which he adopted did not have the effect claimed for it. In the case of Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U. S. 376, 50 S. Ct. 336, 74 L. Ed. 916, it appeared that Corliss had transferred the fund, out of which the income upon which he was taxed arose, to trustees, in trust, to pay the income to his wife for life, with remainder over to their children. He reserved the right to modify, alter, or revoke the trust agreement. The net income from the property was paid over to the wife, and he argued that the income never was his, and that he could not be taxed for it; that the legal estate was in the trustees and the equitable interest in his wife. The Supreme Court said (page 378 of 281 U. S., 50 S. Ct. 336): “But taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed—the actual benefit for which the tax is paid. If a man directed his bank to pay over income as received to a servant or friend, until further orders, no one would doubt that he could be taxed upon the amounts so paid. It is answered that in-that case he would have a title, whereas here he did not. But from the point of view of taxation there would be no difference. The title would merely mean a right to stop the payment before it took place. The same right existed here although it is not called a title but is called a power. The acquisition by the wife of the income became complete only when the plaintiff failed to exercise the power that he reserved. Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 271, 48 S. Ct. 225, 72 L. Ed. 565; Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 49 S. Ct. 126, 73 L. Ed. 405, 63 A. L. R. 388; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 49 S. Ct. 123, 73 L. Ed. 410, 66 A." }, { "docid": "15762646", "title": "", "text": "to the decedent must Be so understood, in the process of determining whether it is fairly to be classified as property and taxable as such. The distinction between a power of appointment, or the power to change a beneficiary named in a life insurance policy, and such a privilege as was accorded to this decedent under the terms of the plan, stands clearly revealed in the light of what has been written. Under either of the former, a fund or estate passes to some one in possession, as the result of the exercise of the power. Here nothing may be payable, if the named beneficiary predeceases the annuitant, but since a payment did accrue, because the annuitant named a surviving beneficiary, that result is to be traced not to a transfer of anything from Mr. Folger to his wife, but to the circumstance that the annuity which he had enjoyed became extinct through his death, and a new'relation came into existence between the company and. Mrs. Folger. The right to nominate or designate the person to receive the death benefit could not have been levied upon to satisfy a judgment against the decedent during his lifetime ; had he become bankrupt, his trustee. could not have realized anything thereon for creditors, nor could it have been sold or assigned by the decedent because it was merely a privilege extended to him by his employer, which was subject to withdrawal or modification at any time, under the quoted terms of the plan. The cases cited by defendant are: Klein v. U. S., 283 U.S. 231, 51 S.Ct. 398, 75 L.Ed. 996; Chase National Bank v. U. S., 278 U.S. 327, 49 S.Ct. 126, 128, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388, and Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U.S. 260, 48 S.Ct. 225, 72 L.Ed. 565. The first determines that the grantor of certain real estate created a life estate for his wife, and by the same instrument, a contingent remainder in fee. Since the event upon which the latter would have become vested did not occur, an estate tax under an earlier statute," }, { "docid": "15762647", "title": "", "text": "to receive the death benefit could not have been levied upon to satisfy a judgment against the decedent during his lifetime ; had he become bankrupt, his trustee. could not have realized anything thereon for creditors, nor could it have been sold or assigned by the decedent because it was merely a privilege extended to him by his employer, which was subject to withdrawal or modification at any time, under the quoted terms of the plan. The cases cited by defendant are: Klein v. U. S., 283 U.S. 231, 51 S.Ct. 398, 75 L.Ed. 996; Chase National Bank v. U. S., 278 U.S. 327, 49 S.Ct. 126, 128, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388, and Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U.S. 260, 48 S.Ct. 225, 72 L.Ed. 565. The first determines that the grantor of certain real estate created a life estate for his wife, and by the same instrument, a contingent remainder in fee. Since the event upon which the latter would have become vested did not occur, an estate tax under an earlier statute, upon the value of the property, less the value of the life estate, was sustained. This case presents issues entirely alien to those under examination. The second case has to do with section 402 (f) of the Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 278) which affected life insurance policies in excess of $40,000.00 upon the life of the 'decedent. That section, or its successor under the 1926 Act, is not presently involved. The opinion is most instructive in pointing out the process leading to the conclusion that a transfer tax, as distinguished from a succession tax, applied to the power which that decedent possessed to change beneficiaries: “Such an outstanding power residing exclusively in 'a donor to recall a gift after it is made is a limitation on the gift which makes it incomplete as to the donor as well as to the donee, and we think that the termination of such a power at death may also be the appropriate subject of a tax upon transfers.” Touching the argument that the proceeds of the policies" }, { "docid": "4292219", "title": "", "text": "139 App. Div. 884,123 N. Y. S. 852, affirmed 201 N. Y. 546, 95 N. E. 1129, is by no means the least substantial of the legal incidents of ownership, and its termination at his death so as to free the beneficiaries of the policy from the possibility of its exercise would seem to he no less a transfer within the'reach of the taxing power than a transfer .effected in other ways through death.” The inclusion for purposes of estate taxation of property transferred under a general power is analogous also to the inclusion of property transferred in trust with power of revocation reserved to the grantor. It is held that upon the grantor’s death such property should he included in valuing his gross estate, upon the principle that the passing from him of the power and control over the property is taxable as a transfer. Reinecke v. Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 345, 49 S. Ct. 123, 73 L. Ed. 410, 66 A. L. R. 397; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 271, 48 S. Ct. 225, 72 L. Ed. 565. Except that the donee of a general power may exereise it in favor of his creditors and thus use the property whieh is the subject of the power for his own use and bene fit, there is no basis for including in his taxable estate property which is subject thereto ; for this right is all that passes from his estate by reason of his death. In Y. M. C. A. v. Davis, 264 U. S. 47, 44 S. Ct. 291, 292, 68 L. Ed. 558, the Supreme Court said: “What this law taxes is not the interest to which the legatees and devisees succeeded on death, but the interest which ceased by reason of death.” By this language we understand the court to mean that the tax is imposed on what is transferred from decedent as a result of his death (New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 41 S. Ct. 506, 65 L. Ed. 963, 16 A. L. R. 660; Knowlton" }, { "docid": "22317758", "title": "", "text": "not include pure gifts inter vivos. The tax rests, in essence, “ upon the principle that death is the generating source from which the particular taxing power takes its being and that it is. the power to transmit, or the transmission from the dead to the living, on which such taxes áre more immediately rested. ... it is the power to transmit or the transmission or receipt-of property by death which is the subject levied upon by all death duties.” Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 56, 57. The value of property transferred without consideration and in contemplation of death is included in the value of the gross estate of the decedent for the purposes of a death tax, because the transfer is considered to be testamentary in effect. Milliken v. United States, 283 U. S. 15, 23. But such a transfer, not so made, embodies a transaction begun and completed wholly by and between the living, taxable- as a gift (Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U. S. 124), but obviously not subject to any form of death duty, since it bears no-relation\" whatever to death. The “ generating source ” of such a gift is to be found in the facts of life and not in the circumstance of death. And the death afterward of the donor in no way changes the situation; that is to say, the death does not result in a shifting, or in the completion of a shifting, to the donfee of any economic benefit of property, which is the subject of a death tax, Chase Nat. Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 338; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 346; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 271; nor does the death in such case bring into being, or ripen for the donee or anyone else, so far as the gift is concerned, any property right or interest which can be the subject of any form of death tax. Compare Tyler v. United States, 281 U. S. 497, 503. Complete ownership of the gift, together with all its incidents," }, { "docid": "3270164", "title": "", "text": "cf. Keefe v. United States, 1942, 46 F.Supp. 1016, 97 Ct.Cl. 576, certiorari denied 318 U.S. 768, 63 S.Ct. 759, 87 L.Ed. —, with which compare Braun v. United States, 1942, 46 F.Supp. 993, 98 Ct.Cl. 176, where the insured died in 1919, before the enactment of § 302(h). See Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 1929, 278 U.S. 339, 49 S.Ct. 123, 73 L.Ed. 410, 66 A.L.R. 397. As the Supreme Court said in Chase National Bank v. United States, 1929, 278 U.S. 327, 338, 339, 49 S.Ct. 126, 129, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388, concerning policies taken out after 1918: “Termination of the power of control at the time of death inures to the benefit of him who owns the property subject to the power and thus brings about, at death, the completion of that shifting of the economic benefits of property which is the real subject of the tax. * * * It is the termination of the power of disposition of the policies by decedent at death which operates as an effective transfer and is subjected to the tax * * Since the taxable transfer is the maturing of the beneficiary’s economic interests in the policy by the death of the insured, the exercise or failure to exercise the right to change the beneficiary after 1918 is immaterial. The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed. Treasury Regulations 80, 1937 ed., as amended by T.D. 5032, 1941-1 Cum.Bull. 427, added the following sentence: “The insured possesses a legal incident of ownership if his death is necessary to terminate his interest in the insurance, as, for example, if the proceeds would become payable to his estate, or payable as he might direct, should the beneficiary pre-decease him.” Article 25 of the 1934 edition of Regulations 80 had previously included a similar provision, hut it was eliminated in 1937 by T.D. 4729, 1937-1 Cum.Bull. 284. We think it proper to include the possibility of reverter as an incident of ownership under the 1937 edition of the Regulations. In Lang v. Commissioner, 1938, 304 U.S. 264, 58" }, { "docid": "21366405", "title": "", "text": "the subject of a transfer by gift or otherwise, the real transfer, which is the taxable event, is the subsequent release or termination of control. Bullen v. Wisconsin, 1916, 240 U.S. 625, 36 S.Ct. 473, 60 L.Ed. 830; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 1928, 276 U.S. 260, 271, 48 S.Ct. 225, 227, 72 L.Ed. 565, 568; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 1929, 278 U.S. 339, 49 S.Ct. 123, 73 L.Ed. 410, 66 A.L.R. 397; Chase National Bank v. United States, 1929, 278 U.S. 327, 49 S.Ct. 126, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388; Sanford’s Estate v. Commissioner, 1939, 308 U.S. 39, 60 S.Ct. 51, 84 L.Ed. 20; Smith v. Shaughnessy, 1943, 318 U.S. 176, 63 S.Ct. 545, 87 L.Ed. 690. In the Chase National Bank case the Court declared that termination “of the power of control at the time of death inures to the benefit of him who owns the property subject to the power, and thus brings about, at death, the completion of that shifting of the economic benefits of property which is the real subject of the tax.” 278 U.S. at 338, 49 S.Ct. at 129. In Sanford’s Estate, the Court followed the rationale “that ‘taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with the actual command over the property taxed’ * * * and that a retention of control over the disposition of the trust property, whether for the benefit of the donor or others, renders the gift incomplete until the power is relinquished whether in life or at death.” 308 U.S. at 43, 60 S.Ct. at 56. Mrs. Vardell’s complete economic control over the property cannot be contested. In a case involving the validity of a substantial gift by the same Mrs. Var-dell to one of her two daughters, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals construed the testamentary language in Mr. Vardell’s will as giving her “full and absolute authority to handle, manage, sell, and in any marnier dispose of” the property. (Emphasis by the Court of Civil Appeals). Ellis v. First National Bank in Dallas, 1958, 311 S.W.2d 916, err. ref’d" }, { "docid": "11315890", "title": "", "text": "one of the second annuitants would survive her. The death of the first annuitant, then, was the generating event. Tyler v. United States, supra. The death of Mrs. Clise caused a shifting, or the completion of a shifting of an economic benefit of property, which is the subject of a death tax. Chase Nat. Bank v. United States, 278 U.S. 327, 338, 49 S.Ct. 126, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388. We quote from Klein v. United States, 283 U.S. 231, 234, 51 S.Ct. 398, 399, 75 L.Ed. 996: “It is perfectly plain that the death of the grantor was the indispensable and intended event which brought the larger estate into being for the grantee and effected its transmission from the dead to the living, thus satisfying the terms of the taxing act and justifying the tax imposed.” Again, the annuities must have been based upon the life expectancy of the second annuitants, who were younger than, the first annuitant. Reasoning from this, it follows that the decedent had reserved1 a life estate in the proceeds of the contracts, which would leave the value of the respective contracts taxable to her estate under § 302(c) : “* * * of which [decedent] has at any time made a transfer, * * * under which he has retained for his life * * * the * * * enjoyment of * * * the property, * * The word “transfer,” said the Supreme Court in Chase Nat. Bank v. United States, 278 U.S. 327, 337, 49 S.Ct. 126, 128, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388, “must, we think, at least include the transfer of property procured through expenditures by the decedent with the purpose, effected at his death, of having it pass to another.” The latest expression of the Supreme Court on § 302(c) is to be found in Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 444, 84 L.Ed. 604, 125 A.L.R. 1368, wherein the Court discusses that particular section of the Revenue Act with relation to the Klein case, supra, and the St. Louis Trust cases, Helvering v. St." }, { "docid": "21366420", "title": "", "text": "of” her property and her husband’s and at the same time she would be entitled to the tax benefit of recovering it as though it were an out-of-pocket cost. I would affirm the result the Tax Court reached. . Chase National Bank v. United States, 1929, 278 U.S. 327, 49 S.Ct. 126, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388. . Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner, 1939, 308 U.S. 39, 60 S.Ct. 51, 84 L.Ed. 20. . See Warren and Surrey, Federal Estate and Gift Taxation (1961) p. 405. . The effect of the decision of the Court is not, of course, limited to cases involving community property. . Commissioner v. Siegel, 9 Cir., 1957, 250 F.2d 339; Chase National Bank, 1955, 25 T.C. 617, rev’d on other grounds, sub. nom. Commissioner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 5 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 231, cert. den’d, 359 U.S. 913, 79 S.Ct. 589, 3 L.Ed.2d 575; Turman v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 1123. The donor attached no strings to the transfer in these gift tax cases. Hence, the question in this case as to the finality and effectiveness of the transfer for which the consideration is received was not touched upon in these decisions. . Bullen involved the question whether Wisconsin could include in the gross estate of a resident decedent property which the decedent had transferred subject to a retained power of disposition before becoming a resident of Wisconsin. Saltonstall and Reinecke both concerned whether property so transferred could be subjected to an estate tax enacted after the transfer, Saltonstall involving a Massachusetts law and Reinecke involving a federal statute. Chase involved the question whether estate tax on property so transferred assessed at the time of death, when the power was relinquished, could be upheld constitutionally as an indirect tax on a transfer. Sanford’s Estate raised the question whether a gift tax could be levied when such a retained power of disposition is relinquished. All of these decisions upheld the tax in question on the ground that the taxable transfer occurred when the retained power was relinquished. In Smith the taxpayer had established a trust" }, { "docid": "11315881", "title": "", "text": "the aggregate a substitute for a testamentary disposition, * * *” within the purview of § 302(c). The Federal Estate Tax is levied upon the privilege of transmission of property at death. Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U.S. 260, 270, 48 S.Ct. 225, 72 L.Ed. 565. It is “death duties,” as distinguished from a legacy or succession tax. It does not tax the interest to which the legatees and devisees succeed on death, but the interest which ceased by reason of death; what is imposed is an excise upon the transfer of an estate upon death of the owner. Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531, 537, 47 S.Ct. 710, 71 L.Ed. 1184, 52 A.L.R. 1081; Young Men’s Christian Ass’n v. Davis, 264 U.S. 47, 50, 44 S.Ct. 291, 68 L.Ed. 558; Edwards v. Slocum, 264 U.S. 61, 62, 44 S.Ct. 293, 68 L.Ed. 564; Knowl-ton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47, 49, 20 S.Ct. 747, 44 L.Ed. 969. The Supreme Court, in Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339, 347, 49 S.Ct. 123, 125, 73 L.Ed. 410, 66 A.L.R. 397, said, “In its plan and scope the tax is one imposed on transfers at death or made in contemplation of death and is measured by the value at death of the interest which is transferred.” Death is said to he the generating event. Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, 502, 50 S.Ct. 356, 74 L.Ed. 991, 69 A.L.R. 758. With these statements of the nature of the tax before us we proceed to an examination of the historical background for, with the exception of Chemical Bank & Trust Co., etc., v. Commissioner, 37 B.T.A. 535, of which more later, no one of the cases cited, or examined by us, is based upon facts identical with those at bar. These decisions, therefore, because not decisive, serve but as guideposts from which we may attempt to reason out the real answer to our own problem. April 14, 1930, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of May v. Heiner, Collector, 281 U.S. 238, 50 S.Ct. 286, 74 L.Ed." }, { "docid": "4292218", "title": "", "text": "purpose of the estate tax. See Chase Nat. Bank v. U. S., 278 U. S. 327, 335, 49 S. Ct. 126, 127, 73 L. Ed. 405, 63 A. L. R. 388, whore the court said : “A power in the decedent to surrender and cancel the policies, to pledge them as security for loans and the power to dispose of them and their proceeds for his own benefit during his life which subjects them to the control of a bankruptcy court for the benefit of his creditors, Cohen v. Samuels, 245 U. S. 50, 38 S. Ct. 36, 62 L. Ed. 143 (seo Burlingham v. Crouse, 228 U. S. 459, 33 S. Ct. 564, 57 L. Ed. 920, 46 L. R. A. [N. S.] 148), and whieh may, under local law applicable to the parties here, subject them in part to the payment of his debts, N. Y. Domestic Relations Law, N. Y. (chapter 14, Consol. Laws), § 52; Kittel v. Domeyer, 175 N. Y. 205, 67 N. F. 433; Guardian Trust Co. v. Straus, 139 App. Div. 884,123 N. Y. S. 852, affirmed 201 N. Y. 546, 95 N. E. 1129, is by no means the least substantial of the legal incidents of ownership, and its termination at his death so as to free the beneficiaries of the policy from the possibility of its exercise would seem to he no less a transfer within the'reach of the taxing power than a transfer .effected in other ways through death.” The inclusion for purposes of estate taxation of property transferred under a general power is analogous also to the inclusion of property transferred in trust with power of revocation reserved to the grantor. It is held that upon the grantor’s death such property should he included in valuing his gross estate, upon the principle that the passing from him of the power and control over the property is taxable as a transfer. Reinecke v. Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 345, 49 S. Ct. 123, 73 L. Ed. 410, 66 A. L. R. 397; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260," }, { "docid": "21366404", "title": "", "text": "income beneficiary; she surrendered only testamentary power over her half, retaining during her lifetime the same unrestricted powers of possession and disposition over her half that she enjoyed over the half acquired from her husband. Looking at the transaction as a business deal, it was no small bargain. Whatever the bare power of testation may be worth, it was worth far less than Mrs. Vardell received for it. It was such a bargain as to jerk the scales dramatically in Mrs. Vardell’s direction and to put beyond dispute the fact that she received valuable consideration within the meaning of the exception to sections 2036 and 2038. The transaction, to the extent that it was any sort of an exchange or transfer, was for full consideration. Plus. The rub is that Mrs. Vardell did not make a transfer sufficient to take her property out of her estate for tax purposes. The Supreme Court has held in several different contexts that when a transferor retains economic control, such as the power of disposition over property that is the subject of a transfer by gift or otherwise, the real transfer, which is the taxable event, is the subsequent release or termination of control. Bullen v. Wisconsin, 1916, 240 U.S. 625, 36 S.Ct. 473, 60 L.Ed. 830; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 1928, 276 U.S. 260, 271, 48 S.Ct. 225, 227, 72 L.Ed. 565, 568; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 1929, 278 U.S. 339, 49 S.Ct. 123, 73 L.Ed. 410, 66 A.L.R. 397; Chase National Bank v. United States, 1929, 278 U.S. 327, 49 S.Ct. 126, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388; Sanford’s Estate v. Commissioner, 1939, 308 U.S. 39, 60 S.Ct. 51, 84 L.Ed. 20; Smith v. Shaughnessy, 1943, 318 U.S. 176, 63 S.Ct. 545, 87 L.Ed. 690. In the Chase National Bank case the Court declared that termination “of the power of control at the time of death inures to the benefit of him who owns the property subject to the power, and thus brings about, at death, the completion of that shifting of the economic benefits of property which is the real subject" }, { "docid": "22045696", "title": "", "text": "death. The ‘ generating source ’ of such a gift is to be found in the facts of life and not in the circumstance of death. And the death afterward of the donor in no way changes the situation; that is to say, the death does not result in a shifting, or in the completion of a shifting, to the donee of any economic benefit of property, which is the subject of a death tax, Chase Nat. Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 338; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 346; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 271; nor does the death in such case bring into being, or ripen for the donee or anyone else, so far as the gift is concerned, any property right or interest which can be the subject of any form of death tax. Compare Tyler v. United States, 281 U. S. 497, 503. Complete ownership of the gift, together with all its incidents, has passed during the life of both donor ,and donee, and no interest of any kind remains to pass to one or cease ha the other in consequence of the death which happens afterward.” (Ital. added.) Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U. S. 312, 322-323. The property brought into the estate by subdivision 302 (c) for the purpose of the tax is, as said by this court in Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, 348, “. . . either property transferred in contemplation of death or property passing out of the control, possession or enjoyment of the decedent at his death. ... In the light of the general purpose of the statute and the language of [§ 301 (a)] explicitly imposing the tax on net estates of decedents, we think it at least doubtful whether the trusts or interests in a trust intended to be reached by the phrase in [§ 302 (c)] 'to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death/ include any others than those passing from the possession, enjoyment or control of the donor at his death" }, { "docid": "3270163", "title": "", "text": "make no change in favor of himself. The court found it sufficient that his death terminated his control and was “in respect of title to the property in question, the source of valuable assurances passing from the dead to the living.” With the constitutional doubts of the Bingham case thus dispelled, it seems that the construction of § 302(h) by the Supreme Court in the Industrial Trust Company case should no longer be controlling. See Paul, supra, p. 495, footnote 17, and p. 497. The plain language of § 302(h) makes § 302(g) applicable to pre-1918 policies. It is to be noted that in sustaining the imposition of the tax we place no reliance on the endowment feature of one of the policies. From the reasoning in the Jacobs and Hallock cases it is also clear that the retention by the insured of the power to change the beneficiary in and of itself would make the proceeds on policy No. 398704 taxable. Commissioner v. Washer, supra; Broderick v. Keefe, 1 Cir., 1940, 112 F.2d 293; cf. Keefe v. United States, 1942, 46 F.Supp. 1016, 97 Ct.Cl. 576, certiorari denied 318 U.S. 768, 63 S.Ct. 759, 87 L.Ed. —, with which compare Braun v. United States, 1942, 46 F.Supp. 993, 98 Ct.Cl. 176, where the insured died in 1919, before the enactment of § 302(h). See Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 1929, 278 U.S. 339, 49 S.Ct. 123, 73 L.Ed. 410, 66 A.L.R. 397. As the Supreme Court said in Chase National Bank v. United States, 1929, 278 U.S. 327, 338, 339, 49 S.Ct. 126, 129, 73 L.Ed. 405, 63 A.L.R. 388, concerning policies taken out after 1918: “Termination of the power of control at the time of death inures to the benefit of him who owns the property subject to the power and thus brings about, at death, the completion of that shifting of the economic benefits of property which is the real subject of the tax. * * * It is the termination of the power of disposition of the policies by decedent at death which operates as an" } ]

[ { "docid": "12631779", "title": "", "text": "raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether CIT terminated his employment based on his age, disability, or workers’ compensation claim. After reviewing the record, we determine that he has not. A. The Evidence Does Not Support an Inference of Age or Disability Discrimination A party alleging discrimination under the ADA, ADEA, or IHRA may proceed under the direct or indirect method of proof and may rely on circumstantial evidence to meet his burden. Atanus v. Perry, 520 F.3d 662, 671 (7th Cir.2008) (ADEA); Buie v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 366 F.3d 496, 503 (7th Cir.2004) (ADA); see Zaderaka v. Ill. Human Rights Comm’n, 131 Ill.2d 172, 137 Ill.Dec. 31, 545 N.E.2d 684, 687 (1989) (age discrimination claims under the IHRA should be analyzed in the same way as ADEA claims); see also Luckett v. Human Rights Comm’n, 210 Ill.App.3d 169, 155 Ill.Dec. 6, 569 N.E.2d 6, 14 (1989) (“When analyzing claims of discrimination under the [IHRA], Illinois courts have looked to the standards applicable to analogous federal claims.”). Ter-uggi has chosen to use the direct method with circumstantial evidence. To survive summary judgment on his claims under the ADA, ADEA, and IHRA, he must offer evidence from which an inference of discriminatory intent can be drawn, such as: “(1) suspicious timing; (2) ambiguous statements or behavior towards other employees in the protected group; (3) evidence, statistical or otherwise, that similarly situated employees outside of the protected group systematically receive better treatment; and (4) evidence that the employer offered a pretextual reason for an adverse employment action.” Dickerson v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 522, 657 F.3d 595, 601 (7th Cir.2011). A party may combine these various types of evidence to present a “ ‘convincing mosaic’ of circumstantial evidence” from which a factfinder can make a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent. Rhodes v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 359 F.3d 498, 504 (7th Cir.2004) (quoting Troupe v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734, 737 (7th Cir.1994)); but see Sylvester v. SOS Children’s Villages Illinois, Inc., 453 F.3d 900, 904 (7th Cir.2006) (“But it was not the intention" } ]

[ { "docid": "11291674", "title": "", "text": "application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). A “qualified individual with a disability” is defined as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” Id. § 12111(8). Title I enumerates specific examples of conduct that would constitute discrimination prohibited under the statute. See id. § 12112(b). The three class claims that have been certified, according to the District Court, all “implicate the [ADA’s] prohibition against discrimination in the form of failure to make reasonable accommodations.” Hohider, 243 F.R.D. at 187. Namely, the ADA specifies that one way a covered entity can engage in unlawful discrimination under the statute is by (A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity; or (B) denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)-(B). In construing § 12112(b)(5), we have held that, for a covered entity to be found liable for discrimination on the basis of failure to accommodate, the plaintiff must prove “ ‘(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA;' (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations by the employer; and (3) he has suffered an otherwise adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination’ ... [which] in this context inelude[s] refusing to make reasonable accommodations for a plaintiffs disabilities.” Williams v. Phila. Housing Auth. Police Dep't, 380 F.3d 751, 761 (3d Cir.2004) (quoting Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184" }, { "docid": "316147", "title": "", "text": "omitted). Second, all ambiguities and inferences must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Id. Third, the moving party may obtain summary judgment by showing that no rational jury could find in favor of the non-moving party because the evidence to support its case is so slight. Id. Finally, the trial court’s duty is confined to issue-finding and does not extend to issue-resolution. Id. In evaluating the above considerations, a court must be mindful of whether the purported factual dispute is material, because “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). II. DISABILITY CLAIMS UNDER THE ADA A General Considerations Regarding the ADA The ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee “because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). As defined by the ADA, “discrimination” includes, inter alia: not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless ... [the employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business. Id. § 12112(b)(5)(a) (cited in Lyons v. Legal Aid Society, 68 F.3d 1512, 1514 (2d Cir.1995)). “Otherwise qualified” means that the individual “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” Id. § 12111(8). Under the ADA, therefore, a plaintiff can state a claim for discrimination based upon his employer’s failure to accommodate his handicap by alleging facts showing: (1) that the employer is subject to the ADA; (2) that the plaintiff is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (3) that, with or without reasonable accommodation, the plaintiff could perform the essential functions of his job;" }, { "docid": "14136915", "title": "", "text": "Toro terminated Heaser. Heaser subsequently filed suit in district court, alleging disability discrimination under federal and state laws and seeking judicial review of Toro’s denial of her short-term disability benefits. Heaser argues that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment in Toro’s favor because she would have been able to perform her job with reasonable accommodation and because Toro failed to meet its obligation to engage in an interactive process with Heaser. Heaser also contends that the court erred when it dismissed her ERISA claims. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Henerey v. City of St Charles, 200 F.3d 1128, 1131 (8th Cir.1999). Summary judgment is proper if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “[Sjummary judgment should seldom be granted in discrimination cases.” Bassett v. City of Minneapolis, 211 F.3d 1097, 1099 (8th Cir.2000). II. Disability Discrimination The ADA affords protection from discrimination to any “qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Heaser must show (1) that she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that she is qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability. Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc). Discrimination includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... unless [the employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of [the employer].” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). The proof necessary for discrimination cases is flexible and varies with the specific facts of each case. Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc., 152 F.3d 1018, 1022 (8th Cir.1998). For the purposes of this appeal, Toro does not dispute that Heaser" }, { "docid": "4266776", "title": "", "text": "First, dining the initial six months of a nurse’s employment, termination is not subject to appeal through the hospital’s grievance procedure. This policy is designed to give the hospital an opportunity to evaluate its hiring decisions over a preliminary time period. In other words, for the first six months, Schmidt was a provisional employee. Second, nurses in their provisional employment period typically are ineligible for transfers to other departments. Schmidt claims that Methodist’s adherence to these policies constitutes a failure to reasonably accommodate his disability. Analysis We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, viewing all evidence submitted and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Beck v. University of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1134 (7th Cir.1996). We apply this standard with added rigor in employment discrimination cases, where intent and credibility are crucial issues. Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the district court only if, had the record before that court been the record of a complete trial, the defendant would have been entitled to a directed verdict. Robinson v. PPG Industries, Inc., 23 F.3d 1159, 1162 (7th Cir.1994). Enacted in 1990, the ADA is designed to level the playing field for the more than 43,000,000 Americans who have one or more physical or mental disabilities. Siefken v. Village of Arlington Heights, 65 F.3d 664, 666 (7th Cir.1995); see also Vande Zande v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Admin., 44 F.3d 538, 541 (7th Cir.1995). The statute provides: No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To comply, employers must make “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual,” unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation “would impose an undue hardship” on the operation of the employer’s business. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Applying these statutory provisions necessarily" }, { "docid": "23417084", "title": "", "text": "Cir.1998). Summary judgment is proper only when there is no dispute as to a material question of fact and one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Viewing all facts and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, we must determine whether the evidence presented is such that a reasonable jury could find for that party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A. ADA Claim The ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating “against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Under the ADA, discrimination includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). A “qualified individual with a disability” is defined as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). In the instant case, it is undisputed that Hoskins was fired because of her inability to restrain inmates. “[W]hen an employer admits that it relied upon a disability in making an adverse employment decision, an employee may establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA by showing that he or she (1) has a disability, and (2) is ‘otherwise qualified’ for the position despite the disability either ‘(a) without accommodation from the employer; (b) with an alleged “essential” job requirement eliminated; or (c) with a proposed reasonable accommodation.’ ” Hamlin v. Charter Township of Flint, 165 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting Monette v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d" }, { "docid": "23348086", "title": "", "text": "265 (1986). In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. E.g., Pritchard v. Southern Co. Servs., 92 F.3d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir.1996). III. ANALYSIS A The Americans with Disabilities Act In 1990, Congress enacted the ADA “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101(b)(1) (West 1995). To accomplish that purpose, the ADA provides that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” Id. § 12112(a). The statute further operates to create an affirmative duty for employers to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. In ADA parlance, the word “discriminate” is defined broadly to include “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business.” Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). “Disability” is defined as: (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment. Id. § 12102(2). In order to establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Harris must show that: (1) she has a disability; (2) she is a qualified individual; and (3) she was discriminated against because of her disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; see also, e.g., Pritchard v. Southern Co. Servs., 92 F.3d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir.1996). In granting summary judgment on Harris’ ADA claim, the district court held that Harris had failed to demonstrate that any genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Harris has a disability within the meaning of the ADA — the first element of her prima facie case. In view of that holding," }, { "docid": "14341717", "title": "", "text": "independent contractor to perform QDDP services for ARC in the past, and she thought that the Board could find an independent contractor to perform QDDP work for ARC once again at a fraction of Plaintiffs salary. (Id., Ex. A.) Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the court finds that Plaintiff has completely failed to produce any evidence that ARC’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for eliminating Plaintiffs position as ARC’s habilitation coordinator is false or a mere pretext for discrimination. Absent such evidence, no rational factfinder could conclude that Defendants’ action was based on Plaintiffs race. See Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097; Rowe v. Marley Co., 233 F.3d 825, 830 (4th Cir.2000). Therefore, the court will grant ARC’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs claim of racial discrimination under Title VII. B. Plaintiffs ADA Claims Plaintiff alleges that “[ARC] terminated Plaintiff because of her disability and request for reasonable accommodations.” (Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff also alleges that “[ARC’s] failure to make reasonable accommodations to Plaintiffs disability constitutes discrimination against her with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment and constitutes a violation of the ADA.” (Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 39.) Title I of the ADA prohibits discrimination by a covered entity, including a private employer, “against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); see also Pollard, v. High’s of Baltimore, 281 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 827, 123 S.Ct. 122, 154 L.Ed.2d 39 (2002). Under the ADA, discrimination includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless [the] covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of [its] business.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Plaintiff must establish four elements by a preponderance of the evidence in order to make" }, { "docid": "23045169", "title": "", "text": "make a prima facie case of discrimination based on disparity of treatment. Having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, the district court dismissed her state law claims without prejudice. Hankins timely filed a notice of appeal. II. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT A district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. City Management Corp. v. U.S. Chem. Co., 43 F.3d 244, 250 (6th Cir.1994). Considering all facts and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellant, id., we reverse the judgment only upon a showing of the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In this case, we are faced with a claim under Title I of the ADA, which prohibits unwarranted discrimination against disabled persons in employment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The key term, “discriminate,” is defined in section 12112(b) as including several acts, of which the most relevant to this litigation is: (5)(A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity[.j A “qualified individual with a disability,” in turn, is an individual who, with reasonable accommodation, “can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). “Reasonable accommodation” thus lies at the heart of this case, as in most ADA cases. It is given further definition in 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9): The term “reasonable accommodation” may include— (A) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (B) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Hankins argues that The" }, { "docid": "10468473", "title": "", "text": "summary judgment and to draw inferences favorable to that party if the inferences are reasonable (however improbable they may seem).” Cole v. Cole, 633 F.2d 1083, 1092 (4th Cir.1980). When the evidence from the entire record could not lead a rational fact-finder to find for the non-moving party, no genuine issue for trial exists and summary judgment is appropriate. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS I. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., (hereinafter the “ADA”), provides that “no covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). As defined by the ADA, a “qualified individual with a disability” is an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that that individual holds or desires. Id. § 12111(8). In the event a qualified individual cannot perform the duties of her job without reasonable accommodation, the ADA imposes upon the covered entity the affirmative obligation to make reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of the individual unless the entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity. Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Reasonable accommodations, by the ADA’s terms, may include making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, and acquisition or modification of equipment or devices. Id. § 12111(9). II. THE HEALTH PLAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Health Plan has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) plaintiffs ADA claim against the Health Plan was never submitted to the EEOC; (2) the Health Plan is a separate and distinct entity from the Medical Group and never acted as plaintiffs employer; and (3)" }, { "docid": "9487461", "title": "", "text": "citing the standard set out in Sar-sha: Summary judgment is appropriate only when the materials before the court demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This standard is applied with added rigor in employment discrimination cases, where intent and credibility are crucial issues. Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the district court only if, had the record before that court been the record of a complete trial, the defendant would have been entitled to a directed verdict. (Citations omitted.) III. DISCUSSION The ADA prohibits employment discrimination “against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating against such persons with regard to “job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” Id. The term “discriminate” includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(5)(A). A “qualified individual” is “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions” of the job. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). The employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations does not extend, however, to accommodations that “would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Wal-Mart contends that Sieberns is not a qualified individual with a disability, since there was no reasonable accommodation that could be made which would enable him to perform the essential functions of the jobs for which he was considered. The only accommodation that could be made, Wal-Mart concluded, was to have another employee assist Sieberns at all times. Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Memorandum”), p. 5. Wal-Mart claims that due to staffing and budgetary problems at the store, such" }, { "docid": "12913741", "title": "", "text": "F.3d 419, 427 (7th Cir.1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). With the appropriate standard before us, we now turn to the individual claims and examine the propriety of the district court’s grants of summary judgment. B. “Failure to Reasonably Acoommo-date” Claim On appeal, plaintiffs first contend that the district court erred in granting Sears summary judgment on the claim that Sears failed to reasonably accommodate Keane’s disability. The ADA prohibits discrimination by covered entities, including private employers, against qualified individuals with a disability. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 477, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999). Specifically, the ADA provides that no covered employer shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Section 12112(b) of the Act defines the different ways in which discrimination under section (a) might occur. Relevant to our inquiry, the ADA states that “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant o.r an employee” is considered discrimination, “unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Thus, in order for a plaintiff to recover under the ADA for an employer’s failure to reasonably accommodate, that plaintiff must first show: (1) that she was or is disabled as defined by the Act, (2) that her employer was aware.of the disability, and (3) that she was qualified for the position in question. Best v. Shell Oil Co., 107 F.3d 544, 547-48 (7th Cir.1997). In concluding that summary judgment was appropriate for Sears on plaintiffs’ “failure to reasonably accommodate” cause of action, the district court focused almost exclusively on the first prong of the above three-part inquiry. Upon determining that Keane was not disabled under the ADA, the court resolved that the entire" }, { "docid": "6905478", "title": "", "text": "benefits due her. Howard appeals the district court’s judgment. II An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as governed the district court’s decision. See, e.g., Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 674 (D.C.Cir.1999). Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In deciding whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the court must view all evidence presented by the nonmovant as presumptively valid and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. See, e.g., Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575, 579 (D.C.Cir.1998) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). III The ADA does not cover every individual with an impairment who suffers an adverse employment action. See, e.g., Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999). Instead, the ADA more specifically prohibits discrimination by an employer “against a qualified individual with a disability because of’ that disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The ADA explicitly defines “discrimination” as not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Most pertinent for this case, the ADA defines “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of’ an individual, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A); and “reasonable accommodation” as including “job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, ... and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9). Far from protecting all impaired individuals from any sort of adverse employment action, the ADA protects" }, { "docid": "23505500", "title": "", "text": "given its dismissal of plaintiffs federal claims, the Dis tract Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims. Plaintiff appeals from this order of summary judgment. II. Discussion A.Standard of Review We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Kraus v. Sobel Corrugated Containers, Inc., 915 F.2d 227, 229 (6th Cir.1990). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). B.Plaintiffs ADA Claim The ADA provides that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The term “discriminate” includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity” and “denying employment opportunities to a[n] ... employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). To prevail on her ADA claim, therefore, Roush must prove that (1) she has a disability; (2) she was qualified for the job; and (3) she either was denied a reasonable accommodation for her disability or was subject to an adverse employment decision that was made solely because of her disability. See Rizzo v. Children’s World Learning Centers, Inc., 84 F.3d 758, 763 (5th Cir.1996); Doe v. University of Maryland Medical Sys. Corp., 50 F.3d 1261, 1265 (4th Cir.1995). Plaintiff first argues that the District Court’s" }, { "docid": "8767468", "title": "", "text": "to all associates, whether disabled or non-disabled. Terry Aff., ¶ 5. In the course of her duties, she became aware that as of November 22, 2000, plaintiff had been on medical leave for a non-oecupa-tional injury and was not actively employed for twelve consecutive months. Terry Aff., ¶ 6. Plaintiffs employment was terminated pursuant to the associate service policy. Terry Aff., ¶ 7. III. Disability Discrimination Claims A. Plaintiff’s Discrimination Claims Plaintiff has asserted claims of disability discrimination under the ADA and Ohio law, including a claim of failure to accommodate his disability and discrimination in his termination due to his disability. Under the ADA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a qualified individual in the terms and conditions of employment based on that individual’s disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). An employer violates the ADA if it fails to “mak[e] reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). To prevail on his failure to accommodate claim, plaintiff must show: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he was qualified for the job; and (3) that he was denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability. Roush v. Weastec, Inc., 96 F.3d 840, 843 (6th Cir.1996). The employee must establish that a reasonable accommodation is possible, and that he is qualified for the position with such reasonable accommodation. Hoskins v. Oakland County Sheriffs Dep't, 227 F.3d 719, 728 (6th Cir.2000). An employer is not required to make an accommodation if it fulfills its burden of proving that such reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Id.; 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). A “qualified individual with a disability” is “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). In order to make out a prima facie case of" }, { "docid": "22111612", "title": "", "text": "judgment, arguing primarily that the University did not know exactly what accommodations were necessary and that it was only able to accommodate Beck based on available information. Beck’s summary judgment response for the first time made detailed allegations regarding the move to “a small, isolated, cold and damp file room,” the fact that Bennett gave “her nothing to do,” and the fact that defendants never provided her with an adjustable keyboard. Defendants’ summary judgment reply included an affidavit from Bennett regarding the new allegations in Beck’s response. The district court entered summary judgment against Beck, and she now appeals. We review the district court’s decision de novo, with all evidence submitted and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. East Food & Liquor, Inc. v. United States, 50 F.3d 1405, 1410 (7th Cir.1995). II. The ADA prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12112. The prohibition extends not only to denial of employment opportunities based on vocationally irrelevant disabilities, but extends to discrimination based on disabilities that impair the individual’s ability to perform her job. Vande Zande v. State of Wis. Dep’t of Admin., 44 F.3d 538, 541 (7th Cir.1995). Thus the ADA defines discrimination as including an employer’s “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such [employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such [employer]____” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). The central issue in this appeal is whether the University provided Beck with reasonable accommodations. Beck claims it did not. The University claims that it never understood exactly what accommodations Beck required, that it tried in vain to determine what accommodations were necessary, and that it provided the best accommodations possible given its limited understanding of Beck’s disability. The University essentially argues that it would have provided reasonable accommodations if Beck had simply told them what to do. Beck responds in the alternative, stating that she did tell the University what" }, { "docid": "19137979", "title": "", "text": "a job,” the district court found that Harris’s request to telecommute up to four days per week was not a reasonable accommodation for her position. Id. at 10 (Page ID # 1399). The district court additionally reasoned that the EEOC could not establish that Harris’s low performance reviews, placement on a PEP, and termination were retaliatory because those decisions were also based on performance deficiencies unrelated to the attendance issues arising from her IBS. Id. at 12-13 (Page ID # 1401-02). This timely appeal followed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo an order granting summary judgment. DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir.2004). A grant of summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In determining whether the district court’s grant of summary judgment was proper, “we must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862, 868 (6th Cir.2007) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). III. FAILURE-TO-ACCOMMODATE CLAIM The EEOC argues that Ford violated the ADA by refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation for Harris’s disability. Under the ADA, an employer may not “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). An employer “discriminates” under the ADA if it does not make “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified indi vidual with a disability who is an applicant or an employee, unless [the employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business.” Id. at § 12112(b)(5). When a plaintiff premises a discrimination claim upon an employer’s failure to accommodate her disability, we analyze her claim under the following" }, { "docid": "23310563", "title": "", "text": "at 14. This appeal followed. Discussion We review decisions to grant summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as did the district court, see Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382, 385 (8th Cir.1995), and affirming only when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and recall that, “[bjecause discrimination cases often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence, summary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference for the nonmovant.” Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994). However, summary judgment is proper if the plaintiff fails to establish any element of his or her prima facie case. See Wilking v. County of Ramsey, 153 F.3d 869, 873 (8th Cir.1998). Statutory Background: Title I of the ADA bars employers from discriminating against “a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The ADA further defines discrimination to include not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity .... Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). As the statutory language indicates, ADA protection extends only to a “qualified individual with a disability,” namely, “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” Id. § 12111(8). Thus, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under" }, { "docid": "23549932", "title": "", "text": "115 F.3d 1442, 1450 (10th Cir.1997) (citations and quotations omitted). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate “[i]f during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party_” Fed. R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). “[A] court may grant the motion only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences which may support the opposing party’s position.” Davis v. United States Postal Serv., 142 F.3d 1334, 1339 (10th Cir.1998) (internal quotation omitted.) On review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to Pack, extending to her the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Id. Discussion The ADA prohibits discrimination “against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152, 115 S.Ct. 1104, 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995). Discrimination under the ADA includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless ... the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.... ” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). A “qualified individual with a disability” is “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). See White v. York Int’l Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)). To establish a claim under the ADA, Pack must show that: (1) she is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she is qualified, i.e., able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation (which she must describe); and (3) Kmart discriminated against her in its employment decision (failure" }, { "docid": "20452307", "title": "", "text": "contends the district court erred in dismissing her reasonable accommodation claim under the ADA by concluding that she was not a “qualified individual.” The Municipality responds that the district court properly determined that Colón was not a qualified individual under the ADA because Colón failed to satisfy an essential job function, attendance. 1. Overview of an ADA Claim The ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). A qualified individual is one “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” Id. § 12111(8). Discrimination under the ADA includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless ... the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business.” Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). To establish a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove three factors by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, either with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) the employer took an adverse employment action against her because of the alleged disability. Carroll, 294 F.3d at 237; see also Ríos-Jiménez v. Principi, 520 F.3d 31, 41 (1st Cir.2008). Because we find that Colón failed to establish the second element of an ADA claim, i.e., show that she was a qualified individual under the ADA, we limit our analysis to this factor. 2. Qualified Individual: Two-Part Analysis Whether an individual is qualified under the ADA is a two-step analysis. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). The employee bears the burden to show, first, that she possesses the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements for the position, and second, that she is able to perform the position’s essen tial functions with or without reasonable accommodation. García-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638, 646 (1st Cir.2000). We address each in turn. Construing the record in the light" }, { "docid": "22197799", "title": "", "text": "their employers. Under the ADA, the term “discriminate” is defined as including “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). To prevail on a claim of unlawful discharge under the ADA, the plaintiff must establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability and that the employer terminated him because of his disability. Cooper v. Neiman Marcus Group, 125 F.3d 786, 790 (1997). The ADA defines a “qualified individual with a disability” as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions, of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). A “disability” is “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(a). In ADA cases, as in all appeals, we review a grant of summary judgment de novo. McAlindin v. County of San Diego, 192 F.3d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir.), amended 201 F.3d 1211, and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 2689, 147 L.Ed.2d 961 (2000). A. QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY Because the district court granted summary judgment to MHA on the ground that it reasonably accommodated Humphrey, the court did not address whether Humphrey is a qualified individual with a disability. However, MHA asks us to uphold the judgment on the alternate ground that Humphrey is not disabled and that she is not a “qualified individual” for purposes of the ADA. Because we reject MHA’s reasonable accommodation argument, we consider its alternate ground here. Most of the issues relating to Humphrey’s status as a qualified individual with a disability are legal. The primary factual dispute arises out of an equivocal report and declaration by defense expert Dr. Weissman. The report raises some question regarding the testimony of Drs. Jaei-sin and Litynsky that Humphrey suffered" } ]

[ { "docid": "17653162", "title": "", "text": "Hayden Co., 116 Md.App. 605, 698 A.2d 1167, 1192 (1997); AC, Inc. v. Baker, 622 So.2d 331, 334 (Ala.1993) (for agreements constituting several, separate annual agreements, a breach of contract action accrues on each contract, individually, when performance under each contract is complete); Intermedics, Inc. v. Grady, 683 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Ct.App.Hous.1984); Cannell v. Bulicek, 8 Ohio App.3d 331, 457 N.E.2d 891, 896 (1983). To decide the propriety of invoking the continuous breach doctrine for evaluating the time of accrual of a cause of action, the Court must first determine whether the contract is continuous or severable in nature. See, e.g., Burger v. Level End Dairy Investors, 125 B.R. 894, 901-02 (Bankr.D.Del.1991). Where the nature of the contract is continuous, statutes of limitations do not typically begin to run until termination of the entire contract. See id. However, if the nature of the contract is severable, the statutes of limitations generally commence to run on each severable portion of the contract when a party breaches that portion of the contract. See Worrel v. Farmers Bank of Del., 430 A.2d 469, 474-75 (Del.Super.1981). Here, Plaintiffs renewed their Sales Agreements with Exxon, if at all, every three years. Each Sales Agreement was, therefore, severable in nature, since performance of the parties, as to that Agreement, was presumed complete upon expiration of an express term of years. Although it may be argued that Exxon had a continuous duty to act in good faith in terminating the contract and renewing the relationships with its dealers in subsequent, successive contracts, performance under the Sales Agreements, in and of itself, was severable, giving rise to a cause of action for breach of contract based on nonperformance. Moreover, as previously set forth in prior orders of this Court, a contractual breach of the covenant of good faith cannot be divorced from the actual breach of contract claim. See Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604, 617 (3d Cir.1995) (good faith is an interpretive tool to determine the parties’ justified expectations, and is not to be used for enforcement of “an independent duty divorced from the" } ]

[ { "docid": "16942936", "title": "", "text": "or right in which they have a common and undivided interest,’ ” 466 F.3d at 897 (quoting Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. at 335, 89 S.Ct. 1053), Judge Johnson explained that the class members’ claims may not be aggregated when they arise from individual contracts, as they did in Lovell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., see 466 F.3d at 897-98. State Farm established that “its costs of compliance running to any single Plaintiff or putative class member would exceed $75,000 because the requested relief would require it to make significant changes to its business practices by developing a new system for adjusting and paying diminished value claims and providing extensive notice in Colorado,” and thus, Judge Johnson concluded that the amount in controversy requirement was met and that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 466 F.3d at 898. In this case, each putative class members’ claims arise from separate contracts, and so, as in Lovell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the claims may not be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirements. A significant difference between that case and this one, however, is that, in this case, the parties agree that Ullman’s claims exceed $75,000.00; Safeway Insurance has not established that every putative class members’ claims exceed the jurisdictional minimum amount, but it does not need to, because the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims. Before 2005, the Tenth Circuit rejected applying supplemental jurisdiction in this context, where the class representative met the jurisdictional amount but the other class members did not, see Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284, 1294 (10th Cir.2001) (“This court has specifically rejected defendants’ contention that so long as the class representatives meet the jurisdictional amount, all class members fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.”), but, as the Court has previously explained, a 2005 Supreme Court decision changed this result: In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 [125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502] (2005), the Supreme Court held that the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367," }, { "docid": "18101496", "title": "", "text": "of limitations began to run on this earlier date. Dell advances two argu ments in its defense which we now address. a. Continuing Contract As noted, the general rule in Texas is that contracts are breached, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when “facts come into existence that authorize a claimant to seek a judicial remedy.” “A cause of action arising out of contractual relations between the parties accrues as soon as the contract or agreement is breached.” “A continuing contract is an agreement where the contemplated performance and payment are divided into several parts or, where the work is continuous and indivisible, the payment for work is made in installments as the work is completed.” On a continuing contract, however, the statute of limitations does not commence to run until the contract is terminated or fully performed. Dell urges that the PSA was a “continuing contract” for which limitations could not begin to run until Dell made the determination that Rodriguez’s conduct was in breach of his obligations and elected to terminate his' continuing relationship with Dell, thereby triggering the clawback provision. In Texas, parties typically enter into continuing contracts for projects such as construction, during which performance is made in measurable increments and compensated based on the value of work completed in each period, and for which there is a clear end-point. To be sure, not every contract that Texas courts have declared to be a “continuing contract” fits this definition. Still, Dell has referred us to no authority — and we have found none on our own — supporting the proposition that an employment compensation agreement, payable at fixed intervals, should be treated as a continuing contract. Indeed, Rodriguez points to at least one Texas Court of Appeals case holding that “[t]he cause of action for the breach of an employment contract arises immediately upon the breach of the contract and limitations run from that time.” Dell insists that its claim against Rodriguez is for breach of the PSA, not breach of his employment contract. By its terms, however, the PSA specified the regular issuance" }, { "docid": "13954814", "title": "", "text": "such state is regarded as a part of the statute, and is as binding upon the courts of the United States as the text.’ ” The applicable section of the Illinois law to the present cause of action is either Section 16, Ch. 83, Smith Hurd Ann.Stats., which has been held to govern actions originating in fraud. McNeil v. Bulkley, 1932, 269 Ill.App. 1, Milwaukee Commercial Bank v. Bennett, 1928, 249 Ill.App. 456 and provides: “Actions on unwritten contracts, expressed or implied, or on awards of arbitration, or to recover damages for an injury done to property, real or personal, or to recover the possession of personal property, or damages for the detention or conversion thereof, and all civil actions not otherwise provided for, shall be commenced within five years next after the cause of action accrued.” or, Section 23, Ch. 83, Smith Hurd Ann. Stats., which provides: “If a person liable to an action fraudulently conceals the cause of such action from the knowledge of the person entitled thereto, the action may be commenced at any time within five years after the person entitled to bring the same discovers that he has such cause of action, and not afterwards.” It appears that the contracts with the Spiegel Estate and with Stern were entered into with Essaness approximately November 1, 1945 when they were executed by the parties, although dated October 20, 1945. The Probate Court approved the Spiegel contract on November 15, 1945. The executors filed their suit December 14, 1950 and Stern filed his suit December 15, 1950. Defendants urge that the bar of the statute began to run from the date the alleged fraudulent inducement was made to enter into the contract, which was November 1 and therefor each suit was filed approximately one and one-half months more than five years after the Probate Court approved the contracts. It is the contention that the Illinois statute begins to run when the fraud is successfully consummated, not when it is discovered. Plaintiffs, on the other hand contend the statute did not begin to run until December 17, 1945" }, { "docid": "4242467", "title": "", "text": "appeals as follows: first, the 12(b)(6) dismissal in favor of Discover as to (a) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (b) violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, (c) violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and (d) violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act; and second, the summary judgment ruling in favor of Discover on his wrongful death claim. II This Court reviews de novo both the 12(b)(6) and summary judgment rulings of the magistrate judge. Adika v. Smith, 466 F.3d 503, 505 (6th Cir.2006); Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 817 (6th Cir.2005). In reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 688 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). This Court “must accept all facts in the complaint as true and construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff.” Adika, 466 F.3d at 505. In reviewing a summary judgment motion, “the facts and any inferences that can be drawn from those facts[] must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Bennett, 410 F.3d at 817 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). A. Claims Dismissed on the Pleadings (i) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Tennessee state courts recognize the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, although they typically refer to this tort as “outrageous conduct.” See Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 n. 3 (Tenn.1997) (“Intentional infliction of emotional" }, { "docid": "1327391", "title": "", "text": "494 Pa. 336, 431 A.2d 883, 886-87 (1981) (“[A] class action may be maintained even when the claims of members of the class are based on different contracts where the relevant contractual provisions raise common questions of law and fact and do not differ materially.”). We discerned such material similarity in Allapattah Services v. Exxon Corp., where we upheld the certification of a class of 10,000 Exxon gas station owners who claimed that Exxon had breached their individual sales agreements. Specifically, the owners claimed that Exxon had secretly begun overcharging them by failing to implement the terms of its “Discount for Cash” program, which required that the company offset a surcharge on credit card gasoline sales with a corresponding reduction in the wholesale price of gasoline. 333 F.3d at 1252. While each dealer had a different contract, each contract “included express language to the effect that any breach of a provision by either party of a failure to carry out the contract provisions ‘in good faith’ was conclusively deemed to be substantial.” Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 61 F.Supp.2d 1308, 1311 (S.D.Fla.1999), aff'd, 333 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir.2003). Exxon thus owed to all dealers “[t]he duty to set the wholesale price in good faith, which incorporate^] the duty not to charge its dealers twice for the cost of credit card processing.” Id. at 1314 n. 7. “Because all of the dealer agreements were materially similar[,] ... [w]hether [Exxon] breached [its] obligation^] was a question common to the class and the issue of liability was appropriately determined on a class-wide basis.” 333 F.3d at 1261. We can discern no such similarity here, either as to the payment provisions, or as to other terms like the termination and waiver clauses that bear on Humana’s potential liability. We begin with the payment clauses, which appear throughout the more than 300 contracts that fall within the ambit of the class definition. Humana argues, and we agree, that the differences in these provisions are reducible linguistically to a minimum of around 33 variants. In the district court, the plaintiffs attempted to organize these variants" }, { "docid": "17653163", "title": "", "text": "Del., 430 A.2d 469, 474-75 (Del.Super.1981). Here, Plaintiffs renewed their Sales Agreements with Exxon, if at all, every three years. Each Sales Agreement was, therefore, severable in nature, since performance of the parties, as to that Agreement, was presumed complete upon expiration of an express term of years. Although it may be argued that Exxon had a continuous duty to act in good faith in terminating the contract and renewing the relationships with its dealers in subsequent, successive contracts, performance under the Sales Agreements, in and of itself, was severable, giving rise to a cause of action for breach of contract based on nonperformance. Moreover, as previously set forth in prior orders of this Court, a contractual breach of the covenant of good faith cannot be divorced from the actual breach of contract claim. See Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604, 617 (3d Cir.1995) (good faith is an interpretive tool to determine the parties’ justified expectations, and is not to be used for enforcement of “an independent duty divorced from the specific clauses of the contract”); see also UCC § 1-203, cmt. (no independent cause of action exists for failure to perform in good faith). Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court that each dealer’s succession of Sales Agreements with Exxon constituted one, continuous contract that endured throughout the period of time the Discount for Cash program was in effect. Absent such evidence, or other unique circumstances which would distinguish the instant case from the factual scenarios of cases in which courts rejected the continuous breach doctrine for contracts severable in nature, the doctrine cannot be applied to toll the statute of limitations as codified by the relevant jurisdictions. Exxon’s Affirmative Defense on Grounds of Release The Operative Language of the Releases Exxon asserts as an affirmative defense that over 5,193 dealers who are members of the Plaintiff-Class executed standard Mutual Termination and Release Agreements (“Releases”). Except for a small number of Releases, the standard form documents contain similar language. There are four standard versions of the Release provisions. The vast majority of the Releases include the" }, { "docid": "18322303", "title": "", "text": "such as alleged lapses of state approvals in 2002 and 2003. Therefore, its claim is not barred because the “continuing course of conduct” exception to the six-year statute of limitations applies. See Plf.’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mem. in Opp.”) at 25-28 [Doc. No. 79]. As the Second Circuit has noted: Connecticut courts ... have recognized that where there is a continuing course of conduct constituting a breach of duty, the limitations period does not begin to run, or is tolled, until that conduct terminates. See Fichera v. Mine Hill Corp., 207 Conn. 204, 209, 541 A.2d 472, 474 (1988) (statute of limitations tolled); Handler v. Remington Arms Co., 144 Conn. 316, 321, 130 A.2d 793, 795 (1957) (statute of limitations does not begin running).... See Skidmore, Owings & Merrill v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 25 Conn.Supp. 76, 93, 197 A.2d 83, 91 (Conn.Super.Ct.1963) (“In considering the application of the Statute of Limitations to this case, one must distinguish between a contract obligation ... providing for a continuing, indivisible responsibility for the attainment of an end result, and a contract for the performing of a specific, definable act.”). West Haven v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 894 F.2d 540, 545 (2d Cir.1990) (applying exception to breach of contract claim). The defendants argue that the continuing course of conduct exception does not apply to this action, and thus that the plaintiffs cause of action is time-barred. The continuing course of conduct doctrine is “conspicuously fact-bound.” Blanchette v. Barrett, 229 Conn. 256, 276, 640 A.2d 74 (1994). The Connecticut Supreme Court has applied it to cases where “there has been evidence of either a special relationship between the parties giving rise to such a continuing duty or some later wrongful conduct of a defendant related to the prior act.” Giulietti v. Giulietti, 65 Conn.App. 813, 784 A.2d 905, 925 (2001). While the Court has applied it primarily in the context of medical malpractice and other negligence cases, it has also stated that the existence of a contractual relationship alone is insufficient to establish a “special relationship.” See" }, { "docid": "4242468", "title": "", "text": "complaint as true and construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff.” Adika, 466 F.3d at 505. In reviewing a summary judgment motion, “the facts and any inferences that can be drawn from those facts[] must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Bennett, 410 F.3d at 817 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). A. Claims Dismissed on the Pleadings (i) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Tennessee state courts recognize the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, although they typically refer to this tort as “outrageous conduct.” See Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 n. 3 (Tenn.1997) (“Intentional infliction of emotional distress and outrageous conduct are not two separate torts, but are simply different names for the same cause of action.”). Regardless of chosen moniker, however, the elements of the tort are clear: “(1) the conduct complained of must be intentional or reckless; (2) the conduct must be so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society; and (3) the conduct complained of must result in serious mental injury.” Id,.; see also Medlin v. Allied Inv. Co., 217 Tenn. 469, 398 S.W.2d 270, 274 (1966). Both parties agree that the second element — i.e., whether or not Discovers conduct was “so outrageous”— is primarily at issue in the instant case. Mr. MacDermid argues that Discovers conduct, as depicted in his complaint, was at least sufficient to state a claim for outrageous conduct under Tennessee law. In particular, MacDermid asserts that because Discover was on notice of his wife’s “fragile mental status,” the company crossed the line between “excessive (but permissible) pressure tactics” and “outrageous conduct which is intended to cause harm that is disproportionate to" }, { "docid": "20468751", "title": "", "text": "the nature of the Debtor’s business relationship with Jannetta. Without determining precisely when the limitations period commenced, the clock certainly began to run prior to 2006, a date more than four (4) years before the commencement of the bankruptcy case and 12-13 years after the date of the loan. 2. Miller’s “continuing contract” argument In his post-trial brief, Miller asserts that the analysis above misses the mark entirely. He contends that the contract between the Debtor and Jannetta should be construed as a “continuing contract,” which requires an entirely different method of determining whether the statute of limitations has run. Based on this premise, he contends that the limitations period has not expired. Respectfully, I disagree. A continuing contract is “an agreement which does not fix any certain time for payment or for the termination of the services.” Thorpe v. Schoenbrun, 202 Pa.Super. 375,195 A.2d 870, 872 (1963). It arises when the parties’ agreement calls for one party to provide services to another for an indefinite duration. See In re Koonce’s Estate, 105 Pa.Super. 539, 161 A. 578, 579 (1932). “The test of continuity ... [is] whether the services were performed under one continuous contract, whether express or implied, with no definite time fixed for payment, or were rendered under several separate contracts.” Thorpe v. Schoenbrun, 202 Pa.Super. 375, 195 A.2d 870, 872 (1963) (quoting 22 P.L.E., Limitation of Actions § 56); see also 2 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 13:99 (West 2014) (“A continuing contract is distinguishable from instances where services are performed or payments rendered under several separate contracts, whether express or implied, with no definite time fixed for payment”). A simple example is when a doctor or other healthcare professional provides medical care on a continuing basis. E.g., Thorpe, 195 A.2d at 873-74. For a continuing contract, the statute of limitation does not begin to run until breach occurs or the termination of the contractual relationship between the parties. Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.1997) (citing Thorpe, 195 A.2d at 872). More specifically, if a continuing contract is one which does not fix a time" }, { "docid": "23380196", "title": "", "text": "of the alleged promises of defendants.” The court then stated that appellant’s second claim, founded upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel, was “also subject to the six-year statute of limitations, commencing November 16, 1966.” Finally, with respect to appellant’s fraud claim, the court concluded that, “the facts presented clearly indicate that fraud, if any, could have been discovered with reasonable diligence commencing November 16,1966.” Accordingly, since appellant’s complaint had not been filed until November 27, 1972 (six years and eleven days subsequent to November 16, 1966) his claims were held time-barred. Turning first to appellant’s contract claim, the parties agree that the New York statute of limitations governs appellant’s state law claims. See Ragan v. Merchants Transfer and Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530, 69 S.Ct. 1233, 93 L.Ed. 1520 (1949); Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945); Witherow v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 530 F.2d 160, 165 (3rd Cir. 1976). CPLR § 213(2) provides in relevant part that “an action upon a contractual obligation or liability express or implied,” must be commenced within six years. In New York as elsewhere, the general rule is that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that a cause of action for breach accrues, which is ordinarily the time of the breach of the agreement. See, e. g., Crump v. Christy, 28 A.D.2d 1179, 1180, 284 N.Y.S.2d 472 (3d Dep’t 1967); Smith v. McLaughlin, 251 App. Div. 727, 295 N.Y.S. 593 (2d Dep’t 1937); 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, § 13:154. The district court found (and this finding is not disputed by the parties) that Schmidt’s right to enforce the alleged contract arose on November 16, 1966, the date that the strike action against the Bradford Island successfully terminated. In effect, appellant argues that he accepted appellees’ “offer,” as expressed in the letters of May 12, and 26, by engaging in the strike action and satisfactorily completing his performance on November 16. The district court appears to have held that if an enforceable contract did arise on November 16, 1966, it was breached" }, { "docid": "18101495", "title": "", "text": "that he recognized on the penny stocks if he violates or breaches any provision of his employment agreement with Dell. Rodriguez did not violate the PSA, argues Dell, until he refused to return past penny share profits following Dell’s determination that he had breached his employment agreement and demanded that he disgorge those profits. This disagreement thus turns on whether the PSA was breached (1) by Rodriguez’s pre-ter-mination misconduct or (2) by his post-termination refusal to return his penny share profits after Dell demanded the return of those profits. Rodriguez’s duty to reimburse Dell for his penny stock gains is triggered by a “breach” of any provision of his employment agreement. Unlike Dell’s claim under the Separation Agreement, its PSA cause of action does not arise from injury to Dell resulting from Rodriguez’s post-termination conduct; he merely became hable for the return of his profits when he breached his employment agreement. We hold as a matter of law that it was Rodriguez’s breach of the employment agreement itself that violated the PSA, so the statute of limitations began to run on this earlier date. Dell advances two argu ments in its defense which we now address. a. Continuing Contract As noted, the general rule in Texas is that contracts are breached, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when “facts come into existence that authorize a claimant to seek a judicial remedy.” “A cause of action arising out of contractual relations between the parties accrues as soon as the contract or agreement is breached.” “A continuing contract is an agreement where the contemplated performance and payment are divided into several parts or, where the work is continuous and indivisible, the payment for work is made in installments as the work is completed.” On a continuing contract, however, the statute of limitations does not commence to run until the contract is terminated or fully performed. Dell urges that the PSA was a “continuing contract” for which limitations could not begin to run until Dell made the determination that Rodriguez’s conduct was in breach of his obligations and elected to terminate" }, { "docid": "14032984", "title": "", "text": "Mantor, 335 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 124, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669); Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 1064, 1074-75, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 63 P.3d 979 (2003). “If the offending provision can be excised from the contract ... then the remainder of the contract can be enforced.” Mercuro v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 167, 184, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 (2002). The contracts at issue also provide that any unenforceable provisions may be severed. I find that the unconscionable provisions shortening the statute of limitations and prohibiting class actions are collateral to the main purpose of the parties’ contracts and do not so pervade the entirety of the contracts as to render the contracts unenforceable. See McManus v. CIBC World Markets Corp., 109 Cal.App.4th 76, 101-02, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 (2003); Fittante v. Palm Springs Motors, Inc., 105 Cal.App.4th 708, 727, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 659 (2003). 4. Plaintiffs erroneously contend that they should not be compelled to arbitrate claims that arose during those periods when the contracts containing the arbitration provision had either not yet been signed or had lapsed. Where an arbitration provision does not contain a temporal limitation, the parties may be compelled to arbitrate despite the fact that the challenged conduct predates the signing of the agreement. See Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. P’ship. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l Inc., 198 F.3d 88, 99 (2d Cir.1999); Ryan Beck & Co. LLC v. Fakih, 268 F.Supp.2d 210, 224 n. 28 (E.D.N.Y.2003). Likewise, a “party’s contractual duty to arbitrate disputes may survive termination of the agreement giving rise to that duty.” See Ajida Technologies, Inc. v. Roos Instruments, Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 534, 545-46, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 686 (2001); see also Cal. Civ. P.Code § 1280(f); Luden’s Inc. v. Local Union No. 6, 28 F.3d 347, 356 (3rd Cir.1994); Kropfelder v. Snap-on Tools Corp., 859 F.Supp. 952, 955 (D.Md.1994); 2 Williston on Contracts § 6:42 (4th ed. 2004) (“When a contract of employment for a definite time has been made, and the employees services are continued after the expiration of the definite time without objection, the inference is ordinarily that" }, { "docid": "23659302", "title": "", "text": "Seminole Tribe Court rejected Florida’s invitation to prescribe a remedy unsupported by the language and legislative history of IGRA. 517 U.S. at 76, 116 S.Ct. at 1133 (“Nor are we free to rewrite [IGRA’s] statutory scheme in order to approximate what we think Congress might have wanted had it known that § 2710(d)(7) was beyond its authority. If that effort is to be made, it should be made by Congress, not by the federal courts.”). Nor does the fact that judicial interpretation of a statute leads to consequences unforeseen by Congress make a statute “ambiguous” within the meaning of Chevron. See, e.g., Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 567, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2625, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) (rejecting legislative history that might have demonstrated Congress “did not intend” to overrule a case because the statutory language was unambiguous that Congress did in fact overrule the case); In re Abbott Labs., 51 F.3d 524, 528-29 (5th Cir.1995) (applying the plain meaning of a statute even though that construction “may have been a clerical error”); see also Thompson v. Goetzmann, 337 F.3d 489 (5th Cir.2003). In Thompson, the Department of Health & Human Services sought deference for its interpretation of a particular term, as construed in the applicable regulations and in its lawsuit for Medicare reimbursement. The court stated: [W]e reiterate that the courts are not in the business of amending legislation. If the plain language of the MSP statute produces the legislatively unintended result claimed by the government, the government’s complaint should be addressed to Congress, not to the courts, for such revision as Congress may deem warranted, if any. Id. at 493. Court decisions cannot serve to dilate or contract the scope of authority delegated by Congress to an administrative agency because delegation is a matter of legislative intent, not judicial interpretation. Thus, if Congress did not originally intend to confer rulemaking authority, the Secretary cannot synthesize that authority from a judicial opinion. 3. Reasonableness of Secretarial Procedures Under Chevron’s Step Two Even were we to conclude under the Chevron step-one analysis that Seminole Tribe effected" }, { "docid": "4367142", "title": "", "text": "Cir.1988); S.A. Mineracao Da Trindade-Samitri v. Utah Int’l, Inc., 576 F.Supp. 566, 570 (S.D.N.Y.1983), amended 579 F.Supp. 1049 (S.D.N.Y.1984), aff'd 745 F.2d 190 (2nd Cir.1984). The Agreement, however, indicates no such intent. The introductory paragraph sets out the scope of the contract with the words: “I agree with you as follows.” It expressly defines “you” to mean SSC, thereby leaving McGinn, Smith entirely out of the picture. Nor can we accept McGinn, Smith’s argument that the Agreement’s numerous references to it as the “Introducing Firm” evidences an intent to include them as a party. The Agreement refers to McGinn, Smith only where necessary to explain the relationship between SSC and McPheeters. Such references are not sufficient to demonstrate an intent to include McGinn, Smith as a party. McGinn, Smith further argues that SSC, as its agent, has bound it to the Agreement. While the Agreement does specify that SSC acts as McGinn, Smith’s agent, it limits the agency relationship to SSC’s actions in carrying out the securities transactions for McGinn, Smith. For example, paragraph 1 states that “with respect to the account” SSC acts as McGinn, Smith’s agent; similarly, paragraph 12, dealing with “Agency Capacity,” states that “[i]n all transactions for my account” SSC will act as the agent of McGinn, Smith. It is nowhere stated that SSC acts as McGinn, Smith’s agent in entering into the Agreement generally, and we refuse to read such a provision into the document. Third, McGinn, Smith contends that it is entitled to enforce the agreement due to its status as third-party beneficiary. A third-party beneficiary exists, however, “ ‘only if the parties to that contract intended to confer a benefit on him when contracting; it is not enough that some benefit incidental to the performance of the contract may accrue to him.’ ” Kyung Sup Ahn v. Rooney Pace, Inc., 624 F.Supp. 368, 371 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (quoting Vazman, S.A. v. Fidelity International Bank, 418 F.Supp. 1084, 1086 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). SSC and McPheeters, however, entered into the Agreement for their own mutual benefit, not for the purpose of conferring a benefit on McGinn, Smith. McGinn, Smith," }, { "docid": "18322302", "title": "", "text": "associated “value” of IISC. Id. at ¶ 92. III. DISCUSSION A. Breach of Contract (Count I) Defendants claim that IISC’s breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law and because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Defendants’ statute of limitations argument is based on their assumption that IISC’s breach of contract claim accrued by the spring of 1998, when IISC allegedly expected Hartford to have obtained state approvals for the Policy. See Def.’s Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mem. in Supp.”) at 25-26 [Doc. No. 76]. Both parties agree that the statute of limitations for a breach of a written contract in Connecticut is six years, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-576(a), and thus Hartford argues that IISC should have brought this action no later than the spring of 2004. IISC filed its original complaint on September 10, 2004. IISC counters that its breach of contract claim is not based solely on the failure to obtain state approvals; rather, it is based on a sequence of acts, such as alleged lapses of state approvals in 2002 and 2003. Therefore, its claim is not barred because the “continuing course of conduct” exception to the six-year statute of limitations applies. See Plf.’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mem. in Opp.”) at 25-28 [Doc. No. 79]. As the Second Circuit has noted: Connecticut courts ... have recognized that where there is a continuing course of conduct constituting a breach of duty, the limitations period does not begin to run, or is tolled, until that conduct terminates. See Fichera v. Mine Hill Corp., 207 Conn. 204, 209, 541 A.2d 472, 474 (1988) (statute of limitations tolled); Handler v. Remington Arms Co., 144 Conn. 316, 321, 130 A.2d 793, 795 (1957) (statute of limitations does not begin running).... See Skidmore, Owings & Merrill v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 25 Conn.Supp. 76, 93, 197 A.2d 83, 91 (Conn.Super.Ct.1963) (“In considering the application of the Statute of Limitations to this case, one must distinguish between a contract obligation ... providing for a continuing, indivisible" }, { "docid": "15653471", "title": "", "text": "of permanent employment. Admittedly- there was no written contract, so in the beginning the parties must have entered into an oral agreement of indefinite duration by which plaintiff agreed to render service to defendant for a specified consideration. This relation insofar as it concerned plaintiff’s tenure of employment remained from year to year. Either party had the legal right at any time to sever the relationship. Plaintiff’s position appears to be that because his employment continued for 28% years, his suitability for employment elsewhere had been destroyed, and that such tenure constituted a sufficient consideration to support a contract of permanent employment. Stated another way, he contends that the detriment incurred by reason of his prolonged employment is sufficient consideration to support the alleged contract. This contention is a tacit admission that there was no such consideration in the beginning but that at some point over the years there emerged a consideration sufficient to support a contract for permanent employment. This theory overlooks the important fact that at any time during those years either of the parties had a right to terminate plaintiff’s employment, and that he received all the compensation which defendant promised to pay. It is fundamental that such an agreement is terminable at the will of either party. As stated in Hoon v. Harmer Steel Products and Supply Co., 9 Cir. 278 F.2d 427, 433, “* * * it is to be noted that since the agency agreement specified no time duration for the relationship it was an agency at will which could be terminated by either party at any time on due notice to the other party. [Citing cases.]” In C.J.S., Volume 17A, Contracts, page 491, § 404, many cases are cited in support of the statement, “Where under the contract a party may terminate it at his option, and he does so, the contract is at an end and neither party is liable after termination for further transactions thereunder.” We know of no limitation on this right other than that imposed by statute. The National Labor Relations Act, wherein the right to discharge is limited" }, { "docid": "11474", "title": "", "text": "a matter of public policy, each and every entity involved in the chain of distribution is strictly liable to the consumer”) (citing Ferrer Delgado v. Gen. Motors Corp., 100 D.P.R. 246, 257-58 (1971), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005)). Thus, under Puerto Rico law, “all those who take part in the manufacturing and distribution chain of a product are solidarily liable, along with the manufacturer, to the injured party.” Aponte Rivera, 144 D.P.R. at 838 n. 6. Concluding that Panorama, Rainbow and Suzuki are in fact solidarily liable, we must now address Rodriguez’s argument that his 2002 Action, filed against parties solidarily liable with Suzuki, effectively tolled the statute as to his subsequent actions against Suzuki. Though no single ease is entirely controlling, this argument has substantial support in the case law. For example, in Tokyo Marine, plaintiff, the subrogee for an imported automobile dealer (Mitsubishi), brought a tort action under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code against Pérez y Cía., the owner of a storage facility where plaintiffs automobiles were stored, for property damage to Mitsubishi’s vehicles resulting from their storage in Pérez y Cia.’s facility. See 142 F.3d at 2-3. The cause of action, which was filed more than one year after it had accrued, had been dismissed by the district court on grounds that it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Id. at 3. The issue before us was “whether the plaintiff interposed an ‘extrajudicial claim’ ... that successfully interrupted the prescription of the cause of action before the original one-year term expired.” Id. at 4. We held that it did. Id. at 4-5. We reasoned that Tokyo Marine effectively tolled the statute of limitations pursuant to Article 1873 by filing, within the limitations period, an extrajudicial claim letter against Pérez y Cia.’s liability insurer, UAC. Id. We further reasoned that because Pérez y Cía. was solidarily liable with its insurer, under Article 1874, “the timely interruption of prescription as to UAC had a like effect as" }, { "docid": "8548758", "title": "", "text": "of limitations for each of the claims alleged in the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is two years. 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5524. The two-year period begins as soon as the injury is sustáined. Bohus, 950 F.2d at 924. “[L]ack of knowledge, mistake or misunderstanding do not toll the running of the statute of limitations.” Pocono Int’l Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80, 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983). Pursuant to this rule, the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs’ claims began to accrue when the plaintiffs’ cows contracted fluorosis. The Hallowells’ cows began demonstrating symptoms as early as 1972, while the Mests’ cows began demonstrating .symptoms around 1980. The plaintiffs argue, however, that the statute of limitations should be tolled until their cows were actually diagnosed with the disease fluorosis by Krook in 1999. The plaintiffs cite two bases under Pennsylvania law for tolling the statute of limitations: 1) the discovery rule, and 2) Cabot’s alleged fraudulent concealment. We address these arguments separately. 1. Tolling Pursuant to the Discovery Rule a. The Discovery Rule The discovery rule is designed to “ameliorate the sometimes-harsh effects of the statute of limitations,” and it is often applied in medical malpractice and latent disease cases in which the plaintiff is unable to discover his or her injury until several years after the tort occurred. Cathcart v. Keene Indus. Insulation, 324 Pa.Super. 123, 471 A.2d 493, 500 (1984). The discovery rule tolls the accrual of the statute of limitations when a plaintiff is unable, “despite the exercise of due diligence, to know of the injury or its cause.” Pocono Int’l Raceway, 468 A.2d at 471. Under the rule, even if a plaintiff suffers an injury, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until “the plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know, (1) that he has been injured, and (2) that his injury has been caused by another party’s conduct.” Debiec v. Cabot Corp., 352 F.3d 117, 129 (3d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For the statute of limitations to run, a plaintiff need not know the “exact nature” of" }, { "docid": "4242466", "title": "", "text": "community. MacDermid, 2006 WL 1454743, at *2-*5. On October 9, 2003, Mr. MacDermid filed the instant action in federal court, alleging: (1) wrongful death, i.e., negligence on the part of Discover in causing Ms. MacDermid’s suicide; intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on Discover’s actions in attempting to collect the debt purportedly owed it; (3) violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-101 et seq.; (4) fraud; (5) civil extortion; (6) violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; (7) credit defamation/libel; and (8) violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. The parties consented to have all proceedings conducted by a magistrate judge. The above claims were largely dismissed by the magistrate judge upon Discover’s motion to dismiss on the pleadings, but two claims were allowed to proceed to discovery: wrongful death and credit defamation. The magistrate judge subsequently granted Discover’s motion for summary judgment on these two remaining claims, thus disposing of the case. Mr. MacDermid now appeals as follows: first, the 12(b)(6) dismissal in favor of Discover as to (a) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (b) violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, (c) violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and (d) violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act; and second, the summary judgment ruling in favor of Discover on his wrongful death claim. II This Court reviews de novo both the 12(b)(6) and summary judgment rulings of the magistrate judge. Adika v. Smith, 466 F.3d 503, 505 (6th Cir.2006); Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 817 (6th Cir.2005). In reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 688 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). This Court “must accept all facts in the" }, { "docid": "8799493", "title": "", "text": "traffic under Resolution 91-87, there was no continuing violation because Geauga did not commit any invalid acts, as required under Dixon, 928 F.2d at 218, after it enacted the resolution. The resolution, however, barred Kuhnle from using the roads in question on an ongoing basis, and thus actively deprived Kuhnle of its asserted constitutional rights every day that it remained in effect. A law that works an ongoing violation of constitutional rights does not become immunized from legal challenge for all time merely because no one challenges it within two years of its enactment. “[T]he continued enforcement of an unconstitutional statute cannot be insulated by the statute of limitations.” Virginia Hosp. Ass’n v. Baliles, 868 F.2d 653, 663 (4th Cir.1989), aff'd in part on other grounds sub nom Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 110 S.Ct. 2510, 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990); accord National Adver. Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir.1991). Baker v. F & F Inv. Co., 489 F.2d 829 (7th Cir.1973) is instructive here. In Baker, black homeowners sued various federal officials and agencies, claiming that they were charged excessive and discriminatory prices for their homes due to racially discriminatory denials of federal home mortgage insurance. The court held that , the statute of limitations did not begin to run when the plaintiffs signed the' installment contracts for then-houses because “[t]he defendants’ wrongful conduct continued after the installment contracts were signed; injury to plaintiffs continued to accrue after the installment contracts were signed; and, had defendants at any time ceased their wrongful conduct, further injury to plaintiffs could have been avoided.” Id. at 836. As a result, “a new injury was inflicted on plaintiffs each day____ Consequently, a new limitations period began to run each day as to that day’s damage.” Id; see also Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422, 1432-33 (3d Cir.1989) (suspended attorney’s claim that reinstatement procedures were unconstitutional continued to accrue on each day of the alleged wrong). The three Baker criteria are satisfied here. Geauga’s invalid through-truck traffic ban continued after the date of enactment of Resolution 91-87; injury" } ]

[ { "docid": "1170166", "title": "", "text": "BY THE COURT: The parties in interest are the claimants against the res in this forfeiture action. They were left holding rubber checks from Gomez-the-moneychanger when the government froze his El Paso bank account after he failed to report importing over $10,000 across the Juarez-El Paso border. The district court entered judgment ordering forfeiture of the monies on March 31, 1986. On April 22, the monies were rendered unto Caesar — i.e., U.S. Customs. On May 30, the claimants filed their Notice of Appeal, ordering transcripts on July 3. On August 18, the government filed its Motion to Dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The general rule is that the court’s power derives entirely from its control over the defendant res. Pennington v. Fourth National Bank, 243 U.S. 269, 37 S.Ct. 282, 61 L.Ed. 713 (1917). Where no supersedeas is filed or steps taken to supersede judgment and the Marshal surrenders custody, neither the district court nor the appellate court retains in rem jurisdiction. The Manuel Arnus, 141 F.2d 585 (5th Cir.1944); Point Landing, Inc. v. Alabama Dry Dock, 261 F.2d 861 (5th Cir.1958) (Brown, J.) (explaining early 5th Circuit decisions on this point). The Supreme Court, however, created an exception early on, allowing that courts do not lose jurisdiction if the res (vessel) is released accidentally, fraudulently, or improperly. The Rio Grande, 90 U.S. (23 Wall) 458, 23 L.Ed. 158 (1874) (the lower court had dismissed libellants’ claims but granted leave to appeal; the court’s subsequent surrender of the vessel to third parties was held “improper”). The claimants argue they have a right of appeal, which they perfected by timely notice under Rule 4, FRAP. They assert that the government acted in bad faith by transferring the monies to U.S. Customs, first notifying claimants of this action some five months after judgment and 90 days after receiving notice of appeal. These arguments are not persuasive. Although Rule 62(d), FRCP, allows the fil- ¡ng of supersedeas “at or after the time of filing the notice of appeal,” it does not follow that release of the res pursuant to court" } ]

[ { "docid": "5223323", "title": "", "text": "child pornography, Congress compelled producers of sexually explicit images to educate themselves — and others — about the ages of individuals appearing in the productions. The 1988 Act required all persons producing material containing visual depictions made after February 6, 1978, showing actual explicit sexual activity to determine the age of the performers, to maintain records containing this information, and to affix to each copy of the material a statement about where these records could be found. 18 U.S.C. § 2257. In criminal prosecutions the records could not be used, but failure to comply with these recordkeeping rules gave rise to a rebuttable presumption that the performers were under the age of eighteen. 18 U.S.C. § 2257(d)(3), repealed by Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 311, 104 Stat. 4789, 4816 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2257(e)). Producers included not only original creators but also those who duplicated, reproduced or reissued the sexually explicit material. 18 U.S.C. § 2257(g)(3), amended by Pub.L. No. 101- 647, § 311, 104 Stat. 4816 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2257(h)(3)). The 1988 Act also replaced the 1984 Act’s criminal forfeiture provision with a new section, now 18 U.S.C. § 2253, modeled after the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2040, which applies to racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1963) and continuing criminal enterprise offenses (21 U.S.C. § 853). See Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 109 S.Ct. 2646, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989); United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 109 S.Ct. 2657, 105 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989). Section 2253 authorizes the forfeiture, after conviction of a child pornography offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2251A or 2252, of three types of property: materials depicting sexual conduct, gross profits traceable to the offense, and property used to commit the offense. Section 2253 also permits seizure, before trial, of property that would be forfeited upon con viction. The district court is authorized, if the government satisfies certain conditions, to issue an order preserving the property’s availability for forfeiture after trial. 18 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Section" }, { "docid": "13407969", "title": "", "text": "of Criminal Procedure 46(e)(1) to order forfeiture of a bail bond upon a breach of a condition of release. See United States v. Abernathy, 757 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 854, 106 S.Ct. 156, 88 L.Ed.2d 129 (1985). Vaeearo argues that the authority granted by Rule 46(e)(1) has been implicitly overruled by the Bail Reform Act of 1984. Specifically, he argues that the Bail Reform Act establishes the sanctions that a court may impose for violations of a release agreement and the penalties for a defendant’s failure to appear. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3148(a), 3146(d). The district court rejected Vaccaro’s argument. Vaccaro, 719 F.Supp. at 1513-14. See also United States v. Dunn, 781 F.2d 447, 449-50 & n. 10 (5th Cir.1986) (“The Bail Bond Reform Act was never intended to supplant remedies available pursuant to Rule 46.”). We agree with the district court that the forfeiture provisions of Rule 46(e) were not implicitly repealed by the Bail Reform Act. Such repeals are disfavored and should not be inferred unless there is clear and manifest congressional intent, or if in fact there is an irreconcilable conflict. Rembold v. Pacific First Federal Savings, 798 F.2d 1307, 1310 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 905, 107 S.Ct. 2480, 96 L.Ed.2d 373 (1987). The legislative history of the Bail Reform Act does not offer even a hint that Congress intended to limit the district court’s power under Rule 46(e) to fashion conditions of release and to impose forfeiture if those conditions are not satisfied. Section 3148(a) was intended to add to the court’s arsenal of sanctions by providing for revocation of release, detention, and contempt. These powers were added to meet the criticism that there were not adequate sanctions for violation of release conditions. See Senate Report No. 98-225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3217. Any argument that Congress intended to make these new remedies exclusive flies in the face of the expressed legislative intent to add new sanctions. Similarly, we find no indication that Congress intended section 3146(d) to supersede the authority provided by Rule" }, { "docid": "17345974", "title": "", "text": "in rem and determine the government’s title in property as against the whole world. D. Smith, Prosecution and Defense of Forfeiture Cases ¶ 2.03, at 2-10 (1988). Under criminal forfeiture, property cannot be sold off after conviction until notice to other potential third party claimants is had pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Under civil forfeiture, however, because such actions determine plaintiff’s rights to property as against the whole world, notice and process pursuant to Supplemental Rule C is had when the forfeiture proceeding is initiated, allowing all interested parties an opportunity to prove standing and an opportunity to assert their rights in the named properties. Jurisdiction in such in rem actions is based on the res being located in the district court’s territorial jurisdiction, and removal of the res divests this court of appellate jurisdiction. Folkstone Maritime, Ltd. v. CSX Corp., 866 F.2d 955, 957 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. One 1979 Rolls-Royce Corniche Convertible, 770 F.2d 713, 716 (7th Cir.1985). Jurisdiction is retained, however, when property is removed or released accidentally, fraudulently, or improperly from the court’s control. One 1979 Rolls-Royce Corniche Convertible, 770 F.2d at 716-17. Although execution of a forfeiture decree pending appeal may divest this court of appellate jurisdiction, such execution is not stayed absent the filing of a supersedeas bond. Fed.R. Civ.P. 62. Upon motion to the district court, this bond requirement may be waived in that court’s discretion. Dillon v. City of Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904 (7th Cir.1988) (five factors to be considered in district court’s discretion including mov-ant’s precarious financial position). III. Blacon’s assertion that the government failed to comply with the criminal forfeiture statute’s notice and hearing requirements confuses criminal and civil forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) requires that third parties, such as Blacon, not named in the underlying criminal action be given notice and an opportunity to be heard after conviction but before the sale of forfeited properties. This is because the criminal action only determined the government’s rights in the property as against the named criminal defendants. However, because this was a civil action pursuant" }, { "docid": "3987680", "title": "", "text": "was a rebuilder and restorer of salvage vehicles is itself unsupported by any evidence of record in this case. The government has demonstrated every element needed for forfeiture of the defendant property under 18 U.S.C. § 512 and Po-dell’s unsupported allegations (some of which have already been litigated), are not enough to show that a genuine material factual dispute exists which would be outcome-determinative to the issues in this case. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because claimant has failed to bear his burden to prove that the forfeiture does not fall properly within the act, or that the property should be absolved from culpability. Summary judgment is therefore proper as against claimant Po-dell. For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment against claimants Dennis Podell and Tom Potter is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. . § 512. Forfeiture of certain motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts (a) If an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part is removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered, such vehicle or part shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States unless— (1) in the case of a motor vehicle part, such part is attached to a motor vehicle and the owner of such motor vehicle does not know that the identification number has been removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered; (2) such motor vehicle or part has a replacement identification number that— (A) is authorized by the Secretary of Transportation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966; or (B) conforms to applicable State law; (3) such removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is caused by collision or fire or is carried out as described in section 511(b) of this title; or (4)such motor vehicle or part is in the possession or control of a motor vehicle scrap processor who does not know that such identification number was removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered in any manner other than by collision or fire or as described in section 511(b) of this title. (b) All provisions of law relating" }, { "docid": "23032710", "title": "", "text": "prevent for-feitable property from being sold or destroyed during the pendency of proceedings does not necessarily justify continued retention of all vehicles when other means of accomplishing those goals are available. A bond is in some respects a superior form of security because it entails no storage costs or costs of sale. A' second reason offered by the City for maintaining custody of vehicles prior to judgment in forfeiture proceedings is that the City’s in rem jurisdiction over the vehicles depends upon its unbroken possession from seizure to judgment. The Supreme Court has held, however, that possession of a res during the entire course of the proceedings is unnecessary to preserve jurisdiction. See Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 88-89, 113 S.Ct. 554, 121 L.Ed.2d 474 (1992) (“We hold that, in an in rem forfeiture action, the Court of Appeals is not divested of jurisdiction by the prevailing party’s transfer of the res from the district.”). Noting that the in rem rules had their origin in admiralty law, where a court established its jurisdiction by seizure, the Supreme Court found that “the court must have actual or constructive control of the res when an in rem forfeiture is initiated.” Id. at 87, 113 S.Ct. 554 (emphasis added); cf. The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 1, 10, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827) (Story, J.) (‘Whenever a stipulation [bond] is taken in an admiralty suit, for the property subjected to legal process and condemna1 tion, the stipulation is deemed a mere substitute for the thing itself, and the stipu-lators liable to the exercise of all those authorities on the part of the Court, which it could properly exercise if the thing itself were still in its custody.”). The final interest adduced by the City is the need to prevent the offending res — here, the seized vehicle — from being used as an instrumentality in future acts of driving while intoxicated. Of course, at the time of initial seizure and retention the “offending res ” is only an allegedly offending res, inasmuch as the owner’s or owner-arrestee’s misconduct" }, { "docid": "2026303", "title": "", "text": "section 511 to broadly proscribe all intentional removal or alteration of VIN’s is also evidenced by the structure of the statute. Subsection (b), which exempts large groups of persons who may have legitimate need to remove a VIN, would be unnecessary if subsection (a) only reached those who removed VIN’s with the specific intent to violate the law. If Congress had intended 511(a) to require specific intent, it certainly could have added an appropriate phrase, such as “for an unlawful purpose,” or some similar qualifying phrase, much as it qualified the exceptions in subsection (b)(1). Instead, it drafted a broad statute and then carved specific exceptions from it. Additionally, the legislative history to section 511 indicates that Congress intended to broadly prohibit the deliberate removal of VIN’s except as necessary for repair in order to create powerful and “much-needed prosecutory tools” to combat auto theft. Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, H.R.Rep. No. 98-1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4628, 4628-29. Congress also sought to build into the statute “safeguards to protect the innocent,” and expressly relied on prosecutors not to abuse the breadth of the language. See id. at 4629, 4650 (“[i]t is intended that law enforcement officials use their prosecu-torial discretion” and disregard violations not connected to criminal activity). Although the primary purpose of the Motor Vehicle Theft Act, of which section 511 is a part, is to prosecute “chop shops,” see id. at 4630-31, if individuals were free to remove the VIN from their own vehicles, this goal would be hindered. Enochs makes two arguments. First, he claims that Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985), and United States v. Marvin, 687 F.2d 1221 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1081, 103 S.Ct. 1768, 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983), require that a defendant must act with specific intent, knowing he is violating the law, to violate section 511(a). Liparota and Marvin dealt with the interpretation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b), which punishes “whoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or possesses [food stamps]" }, { "docid": "2026302", "title": "", "text": "removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair; and (C) a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law. We look first to the language of the statute. “Whoever knowingly removes” a VIN “shall be fined * * * or imprisoned * * *.” 18 U.S.C. § 511(a). We find this language clear on its face. To act knowingly” is to act “voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason.” Milentz v. United States, 446 F.2d 111, 114 n. 4 (8th Cir.1971). See Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Eighth Circuit § 3.14 (1985). Section 511 clearly prohibits the intentional removal or alteration of VIN’s, save in certain specified circumstances, and when “Congress has explicitly spelled out the required mental state,” we must adhere to it. United States v. Gantos, 817 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 175, 98 L.Ed.2d 128 (1987). The fact that Congress intended section 511 to broadly proscribe all intentional removal or alteration of VIN’s is also evidenced by the structure of the statute. Subsection (b), which exempts large groups of persons who may have legitimate need to remove a VIN, would be unnecessary if subsection (a) only reached those who removed VIN’s with the specific intent to violate the law. If Congress had intended 511(a) to require specific intent, it certainly could have added an appropriate phrase, such as “for an unlawful purpose,” or some similar qualifying phrase, much as it qualified the exceptions in subsection (b)(1). Instead, it drafted a broad statute and then carved specific exceptions from it. Additionally, the legislative history to section 511 indicates that Congress intended to broadly prohibit the deliberate removal of VIN’s except as necessary for repair in order to create powerful and “much-needed prosecutory tools” to combat auto theft. Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, H.R.Rep. No. 98-1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4628, 4628-29. Congress also sought to build" }, { "docid": "21136352", "title": "", "text": "PENGWIN and its fishing rights because of deficiencies in the notice and inadequacy of price. We review a district court’s order confirming a U.S. Marshal’s sale for an abuse of discretion. See Ghezzi v. Foss Launch & Tug Co., 321 F.2d 421, 425 (9th Cir.1963). A sale may be set aside on a showing of (1) fraud on the part of the purchaser, the officer conducting the sale, or any other person connected with the. sale; (2) collusion; or (3) inadequacy of price, provided the inadequacy is gross and is such as amounts to either fraud or unfairness. See id. As a preliminary matter, the Bank contends that we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue since FVO failed to move for a stay of execution or file a supersede-as bond before the vessel left control of the district court. However, continuous control of the res is not required in order for the district court or this court to retain jurisdiction. See Republic Nat’l Bank v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 93, 113 S.Ct. 554, 121 L.Ed.2d 474 (1992) (“No settled rule requires continuous control of the res for appellate jurisdiction in an in rem forfeiture proceeding.”); see also Stevedoring Servs. v. Ancora Transp., N.V., 59 F.3d 879, 882 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that “[w]hile a district court needs jurisdiction over a res to initiate an in rem action, it does not need to maintain continuous control of the res to maintain jurisdiction of the action,” and reading Republic National Bank as eliminating any requirement that a party seeking to institute a maritime attachment obtain a stay or post a supersedeas bond in order to preserve the district court’s jurisdiction over garnished funds while the party appeals the release of the funds). On the merits, FVO contends that the PENGWIN was sold for an amount significantly below its market value. Based on an October 1991 valuation, FVO claims that the PENGWIN had an estimated market value of $3,500,000, not including the value of the fishing permits, and that based on the declaration of Kinda Kozak, a fishery consultant, the fishing rights were" }, { "docid": "10022880", "title": "", "text": "to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.... 21 U.S.C. § 853(a) (1994). This statute contemplates both “property obtained” and “property used” forfeitures; that is, it allows the government to confiscate a criminal defendant’s property where the property either is the fruit of drug-related criminal activity or has been used to further drug-related criminal activity. The legislative history of section 853 is significant. Congress enacted the statute as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. See Act of Oct. 12,1984, Pub.L. No. 98-473, 1984 U.S.C.O.A.N. (98 Stat. 1837). Congress expressed high hopes for this legislation, intending it as a vehicle “to make major comprehensive improvements to the Federal criminal laws.” S.Rep. No. 98-225, at 1 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3184. To bolster federal crime prevention efforts, Congress “enhance[d] the use of forfeiture, and, in particular, the sanction of criminal forfeiture, as a law enforcement tool in combating two of the most serious crime problems facing the country: racketeering and drug trafficking.” Id. at 3374. To implement these sentiments, Congress expanded the preexisting Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) forfeiture provision, embodied in 18 U.S.C. § 1963, and simultaneously created the drug-related forfeiture provision now codified in section 853. Congress took pains to note that “[t]he provisions of this new criminal forfeiture statute for major drug offenses closely parallel those of the [amended] RICO forfeiture provisions_” Id. at 3381. Since then, courts consistently have construed the RICO forfeiture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1963, and the statute governing drug-related forfeitures, 21 U.S.C. § 853, in pari passu. See United States v. McHan, 101 F.3d 1027, 1042 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 2468, 138 L.Ed.2d 223 (1997); United States v. Libretti, 38 F.3d 523, 528, n. 6 (10th Cir.1994), aff'd, -U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 356, 133 L.Ed.2d 271 (1995); United States v. Bissell, 866 F.2d 1343, 1348 n. 3 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. Benevento, 663 F.Supp. 1115, 1118 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), aff'd per curiam, 836 F.2d 129 (2d Cir.1988). We join these courts in holding that case law under 18 U.S.C. §" }, { "docid": "17345975", "title": "", "text": "improperly from the court’s control. One 1979 Rolls-Royce Corniche Convertible, 770 F.2d at 716-17. Although execution of a forfeiture decree pending appeal may divest this court of appellate jurisdiction, such execution is not stayed absent the filing of a supersedeas bond. Fed.R. Civ.P. 62. Upon motion to the district court, this bond requirement may be waived in that court’s discretion. Dillon v. City of Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904 (7th Cir.1988) (five factors to be considered in district court’s discretion including mov-ant’s precarious financial position). III. Blacon’s assertion that the government failed to comply with the criminal forfeiture statute’s notice and hearing requirements confuses criminal and civil forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) requires that third parties, such as Blacon, not named in the underlying criminal action be given notice and an opportunity to be heard after conviction but before the sale of forfeited properties. This is because the criminal action only determined the government’s rights in the property as against the named criminal defendants. However, because this was a civil action pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881, it determined the government’s rights in the property as against the whole world; notice to all potentially interested third parties was had at the outset of the forfeiture proceedings, and no second round of notice and service is required before sale of the defendant properties. Where the government has chosen to pursue its parallel, non-exclusive remedies of both civil and criminal forfeiture, we decline to require compliance with an artificial hybrid of process, not imposed by the statutory scheme. See H.R.Rep. No. 1030, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 191-97, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3182, 3374-80; Smith, 112.03, at 2-10 (“the proceeding in rem stands independent of, and wholly unaffect ed by any criminal proceeding in person-am.”) (citing The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1, 14-15, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827)). Griffin, McNulty, and Blacon were all on notice of this civil action and all entered too late. The district court entered default judgments against them. Griffin and Blacon appealed these judgments, but failed to file a bond staying the" }, { "docid": "2176210", "title": "", "text": "589, 596 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (“Rule E(4)(f) allows a motion for vacatur of attachment, but does not provide for dismissal.”). Counsel for S & P, however, suggested at oral argument that dismissal of the complaint automatically flows from vacatur of the Supplemental Rule B attachment because, absent Supplemental Rule B attachment, the court lacks jurisdiction over S & P. Oral Argument Audio Recording at 33:30. This argument fails as a matter of law. In Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 113 S.Ct. 554, 121 L.Ed.2d 474 (1992), the Supreme Court rejected the notion that, in an in rem civil forfeiture action, the district court’s continued control of the res is necessary for the court to retain jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings. See id. at 84, 113 S.Ct. 554. In that case, following a civil forfeiture proceeding in which the Government prevailed, the United States Marshal transferred the res (the proceeds of a sale of certain assets) from his control to the United States Treasury. Id. at 83, 113 S.Ct. 554. Although the claimant timely appealed from the judgment against it, the claimant did not move to stay execution of the judgment or post a supersedeas bond. Once the assets were removed from the court’s control, the Government sought to dismiss the claimant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, but the Supreme Court reversed. After a lengthy discussion of both maritime and forfeiture cases, the Supreme Court held that “[s]tasis is not a general prerequisite to the maintenance of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the person survives a change in circumstances.” Id. at 88, 113 S.Ct. 554. The seizure of the res, the Court concluded, “and the publication of the monition or invitation to appear, is regarded as equivalent to the particular service of process in the courts of law and equity.” Id. at 85, 113 S.Ct. 554. In sum, while control over the res is a prerequisite to initiation of the in rem action, the court does not need to continuously possess the res to maintain jurisdiction once established." }, { "docid": "23032729", "title": "", "text": "88 L.Ed.2d 587 (1986), in declaring that \" 'the forfeiture proceeding, without more, provides the postseizure hearing required by due process.’ ” Krimstock, 2000 WL 1702035, at *5. The Supreme Court in Von Neumann, however, was addressing the different issue of what process was due in proceedings for remission or mitigation under U.S. customs laws when a claimant could challenge the seizure of his or her property in judicial forfeiture proceedings. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 610. We note that under the customs laws applicable in Von Neumann, the claimant could file a motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) for return of the seized vehicle if he or she \"believe[d] the initial seizure was improper,” id. at 244 n. 3, 106 S.Ct. 610, and that, in the case of Von Neumann, Customs released the claimant’s vehicle after he had posted a bond pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1614, id. at 246, 106 S.Ct. 610. . The 25-day rule under 38-A R.C.N.Y. § 12-3 6(a) represents a legislative expansion of the time period originally ordered in McClendon v. Rosetti, 369 F.Supp. 1391, 1394 (S.D.N.Y.1974), which required the Property Clerk to initiate a forfeiture proceeding within 10 days after a claimant's timely demand. . In contrast, while the statute here requires only that a forfeiture proceeding be initiated within 25 days after a claim is made, the California controlled substances act requires that, once a person claiming an interest in seized property files a verified claim, \"the [civil] forfeiture proceeding shall be set for hearing on a day not less than 30 days therefrom, and the proceeding shall have priority over other civil cases.\" Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11488.5(c)(1) (emphasis added). Similarly, the civil forfeiture provision of the Wisconsin controlled substances act states that \"the action shall be set for hearing within 60 days of the service of the answer but may be continued for cause or upon stipulation of the parties.” Wis. Stat. § 961.555(2)(b); see also State v. Rosen, 72 Wis.2d 200, 240 N.W.2d 168, 171-72 (1976) (holding that the 60-day rule under the Wisconsin controlled substances" }, { "docid": "19183187", "title": "", "text": "Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 511 and 512 were passed to deter and punish those who steal cars in order to resell them whole or disassemble them and sell the component parts (“chop shop operations”). Section 511(a) provides that “[w]hoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor Vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” Clearly, § 511 was intended to be applied only to those who knowingly violated the Act. See Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, House Report No. 98-1087, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm. News 4628, 4649-50. The legislative history, however, does not shed any light on the interpretation of § 512 except to note that that section was considered and passed along with § 511. “[T]he basic nature of a forfeiture proceeding is in rem, reflecting the legal fiction that the [property] ... is guilty of facilitating [the crime or itself the fruit of the criminal enterprise].” United States v. One Mercedes-Benz 380, 604 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (S.D.N.Y.1974), affd without opinion, 762 F.2d 991 (2d Cir.1985). Section 512 is closely analogous to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4). Courts which have interpreted the latter statute uniformly hold that, once the Act has been shown to have been violated, “it is the claimant’s burden to prove that the forfeiture does not fall properly within the Act.” United States v. One 1976 Buick Skylark, 453 F.Supp. 639, 642 (D.Colo.1978); One Mercedes-Benz 380, 604 F.Supp. at 1311-12 (construing 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4); “Once the Government has established probable cause for seizure of the vehicle, the burden falls upon the claimant to show that the vehicle should be absolved from culpability, or establish that forfeiture is not properly within the forfeiture statute.”). Cf United States v. One 1978 Chrysler LeBaron, 531 F.Supp. 32, 34 (E.D.N.Y.1981) (construing 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4)); United States v. One 1976 Lincoln Mark IV, 462 F.Supp. 1383, 1388 (W.D.Pa.1979) (construing 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4)). That the same burden should likewise be placed on claimant is particularly" }, { "docid": "3987668", "title": "", "text": "intended to be applied only to those who knowingly violated the Act. See Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, House Report No. 98-1087, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 4628, 4649-50. The legislative history, however, does not shed any light on the interpretations of § 512 except to note that that section was considered and passed along with § 511. “[Tjhe basic nature of a forfeiture proceeding is in rent, reflecting the legal fiction that the [property] ... is guilty of facilitating [the crime or itself the fruit of the criminal enterprise].” United States v. One Mercedes-Benz 380, 604 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd without opinion, 762 F.2d 991 (2d Cir.1985). Section 512 is closely analogous to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4). Courts which have interpreted the latter statute uniformly hold that, once the Act has been shown to have been violated, “it is the claimant’s burden to prove that the forfeiture does not fall properly within the Act.” United States v. One 1976 Buick Skylark, 453 F.Supp. 639, 642 (D.Colo.1978); One Mercedes-Benz 380, 604 F.Supp. at 1311-12 (construing 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4); “Once the Government has established probable cause for seizure of the vehicle, the burden falls upon the claimant to show that the vehicle should be absolved from culpability, or establish that forfeiture is not properly within the forfeiture statute.”). Cf. United States v. One 1978 Chrysler LeBaron, 531 F.Supp. 32, 34 (E.D.N.Y.1981) (construing 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4)). That the same burden should likewise be placed on claimant is particularly apparent by comparing the language used in § 511 with the language used in § 512. The former specifically provides that the government must prove a knowing violation of the Act; the latter does not. Had Congress intended that the government was obliged to prove a knowing violation before § 512 could be invoked, § 512 would have been cast exactly in the same language as § 511. The law of judicial forfeiture as described above must now be applied to plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion. Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions," }, { "docid": "3987676", "title": "", "text": "an attorney, nor has he even moved this court to grant an enlargement of time to amend the claim. Further, he has never responded to the summary judgment motion. In fact, the letter is the only document Potter has filed in this case. This court must assume Potter simply has no interest in pursuing the claim. A second important factor which was stressed in U.S. Currency, $103,387.27, supra, is prejudice to the government. Giving Potter another opportunity to file a procedurally correct claim would prejudice the government because every day this cause drags on, plaintiffs expenses grow. Plaintiff is currently incurring debts of over $500.00 per month on storage of the defendant property. After evaluating the essential factors, this court finds that summary judgment for plaintiff against Tom Potter’s claim for Potter’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Supp. Rule C(6), Fed. R.Civ.P., is proper and is hereby GRANTED. B. Podell’s Claim As noted in U.S. v. One 1978 Mack Glider Kit Tractor, supra, once the Act (18 U.S.C. § 511) has been shown to have been violated, it is the claimant’s burden to prove that the forfeiture proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 512 does not fall properly within the Act. This court is wholly aware of the full and complete record in South Bend Criminal Number 86-90, United States of America v. Dennis Podell, and now takes full judicial notice thereof. Podell was convicted by a jury in this court on July 7, 1987, of, among other things, eleven counts of knowingly altering and/or removing vehicle identification numbers (VIN) num bers, thereby violating 18 U.S.C. § 511. He now is claiming that the government did not have probable cause to seize the defendant property. He also claims that the property is not “contraband” as the government claims, but is his exclusive personal property. He alleges that the property does not fall within the forfeiture statute because he was a rebuilder and restorer of salvaged vehicles and therefore, he is excepted under 18 U.S.C. § 511(b)(1) and § 511(b)(2)(A) as one who is permitted to knowingly alter and/or" }, { "docid": "3987667", "title": "", "text": "(S.D.N.Y.1968) (discussing historical connection between actions in forfeiture and admiralty law). Therefore, the procedural requirements of Supp. Rule C(6), Fed. R.Civ.P., must be met by potential claimants in a § 512 forfeiture proceeding. This court is aware of only one published opinion which has attempted an interpretation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 512, the statute on which plaintiff has based its cause of action. The case is United States v. One 1978 Mack Glider Kit Tractor, 653 F.Supp. 964 (D.Conn.1987), written by Judge Dorsey. He noted that the case was one of first impression and proceeded to write: Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 511 and 512 were passed to deter and punish those who steal cars in order to resell them whole or disassemble them and sell the component parts (“chop shop operations”). Section 511(a) provides that “[wjhoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,-000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” Clearly, § 511 was intended to be applied only to those who knowingly violated the Act. See Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, House Report No. 98-1087, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 4628, 4649-50. The legislative history, however, does not shed any light on the interpretations of § 512 except to note that that section was considered and passed along with § 511. “[Tjhe basic nature of a forfeiture proceeding is in rent, reflecting the legal fiction that the [property] ... is guilty of facilitating [the crime or itself the fruit of the criminal enterprise].” United States v. One Mercedes-Benz 380, 604 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd without opinion, 762 F.2d 991 (2d Cir.1985). Section 512 is closely analogous to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4). Courts which have interpreted the latter statute uniformly hold that, once the Act has been shown to have been violated, “it is the claimant’s burden to prove that the forfeiture does not fall properly within the Act.” United States v. One 1976 Buick Skylark, 453 F.Supp. 639, 642 (D.Colo.1978);" }, { "docid": "19183186", "title": "", "text": "RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS DORSEY, District Judge. Claimant, Joseph Swirsky, moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint of forfeiture. This action was brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 512(a), which provides, in relevant part: If an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part is removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered, such vehicle or part shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States unless— (1) in the case of a motor vehicle part, such part is attached to a motor vehicle and the owner of such motor vehicle does not know that the identification number has been removed, obliterated, tampered with or altered; ____ Claimant argues that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that plaintiff has not alleged that claimant knew of the alleged tampering. Plaintiff argues that claimant must allege lack of knowledge as a defense. Both parties have relied extensively on the legislative history and general principles of statutory construction as this is a case of first impression with regard to the interpretation of this statute. Discussion Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 511 and 512 were passed to deter and punish those who steal cars in order to resell them whole or disassemble them and sell the component parts (“chop shop operations”). Section 511(a) provides that “[w]hoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor Vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” Clearly, § 511 was intended to be applied only to those who knowingly violated the Act. See Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, House Report No. 98-1087, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm. News 4628, 4649-50. The legislative history, however, does not shed any light on the interpretation of § 512 except to note that that section was considered and passed along with § 511. “[T]he basic nature of a forfeiture proceeding is in rem, reflecting the legal fiction that the [property] ... is guilty of facilitating [the crime or itself the fruit of the criminal enterprise].” United States" }, { "docid": "23032709", "title": "", "text": "vehicles have already been seized and are in the hands of the police. Just as with real property seized by the government in forfeiture proceedings, there is no danger that these vehicles will abscond. See James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. at 56-57, 114 S.Ct. 492 (discussing the need for seizure of movable property). Plaintiffs seek a determination only of whether continued retention of their vehicles by the City is valid and justified. Continued retention may be unjustified when other means of restraint would accomplish the City’s goals. See id. at 59, 114 S.Ct. 492 (“In the usual case, the Government ... has various means, short of seizure, to protect its legitimate interests” in forfeitable property). To ensure that the City’s interest in forfeitable vehicles is protected, claimants could post bonds, or a court could issue a restraining order to prohibit the sale or destruction of the vehicle. See id. at 58-59, 114 S.Ct. 492 (suggesting judicial means to ensure that real property is not sold or destroyed pendente lite ). The need to prevent for-feitable property from being sold or destroyed during the pendency of proceedings does not necessarily justify continued retention of all vehicles when other means of accomplishing those goals are available. A bond is in some respects a superior form of security because it entails no storage costs or costs of sale. A' second reason offered by the City for maintaining custody of vehicles prior to judgment in forfeiture proceedings is that the City’s in rem jurisdiction over the vehicles depends upon its unbroken possession from seizure to judgment. The Supreme Court has held, however, that possession of a res during the entire course of the proceedings is unnecessary to preserve jurisdiction. See Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 88-89, 113 S.Ct. 554, 121 L.Ed.2d 474 (1992) (“We hold that, in an in rem forfeiture action, the Court of Appeals is not divested of jurisdiction by the prevailing party’s transfer of the res from the district.”). Noting that the in rem rules had their origin in admiralty law, where a" }, { "docid": "3987666", "title": "", "text": "executed or within such additional time as may be allowed by the court, and must file an answer within twenty days after the filing of the claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P., Supp. Rule C(6). The claim “shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation, and shall state the interest in the property by virtue of which the claimant demands its restitution and the right to defend the action.” Id. Once the procedural requirements of Rule C(6) are met, a claimant has standing to defend the forfeiture. Id. at 212-213. The Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims specifically apply to “the procedure in statutory condemnation proceedings analogous to maritime actions in rem, whether within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction or not.” Supp. Rule A, Fed.R. Civ.P. See United States v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $103,387.27, 863 F.2d 555, 558 n. 4 (7th Cir.1988) citing United States v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $2,857.00, 754 F.2d 208, 210 n. 2 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. $5,372.85 U.S. Coin and Currency, 283 F.Supp. 904, 905-06 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (discussing historical connection between actions in forfeiture and admiralty law). Therefore, the procedural requirements of Supp. Rule C(6), Fed. R.Civ.P., must be met by potential claimants in a § 512 forfeiture proceeding. This court is aware of only one published opinion which has attempted an interpretation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 512, the statute on which plaintiff has based its cause of action. The case is United States v. One 1978 Mack Glider Kit Tractor, 653 F.Supp. 964 (D.Conn.1987), written by Judge Dorsey. He noted that the case was one of first impression and proceeded to write: Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 511 and 512 were passed to deter and punish those who steal cars in order to resell them whole or disassemble them and sell the component parts (“chop shop operations”). Section 511(a) provides that “[wjhoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,-000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” Clearly, § 511 was" }, { "docid": "5140480", "title": "", "text": "sec. 511, 84 Stat. 1236, 1276-78 (1970), to, in part, \"strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse, ... through providing more effective means for law enforcement aspects of drug abuse prevention and control.” H.R.Rep. No. 1444, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 1, reprinted in 1970 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4566, 4566-68. . Enacted as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-473, Title III (the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1983), secs. 301-323, 98 Stat. 1976, 2040-57 (1984), \"to enhance the use of forfeiture, and, in particular, the sanction of criminal forfeiture, as a law enforcement tool in combatting ... racketeering and drug trafficking.” S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 191, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3182, 3374. . For discussion of the constitutionality of the civil forfeiture provisions of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, see Premises Known As 2639 Meetinghouse Rd., 633 F.Supp. at 993-94 (E.D.Pa.1986) (overview-ing the constitutional history of both civil and criminal forfeiture in the United States before upholding the constitutionality of the term \"proceeds traceable” in 21 U.S.C. sec. 881(a)(6) as not unconstitutionally vague). For treatment of the constitutionality of the procedural rules applied to sec. 881 forfeiture actions, see cases collected at United States v. $38,000.00 in United States Currency, 816 F.2d 1538, 1540 n. 1 (11th Cir.1987). For a decision holding unconstitutional certain portions of the criminal forfeiture provisions of the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1983, see United States v. Crozier, 777 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.1985). But see United States v. Draine, 637 F.Supp. 482 (S.D.Ala.1986) (limiting Crozier to its facts), aff’d on other grounds, 811 F.2d 1419 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied sub nom. Draine v. United States, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 94, 98 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987). .Section 881(a)(6) provides: (а) Property subject The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them: (б) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in" } ]

[ { "docid": "22673344", "title": "", "text": "evidentiary support for the conclusion that the transfer affects a constitutionally protected interest in liberty. But the regulations do not create that interest. Even in their absence due process safeguards would be required when an inmate’s liberty is further curtailed by a transfer into administrative custody that is the functional equivalent of punitive isolation. II The “touchstone of due process,” as we pointed out in Wolff v. McDonnell, is “protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.” 418 U. S., at 558. Pennsylvania may not arbitrarily place a prisoner in administrative segregation. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U. S. 5, 9 (1980). The majority agrees with this general proposition, but I believe its standards guarding against arbitrariness fall short of what the Constitution requires. First, the majority declares that the Constitution is satisfied by an initial proceeding with minimal participation by the inmate who is being transferred into administrative custody. According to the Court: “An inmate must merely receive some notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views to the prison official charged with deciding whether to transfer him to administrative segregation. Ordinarily a written statement by the inmate will accomplish this purpose, although prison administrators may find it more useful to permit oral presentations in cases where they believe a written statement would be ineffective.” Ante, at 476. Applying this standard, it declares that the proceeding on December 8, 1979, “plainly satisfied the due process requirements for continued confinement of Helms pending the outcome of the investigation,” ante, at 477, even though the record does not clearly show whether respondent was present at the Hearing Committee review. I agree with the Court that the Constitution does not require a hearing with all of the procedural safeguards set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell when prison officials initially decide to segregate an inmate to safeguard institutional security or to conduct an investigation of an unresolved misconduct charge. But unlike the majority, I believe that due process does require that the inmate be given the opportunity to present his views in person to the reviewing officials. As" } ]

[ { "docid": "22161937", "title": "", "text": "the hearing process itself, and carefifily delineates the allowable punishment for each class of offense. Code of Penal Discipline, Notice, Offenses § C, Summary Proceedings and Hearings § B, Disciplinary Action § C. In light of the requirement that notice and hearing be provided before punishment can be imposed, we conclude that Nevada law creates a liberty interest for inmates to remain free from arbitrary placement into disciplinary segregation. Next, - we must determine whether Walker was afforded sufficient process before being confined in disciplinary segregation. Conner, at 1410. “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution and the fuñ panoply of rights due a defendant -in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The Supreme Court in Wolff spelled out the minimum procedural protections that the Due Process Clause requires when substantial liberty interests are being deprived in the prison setting; we have subsequently held-that the Wolff requirements must be met in the disciplinary segregation context. See Conner, at 1410-1412; see also Wolff, 418 U.S. at-571-72 n. 19, 94 S.Ct. at 2982 n. 19 (due process requires the same procedural protection when solitary confinement is at issue). Here, the protections provided to inmates by the Nevada Department of Prisons Code of Penal Discipline are more extensive than those mandated by Wolff. We have never expressly considered whether the Due Process Clause requires the prison to comply with its own, more generous procedures once they are established. See Conner, at 1410 (assuming arguendo that state administrative regulations supply additional process due to inmates and that inmates may sue in federal court to enforce such regulations); compare id. with Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir.1989) (prison’s failure to meet its own guideline requiring a hearing to be held within eight days of charge would not alone constitute denial of due process). The First Circuit in Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1984), however, held that “if state procedures rise above the floor set by the due process clause, a state could" }, { "docid": "3314069", "title": "", "text": "to place a prisoner in temporary lock-up was confided to the subjective judgment of the prison officials, regardless of whether objective criteria had been met. Gilbert could not be placed in disciplinary confinement without a finding that he had violated a definite standard. Since the incremental deprivation of liberty here is slight (no more than seven days in segregation—and the “liberty” taken away for that period is, at best, the run of the prison), the procedural protections required by due process are correspondingly slight. But they include a right to a hearing (albeit not an elaborate one) before the punishment is imposed, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2978-82, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Abdul-Wadood v. Duckworth, 860 F.2d 280, 284 (7th Cir.1988); McCollum v. Miller, 695 F.2d 1044 (7th Cir.1982), and here the hearing came afterward. It is possible that the plaintiff’s confinement in segregation before the hearing was administrative rather than disciplinary, pursuant to 20 Ill.Admin.Code § 540.40, which sensibly permits a prisoner to be segregated from his fellows temporarily when his safety or that of other prisoners or the guards so requires. In that event, even if those regulations, too, were thought to create an interest protectable by the due process clause (a question we need not decide), a predeprivation hearing was not required; a postdeprivation hearing, which the plaintiff did receive, would suffice, Hewitt v. Helms, supra, 459 U.S. at 476-77 and n. 8, 103 S.Ct. at 873-74 and n. 8, by analogy to other classes of case in which a postdeprivation hearing is held to be constitutionally sufficient if a predepri-vation hearing is infeasible. But the defendants do not make this argument and it is therefore waived. Wilson v. O’Leary, 895 F.2d 378, 384 (7th Cir.1990); see also Thomas v. Indiana, 910 F.2d 1413, 1415 (7th Cir.1990). The plaintiff’s other claims, as explained in the unpublished order, have no merit. But there was a violation of due process, and the case must be returned to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this determination. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND" }, { "docid": "17561619", "title": "", "text": "of due process at the Tanner hearing. But if Scott cannot establish that he had a protected liberty interest in being free from the punishment that was imposed upon him as a result of that hearing, he has no due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 318 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam,). The district court concluded that Scott had not demonstrated that he had been deprived of a liberty interest under Sandin by his 60-day confinement in the A-2 SHU. Scott asserts several errors in the district court’s analysis. I Scott claims that in deciding whether a liberty interest was implicated in his disciplinary hearing, the district court should have considered the maximum potential penalty he faced—ie., unlimited SHU confinement—rather than the actual punishment imposed, 60-day confinement in A-2 SHU. We disagree. This is an issue of first impression. Prior to Sandin, the Supreme Court looked to the language of state statutes and regulations to determine if the state had created a liberty interest in being free from certain types of punishment. Under this approach, the Court found a liberty interest if the state had used “mandatory language” in the statute or regulation, thereby limiting the state official’s discretion. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 479-81, 115 S.Ct. at 2298-99. Sandin recognized that this approach had “led to the involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day management of prisons” and interfered with the “appropriate deference and flexibility” that should be accorded to state officials in managing the prison environment. Id. at 482, 115 S.Ct. at 2299. The Court held that, in the future, liberty interests “will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which ... imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484, 115 S.Ct. at 2300 (emphasis added). Conner’s sentence of 30 days of disciplinary segregation in SHU did not rise to this standard because “Conner’s confinement did not exceed similar, but totally discretionary confinement in either duration or degree of restriction,” and lockdown time was significant even for the general prison population." }, { "docid": "23168353", "title": "", "text": "a pre-trial detainee for a non-punitive reason does not require such procedures. The Hewitt court also held, however, that states can create constitutionally protected liberty interests by enacting statutes or regulations that use mandatory language in establishing procedures for prison administration. Id. at 471-72, 103 S.Ct. at 871-72; see Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F.2d 1581, 1582 (7th Cir.1991) (Illinois regulations regarding prison disciplinary segregation create a right to a pre-imposition hearing). Zarnes asserts that the Illinois County Jail Standards pertaining to discipline, 20 IL ADC § 710.16, establish just such a liberty interest because they are couched in compulsory terms. Therefore, Zarnes continues, the state had to provide her with due process before putting her into segregation following her verbal dispute. We do not understand Zarnes’s reliance on Hewitt and the language of § 710.16 because as a pre-trial detainee, she could “not be punished without due process regardless of state regulations.” Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 531 n. 4 (7th Cir.1995). Moreover, Rhodes proved that he assigned Zarnes to segregation for a non-punitive reason and thus § 710.16 is inapplicable—a different regulation governs non-diseiplinary segregation of people housed in county jails. See 20 IL ADC § 710.70 (covering separation of prisoners including for administrative reasons). While this regulation could also conceivably grant Zarnes a protected right to stay out of segregation, Hewitt’s analysis may no longer be applicable to that determination. See Sandin v. Conner, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (holding that courts should turn their focus from looking solely at the language of state regulations to also considering the type of interest at stake, but noting that its holding may be limited to cases involving convicted prisoners). In any event, regardless of Sandin’s effect, § 710.70 does not contain any mandatory language relevant to this issue. Thus, the district court properly held that Rhodes did not deprive Zarnes of her right to due process by placing her in segregation. Finally, we note that we appointed counsel to represent Zarnes on appeal. While we have found that the district court did not abuse" }, { "docid": "3314067", "title": "", "text": "POSNER, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal by a state prisoner in a civil rights case. All but one issue we decide in an unpublished order released today. The issue we think worthy of decision by a published opinion is whether the regulations of the Illinois prison system governing minor disciplinary infractions (punishable by confinement in segregation for no moré than seven days) confer a right classifiable as a form of “liberty” within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If so, the deprivation of this right is permissible only if the prisoner has received procedural safeguards designed to ensure (so far as is possible and reasonable) that he is not deprived of the right through error. The regulations in question, 20 Ill.Admin. Code §§ 504.10 to 504.150, specify a list of offenses including “intimidation” and “insolence,” and grade punishment by the severity of the offense in the particular case. Before a prisoner may be punished, the authorities must make a finding that he is guilty of one of the offenses listed in the regulations. A statute, regulation, or other legislative-type enactment that establishes a definite standard to guide the decision whether to (further) restrain a prisoner’s freedom of action, rather than confiding the decision to the discretion of the administering authorities, is deemed to create a constitutionally enforceable entitlement to be free from that restraint unless the standard is applied to the prisoner in accordance with procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process of law. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 469-72, 103 S.Ct. 864, 870-72, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). That is what Illinois has done here. It has established a definite, unqualified, nondiscretion-ary standard for determining when its prison officials may as a disciplinary measure take away a prisoner’s right to the relatively greater liberty of ordinary confinement, compared to the approximation to solitary confinement that is segregation. Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462-63, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1909-10, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989). The case is unlike Russ v. Young, 895 F.2d 1149, 1153-54 (7th Cir.1990), where the decision whether" }, { "docid": "22181784", "title": "", "text": "contest his transfer on the ground that his conviction violated due process. See id.; Montanye, 427 U.S. at 243, 96 S.Ct. at 2547-48 (New York law did not create right to pre-transfer hearing because disciplinary conviction not necessary for transfer). We do not understand the situation to be any different in Illinois. See Harris v. McDonald, 737 F.2d 662, 665 (7th Cir.1984) (Illinois regulation requiring pre-transfer hearing lacks substantive predicates and thus creates no federally enforceable liberty interest). Therefore, if Whitford’s federal due process claim may proceed, it must arise from his placement in disciplinary segregation. The Sandin Court held that the Due Process Clause itself was not implicated by Conner’s sentence of 30 days’ disciplinary segregation. The Court noted that punishing an inmate by placing him in segregation will not always trigger due process protections, because “[discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected parameters of the sentence imposed by a court of law.” Sandin, — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2301. \"Whitford received six months of segregation, which is a more severe penalty than that suffered by Conner. We have previously held that federal due process protections must be followed before a term of one year in segregation may be imposed, because such a penalty falls outside the expected scope of an inmate’s sentence. Rowe v. DeBruyn, 17 F.3d 1047, 1053 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 508, 130 L.Ed.2d 416 (1994). However, the Sandin Court’s observation that punishment for disciplinary violations is within the expected scope of a prison sentence calls Rowe’s reasoning into question. Moreover, even if prisoners are entitled to due process protections before extreme terms of segregation may be imposed, Whitford’s sentence of six months was not such an extreme term. Still, Wfiiitford may have a state-created liberty interest in freedom from disciplinary segregation. We have held that Illinois prison disciplinary regulations (Ill.Admin.Code §§ 504.10 to 504.150) grant inmates a federally enforceable liberty interest in not being sentenced to disciplinary segregation without at least minimal due process. Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F.2d" }, { "docid": "3314068", "title": "", "text": "listed in the regulations. A statute, regulation, or other legislative-type enactment that establishes a definite standard to guide the decision whether to (further) restrain a prisoner’s freedom of action, rather than confiding the decision to the discretion of the administering authorities, is deemed to create a constitutionally enforceable entitlement to be free from that restraint unless the standard is applied to the prisoner in accordance with procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process of law. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 469-72, 103 S.Ct. 864, 870-72, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). That is what Illinois has done here. It has established a definite, unqualified, nondiscretion-ary standard for determining when its prison officials may as a disciplinary measure take away a prisoner’s right to the relatively greater liberty of ordinary confinement, compared to the approximation to solitary confinement that is segregation. Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462-63, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1909-10, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989). The case is unlike Russ v. Young, 895 F.2d 1149, 1153-54 (7th Cir.1990), where the decision whether to place a prisoner in temporary lock-up was confided to the subjective judgment of the prison officials, regardless of whether objective criteria had been met. Gilbert could not be placed in disciplinary confinement without a finding that he had violated a definite standard. Since the incremental deprivation of liberty here is slight (no more than seven days in segregation—and the “liberty” taken away for that period is, at best, the run of the prison), the procedural protections required by due process are correspondingly slight. But they include a right to a hearing (albeit not an elaborate one) before the punishment is imposed, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2978-82, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Abdul-Wadood v. Duckworth, 860 F.2d 280, 284 (7th Cir.1988); McCollum v. Miller, 695 F.2d 1044 (7th Cir.1982), and here the hearing came afterward. It is possible that the plaintiff’s confinement in segregation before the hearing was administrative rather than disciplinary, pursuant to 20 Ill.Admin.Code § 540.40, which sensibly permits a prisoner to be segregated from his fellows temporarily" }, { "docid": "22945426", "title": "", "text": "Gittens v. LeFevre, 891 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir.1989); see also Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 498-99 (2d Cir.1994). After oral argument in this case, and while decision was pending, the Supreme Court revisited the question of when state prison regulations confer on inmates a protected liberty interest, and disavowed the analysis used in Hewitt. See Sandin v. Conner, — U.S. —, —, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2297-2300, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). While acknowledging that states might still create protected liberty interests, the Court stated, “these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which ... imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at —, 115 S.Ct. at 2300. The Court then applied the test as follows: Discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected parameters of the sentence imposed by a court of law. This ease, though concededly punitive, does not present a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of [plaintiffs] indeterminate sentence.... We hold that [plaintiffs] discipline in segregated confinement did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest. Id. at —, 115 S.Ct. at 2301. Thus, Sandin may be read as calling into question the continuing viability of our cases holding that New York regulations afford inmates a liberty interest in remaining free from administrative segregation. For purposes of the present appeal, however, we need not resolve whether Rodriguez had a protected liberty interest under the new Sandin standard. For we believe that even if he did, it was objectively reasonable for Lt. Alcock to believe Rodriguez had received all the process he was due. Assuming the existence of a liberty interest, due process requires that an inmate confined to administrative segregation must be afforded “some notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views to the prison officials charged with deciding whether to transfer him to administrative segregation.” Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 476, 103 S.Ct. at 873-74. This requirement may be satisfied" }, { "docid": "23147478", "title": "", "text": "evidence against Stewart showed only that he took Ivey to the hospital unit to be tested for intoxicants. There is nothing cruel or unusual in that, nor did the test for intoxicants constitute “punishment.” Officer Stewart did not violate the Eighth Amendment. IV A We next examine the verdict of the jury as to the due process claims. Those claims are dependent upon a showing that Mr. Ivey was deprived of life, liberty, or property. In Bills v. Henderson, 631 F.2d 1287, 1291 (6th Cir.1980), the court considered whether Tennessee state prisoners had a “protected liberty interest that require[d] certain due process standards be met prior to a transfer to administrative segregation.” Citing Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 2547, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976), the Bills court noted that the federal Constitution does not itself create such an interest. “A protected liberty entitlement can also be created by state law, however.” Bills, 631 F.2d at 1291. Bills offered the following explanation of the difference between cases where “liberty interests” were found to have been created under state law and cases where they were not: “The demarcation between these two lines of cases is fairly clear. Where statutes or prison policy statements have limited prison officials’ discretion by imposing a specific prerequisite to the forfeiture of benefits or favorable living conditions enjoyed by a prisoner, an expectation or entitlement has been created which cannot be taken away without affording the prisoner certain due process rights. On the other hand, when prison officials have complete discretion in making a decision that will affect the inmate, no expectation or protected liberty interest has been created.” Bills, 631 F.2d at 1292-93. Under the Tennessee prison rules at issue in Bills, the court found that inmates had a “legitimate expectation” that they would not be placed in segregation absent a finding that the transfer was for the purposes set out in the rule. Bills, 631 F.2d at 1294. We see no basis for distinguishing the instant case from Bills in this respect, for the pertinent Kentucky prison regulation on “inmate rights”" }, { "docid": "15075229", "title": "", "text": "for using abusive or obscene language and for harassing employees. Id. at 475-76, 115 S.Ct. at 2295-96. The disciplinary committee refused the prisoner’s request to present witnesses, found him guilty of the alleged misconduct and sentenced him to 30 days disciplinary segregation in the prison’s Special Holding Unit (“SHU”). Id. The Supreme Court found that the inmate was not entitled to the procedural protections set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. at 487, 115 S.Ct. at 2302. The Supreme Court stated: We hold that Conner’s discipline in segregated confinement did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest. The record shows that, at the time of Conner’s punishment, disciplinary segregation, with insignificant exceptions, mirrored those conditions imposed upon inmates in administrative segregation and protective custody. We note also that the State expunged Conner’s disciplinary record with respect to the “high misconduct” charge 9 months after Conner served time in segregation. Thus, Conner’s confinement did not exceed similar, but totally discretionary confinement in either duration or degree of restriction. Indeed, the conditions at Halawa [prison] involve significant amounts of “lockdown time” even for inmates in the general population. Based on a comparison between inmates inside and outside disciplinary segregation, the State’s actions in placing him there for 30 days did not work a major disruption in his environment. Id. at 486, 115 S.Ct. at 2301 (fns. omitted). As a result of Sandin, the Second Circuit has announced a two-part standard which prisoners must satisfy to establish a procedural due process claim due to segregated confinement: To prevail, [the plaintiff inmate] must establish both that [1] the confinement or restraint creates an “atypical and significant hardship” under Sandin, and that [2] the state has granted its inmates, by regulation or statute, a protected liberty interest in remaining free from that confinement or restraint. Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 317 (2d Cir.1996); accord, e.g., Arce v. Walker, 139 F.3d 329, 333-34, 1998 WL 119612 at *3 (2d Cir.1998);" }, { "docid": "10401936", "title": "", "text": "F.3d 1246, 1248 (7th Cir.1995) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49, 106 S.Ct. at 2510-11). III. Discussion Simply stated, the plaintiff raises two claims in his complaint. First, he maintains that by not providing him with the proper procedures and keeping him in segregation without a valid sentence authorizing such punishment, the defendants denied him his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, he contends that Defendant Ramos violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him yard privileges during his entire two months in segregation. A. Denial of Due Process Thomas claims that the defendants denied him due process by (1) failing to give him advanced written notice of the May 20 Adjustment Committee hearing, (2) failing to call him before the May 31 Adjustment Committee, thereby preventing him from telling his side of the story and calling witnesses, and (3) keeping him in segregation without a valid imposition of such punishment. Thomas may only prevail on a § 1983 claim based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if he can show that the defendants deprived him of a protected interest in his “life, liberty, or property” without giving him the required procedures. See Williams, 71 F.3d at 1248 (citing Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S.Ct. 975, 982, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990)). In this case, Thomas claims that his detention in segregation constituted a deprivation of “liberty” recognized by the Constitution. Until recently, Thomas would have had a decent argument, since prison regulations containing sufficiently mandatory language — • such as the Illinois regulations involving disciplinary segregation — were deemed to create constitutionally enforceable interests. See Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F.2d 1581, 1582 (7th Cir.1991) (holding that Illinois prison regulations created liberty interest in staying out of segregation). However, since the instant motion for summary judgment was filed, the United States Supreme Court has dramatically altered the landscape of prisoner litigation. In Sandin v. Conner, — U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300-02, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), five Justices of the Court held that a Hawaiian prisoner was" }, { "docid": "10401937", "title": "", "text": "Fourteenth Amendment if he can show that the defendants deprived him of a protected interest in his “life, liberty, or property” without giving him the required procedures. See Williams, 71 F.3d at 1248 (citing Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S.Ct. 975, 982, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990)). In this case, Thomas claims that his detention in segregation constituted a deprivation of “liberty” recognized by the Constitution. Until recently, Thomas would have had a decent argument, since prison regulations containing sufficiently mandatory language — • such as the Illinois regulations involving disciplinary segregation — were deemed to create constitutionally enforceable interests. See Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F.2d 1581, 1582 (7th Cir.1991) (holding that Illinois prison regulations created liberty interest in staying out of segregation). However, since the instant motion for summary judgment was filed, the United States Supreme Court has dramatically altered the landscape of prisoner litigation. In Sandin v. Conner, — U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300-02, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), five Justices of the Court held that a Hawaiian prisoner was not deprived of a liberty interest protected by the Constitution when he was placed in disciplinary segregation for thirty days. The Court concluded that the Due Process Clause itself did not create a liberty interest in staying out of disciplinary segregation, and Hawaiian law did not create a protected liberty interest because segregation did not “present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest.” Id. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2300-01. Consequently, because the inmate in Sandin was not denied his liberty, the State of Hawaii was under no obligation to provide him with the predepri-vation procedures outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-572, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2978-2982, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), and thus he had no § 1983 claim. — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2302. After Sandin, mandatory state prison regulations will only create liberty interests if they involve limitations on freedom that, “while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due" }, { "docid": "22181785", "title": "", "text": "months of segregation, which is a more severe penalty than that suffered by Conner. We have previously held that federal due process protections must be followed before a term of one year in segregation may be imposed, because such a penalty falls outside the expected scope of an inmate’s sentence. Rowe v. DeBruyn, 17 F.3d 1047, 1053 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 508, 130 L.Ed.2d 416 (1994). However, the Sandin Court’s observation that punishment for disciplinary violations is within the expected scope of a prison sentence calls Rowe’s reasoning into question. Moreover, even if prisoners are entitled to due process protections before extreme terms of segregation may be imposed, Whitford’s sentence of six months was not such an extreme term. Still, Wfiiitford may have a state-created liberty interest in freedom from disciplinary segregation. We have held that Illinois prison disciplinary regulations (Ill.Admin.Code §§ 504.10 to 504.150) grant inmates a federally enforceable liberty interest in not being sentenced to disciplinary segregation without at least minimal due process. Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F.2d 1581, 1582 (7th Cir.1991). In Sandin, however, the Court held that Hawaii prison regulations did not create a federally enforceable liberty interest in remaining in the general population. Sandin, — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2300-02. The Court reasoned that Conner’s placement in disciplinary segregation in a Hawaii prison did not “work a major disruption in his environment,” because the conditions of confinement in segregation were not significantly different from those in the general population. Id. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 2301. Thus, Conner did not suffer the type of deprivation to which federal due process protections could conceivably apply. Id. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 2300-02. The holding in Sandin implies that states may grant prisoners liberty interests in being in the general population only if the conditions of confinement in segregation are significantly more restrictive than those in the general population. In the instant case, the record is not sufficiently developed for us to determine whether the conditions of Wfiiit-ford’s confinement were significantly altered when he was placed in segregation. Thus, before we may" }, { "docid": "23168352", "title": "", "text": "the notice goes on to state that Zarnes could be assigned to segregation without a hearing because her “unacceptable” conduct posed a threat to her and other inmates’ safety, as well as prison security. The form thus tracks the language of the jail’s policies and procedures and is consonant with Rhodes’s motion and affidavit. Furthermore, nothing else in the record indicates that Rhodes placed Zarnes in segregation as punishment for the crimes she had allegedly committed and for which she was awaiting trial or for her verbal confrontation or that her placement in segregation was an arbitrary response to the situation. The district court therefore correctly granted Rhodes’s motion for summary judgment on this claim. 2. Zarnes also asserts that the Illinois statutes entitled her to a hearing before her assignment. In Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467-68, 103 S.Ct. 864, 869-70, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), the Supreme Court held that placement of a convicted prisoner in administrative segregation does not require the government to first provide due process protections. Likewise, administrative segregation of a pre-trial detainee for a non-punitive reason does not require such procedures. The Hewitt court also held, however, that states can create constitutionally protected liberty interests by enacting statutes or regulations that use mandatory language in establishing procedures for prison administration. Id. at 471-72, 103 S.Ct. at 871-72; see Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F.2d 1581, 1582 (7th Cir.1991) (Illinois regulations regarding prison disciplinary segregation create a right to a pre-imposition hearing). Zarnes asserts that the Illinois County Jail Standards pertaining to discipline, 20 IL ADC § 710.16, establish just such a liberty interest because they are couched in compulsory terms. Therefore, Zarnes continues, the state had to provide her with due process before putting her into segregation following her verbal dispute. We do not understand Zarnes’s reliance on Hewitt and the language of § 710.16 because as a pre-trial detainee, she could “not be punished without due process regardless of state regulations.” Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 531 n. 4 (7th Cir.1995). Moreover, Rhodes proved that he assigned Zarnes to segregation for a non-punitive" }, { "docid": "14576360", "title": "", "text": "S.Ct. 864, 869, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). Even when the Due Process Clause itself does not establish a liberty interest, a state may still do so through its enactment of a relevant statute or regulation. Thompson, 490 U.S. at 461-62, 109 S.Ct. at 1909. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state law may create enforceable liberty interests in the prison setting. See, e.g., Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987) (prison regulations granted inmates a protected interest in parole); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (prison regulations granted inmates a protected interest in freedom from more restrictive forms of confinement within the prison). But the mere existence of any prison regulations with procedures that guide the use of administrative segregation does not itself suffice to create a liberty interest. Rather, the state regulations (or statute) must use mandatory language creating substantive predicates to limit official discretion. Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 471-72, 103 S.Ct. at 871. In other words, they must contain “specific directives to the decisionmaker that if the regulations’ substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow, in order to create a liberty interest.” Thompson, 490 U.S. at 463, 109 S.Ct. at 1910. Thus, it is the mandatory nature of prison regulations — such that they serve to limit discretion — that is integral to creating a liberty interest. Plaintiff asserts that the regulations at issue here satisfy the Thompson/Hewitt requirements, and thus create a liberty interest in remaining in the general inmate population. As support for this claim, plaintiff points to various sections of the Service Order containing mandatory language — sections that defendants allegedly violated. For example, a section of the Service Order entitled “Filing and Investigation of Charges” provides that an official who becomes aware of an inmate’s misconduct “must make sufficient investigation” before preparing a D.R. and “shall provide the resident concerned with a written copy of the report.” Moreover, prior to an Adjustment Board hearing on the D.R., the resident “shall be advised” of his right" }, { "docid": "21394752", "title": "", "text": "that [2] the state has granted its inmates, by regulation or statute, a protected liberty interest in remaining free from that confinement or restraint. Id. at 317 (emphasis added). Only by establishing these two elements can a prisoner demonstrate a liberty interest which is entitled to the procedural safeguards of the Due Process Clause. Luis v. Coughlin, 935 F.Supp. 218, 221-22 (W.D.N.Y.1995). The procedural protections owed to a prisoner who successfully meets the Frazier standard are set forth in Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564-66, 94 S.Ct. at 2979-80. As previously-discussed, Wolff is the seminal case in the Supreme Court’s recognition that states may, through regulations and statutes, create liberty interests of “real substance.” Id. at 557, 94 S.Ct. at 2975. It is those liberty interests of real substance from which Supreme Court jurisprudence had departed in cases such as Hewitt, but to which it sought to return in Sandin, 515 U.S. at---, 115 S.Ct. at 2297-2300. In addition, Wolff also articulated the minimum procedures necessary to “reach a mutual accommodation between [prisons’] institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution.” 418 U.S. at 556, 94 S.Ct. at 2975. Wolff thus guarantees three rights to prisoners who establish a protected liberty interest: (1) twenty-four hours notice of the charges against them; (2) a written statement of the evidence relied on by the fact-finder at the hearing; and (3) the reasons for the disciplinary action taken by the hearing officer. Id. at 563-65, 94 S.Ct. at 2978-79; see also Lee v. Coughlin, 902 F.Supp. 424, 431 (S.D.N.Y.1995). Moreover, inmates facing a disciplinary hearing at which a protected liberty interest is at stake must receive meaningful assistance from a prison employee in presenting a defense, Eng v. Coughlin, 858 F.2d 889, 895 (2d Cir.1988), and the hearing official presiding over the proceeding must be fair and impartial. Francis v. Coughlin, 891 F.2d 43, 46-47 (2d Cir.1989). To summarize the law’s present state in this Circuit, a prisoner asserting a Section 1983 claim based on a segregated confinement must prove the existence of a state-created liberty interest protected by the Due Process" }, { "docid": "22161936", "title": "", "text": "of statutory law; rather, “prison regulations and policies can create liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Smith v. Sumner, 994 F.2d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir.1993). “A state law or prison regulation creates a liberty interest if it places ‘substantive limitations on official discretion.’” Id. (qúoting Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983)). “Specifically, a state creates a liberty interest by both (1) establishing ‘ “substantive predicates” to govern official decisionmaking,’ and (2) using “‘explicitly mandatory language” 1.e., specific directives to the decisionmaker that if the regulations’ substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow.’” Id. (quoting Thompson, 490 U.S. at 462-63, 109 S.Ct. at 1910). The Nevada Department of Prisons Code of Penal Discipline in effect at the time of Walker’s offense contains a detailed list of substantive offenses for which punishment can be imposed. Further, the code contains mandatory provisions requiring the prison to provide notice and a hearing to an inmate accused of a substantive offense. Finally, the code imposes detañed requirements on the hearing process itself, and carefifily delineates the allowable punishment for each class of offense. Code of Penal Discipline, Notice, Offenses § C, Summary Proceedings and Hearings § B, Disciplinary Action § C. In light of the requirement that notice and hearing be provided before punishment can be imposed, we conclude that Nevada law creates a liberty interest for inmates to remain free from arbitrary placement into disciplinary segregation. Next, - we must determine whether Walker was afforded sufficient process before being confined in disciplinary segregation. Conner, at 1410. “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution and the fuñ panoply of rights due a defendant -in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The Supreme Court in Wolff spelled out the minimum procedural protections that the Due Process Clause requires when substantial liberty interests are being deprived in the prison setting; we have subsequently held-that the Wolff requirements must be met in the disciplinary segregation context. See Conner, at" }, { "docid": "19710218", "title": "", "text": "occurrences in Rule 20(a) terms (see Papagiannis v. Pontikis, 108 F.R.D. 177, 179 (N.D.Ill.1985) (identity of scheme to defraud used in separate transactions not enough to permit joinder of plaintiffs); cf. Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646, 650 n. 5 (3d Cir.1981) (per curiam) (“[a] coincidental similarity in the underlying facts will not permit [plaintiffs] to proceed jointly”)). Rule 20(a) seeks to promote judicial economies, a goal that is not served where (as here) the incidents underlying the claims are wholly separate, so as to require entirely different proof. Not only do the claims of Harris and Faust involve different occurrences, they also raise different issues of law. As stated at the outset, Harris and Faust allege violations of their respective rights to procedural due process. Whether any level of process is “due” to a plaintiff depends on the existence of a protected interest as created either by the Due Process Clause itself or by state law (Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466, 103 S.Ct. 864, 868-69, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)). And even if such a protected substantive interest is present, the determination of what process is due is in part a function of the severity of the loss to the plaintiff (Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 220, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 1035-36, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990)). In this instance Faust and Harris did not receive the same punishment, so that they have different liberty interests at stake. Faust was placed in disciplinary segregation for his offense, while Harris suffered only a loss of commissary privileges. State regulations authorizing segregation for disciplinary infractions do give rise to a protected liberty interest (Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F.2d 1581, 1582 (7th Cir.1991)), while nothing has suggested that state law creates an entitlement interest or protected right to commissary privileges (Stewart v. McGinnis, 800 F.Supp. 604, 619-20 (N.D.Ill.1992)). Although the additional adverse consequences that Harris points to might arguably entitle him to some degree of due process (cf. Ramirez v. Turner, 991 F.2d 351, 354 (7th Cir.1993)), that question need not concern this Court here. What controls instead is that Harris’ claim" }, { "docid": "12272779", "title": "", "text": "inmates with procedural due process before putting them on “lockdown.” Woods claims that he received neither notice of what he had done wrong in that defendants either did not issue a disciplinary ticket or issued a false one, nor a pre-deprivation hearing before being confined to his cell. The district court rejected this argument on the authority of Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir.1988), in which this court concluded that “Illinois’ administrative and statutory provisions do not create a liberty interest [in remaining in the general population].” Woods seeks to distinguish Cain by arguing that Cain involved rules other than the ones on which he relies. The fourteenth amendment prohibits a state from depriving a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. While the due process clause does not itself create a liberty interest in remaining in the general population and out of temporary confinement, see Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467-68, 103 S.Ct. 864, 869, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Cain, 857 F.2d at 1143, state law may create enforceable liberty interests in the prison setting. See Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. -, -, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1909, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989). Thus, in deciding whether Woods’ right to due process was violated, we must first look to Illinois statutes and administrative regulations to determine whether they have created a protected liberty interest. If they have, then we must determine what process is due Woods before prison officials may deprive him of that interest. Id. at-, 109 S.Ct. at 1908. Although “state statutes may create liberty interests that are entitled to the procedural protections of [the due process clause],” Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 487, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 1260, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980), “[t]he adoption of mere procedural guidelines ... does not give rise to a liberty interest.” Culbert v. Young, 834 F.2d 624, 628 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 990, 108 S.Ct. 1296, 99 L.Ed.2d 506 (1988). “To create a constitutionally protected liberty interest, a state must employ ‘language of an unmistakably mandatory" }, { "docid": "19710219", "title": "", "text": "such a protected substantive interest is present, the determination of what process is due is in part a function of the severity of the loss to the plaintiff (Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 220, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 1035-36, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990)). In this instance Faust and Harris did not receive the same punishment, so that they have different liberty interests at stake. Faust was placed in disciplinary segregation for his offense, while Harris suffered only a loss of commissary privileges. State regulations authorizing segregation for disciplinary infractions do give rise to a protected liberty interest (Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F.2d 1581, 1582 (7th Cir.1991)), while nothing has suggested that state law creates an entitlement interest or protected right to commissary privileges (Stewart v. McGinnis, 800 F.Supp. 604, 619-20 (N.D.Ill.1992)). Although the additional adverse consequences that Harris points to might arguably entitle him to some degree of due process (cf. Ramirez v. Turner, 991 F.2d 351, 354 (7th Cir.1993)), that question need not concern this Court here. What controls instead is that Harris’ claim raises legal issues that are distinctly different from those raised by Faust. Because the claims are not logically related in any way, this Court concludes that plaintiffs are misjoined. Rule 21 authorizes the court to drop misjoined parties from a lawsuit on its own initiative “on such terms as are just.” In Papagiannis this Court allowed the misjoined plaintiffs to decide which one could proceed with the case. No such procedure is required here. This District Court’s General Rule (“GR”) 2.21(D)(1)(b) effectively requires that an inmate’s Section 1983 complaints challenging terms or conditions of confinement must be assigned to a single judge. Harris (who describes himself as a paralegal) has filed a number of conditions-of-confinement cases, the most recent of which were assigned to this Court’s colleague Honorable Harry Leinenweber. Indeed, Harris states in a motion that he recently lodged with this Court that he has a later-filed related case (No. 93 C 3953) pending before Judge Leinenweber (Harris’ motion seeks consolidation of the two eases). That case and GR 2.21(D)(1)(b) dictate that Harris rather" } ]

[ { "docid": "22650234", "title": "", "text": "more likely than not, she would be tortured if returned to China. Weng appealed and the BIA dismissed the appeal. Adopting and affirming the IJ’s decision (except with respect to the adverse credibility finding), the BIA found that Weng was subject to the persecutor bar and, as a result, was ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Adverting to our decision in Zhang Jian Xie v. INS, 434 F.3d 136, 143 (2d Cir.2006), the BIA characterized Weng’s conduct as “active and [as having] direct consequences for the victims” of China’s family planning policy. The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of Weng’s application for CAT relief. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, we review the two decisions in tandem. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The “substantial evidence” standard of review applies, Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir.2006), and we uphold the IJ’s factual findings if they are supported by “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record,” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, “[w]e review de novo questions of law and the [BIA’s] application of law to undisputed fact.” Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). We therefore review de novo the BIA’s conclusion that Weng is subject to the persecutor bar of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must establish her status as a “refugee” under the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). The applicant may do so by demonstrating either that she has suffered “persecution” or that she has “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.... ” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The statutory definition of “refugee,” however, incorporates the “persecutor bar”: the definition ex- eludes “any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of’ a protected ground. Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i). Consequently, if Weng is a persecutor," } ]

[ { "docid": "19984985", "title": "", "text": "conditions. The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT. DISCUSSION “When the BIA briefly affirms the decision of an IJ and adopts the IJ’s reasoning in doing so, we review the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions together.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the BIA’s factual findings, including the agency’s consideration of relevant evidence of country conditions, under the substantial evidence standard. See Dong Gao v. BIA, 482 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir.2007). However, “when the situation presented is the BIA’s application of legal principles to undisputed facts, ... our review is de novo.” Monter v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 546, 553 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). I. Past Persecution Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), a petitioner is eligible for asylum at the discretion of the Attorney General if he demonstrates that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily-protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158; see also Xiu Fen Xia v. Mukasey, 510 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir.2007). A petitioner is also eligible for withholding of removal if he demonstrates a clear probability of persecution on account of a statutorily-protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Statutorily-protected grounds include “political opinion” and “membership in a particular social group.” In dismissing Baba’s appeal, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s finding that “the incidents complained of did not rise to the level of persecution.” In re Biyalo Watara Baba, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ], at 1 (B.I.A. Dec. 14, 2007). Baba contends that this ruling was in error. We agree. The term persecution is not defined in the INA. The BIA has defined persecution as “a threat to the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as offensive.” Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir.2008) (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 222-23 (B.I.A. 1985)). This court has on several occasions considered the question" }, { "docid": "22217956", "title": "", "text": "of the presentation ... of a Birth Certificate indicating that he is from the Montenegro region of Serbia/Montenegro.” The IJ further found that Lecaj possessed “a subjective fear of returning to his homeland,” but “in view of changed circumstances in Montenegro [Lecaj] no longer possesses a sufficient, objective basis of fearing persecution in that country.” Accordingly, the IJ denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, and ordered Lecaj’s removal to Montenegro. Lecaj timely appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. On January 30, 2009, the BIA dismissed Lecaj’s appeal. Relying heavily on the United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices — Montenegro 2006 (the “Report”), the BIA determined that “[e]ven if [Lecaj] had established past persecution on account of ethnicity by the Serbian-controlled police and military, the [IJ] correctly found that the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution had been rebutted.” DISCUSSION “When the BIA does not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision, but its brief opinion closely tracks the IJ’s reasoning, this Court may consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review factual findings under the deferential substantial evidence standard, treating them as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.2007). “Legal questions, including mixed questions of law and fact and the application of law to fact, are reviewed de novo.” Manzur, 494 F.3d at 288. I Lecaj argues that he is not a citizen of Montenegro. Even assuming that he has administratively exhausted that argument, see Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 118-22 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that the judicially imposed issue exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, but is ordinarily mandatory), it lacks merit. The IJ reasonably designated — and the BIA implicitly adopted — Montenegro as the country of removal in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(D) and (E). The extract from" }, { "docid": "10693587", "title": "", "text": "BIA, 482 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir.2007). A. Brito’s Designation as an Arriving Alien “A court may review a filial order of removal only if ... the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right....” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). In Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 & n. 1 (2d Cir.2007), we clarified that while not jurisdictional, issue exhaustion is mandatory. Indeed, in order to preserve an issue for review by this Court, the petitioner must not only raise it before the BIA, but do so with specificity. Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.2007) (citing Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir.2004)). Here, as the government asserts, Brito not only failed to contest before the BIA his designation as an arriving alien, but also conceded that designation both in his statements of reasons for appealing the decision of the IJ, see Attachment to Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 23, 2005) (“Mr. Brito can adjust his status even though he is an arriving alien ....”), and in his brief on appeal to the BIA, see Respondent’s Brief on Appeal at 5 (B.I.A. May 26, 2006) (discussing whether Brito satisfies a regulation that would allow the IJ jurisdiction to adjudicate an arriving alien’s application for adjustment of status). Thus, he has failed to preserve for review by this Court the issue of whether his designation as an arriving alien was erroneous. B. The IJ’s Jurisdiction Under the Regulations i. Statutory Background Because the regulations governing the IJ’s jurisdiction over applications for adjustment of status, prior to their recent amendment, have been the subject of a considerable amount of litigation concerning their validity, we provide some history. Prior to 1960, any alien in the United States no longer in possession of a valid immigrant visa but eligible for adjustment of status had to go abroad to apply for permanent resident status. See Akhtar v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir.2006); Succar v." }, { "docid": "10693586", "title": "", "text": "at issue — after he returned to the United States and was placed in removal proceedings and that nothing in the regulations permits an alien to substitute a newly filed application for an old one. The BIA held that the IJ lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Brito’s application but noted that Brito can pursue his application for adjustment with the Bureau of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Brito now petitions this Court for a review of the BIA’s decision. II. Discussion Brito argues that both the IJ and BIA erred in designating him an arriving alien, that the IJ has jurisdiction to adjudicate his application for adjustment of status even under immigration regulations as amended, and that the IJ has jurisdiction to adjudicate his application because the regulations prohibiting the adjudication of applications for adjustment of status by IJs are ultra vires. Because the BIA’s decision affirms in part and modifies in part the decision of the IJ, we review the decision of the IJ as modified by the BIA. See Dong Gao v. BIA, 482 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir.2007). A. Brito’s Designation as an Arriving Alien “A court may review a filial order of removal only if ... the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right....” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). In Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 & n. 1 (2d Cir.2007), we clarified that while not jurisdictional, issue exhaustion is mandatory. Indeed, in order to preserve an issue for review by this Court, the petitioner must not only raise it before the BIA, but do so with specificity. Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.2007) (citing Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir.2004)). Here, as the government asserts, Brito not only failed to contest before the BIA his designation as an arriving alien, but also conceded that designation both in his statements of reasons for appealing the decision of the IJ, see Attachment to Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge, No. [ AXX XXX XXX" }, { "docid": "23115656", "title": "", "text": "B.D. PARKER, JR., Circuit Judge. Petitioner Mahamed Ayenul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a 34 February 14, 2005, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the May 18, 1998, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jeffrey S. Chase, which denied Islam’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on the basis that Islam’s testimony and documents lacked credibility. See In re Mahamed Ayenul Islam, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 14, 2005), aff'g No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 1998). Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the decision of the IJ, and supplements the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). We review the factual findings of the BIA and IJ for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir.2004). We review de novo the IJ’s determination of mixed questions of law and fact, as well as the IJ’s application of law to facts. See Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003). I. The Asylum Hearing During immigration proceedings, an IJ has the authority to “administer oaths, receive evidence, and interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(l). Unlike an Article III judge, an IJ is not merely the fact finder and adjudicator, but also has an obligation to establish and develop the record. See Qun Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir.2002). At the same time, as a judicial officer, an immigration judge has a responsibility to function as a neutral, impartial arbiter and must be careful to refrain from assuming the role of advocate for either party. See Qun Wang v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 423 F.3d 260, 261 (3d Cir.2005). During the course of developing a sound and useful record, an IJ must, when appropriate, question an applicant in order, for example, to probe" }, { "docid": "3938510", "title": "", "text": "behalf to change venue to Hartford, Connecticut. In November 2006, Petitioner appeared before the immigration judge accompanied by counsel and her parents. Through counsel, she admitted the allegations in the NTA, conceded removability as charged, and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. Although there was extensive discussion of Petitioner’s youth, neither the Immigration Judge nor the lawyers for Petitioner and Respondent raised the issue of whether service of the NTA was proper and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. In March 2008, following a merits hearing (at which Petitioner’s father testified), the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s asylum application and ordered her removed to El Salvador; the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirmed that decision without opinion. See In re Beatrice Magana-Gallejo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2009), aff'g No. 099 471 824 (Immig.Ct.Hartford, CT, Mar. 3, 2008). In December 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the BIA, arguing for the first time that both the BIA and the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings because her NTA was served improperly. She asserted that because she was a minor at the time of service, DHS was obligated under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(c)(2)(ii) to effect service simultaneously on her parents or a legal guardian, and that the agency’s failure to comply with this regulation warranted termination of her removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion. See In re Beatrice Magana-Gallejo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jun. 11, 2010). It concluded that, because Petitioner was represented by counsel and accompanied by her parents at her removal proceedings, none of her fundamental rights were violated by any technical defect in service. Id. Petitioner now seeks review of that decision. DISCUSSION We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). As a preliminary matter, because Petitioner conceded her removability as charged before the immigration court and did not raise the issue of improper service in those proceedings or on appeal before" }, { "docid": "22773883", "title": "", "text": "JON 0. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge: This petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) primarily raises two issues concerning the standard of review that the BIA applies to a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”). The first is whether the BIA may ignore an IJ’s finding that an event constituting persecution will in fact occur if the applicant is removed on the theory that the finding of a future event is not fact-finding subject to review for clear error. The second is whether the BIA reviews de novo an IJ’s decision that an asylum applicant has satisfied her burden to establish an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of persecution. The petition also raises the issue of the weight the BIA is entitled to give to State Department country reports. These issues arise on a petition filed by Hui Lin Huang and Zeng Yong Zhou to review the March 26, 2010, order of the BIA, reversing the February 12, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge Helen Sichel, and denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209 (B.I.A.2010), rev’g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/499 (Immig.Ct.N.Y.C. Feb. 12, 2008). We conclude that an IJ’s finding that a future event will occur if an applicant is removed is a finding of fact subject to review for clear error and that the BIA properly applies de novo review to an IJ’s determination that an asylum applicant has not satisfied her burden to establish an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. We also conclude that the BIA may determine the weight to be accorded to State Department country reports. Because of our ruling on the first issue, we grant the petition for review and remand for further consideration. Background Petitioner Hui Lin Huang and her husband, Zeng Yong Zhou, are natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). Both entered the United States without proper documents, Zhou in 1999 and Huang in 2002. The couple gave birth to a son in" }, { "docid": "22305567", "title": "", "text": "for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA, concluding that they had “failed to establish a nexus between [Rodas’s] experience and any of the five enumerated grounds” (namely, race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion) — a requirement to obtain either asylum or withholding of removal under the INA, but not to obtain relief under the CAT. Id. More specifically, citing I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), the IJ concluded that Rodas “was not deemed politically offensive,” but rather that he “was sought after because he did not join corrupt police officials.” Id. at 12. While recognizing that Rodas was also targeted because he reported corruption within the PNC, the IJ held that, as a police officer, Rodas assumed the risk of the harm he suffered at the hands of “rogue police officers” and that accordingly, the harm he suffered was not on account of his political opinion. Id. at 12-13, citing Matter of Fuentes, 19 I. & N. Dec. 658 (BIA 1988). Finally, the IJ concluded that because Rodas’s past experience lacked a nexus to a protected ground, so too did Rodas’s fear of future persecution. Id. at 15. Accordingly, the IJ found Rodas ineligible for either asylum or withholding of removal under the INA. On September 10, 2008, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. In re Carranza & Rodas, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] & [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2008). The BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Rodas failed to “demonstrate[ ] that any harm he encountered or may encounter is ... on account of his political opinion.” Id. The BIA also addressed Rodas’s claim of persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group, an issue the IJ did not address. The BIA rejected that argument, however, finding that the social group on account of which Rodas claimed persecution — defined as “Guatemalan policemen who have registered complaints against official corruption” — lacked the requisite social visibility. Id. Additionally, noting that the REAL ID" }, { "docid": "22735600", "title": "", "text": "Judge CALABRESI concurs in a separate opinion. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge: Xiao Xing Ni, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a December 15, 2003 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the July 18, 2002 decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”). In re Xiao Xing Ni, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 15, 2003), aff'g [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 18, 2002). The IJ determined that Ni’s testimony was not credible, and denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the IJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. More analysis is required, however, because: [i] Ni has given birth to one child; [ii] certain documents (mentioned in Jin Xiu Chen v. U.S. Department of Justice, 468 F.3d 109 (2d Cir.2006)) might—if they are authentic—indicate that the birth of one child could result in forced sterilization for a person who is returned to Fujian Province; and [iii] our opinion in Tian Ming Lin v. U.S. Depart ment of Justice, 473 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam), suggests in dicta that, although by statute we “may not order the taking of additional evidence,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we may have “inherent power” to do so in the circumstances presented here. We need not decide whether (despite Congress’s proscription) there may be circumstances in which we retain an inherent power to remand to the BIA for the consideration of additional evidence; we hold more narrowly that regardless of whether such residual inherent power exists, we should not exercise it if: [i] the basis for the remand is an instruction to consider documentary evidence that was not in the record before the BIA; and [ii] the agency regulations set forth procedures to reopen a case before the BIA for the taking of additional evidence. I Ni arrived in the United States in April 2001 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on her claim of persecution under China’s family-planning policy. Her" }, { "docid": "22305556", "title": "", "text": "GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge: In September 2005, Milton Ronaldo Rodas Castro (“Rodas”), a native and citizen of Guatemala and a former police officer there, applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3), and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-18 (implementing the CAT), alleging retaliation and threats on his life by the Guatemalan police following his reports of official corruption to an international human rights organization. Rodas’s wife, Maria Luis Carranza-Fuentes (“Carranza”), also a native and citizen of Guatemala, independently applied for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the CAT based on the same factual predicate, and their cases were consolidated in the Immigration Court. Carranza is also listed as a derivative applicant on Rodas’s application. On September 10, 2008 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirmed a January 8, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa, granting Rodas and Carranza relief under the CAT, but denying their requests for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA. In re Caranza & Rodas, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] & [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2008), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] & [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 8, 2007). At issue in this appeal is the portion of the BIA’s order holding petitioners ineligible for asylum upon a finding that Rodas failed to establish a sufficient nexus between a protected ground and the harm he encountered and will encounter if removed to Guatemala. We find that the agency erred in concluding that the danger Rodas encountered lacked any political dimension, because the agency failed to properly consider the relevant context in which Rodas’s claim arises and, in so doing, misconstrued the concept of political opposition. Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand the case for further consideration. BACKGROUND I. Rodas’s Claim of Persecution In 1996, with the" }, { "docid": "22613348", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: Petitioner Mohammad Zaman, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a January 22, 2007 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the August 20, 2005 decision of IJ George T. Chew denying petitioner’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohammad Zaman, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 22, 2007), aff'g No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y.City, Aug. 20, 2005). Zaman asks this Court to vacate the agency’s decision because it was not supported by substantial evidence. Both Zaman and the Government assume, without discussion, that the IJ’s sparse oral decision, and the BIA’s order affirming the decision, contained an “explicit credibility finding” sufficient under Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 290 (2d Cir.2000), to alert us to the grounds for the denial of the withholding and CAT claims. We agree with both parties’ assumptions that the agency did make the required explicit credibility determination, and we write to explain why, in this particular case, the IJ’s decision satisfied Diallo. We further conclude that the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record. I. Background Zaman was admitted into the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in August 1999 and was placed in removal proceedings in February 2003. In 2004 he filed an application for asylum, withholding of re moval, and CAT relief. Zaman alleged that he was persecuted by members of the Pakistan Muslim League (“PML”), including his own brother, on account of his membership in the Pakistan Peoples Party (“PPP”). At an August 2005 hearing, Zaman introduced, inter alia, a copy of his passport, allegedly issued in June 1996, and a PPP membership card, allegedly issued in January 1990. The attorney for the Government asked Zaman when the picture affixed to the passport was taken, and Za-man replied that it was taken in June 1996, when the passport was issued. The attorney for the Government then confirmed that Zaman received his PPP card in 1990. The following colloquy then occurred: [Attorney for the Government]: Okay. Can you explain" }, { "docid": "23081846", "title": "", "text": "Leone war crimes tribunal, against RUF leaders, including those responsible for the RUF’s January 1999 attack on Freetown. The IJ denied the application and ordered Jalloh removed. The BIA, assuming that Jalloh had established past persecution, concluded that the government’s evidence of changed country conditions rebutted the resulting presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. It then reasoned that “the severity of any persecution which the respondent may have endured does not rise to a level warranting a grant of asylum based on such past persecution alone.” In re Omaro Jal-loh, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 13, 2006). Jalloh petitions this court for review. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review “Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the decision of the IJ, and supplements the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir.2006). We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that findings “be supported by reasonable, substantial[,] and probative evidence in the record.” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 116 (2d Cir.2007) (quotation marks omitted). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, as are mixed questions of law and fact, including the “proper application of legal principles to the facts and circumstances of the individual case at hand.” Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003). II. Asylum Based on Past Persecution An alien is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution— and is thereby eligible for asylum—if he can show that he “has suffered persecution in the past ... on account of ... membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself ... of the protection of, that country owing to such persecution.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The government may rebut that presumption, however, if it can demonstrate that conditions in the country have changed such that the alien no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)®. Nevertheless, if the alien “has demonstrated" }, { "docid": "20206590", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: This case calls upon us in principal part to determine whether the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in In re M-F-W & L-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 633 (BIA 2008), describing when forced insertion of an intrauterine device (“IUD”) constitutes persecution, is a permissible interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Petitioner Xia Fan Huang seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the May 24, 2005 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas Schoppert, denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xia Fan Huang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 24, 2005). We hold that the agency’s interpretation is entitled to deference, and therefore deny the petition for review. BACKGROUND Xia Fan Huang is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”) who entered the United States in June 2004 without valid entry documents and was placed in removal proceedings. In December 2004, Huang submitted applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. In the statement attached to her application, Huang claimed that (1) she feared persecution because her father is wanted by the local public security bureau because he practices Falun Gong, (2) she had an IUD inserted following the birth of her only child, but fears persecution because she had it removed by a doctor in the United States, (3) although she is divorced and her husband has custody of their only son, she will be unable to have children if she remarries (which she desires), (4) she will be forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization if she becomes pregnant, and (5) she will be tortured if returned to China because she departed China illegally. In May 2005, at the conclusion of a hearing on the merits of Huang’s claims, the IJ found that she had not demonstrated eligibility for relief. The IJ concluded, inter alia, that a forced IUD insertion" }, { "docid": "22396056", "title": "", "text": "concluded that petitioner appeared to have been “testifying from a rehearsed script of events” and that his story appeared to have been “fabricated.” Having determined that petitioner’s evidence could not be credited, the IJ found that petitioner had not met his burden of proof with respect to any of his claims for relief. With respect to petitioner’s asylum claim, the IJ made the further finding that, because petitioner had not demonstrated “by clear and convincing evidence” that he had entered the United States less than one year before filing his asylum application, petitioner’s application for asylum was untimely. In re Shu Wen Sun, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Hartford June 9, 2004). Petitioner appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion. In re Shu Wen Sun, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 21, 2005). This petition for review followed. DISCUSSION When the BIA issues an opinion that fully adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. See, e.g., Chun Gao v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir.2005). We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard, treating them as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). I. Asylum Application The IJ denied petitioner’s asylum application upon finding that (1) the application was untimely and (2) petitioner did not qualify for any exceptions to the statutory filing deadline. We lack jurisdiction to review these determinations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (placing agency determinations as to the timeliness of an asylum application beyond judicial review); see also Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 720 (2d Cir.2007). In addition, while we do have jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), petitioner has raised no such arguments in his brief. Accordingly, we must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the portion of his petition seeking to review the denial of his asylum claim by the IJ and the BIA. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of" }, { "docid": "3938509", "title": "", "text": "devoted only a “single conclusory sentence” to the argument that he had demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution, that claim was waived); Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.”). Our opinion is therefore limited to the petition for review of the Board’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to reconsider. BACKGROUND On April 13, 2006, Petitioner Roselia Lazaro Nolasco, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was served with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) while in Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) custody. The NTA alleged that, she entered the United States two days earlier in Arizona and was present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)®. It is undisputed that Petitioner was nine years old at the time of service. Petitioner was released from custody the following day, and on April 20, her father filed a change of address form and successfully moved on her behalf to change venue to Hartford, Connecticut. In November 2006, Petitioner appeared before the immigration judge accompanied by counsel and her parents. Through counsel, she admitted the allegations in the NTA, conceded removability as charged, and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. Although there was extensive discussion of Petitioner’s youth, neither the Immigration Judge nor the lawyers for Petitioner and Respondent raised the issue of whether service of the NTA was proper and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. In March 2008, following a merits hearing (at which Petitioner’s father testified), the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s asylum application and ordered her removed to El Salvador; the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirmed that decision without opinion. See In re Beatrice Magana-Gallejo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2009), aff'g No. 099 471 824 (Immig.Ct.Hartford, CT, Mar. 3, 2008). In December 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the BIA, arguing for the first time that both the BIA and the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction" }, { "docid": "22200969", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM. We consider here whether a Court of Appeals possesses jurisdiction to review the decision of an immigration judge to deny a motion for a continuance filed during an immigration proceeding. Petitioner Rasaq Opyemi Sanusi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of a February 26, 2001 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of a decision by Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Donn Livingston denying Sanusi’s request for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Sanusi, Order and Oral Decision of the Immigration Judge, File No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Jamaica, NY, Mar. 16, 2000). Sanusi argues that the IJ made two errors, each of which was affirmed by the BIA. First, Sanusi argues that the IJ should have granted him relief under the CAT, stating that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard and incorrectly found Sanusi’s testimony not to be credible. Second, Sanusi contends that the IJ erred in denying Sanusi’s motion for a continuance, which he requested so that he might acquire additional medical evidence in support of his CAT claim. In addition, Sanusi argues that the BIA erred when it refused to remand Sanusi’s case to the IJ for further proceedings to consider newly available evidence. We conclude that Sanusi’s arguments are without merit and, accordingly, we deny the petition for review. Background Sanusi originally applied for asylum and for withholding of removal under sections 208(a) and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (“INA”), as amended, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The IJ denied Sanusi’s application for asylum and for withholding of removal under the INA on March 23, 1998 and ordered Sanusi removed. Sanusi declined to appeal, thereby waiving any claims of error he might have had before this Court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if ... the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right[.]”); Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 77 (2d Cir.2004) (“[Fjailure to exhaust [these remedies] constitutes a clear jurisdictional bar.” (internal" }, { "docid": "20206593", "title": "", "text": "Huang’s appeal. The BIA found that “insertion of an IUD does not rise to the level of harm necessary to constitute persecution, absent some aggravating circumstance, which is not present in this case. Moreover, the respondent has not shown that the insertion of an IUD was or would be on account of a protected ground.” In re Xia Fan Huang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2008) (citing Matter of M-F-W & L-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 633 (BIA 2008)). Huang timely petitioned this Court for review of the BIA’s decision. DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). When the BIA does not adopt the decision of the IJ to any extent, we review only the decision of the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). Here, following Huang’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision denying relief, her case was remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the BIA to reconsider its decision in light of this Court’s holding in Ying Zheng v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 201 (2d Cir.2007). On remand, the BIA issued a brief opinion addressing only the issue presented in Ying Zheng, i.e., whether the insertion of an IUD constitutes persecution, and leaving intact the remainder of its conclusions in its original decision. Therefore, we review the BIA’s original opinion as modified by its subsequent decision, which constitutes the agency’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). We review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See id. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008). We review de novo questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact. See Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). The Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien if he determines that the alien is a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 428 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act defines a" }, { "docid": "22305568", "title": "", "text": "1988). Finally, the IJ concluded that because Rodas’s past experience lacked a nexus to a protected ground, so too did Rodas’s fear of future persecution. Id. at 15. Accordingly, the IJ found Rodas ineligible for either asylum or withholding of removal under the INA. On September 10, 2008, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. In re Carranza & Rodas, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] & [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2008). The BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Rodas failed to “demonstrate[ ] that any harm he encountered or may encounter is ... on account of his political opinion.” Id. The BIA also addressed Rodas’s claim of persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group, an issue the IJ did not address. The BIA rejected that argument, however, finding that the social group on account of which Rodas claimed persecution — defined as “Guatemalan policemen who have registered complaints against official corruption” — lacked the requisite social visibility. Id. Additionally, noting that the REAL ID Act’s “one central reason” standard governs Rodas’s case, the BIA held that Rodas had not demonstrated that membership in any social group was “one central reason” for Rodas’s fear of persecution. Id. DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards “Where, as here, the BIA has adopted and supplemented the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Delgado v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 702, 705 (2d Cir.2007). Legal issues, and the application of law to fact, are reviewed de novo. Roman v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 184, 186 (2d Cir.2009). “[B]ecause the IJ found [Rodas] to be credible, we treat the events [ ]he experienced in the past as undisputed facts.” Delgado, 508 F.3d at 705. The agency’s findings of fact are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xu Duan Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 111 (2d Cir.2005). Accordingly, we review such findings under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that they be supported by “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence" }, { "docid": "22217957", "title": "", "text": "and the BIA’s opinions for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review factual findings under the deferential substantial evidence standard, treating them as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.2007). “Legal questions, including mixed questions of law and fact and the application of law to fact, are reviewed de novo.” Manzur, 494 F.3d at 288. I Lecaj argues that he is not a citizen of Montenegro. Even assuming that he has administratively exhausted that argument, see Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 118-22 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that the judicially imposed issue exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, but is ordinarily mandatory), it lacks merit. The IJ reasonably designated — and the BIA implicitly adopted — Montenegro as the country of removal in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(D) and (E). The extract from the birth registrar submitted in support of Leeaj’s application indicated that he was born in and is a citizen of Montenegro. Lecaj’s application listed Montenegro as his birthplace and last address before entering the United States. Moreover, Lecaj designated Montenegro as the country from which he sought withholding of removal, and submitted evidence regarding the likelihood of future persecution in Montenegro (and nowhere else). II Lecaj argues that the agency failed to undertake a sufficiently individualized analysis of how changes in Montenegrin country conditions would affect him. See Alibasic v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 78, 87 & n. 6 (2d Cir.2008); Passi v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 98, 101-02, 103-04 (2d Cir.2008). The agency seems to have overlooked or discounted aspects of the Report and other evidence bearing on Lecaj’s ethnicity and situation. Nevertheless, we conclude that remand is not warranted because “we can state with confidence that the same decision would be made if we were to remand.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 335 (2d Cir.2006). Any oversight or discounting" }, { "docid": "22297267", "title": "", "text": "REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judge: Chinese nationals Mei Fun Wong and her son Ling Go petition for review of an October 6, 2008 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”), upholding a March 1, 2002 order by Immigration Judge (“IJ”) William F. Jankun, directing petitioners’ removal from the United States and denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See Matter of M-F-W & L-G- (“In re M-FW-”), 24 I. & N. Dec. 633 (B.I.A.2008), aff'g Nos. [ A XX XXX XXX ]/113 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 1, 2002). Because Wong failed administratively to exhaust her challenges to the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief, we dismiss this part of her petition for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). No such jurisdictional bar pertains to her petition for review of the denial of asylum. In this respect, Wong challenges BIA determinations, detailed in a precedential opinion, (1) rejecting Wong’s argument that involuntary insertion of a contraceptive intrauterine device (“IUD”) equates to “involuntary sterilization” as that term is used categorically to identify a political “refugee” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); (2) requiring involuntary IUD insertion to be accompanied by aggravating circumstances to constitute “persecution” under the INA, see id.; and (3) finding no such aggravating circumstances demonstrated in this case. Wong further challenges the BIA’s determination that (4) in any event, she failed to establish the required nexus between the alleged harms inflicted and her resistance to China’s population control policy. Wong’s assertion that involuntary IUD insertion equates to sterilization is now foreclosed by our decision in Xia Fan Huang v. Holder, 591 F.3d 124 (2d Cir.2010). For reasons discussed herein, we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA to preclude categorical treatment of involuntary IUD insertion as persecution and, thus, to the agency’s requirement for some demonstration of accompanying aggravating circumstances to establish persecution. At the same time, however, we conclude that the BIA did not sufficiently identify the standards it applied in deter mining that" } ]

[ { "docid": "6702347", "title": "", "text": "would suffer exceptional or extremely unusual hardship as a result of his removal. The BIA affirmed this decision without opinion, thus providing the Attorney General’s final judgment denying relief under § 1229b. Kharkhan, 336 F.3d at 604. The BIA subsequently denied Martinez-Maldonado’s motion to reopen and reconsider. After considering the government’s argument, we agree that we are not able to reach the merits here because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. The statute that limits our jurisdiction, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) (2000), provides “no court shall have jurisdiction to review ... any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b [cancellation of removal] of this title.” This provision, together with its companion provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), bars judicial review of all discretionary decisions of the Attorney General made in immigration cases, with a few exceptions, such as asylum cases. Our Court and others have confirmed that the application of this statute strips us of jurisdiction in discretionary cancellation of removal eases. See, e.g., Leyva v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 303, 305 (7th Cir.2004) (“The meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) is clear: we may not review the Attorney General’s judgment regarding whether or not to grant cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)”); Kharkhan v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 601, 604 (7th Cir.2003); Pilch v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 585, 587 (7th Cir.2003) (“The thing under review is the agency’s final decision, not the language of its opinion; and if the final decision is to withhold certain discretionary remedies, that’s the end .... we lack jurisdiction whether or not the agency made a factual or legal error on the way to decision.”). See also Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003) (Court “lack[s] jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that an alien failed to satisfy the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ requirement for cancellation of removal”); Gonzalez-Oropeza et al. v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 1331, 1332-33 (11th Cir.2003) (“the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination is a discretionary decision not subject to review”). Martinez-Maldonado attempts to get around this jurisdictional limitation by arguing that his ease can" } ]

[ { "docid": "16895565", "title": "", "text": "also satisfies constitutional due process. Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir.2006). Because Pouhova does not challenge the constitutional adequacy of the statutory rights, we focus our analysis on those statutory rights. See Malave v. Holder, 610 F.3d 483, 487 (7th Cir.2010) (focus should be on statutes and relevant regulations). Under section 1229a(b)(4)(B), an alien in removal proceedings “shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government.” An alien who challenges a removal order by claiming a violation of these rights must show both that the proceeding did not meet these requirements and that she was prejudiced. Apouviepseakoda v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir.2007). Evidence in removal proceedings need not conform strictly to the Federal Rules of Evidence, but it must be probative and its admission must be “fundamentally fair.” Barradas v. Holder, 582 F.3d 754, 762 (7th Cir.2009). The fairness of a piece of evidence depends in part on its reliability. Duad v. United States, 556 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir.2009) (despite flexibility of evidentiary rules in removal proceedings, “evidence must, in the final analysis, be reliable”); see also Aslam v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir.2008) (fairness in the • context of evidence is “closely related to the reliability and trustworthiness of the evidence”) (internal quotations omitted); Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.2008) (same). Because the Board ultimately agreed with the immigration judge’s decision and supplemented that opinion with its own observations, we review both the immigration judge’s and the Board’s decisions. See Sirbu v. Holder, 718 F.3d 655, 658 (7th Cir.2013). We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). To the extent Pouhova challenges the denial of discretionary relief, we retain jurisdiction to review the constitutional and legal claims she raises in her petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review de novo the legal question whether the admission of each document violated Pouhova’s procedural rights in a removal proceeding and, if so," }, { "docid": "21816316", "title": "", "text": "had only peripheral involvement in his drug-trafficking conviction. In addition, the Board found that Delgado failed to establish two other requirements under Matter of Y-L-: that his conviction was not connected to any organized crime; and, that the drugs were to be distributed solely for social purposes. A motion to reconsider was denied. Thereafter, Delgado filed this petition for review. II. DISCUSSION Generally, we lack jurisdiction to review denials of discretionary relief, including asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Aparicio-Brito v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 674, 686 (7th Cir. 2016). “But, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law raised in a petition for review.” Perez-Fuentes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 506, 510 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Where, as here, the Board adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision and provides its own analysis, we review both decisions. Halim v. Holder, 755 F.3d 506, 511 (7th Cir. 2014). First, Delgado contends that DHS lacks legal authority to issue removal orders on behalf of the Attorney General pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b), and that § 1228(b) requires removal orders be issued by IJs. Second, he argues that he should have been permitted to apply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 because the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(2)(i) is ultra vires. Lastly, he argues that the Board committed various legal errors and failed to follow its procedures when adjudicating his case, such as failing to refer the case to a three-member panel, engaging in improper fact-finding, and overlooking his arguments on appeal. A. No Jurisdiction to Review Challenges to the Expedited Removal Process Delgado challenges DHS’s FARO dated March 16, 2015, arguing that DHS lacked legal authority to order Delgado’s removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b), and that the plain language of § 1228(b) requires that final orders of removal be issued by IJs. We need not address these claims because Delgado’s challenges to DHS’s removal order were rendered moot when the IJ ordered that he be removed pursuant to DHS’s FARO. Article III limits our review to “Cases” and “Controversies,” and an" }, { "docid": "7469175", "title": "", "text": "[cancellation of removal],” except insofar as “constitutional claims or questions of law” are raised. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Ordinarily, if we lack jurisdiction to review an order, then we also lack jurisdiction over motions to reopen or reconsider that order, see, e.g., Martinez-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.2006), but in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 130 S.Ct. 827, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010), we have recognized that judicial review is foreclosed “only if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural request also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on the merits of his underlying claim.” Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868, 876 (7th Cir.2011). As we put it in Calma: [T]here are identifiable circumstances under which a critical procedural step in a removal proceeding, such as the denial of a continuance that is sought for purposes of allowing another agency to complete its review, the denial of a motion to reconsider, a refusal to remand, or a refusal to reopen a case, lies within our jurisdiction even though we are barred from evaluating the BIA’s ultimate decision in the circumstances spelled out in § 1252(a)(2)(B)® — Sometimes review will be possible because ... the challenged action effectively nullifies the statutory scheme and thus for all practical purposes raises a question of law. Sometimes review will be possible because ... the request for the unreviewable relief will be coupled with a request for relief like asylum that is reviewable. If, however, it is impossible to distinguish the challenged action from the determination on the merits, then jurisdiction is lacking and the petition must be dismissed. Id. at 876-77. None of the circumstances we identified in Calma applies to Cruz-Mayaho, and so that takes us back to the default rule under which we do not have jurisdiction over the motions to reopen or reconsider if we lack jurisdiction over the underlying order. Applying that rule, we conclude that, for the most part, we lack jurisdiction over the Board’s decisions. To the extent that we have jurisdiction, our review is only for abuse" }, { "docid": "4118967", "title": "", "text": "rule. Judicial review of procedural motions \"is foreclosed only if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural request also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on the merits of his underlying claim.” See Cruz-Mayaho, 698 F.3d at 576-77 (internal quotations omitted), citing Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868, 876 (7th Cir.2011). But we held in Moral-Salazar v. Holder, 708 F.3d 957, 961-62 (7th Cir.2013), that the Calma exception did not apply where the underlying order was a removal order that would be barred from review because it was entered on account of an aggravated felony. ZambranoReyes's was such a removal order, so the Calma exception does not give us jurisdiction here. . Other circuits have found that section 1252(a)(2)(D) can override section 1231(a)(5) to the extent the latter might otherwise bar appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Villegas de la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650, 656 (6th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases and stating on direct review of reinstatement proceedings that \"the circuit courts that have considered the interplay between § 1252(a)(2)(D) and § 1231(a)(5) have held that § 1252(a)(2)(D) re-vests the circuit courts with jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law raised in the context of reinstatement proceedings;”) (quotations omitted). Although these cases addressed jurisdiction to review an underlying removal order as a challenge to the order’s reinstatement, section 1252(a)(2)(D)’s broad language should also apply to a motion to reopen a reinstated order. Some of the circuit cases cited by Ville-gas de la Paz endorsed (but did not actually apply) a \"gross miscarriage of justice” exception to section 1231(a)(5). See, e.g., Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir.2008). We need not and do not endorse that standard for the purposes of this opinion. As we explain below, the potential availability of appellate jurisdiction does not mean that the Board or other immigration authorities could actually grant the relief that section 1231(a)(5) bars on the merits. . In denying Zambrano-Reyes’s motion to reopen, the Board overlooked a significant legal development in our circuit shortly before its original affirmance of his removal order in 2000." }, { "docid": "22453585", "title": "", "text": "Khan “largely reiterate[d] the same arguments that he presented on” direct appeal. The Board was “not persuaded that [it] committed an error of fact or law in [its] prior decision by affirming the Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of relief.” Finally, the BIA held that “[t]o the extent that [Khan’s motion] raises new arguments, they essentially assert that his case should not have been affirmed without opinion by a single Board Member,” and such arguments were “barred by regulation.” DISCUSSION 1. Jurisdiction The government argues that we lack jurisdiction to review Khan’s petition for review because we are precluded from reviewing a challenge brought by “an alien who is removable by reason of having committed” an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), or a challenge to the agency’s denial of discretionary relief, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). See also Martinez-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.2006) (“[W]e lack jurisdiction over motions to reopen and reconsider in cases where we lack jurisdiction to review the underlying order.”); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir.2003) (When a jurisdiction-stripping provision deprives the court of jurisdiction over the underlying order, “it strips us of jurisdiction to entertain an attack on that order mounted through filing of a motion to reopen.”); Sarmadi v. INS, 121 F.3d 1319, 1322 (9th Cir.1997) (“[W]here Congress explicitly withdraws our jurisdiction to review a final order of deportation, our authority to review motions to reconsider or to reopen deportation proceedings is thereby likewise withdrawn.”). However, the jurisdiction-stripping provisions on which the government relies are both subject to the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which restores our jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law.” See, e.g., Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 324 (2d Cir.2006). As we explained in Xiao Ji Chen, we have “not determined] the precise outer limits of the term ‘questions of law.’ ” Id. at 328. We have, however, suggested that a question of law arises “where a discretionary decision is argued to be an abuse of discretion because it was ..." }, { "docid": "4118956", "title": "", "text": "denial of a motion to reopen. See Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 248-54, 130 S.Ct. 827, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010) (courts have jurisdiction over motion to reopen where Board’s decision on the motion is committed to agency discretion by regulation rather than by statute); see also Tapia-Lemos v. Holder, 696 F.3d 687, 689 (7th Cir.2012) (“Denial of a bona fide motion to reopen is reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).”). But Kucana left open the question “whether review of a reopening denial would be precluded if the court would lack jurisdiction over the alien’s underlying claim for relief.” Kucana, 558 U.S. at 250 n. 17, 130 S.Ct. 827. In this circuit, the default answer is that “we do not have jurisdiction over the motions to reopen or reconsider if we lack jurisdiction over the underlying order.” See Cruz-Mayaho v. Holder, 698 F.3d 574, 577 (7th Cir.2012). Thus, we have jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of Zambrano-Reyes’s motion to reopen his removal order only if we would have jurisdiction to review the Board’s 2000 removal order itself. Our jurisdiction extends to Zambrano-Reyes’s original removal order to the extent that he argues on judicial review that it involved constitutional or legal error. Section 1252(a)(2)(D) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code provides that “Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review. ...” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). This exception applies to nearly all limits on jurisdiction in the INA, including two that would otherwise apply to ZambranoReyes. First, it expressly applies to section 1252(a)(2)(C), which would otherwise bar our review of Zambrano-Reyes’s removal order because it was on account of an aggravated felony. See Alvarado-Fonseca v. Holder, 631 F.3d 385, 389 (7th Cir.2011) (section 1252(a)(2)(D) allowed jurisdiction to review order removing alien convicted of committing an aggravated felony despite section 1252(a)(2)(C)). Second, section 1252(a)(2)(D) also applies to our jurisdiction despite 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), which provides" }, { "docid": "17430367", "title": "", "text": "his statutory right to present evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4). And it is true that we have granted petitions for review in immigration cases where the Board and the IJ have ignored evidence or have failed to address necessary elements of a legal analysis. Iglesias v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 528, 531 (7th Cir.2008) (emphasizing that the “failure to exercise discretion or to consider factors acknowledged to be material to such an exercise — such as the wholesale failure to consider evidence— would be an error of law” (quotation marks omitted)); Champion v. Holder, 626 F.3d 952, 957 (7th Cir.2010) (finding that “the BIA erred by failing to consider the impact of Yomi’s potential deportation” and remanding “for the BIA to address this critical component of the hardship analysis”). Unfortunately for Jawad, however, even a cursory look at the record reveals that in his case, unlike in Iglesias or Champion, the IJ did not ignore Elham’s testimony or skip any steps in the legal analysis. To the contrary, the IJ described Elham’s testimony in detail and evaluated its relevance. Jawad now seeks to recast his frustration with the IJ’s factual findings as error, but his efforts are unavailing. As the old saying goes, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and, as both we and our sister circuits have repeatedly held, a petitioner can’t manufacture a legal dispute over a disagreement on the facts. Jezierski v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 886, 890 (7th Cir.2008); Adrien v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 Fed.Appx. 172, 176 (11th Cir.2011); Kamara v. Holder, 368 Fed.Appx. 720, 721 (9th Cir.2010); Lakhavani v. Mukasey, 255 Fed.Appx. 819, 821 (5th Cir.2007). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over Jawad’s petition for review, as it presents nothing within the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) that would cause us to examine the agency’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. The petition for review is therefore Dismissed. . The Board noted that Jawad also spelled his name \"Abdeljawad” in certain documents; this may account for the way in which his daughter’s name is spelled" }, { "docid": "2080555", "title": "", "text": "to avoid deportation petitions for review of a denial of a motion for continuance, a routine procedural motion. Notwithstanding subsection (C)’s jurisdictional bar, we would have jurisdiction to review any legal and constitutional issues that Moral raises. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). But Moral presents no legal or constitutional question here. Moral contends that the Board and IJ abused their discretion by denying him further continuances to pursue post-conviction relief under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). Mere reference to a legal standard or a constitutional provision, however, does not convert a discretionary decision into a reviewable legal or constitutional question. See Zamora-Mallari v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 679, 696 (7th Cir.2008) (a petitioner may not create jurisdiction by “cloaking an argument in constitutional garb”) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted); Adebowale v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 893, 896 (7th Cir.2008). Though Moral cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla, Moral’s constitutional challenge to his conviction was properly before the Illinois state courts; neither the agency nor this court may rule on its merits. See Ghani v. Holder, 557 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir.2009) (“immigration proceedings are not a per missible venue for attacking the validity of a criminal conviction”). III. Conclusion Accordingly, we Dismiss Moral’s petition for want of jurisdiction. . As noted in Calma, the question left open in Kucana was \"whether review of [decisions made discretionary by regulation] would be precluded if the court would lack jurisdiction over the alien’s underlying claim for relief.” Calma, 663 F.3d at 873. In Kucana, the Court concluded that the jurisdictional bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not apply because the Board's decision (on a motion to reopen) was made discretionary by regulation, not by statute. See 130 S.Ct. at 839-40. . In Kucana, the Supreme Court emphasized that the scope of the INA's jurisdictional bars must be defined by statute, not by regulation. \"By defining the various jurisdictional bars by reference to other provisions in the INA itself, Congress ensured that it, and only it, would limit the federal courts’ jurisdiction. To read §" }, { "docid": "21816315", "title": "", "text": "also found that Delgado failed to establish a peripheral role in his drug-trafficking conviction. Lastly, even if Delgado met his burden under Matter of Y-L-, the IJ concluded that it would have denied the application because Delgado did not show it was more likely than not that he would face persecution in Mexico. Delgado appealed to the Board, and requested review by a three-member panel. He challenged essentially every aspect of the IJ’s decision. Additionally, he argued that the IJ incorrectly declined to consider an asylum application because 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(2)(i) is ultra vires. On March 14, 2016, a single-member Board adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, and entered an order dismissing Delgado’s appeal. The Board declined to con sider Delgado’s argument that 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(2)(i) is ultra vires, reasoning that it lacked authority to make such a ruling. The Board concluded that the IJ properly found that Delgado’s aggravated felony conviction presumptively constituted a “particularly serious crime.” The Board explicitly agreed with the IJ’s finding that Delgado failed to establish that he had only peripheral involvement in his drug-trafficking conviction. In addition, the Board found that Delgado failed to establish two other requirements under Matter of Y-L-: that his conviction was not connected to any organized crime; and, that the drugs were to be distributed solely for social purposes. A motion to reconsider was denied. Thereafter, Delgado filed this petition for review. II. DISCUSSION Generally, we lack jurisdiction to review denials of discretionary relief, including asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Aparicio-Brito v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 674, 686 (7th Cir. 2016). “But, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law raised in a petition for review.” Perez-Fuentes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 506, 510 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Where, as here, the Board adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision and provides its own analysis, we review both decisions. Halim v. Holder, 755 F.3d 506, 511 (7th Cir. 2014). First, Delgado contends that DHS lacks legal authority to issue removal orders on behalf of the Attorney General pursuant to 8" }, { "docid": "184795", "title": "", "text": "876, 878-79 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1079, 126 S.Ct. 1793, 164 L.Ed.2d 533 (2006). Since enactment of the REAL ID Act, our many cancellation-of-removal decisions have couched the jurisdictional inquiry in terms of the language in § 1252(a)(2)(D), asking whether petitioners were seeking “review of constitutional claims or questions of law,” but we have remained true to the distinction reflected in Martinez Ortiz and Reyes-Vasquez. We will review a nondiscretionary determination that an alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal, for example, the BIA’s refusal to consider a § 1229b issue because petitioner had not timely raised it in Pinos-Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436, 439-41 (8th Cir.2008). But we have consistently ruled that we lack jurisdiction to review a discretionary BIA decision that petitioner’s removal would not “result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” even when the petitioner seeking review attempted to “create jurisdiction by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional or legal garb.” Garcia-Torres v. Holder, 660 F.3d 333, 338 (8th Cir.2011) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 133 S.Ct. 108, 184 L.Ed.2d 23 (2012); accord Hamilton v. Holder, 680 F.3d 1024, 1027 (8th Cir.2012); Solis v. Holder, 647 F.3d 831, 833 (8th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 132 S.Ct. 1032, 181 L.Ed.2d 739 (2012); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006); see also Zeah v. Holder, 744 F.3d 577, 582 (8th Cir.2014) (no jurisdiction to review discretionary denial based on petitioner’s sham marriage); Ignatova v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1209, 1213 (8th Cir.2005) (no jurisdiction to review denial of a hardship waiver application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)). Hernandez-Garcia’s due process argument is contrary to our decision in Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir.2010) (no right to due process in the cancellation of removal remedy). These decisions control the issues Hernandez-Garcia presents for review. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. . Under prior law, the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether a BIA extreme hardship decision \"considered] all factors relevant to the hardship determination and state[d] its reasons for denying the requested relief.” Watkins v. INS, 63 F.3d 844, 848" }, { "docid": "2199846", "title": "", "text": "under § 1229b. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review any claim in any of the motions or petitions that the IJ or the Board incorrectly held that Cruz-Moya-ho’s children would not experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if Cruz-Moyaho was deported. See Delgado v. Holder, 674 F.3d 759, 765 (7th Cir.2012). We have also held that “where we lack jurisdiction to review an underlying order, we also lack jurisdiction over appeals from denials of motions to reopen and reconsider those orders.” Bachynskyy v. Holder, 668 F.3d 412, 416 (7th Cir.2011). Applying these rules, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the majority of Cruz-Moyaho’s arguments that simply challenge the merits of the Board’s orders. This includes his contentions that the Board “erred as a matter of law” by reaching decisions contrary to his position because they are merely factual disagreements disguised as legal contentions. See Vasile v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir.2005) (stating that a petitioner cannot “shoehorn” a claim into a “question of law”). This also includes any contention that the Board failed to conduct a thorough review of the record, or as CruzMoyaho puts it, failed to “[t]ak[e] all the relevant factors in the aggregate.” See Mireles v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir.2006). To the extent Cruz-Moyaho sets forth colorable arguments related to legal errors and constitutional claims arising out of the Board’s orders from June 29, 2011, and December 22, 2011, we retain jurisdiction and will review them in turn. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Ward v. Holder, 632 F.3d 395, 397 (7th Cir.2011). (Cruz-Moyaho withdrew No. 10-3084, so any arguments arising directly out of the IJ’s October 27, 2009 oral decision or the Board’s August 12, 2010 order are not properly before us and are rejected accordingly.) A. Legal Errors — Failure to Consider Evidence Arguments focused on legal errors are reviewed de novo, “with deference to the agency if the issue involves an ambiguous section of the INA or an interpretation of agency regulations.” Kiorkis v. Holder, 634 F.3d 924, 928 (7th Cir.2011). “Legal questions include ‘challenges to the BIA’s interpretation" }, { "docid": "4118966", "title": "", "text": "not reopen his proceeding, and he is ineligible for the relief he seeks. “We need not remand an immigration case where doing so would prove futile.” Marin-Garcia v. Holder, 647 F.3d 666, 672 (7th Cir.2011). III. Conclusion Regardless of St. Cyr and Judulang, Zambrano-Reyes is barred from section 212(c) discretionary relief and his removal proceedings may not be reopened because of his illegal reentry. We need not reach his other arguments against the Board’s decision. The petition is denied. . Under immigration law, an alien is \"excludable” or \"inadmissible” if the government may prevent him or her from entering or reentering the United States. Both terms are also used to describe an alien who is removable because he or she is present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (setting forth the grounds of inadmissibility). \"Deportation” or \"removal” refers to the removal of an alien who falls into any of the classes of \"deportable aliens” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a). . There is an exception to our default rule. Judicial review of procedural motions \"is foreclosed only if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural request also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on the merits of his underlying claim.” See Cruz-Mayaho, 698 F.3d at 576-77 (internal quotations omitted), citing Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868, 876 (7th Cir.2011). But we held in Moral-Salazar v. Holder, 708 F.3d 957, 961-62 (7th Cir.2013), that the Calma exception did not apply where the underlying order was a removal order that would be barred from review because it was entered on account of an aggravated felony. ZambranoReyes's was such a removal order, so the Calma exception does not give us jurisdiction here. . Other circuits have found that section 1252(a)(2)(D) can override section 1231(a)(5) to the extent the latter might otherwise bar appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Villegas de la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650, 656 (6th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases and stating on direct review of reinstatement proceedings that \"the circuit courts that have considered the interplay between § 1252(a)(2)(D) and § 1231(a)(5) have held" }, { "docid": "13136342", "title": "", "text": "to the denial of the continuance is not covered by the jurisdiction-stripping rule. This is a point that deserves close attention. In Calma’s case, the government assumes without analysis that Kucana supports this court’s jurisdiction and that our review is under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. In Khomyshyn’s case, in contrast, the government has argued that Kucana holds only that our jurisdiction was not eliminated by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which removes jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General “the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General.” In Juarez v. Holder, 599 F.3d 560 (7th Cir.2010), however, decided two months after Kucana, we commented that Kucana did not affect 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which removes jurisdiction over “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title.” See also Leguizamo-Medina v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 772 (7th Cir.2007). In both of the cases before us, the ultimate decision (adjustment of status) is governed by one of the statutes listed in section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) — specifically, section 1255, which governs adjustment of status — and so the question before us is whether we have jurisdiction to review the denial of a continuance sought for the purpose of deferring final decision in that kind of case. Although Kucana is informative, it does not definitively resolve this issue. Indeed, the Court specifically left open “the question whether review of [decisions made discretionary by regulation] would be precluded if the court would lack jurisdiction over the alien’s underlying claim for relief.” Kucana, 130 S.Ct. at 839 n. 17. The government argues that because Khomyshyn’s request for a continuance is “ancillary” to his underlying request for adjustment of status (and it might have said the same about Calma), this court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). It finds support for this position in our pre-Kucana decisions in Leguizamo-Medina, supra; Martinez-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.2006) (precluding judicial review over motions to reopen or reconsider where court lacked ability to review underlying claim); and Dave" }, { "docid": "2199845", "title": "", "text": "order denying Reconsider # 2 and Reopen # 2. In the order, the Board said Cruz-Moyaho was not denied due process during his removal proceedings and he did not identify any material factual or legal errors in the Board’s order of June 29, 2011. Insofar as Cruz-Moyaho’s motion from July 29, 2011, contained new information, the Board denied Reopen # 2 as untimely and number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The Board also concluded that Cruz-Moyaho’s situation was not “an exceptional situation” that warranted its sua sponte discretion. On January 9, 2012, Cruz-Moyaho filed a petition for review of the Board’s order from December 22, 2011 (No. 12-1056). We consolidated Nos. 11-2716 and 12-1056, and we shall now dispose of them. II. DISCUSSION Our review begins with the question of jurisdiction. Cruz-Moyaho’s brief reads as if we were reviewing the original denial of his cancellation of removal and had the ability to review the IJ and the Board’s fact-finding de novo; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) prohibits courts from reviewing judgments regarding the granting of relief under § 1229b. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review any claim in any of the motions or petitions that the IJ or the Board incorrectly held that Cruz-Moya-ho’s children would not experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if Cruz-Moyaho was deported. See Delgado v. Holder, 674 F.3d 759, 765 (7th Cir.2012). We have also held that “where we lack jurisdiction to review an underlying order, we also lack jurisdiction over appeals from denials of motions to reopen and reconsider those orders.” Bachynskyy v. Holder, 668 F.3d 412, 416 (7th Cir.2011). Applying these rules, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the majority of Cruz-Moyaho’s arguments that simply challenge the merits of the Board’s orders. This includes his contentions that the Board “erred as a matter of law” by reaching decisions contrary to his position because they are merely factual disagreements disguised as legal contentions. See Vasile v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir.2005) (stating that a petitioner cannot “shoehorn” a claim into a “question of law”). This also includes any contention that the Board" }, { "docid": "4118961", "title": "", "text": "that the Board also determined that any ineffective assistance did not prejudice ZambranoReyes, that finding would need to be reconsidered if the Board’s initial legal determination was erroneous and thus does not defeat our jurisdiction. See Sanchez v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 641, 647-50 (7th Cir.2007) (where discretionary determinations rested on Board’s erroneous initial determination that counsel was not ineffective, no jurisdictional bar despite Board’s alternate discretionary holdings). We conclude that our jurisdiction extends to Zambrano-Reyes’s removal order because he raises a constitutional claim or legal question with regard to his underlying order of removal. Under Kucana and our default rule, we thus have jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen that order of removal Because he raises constitutional and legal claims, our jurisdiction also extends to the Board’s refusal to reopen Zambrano-Reyes’ removal proceedings sua sponte. See Anaya-Aguilar v. Holder, 697 F.3d 1189 (7th Cir.2012) (bar on review of motions to reopen sua sponte does not apply where petitioner raises constitutional or legal claims), denying reh’g of 683 F.3d 369 (7th Cir.2012). The potential obstacles to our jurisdiction here do not overcome the “strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action.” St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 298 & n. 9, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (collecting cases). B. Merits of the Denial of the Motion to Reopen Although we have jurisdiction, we must deny Zambrano-Reyes’s petition on the merits. The Board gave three reasons for denying Zambrano-Reyes’s motion to reopen: first, that he was not entitled to equitable tolling of the deadline of his motion to reopen; second, that he did not show that his former attorney was so ineffective as to impinge on the fundamental fairness of his proceedings; and third, that his case did not involve “exceptional circumstances” such that the Board would reopen his proceedings sua sponte. The Board’s reasoning on the third point is sufficient to deny Zambrano-Reyes’s petition on all grounds. Because of his unlawful reentry after his removal, ZambranoReyes is simply barred as a matter of law from the discretionary relief and the reopening of his removal proceedings that he" }, { "docid": "2080547", "title": "", "text": "against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed certain criminal offenses (including sexual abuse of a minor, an aggravated felony covered in § 1227(a) (2) (A) (iii)). The government also cites case law that interprets subsection (C) to preclude even the review of discretionary, procedural decisions such as the denial of a motion for continuance. Further, the government argues that the exception for constitutional or legal issues, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), is construed narrowly and cannot salvage Moral’s primarily factual contention that the Board abused its discretion by denying a motion for continuance. On the jurisdictional issue, the government cites case law that predates Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir.2011); it does not consider what, if any, impact Calma should have on this court’s interpretation of subsection (C). In this case, we must determine whether our analysis in Calma, which focused exclusively on § 1252(a)(2)(B), applies to the jurisdictional bar set out in § 1252(a)(2)(C). In Calma, we decided that we had jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of a motion for continuance where an alien’s procedural challenge did not implicate the merits of an otherwise unreviewable removal order. Calma, 663 F.3d at 878. This case raises a similar question — whether we have jurisdiction to review an alien’s challenge to the denial of a motion for continuance — but requires us to consider a different statutory provision, subsection (C). As noted above, this provision deprives us of jurisdiction “to review any final order of removal” against an alien who has been convicted of certain enumerated crimes. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Subsection (C) applies to Moral because he has been convicted of an aggravated felony — sexual abuse of a minor — see id. §§ 1227(a) (2)(A)(iii); 1101(a)(43)(A), and illegal use of a firearm, see id. § 1227(a)(2)(C). (The sex-abuse conviction resulted from the guilty plea that Moral unsuccessfully challenged in state court.) Recently the Supreme Court in Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 130 S.Ct. 827, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010), and subsequently this court in Calma, 663 F.3d 868, concluded that the jurisdiction-stripping" }, { "docid": "4118955", "title": "", "text": "acted ineffectively by not advising the respondent to pursue this form of relief.” Id. The Board also declined to reopen his removal order sua sponte, finding that even with the changes from St. Cyr and Judulang, Zambrano-Reyes would not be eligible for reopening or discretionary relief because of his unlawful reentry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(k)(2). Zambrano-Reyes now petitions for review of the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. II. Analysis A. Jurisdiction We have jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of Zambrano-Reyes’s motion to reopen, though that conclusion takes a bit of an explanation. To summarize, we have jurisdiction to review a denial of a motion to reopen so long as we would have jurisdiction to review the underlying order. We would have jurisdiction over Zambrano-Reyes’s original removal order because he claims that it involved constitutional and legal error. Our jurisdiction does not mean, however, that relief on the merits could be available. Appellate courts ordinarily have jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen. See Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 248-54, 130 S.Ct. 827, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010) (courts have jurisdiction over motion to reopen where Board’s decision on the motion is committed to agency discretion by regulation rather than by statute); see also Tapia-Lemos v. Holder, 696 F.3d 687, 689 (7th Cir.2012) (“Denial of a bona fide motion to reopen is reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).”). But Kucana left open the question “whether review of a reopening denial would be precluded if the court would lack jurisdiction over the alien’s underlying claim for relief.” Kucana, 558 U.S. at 250 n. 17, 130 S.Ct. 827. In this circuit, the default answer is that “we do not have jurisdiction over the motions to reopen or reconsider if we lack jurisdiction over the underlying order.” See Cruz-Mayaho v. Holder, 698 F.3d 574, 577 (7th Cir.2012). Thus, we have jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of Zambrano-Reyes’s motion to reopen his removal order only if we would have jurisdiction to review the Board’s 2000" }, { "docid": "4118960", "title": "", "text": "reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel,” but finding that the complexity of an immigration case “in a particular removal proceeding might be so great that forcing the alien to proceed without the assistance of a competent lawyer would deny him due process of law”). But we have declined to find jurisdiction under section 1252(a)(2)(D) over petitions raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims where we found that the Board’s denial of reopening rested on a finding that any ineffectiveness in counsel did not actually prejudice the petitioner. We have treated the question of prejudice as factual rather than legal or constitutional. Jezierski, 543 F.3d at 891 (finding no jurisdiction because Board’s prejudice determination was factual, not legal, and petitioner did not allege infringement of constitutional right). In this case, the Board determined that Zambrano-Reyes’s counsel was not ineffective, which is a legal determination. It required analyzing the relevant controlling law on the retroactivity of AEDPA and IIRIRA at the time of Zambrano-Reyes’s removal proceedings, a task requiring legal analysis. And to the extent that the Board also determined that any ineffective assistance did not prejudice ZambranoReyes, that finding would need to be reconsidered if the Board’s initial legal determination was erroneous and thus does not defeat our jurisdiction. See Sanchez v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 641, 647-50 (7th Cir.2007) (where discretionary determinations rested on Board’s erroneous initial determination that counsel was not ineffective, no jurisdictional bar despite Board’s alternate discretionary holdings). We conclude that our jurisdiction extends to Zambrano-Reyes’s removal order because he raises a constitutional claim or legal question with regard to his underlying order of removal. Under Kucana and our default rule, we thus have jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen that order of removal Because he raises constitutional and legal claims, our jurisdiction also extends to the Board’s refusal to reopen Zambrano-Reyes’ removal proceedings sua sponte. See Anaya-Aguilar v. Holder, 697 F.3d 1189 (7th Cir.2012) (bar on review of motions to reopen sua sponte does not apply where petitioner raises constitutional or legal claims), denying reh’g of 683 F.3d 369 (7th" }, { "docid": "7469174", "title": "", "text": "unsupported by the evidence, and insufficient to support relief under CAT. Cruz-Maya-ho filed Petition for Review # 5 from that decision on August 22, 2011; this petition is case 11-2914. Once again, Cruz-Maya-ho coupled his petition with another effort at reconsideration: he filed Reconsider # 4 on August 29, 2011, as well as Reopen # 3 on the same date. The Board denied both of those motions on October 27, 2011, and Cruz-Mayaho filed Petition # 6 from that decision on November 7, 2011; this is case 11-3512. We have consolidated the three petitions for review now pending before us for disposition. II The Board had authority over Cruz-Mayaho’s numerous motions to reopen and to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)-(7). The petitions for review before us were timely filed within 30 days of the Board’s decisions. Our jurisdiction over these petitions, however, is limited by the immigration statutes. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®, we have no jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under ... 1229b [cancellation of removal],” except insofar as “constitutional claims or questions of law” are raised. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Ordinarily, if we lack jurisdiction to review an order, then we also lack jurisdiction over motions to reopen or reconsider that order, see, e.g., Martinez-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.2006), but in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 130 S.Ct. 827, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010), we have recognized that judicial review is foreclosed “only if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural request also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on the merits of his underlying claim.” Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868, 876 (7th Cir.2011). As we put it in Calma: [T]here are identifiable circumstances under which a critical procedural step in a removal proceeding, such as the denial of a continuance that is sought for purposes of allowing another agency to complete its review, the denial of a motion to reconsider, a refusal to remand, or a refusal to reopen a case, lies within our" }, { "docid": "7469176", "title": "", "text": "jurisdiction even though we are barred from evaluating the BIA’s ultimate decision in the circumstances spelled out in § 1252(a)(2)(B)® — Sometimes review will be possible because ... the challenged action effectively nullifies the statutory scheme and thus for all practical purposes raises a question of law. Sometimes review will be possible because ... the request for the unreviewable relief will be coupled with a request for relief like asylum that is reviewable. If, however, it is impossible to distinguish the challenged action from the determination on the merits, then jurisdiction is lacking and the petition must be dismissed. Id. at 876-77. None of the circumstances we identified in Calma applies to Cruz-Mayaho, and so that takes us back to the default rule under which we do not have jurisdiction over the motions to reopen or reconsider if we lack jurisdiction over the underlying order. Applying that rule, we conclude that, for the most part, we lack jurisdiction over the Board’s decisions. To the extent that we have jurisdiction, our review is only for abuse of discretion. In the end, these distinctions make little practical difference here: Cruz-Mayaho is not entitled to relief no matter how his claims are viewed. Ill As the Board pointed out repeatedly, the key date for Cruz-Mayaho is July 17, 2008. This was when the Board denied his application for cancellation of removal. All of his later efforts to reverse the consequences of that decision are affected by it. Cruz-Mayaho had 90 days from that date in which he could file, by right, a motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). (He did file a petition for review within the mandatory 30-day period.) With respect to his first motion to reopen, however, Cruz-Mayaho argues for a different starting point — the date when the Board denied his motion to reconsider the original affirmance. We recently and definitively rejected that position in Sarmiento v. Holder, 680 F.3d 799 (7th Cir.2012). We did so for good reasons: the time limits would mean nothing if people were free to file one motion to reconsider after another, while they" } ]

[ { "docid": "22389615", "title": "", "text": "the parties named in the complaint. In particular, it appears that Alston will seek to strike all but the claim that his involuntary commitment violatéd due process and seek to add New Jersey state officials in their official capacity. We therefore discuss the issue of amendment as guidance for the District Court’s consideration on remand.. We have held that even when a plaintiff does not seek leave to amend, if a complaint is vulnerable to 12(b)(6) dismissal, a District Court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002) (citing Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir.2000)). In Shane, we held that this aspect should be considered and noted in dismissing a claim for failure to state a claim: [W]e suggest that district judges expressly state, where appropriate, that the plaintiff has leave to amend within a specified period of time, and that application for dismissal Of the action may be made if a timely amendment is not forthcoming within that time. If the plaintiff does not desire to amend, he may file an appropriate notice with the district court asserting his intent to stand on the complaint, at which time an order to- dismiss the action would be appropriate. Id. at 116 (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n. 1 (3d Cir.1976)). As we noted in Shane, these principles apply equally to pro se plaintiffs and those represented by experienced counsel. 213 F.3d at 116 (citing District Council 47 v. Bradley, 795 F.2d 310, 316 (3d Cir.1986)). Dismissal without leave to amend is justified only on the grounds of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility. Id. at 115 (citing In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir.1997)). On remand, the District Court should offer Alston leave to amend pursuant to the above procedures for 12(b)(6) dismissals, unless a curative amendment would be inequitable, futile, or untimely. Neither the District Court nor the Defendants made or advocated such a finding, or even argued" } ]

[ { "docid": "14176727", "title": "", "text": "Ann. § 201-1 et seq. District courts may “have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy... 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, where a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “Where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Bright v. Westmoreland Cnty., 443 F.3d 276, 286 (3d Cir.2006) (quoting Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir.1995)). Because the Court finds no such considerations to be present here, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Macauley’s state law claims. E. Amendment of the Complaint Because the Court will dismiss Macau-ley’s Complaint in its entirety, the question remains as to whether the Court will allow Macauley to amend her Complaint. In light of the discovery already granted to Macauley, her lack of standing, and the futility of her federal claims, the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Amendments prior to trial are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The Federal Rules direct courts grant a party leave to amend their complaint “when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “When a plaintiff does not seek leave to amend a deficient complaint after a defendant moves to dismiss it, the court must inform the plaintiff that he has leave to amend within a set period of time, unless amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002) (citing Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir.2000)). “Futility means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In determining whether a claim would be futile, the district court applies the same standard of legal sufficiency as" }, { "docid": "22056865", "title": "", "text": "to a conviction and sentence, like his, are now barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2244 (“AEDPA”), and therefore coram nobis relief should be available. However, the procedural barriers erected by AEDPA are not sufficient to enable a petitioner to resort to coram nobis merely because he/ she is unable to meet AEDPA’s gatekeep-ing requirements. The safety valve provided under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is narrow. We explained in In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir.1997), that it is a complete miscarriage of justice when the AEDPA prohibition against successive section 2255 motions makes this collateral remedy unavailable altogether to someone with no earlier opportunity to bring his/ her claim. Id. at 251. That is not Baptiste’s situation. He had an earlier opportunity to raise all of his claims (including the Amendment 487 claim) in his 1997 section 2255 motion. We will therefore affirm the order of the District Court denying the petition for writ of error coram nobis pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because no substantial question is presented by this appeal. . Neither the statute making the writ of error coram nobis available in federal courts in criminal matters, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), nor any Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure requires a certificate of appealability before an appeal may be taken, nor does such a requirement appear in the case law. . Under AEDPA, the second or successive motion must be certified by a court of appeals to contain a prima facie showing of newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense or a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This is not an easy standard to satisfy. . LAR 27.4 and IOP 10.6 provides that we may summarily affirm an order or motion of a party, or sua sponte when \"no substantial question\" is presented by the appeal." }, { "docid": "22039341", "title": "", "text": "203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane), a California prisoner filed a complaint and then an amended complaint. After the prisoner filed his amended complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted without granting the prisoner leave to amend his complaint. After a panel affirmed, the en banc court vacated that decision and reversed the district court. The en banc court held that the “PLRA does not preclude leave to amend.” Id. at 1126. Likewise, in Gomez v. USAA Federal Savings Bank, 171 F.3d 794 (2d Cir. 1999), the Second Circuit vacated the sua sponte dismissal of a claim by the district court because the plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis was denied an opportunity to amend his complaint. The court concluded “that a pro se plaintiff who is proceeding in forma pauperis should be afforded the same opportunity as a pro se fee-paid plaintiff to amend his complaint prior to its dismissal for failure to state a claim, unless the court can rule out any possibility ... that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim.” Id. at 796. In Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593 (2d Cir.2000), the Second Circuit applied the same rule and reversed a district court that had, sua sponte, dismissed a prisoner’s complaint without affording him an opportunity to amend. See also Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir.2002); Razzoli v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 230 F.3d 371, 377 (D.C.Cir.2000); Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir.1999). Only the Sixth Circuit has held otherwise that, “[ujnder the Prison Litigation Reform Act, courts have no discretion in permitting a plaintiff to amend a complaint to avoid a sua sponte dismissal.” McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir.1997). We agree with the majority of circuits that the PLRA does not preclude the district court from granting' a motion to amend. Nothing in the language of the PLRA repeals Rule 15(a). Because Brown filed his motion to amend before the district court dismissed his complaint and before any responsive pleadings" }, { "docid": "15793507", "title": "", "text": "where the complaint of a prisoner with a potentially valid grievance fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Cf. Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir.1997)) (noting the similarity of Section 1997e(c) to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which the McGore court had held to require sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted). The Third Circuit, however, has held that Section 1997e(c) “did not change the procedures our court previously adopted regarding the dismissal of a complaint without granting leave to amend.” Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 114-15 (3d Cir. 2000). Those procedures required district courts to offer plaintiffs a chance to amend before dismissing their cases, if it appeared that amendment could cure any deficiencies in the complaint. Id. at 116. Numerous courts have held that if a. prisoner has a potentially valid claim, and if Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 would permit amendment as of right, a court may not dismiss the case sua sponte without permitting amendment. See id. at 114-15 (addressing Section 1997e(c)); see also Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir .2002) (addressing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires a district court to dismiss a case. brought in forma pauperis if the “action or appeal” fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 106 (3d Cir.2002) (same); Razzoli v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 280 F.3d 371, 377 (D.C.Cir.2000) (addressing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l)); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (addressing Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 247 (5th Cir.1999) (same); Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 796 (2d Cir.1999) (same); Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir.1999) (same). The language of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) does not clearly mandate either result, and it seems unlikely that when drafting Section 1997e(c), Congress was considering cases where a prisoner with a colorable" }, { "docid": "23162688", "title": "", "text": "Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir.2003) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)) (listing futility of amendment as one of five possible reasons to deny leave to amend complaint); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108, 111 (3d Cir.2002) (holding in Prison Litigation Reform Act context that, even if plaintiffs do not seek leave to amend, “plaintiffs whose complaints fail to state a cause of action are entitled to amend their complaint unless doing so would be inequitable or futile.”). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE in part, AFFIRM in part, and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. . It appears that there were no x-rays or blood work performed on Rogers that day. In his opening appellate brief, Rogers seems to indicate that the physician only interviewed him and intended for .the x-rays and blood work to be performed in the emergency room. . 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) applies to IFP proceedings and states, in pertinent part, the following: Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal— (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii)seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. . Rogers has failed to brief his claims against Shawna Boatright and has therefore waived his claims against her. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9) (requiring brief to contain contentions, reasons for them, and citations to authority and record). . Our decisions in Cooks, Bell, and Crumbliss are non-precedential. EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge, dissenting. With due respect to my colleagues, I dissent from the holding that Rogers’ conelusory statements about reckless driving by Officer Jose Garcia suffice to plead an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference. My concerns may be easily listed. First, there is no constitutional requirement that inmates be" }, { "docid": "22722337", "title": "", "text": "1 (3d Cir.1976); see also Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir.2000)(diseussing pre-PLRA law). The primary question presented on appeal is whether § 804(a)(5) of the PLRA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), altered the legal landscape so that the District Court did not need to grant leave to amend before dismissing Grayson’s deficient in forma pauperis complaint. We addressed a similar provision of the PLRA in Shane, a non-in-foma-pauperis case. There we held that S 803(d) of the PLRA, codified in part at 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l), did not alter our rule that inadequate complaints should be dismissed without granting leave to amend only if amendment would be inequitable or futile. Shane, 213 F.3d at 116-17. However, we reserved the question of whether the nearly identical § 1915(e)(2) should be interpreted differently. Id. at 117. Today we reach that question and hold that § 1915(e)(2) requires the same response. I. Grayson’s complaint alleges that surgery was performed on his knee in early 1998 at the Mayview State Hospital to correct an injury he sustained playing basketball. While the complaint names the Hospital, it does not allege that he received negligent or inadequate care there. Later in 1998, Grayson was transferred to the Allegheny County Jail, where he claims his “leg ropes” were confiscated and his requests for medical assistance were refused. While incarcerated there, Grayson’s knee injury worsened after a fall in a stairwell occasioned by a defective handrail, which fell out of the wall while he was handcuffed to another prisoner for transport to a court hearing. He claims that he requested medical assistance after the fall, but received none. Grayson was later transferred to a third facility and eventually to the Camp Hill Prison (“SCI-Camp Hill”), where he alleges three or four weeks passed before he received treatment for his knee. Grayson’s complaint does not name any individual defendants. It also fails to allege that any of the facilities where he was kept maintains a pattern or practice of denying medical assistance to inmates. The defendants responded to Grayson’s complaint by moving to dismiss for" }, { "docid": "16699210", "title": "", "text": "OPINION PER CURIAM. Pro Se Appellant Justice Raisdeen Allah, a prisoner confined at the New Jersey State Prison, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment and denying his motion for summary judgment for his civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and from an order denying his motion for reconsideration. Because this appeal does not present a substantial ques tion, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. I. Because we primarily write for the parties, we need only recite the facts necessary for our discussion. Allah’s claims concern conditions of his confinement. Specifically, for a three-month period, from August 31, 2006 to November 21, 2006, Allah was housed in cell 32, on the seven wing housing unit. Allah claimed that the cell had extensive water damage. During Allah’s placement in cell 32, he stated that it rained approximately twelve times, and that after each time it rained, the cell leaked. The problems with the cell were on the days it rained, and two or three days after it rained, not consistently for three months. Allah stated that he suffered headaches and from sleep deprivation from having to sleep on wet and cold sheets. He also stated that he was afraid he would get shocked because of the way the light fixture was installed in his cell, but that he was never actually shocked. Moreover, Allah alleged that the Appellees knew about the water problem in his cell, but failed to act. Allah claimed that these conditions violated the Eighth Amendment. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted the Appellees’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment and denied Allah’s motion for summary judgment, because, among other reasons, Allah did not meet the standard for an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. Allah subsequently filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s judgment, which the District Court denied. Allah timely filed this appeal. II. We" }, { "docid": "23162687", "title": "", "text": "opportunity to file an amended complaint. Rogers argues that he should have been given an opportunity to state a more defi nite claim prior to dismissal of his complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). He contends that the district court should have notified him that it was considering dismissing his complaint, and that he could have amended his complaint to clarify that it was not based on a claim of negligence, to show that the defendants acted under color of state law, and to further demonstrate that his injuries were sufficiently serious. As for the claim regarding Rogers’s injury in the van, this issue is moot. As for the denial of medical care claim, Rogers has not shown on appeal that he could have alleged in an amended complaint any additional facts that would have precluded the district court from reaching its conclusion. Therefore, allowing Rogers to amend his complaint regarding this claim would have been futile, and the district court did not err in declining to provide leave to file an amended complaint. See Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir.2003) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)) (listing futility of amendment as one of five possible reasons to deny leave to amend complaint); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108, 111 (3d Cir.2002) (holding in Prison Litigation Reform Act context that, even if plaintiffs do not seek leave to amend, “plaintiffs whose complaints fail to state a cause of action are entitled to amend their complaint unless doing so would be inequitable or futile.”). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE in part, AFFIRM in part, and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. . It appears that there were no x-rays or blood work performed on Rogers that day. In his opening appellate brief, Rogers seems to indicate that the physician only interviewed him and intended for .the x-rays and blood work to be performed in the emergency room. . 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) applies to IFP proceedings and states, in pertinent" }, { "docid": "23395940", "title": "", "text": "filing fee and then to serve the opposing party to comply with the statute of limitations. Here, however, the district court determined that Luevano qualified for IFP status, meaning she was financially incapable of paying the filing fee. Based on that determination, it screened her complaint pursuant to section 1915. That step is not necessary when the court determines that the plaintiff is ineligible for IFP status. The district court in this case denied Luevano's initial IFP petition. It did so because it incorrectly determined that the complaint failed to state a claim, not because Luevano could afford to pay the filing fee. If the district court had correctly denied Luevano’s initial IFP petition, then we might face what Williams-Guice described as a \"worst case” scenario, with an IFP complaint filed shortly before the statute of limitations was about to run out, which is often the case with employment discrimination cases. See 45 F.3d at 165. In that case, we might have to consider whether to extend the “reasonable time” that Williams-Guice sensibly suggested should be allowed for an unsuccessful IFP applicant to pay the filing fee, see id., to a case where the unsuccessful applicant responded with a successful amendment to the complaint. Because the district court erred in denying Luevano’s original IFP application, though, our correction of that error in this decision means that Luevano’s original complaint should be deemed filed in a timely manner, as if the district court had not made that error. Finally, note that a district court can avoid the complications we face here by keeping an IFP application under advisement, rather than denying it, while the plaintiff is given a reasonable but finite time to try to cure the problems the court finds with the complaint. . See, e.g., Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir.2002) (holding that section \"1915(e)(2) did not alter our preexisting rule that in forma pauperis plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) should receive leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or futile\"); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127" }, { "docid": "21398400", "title": "", "text": "dismiss) during which a plaintiff may file an amended complaint without the court’s approval. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). This was a serious mistake given the inadequacy of the plaintiffs allegation of disability discrimination. The judge should not only have complied with the rule; he should have told the plaintiff what is required to allege disability discrimination. We’ve often said that before dismissing a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) a judge should give the litigant, especially a pro se litigant, an opportunity to amend his complaint. See e.g., Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra, 722 F.3d at 1022-25; Casteel v. Pieschek, 3 F.3d 1050, 1056 (7th Cir.1993); Powers v. Snyder, 484 F.3d 929, 933 (7th Cir.2007); Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 783 (7th Cir.2015). Indeed the court should grant leave to amend after dismissal of the first complaint “unless it is certain from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.” Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Municipal Airport Commission, 377 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir.2004) (emphasis added). Had the judge told the plaintiff before dismissing his suit what was missing from the complaint, or had he dismissed just the complaint and not the suit and informed the plaintiff of a plaintiffs right to rectify the deficiencies of his complaint in an amended complaint, we might have been spared this appeal, and the district judge a remand. See Hughes v. Farris, 809 F.3d 330, 332-34 (7th Cir.2015); Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir.1998); Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 108-09 (3d Cir.2002). The judgment is reversed and the ease remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." }, { "docid": "4568080", "title": "", "text": "possible summary action, see 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 (2010); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6, and on Faison Williams’s motions discussed below. II. This appeal raises the threshold issues of whether Faison Williams or Louis Faison, Sr., or both, are proper parties on appeal and whether this appeal should proceed in the absence of Louis Faison, Sr.’s signature on the notice of appeal or representation by counsel. We need not resolve these issues, however, because they stem in part from an error that Faison Williams’s timely notice of appeal gives us jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to correct. See Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 880-81 (3d Cir.1991). Parties may proceed in federal court only pro se or through counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Faison Williams’s power of attorney for her father may confer certain decision-making authority under state law, but it does not permit her to represent him pro se in federal court. See Osei-Afriyie, 937 F.2d at 882-83 (holding that parent and guardian could not litigate pro se on behalf of his children, and noting that “ ‘[i]t goes without saying that it is not in the interest of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys’ ”) (citation omitted); see also Estate of Keatinge v. Biddle, 316 F.3d 7, 14 (1st Cir.2002) (“[T]he holder of a power of attorney is not authorized to appear pro se on behalf of the grantor.”); Powerserve Int'l, Inc. v. Lavi, 239 F.3d 508, 514 (2d Cir.2001) (“attorney-in-fact” for daughter not permitted to litigate pro se on her behalf). Thus, the District Court should not have allowed Faison Williams to represent her father pro se after permitting her counsel to withdraw. The District Court also should not have reached the merits of her father’s claim in the absence of proper representation. See Osei-Afriyie, 937 F.2d at 883; cf. Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d 131, 141 (3d Cir.1989) (reversing dismissal of incompetent plaintiffs claim and explaining that, “[bjecause [she] was without a representative when the court dismissed her claims, and was otherwise unprotected, the court was without authority to" }, { "docid": "22743092", "title": "", "text": "omission. Bright, 443 F.3d at 282 (citing D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Tech. Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1374 (3d Cir.1992) (en banc)). Phillips’ complaint does not make such an allegation against Nussbaum and, hence, no state created danger claim has been sufficiently pleaded. Nonetheless, the District Judge erred when he dismissed the complaint without offering Phillips the opportunity to amend her complaint. It does not matter whether or not a plaintiff seeks leave to amend. We have instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable to 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002) (citing Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir.2000)). In Shane, we held that when dismissing for a failure to state a claim: [W]e suggest that district judges expressly state, where appropriate, that the plaintiff has leave to amend within a specified period of time, and that application for dismissal of the action may be made if a timely amendment is not forthcoming within that time. If the plaintiff does not desire to amend, he may file an appropriate notice with the district court asserting his intent to stand on the complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would be appropriate. Id. at 116 (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n. 1 (3d Cir.1976)). Because Phillips was not given such an opportunity, we will remand to allow her to decide whether to stand on her complaint or attempt an amendment so as to properly allege an affirmative act by defendant Nussbaum. Turning to defendants Tush and Craig, we find that the complaint adequately alleges they acted affirmatively by providing Michalski with confidential 911 computer information about Mark Phillips that permitted Michalski to harm him. This allegation satisfies this element of our state-created danger analysis. However, pleading an affirmative act by a state actor is not enough: the complaint must also plead a direct causal relationship between the affirmative act and plaintiffs harm. Kaucher v. County of Bucks," }, { "docid": "14176728", "title": "", "text": "remains as to whether the Court will allow Macauley to amend her Complaint. In light of the discovery already granted to Macauley, her lack of standing, and the futility of her federal claims, the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Amendments prior to trial are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The Federal Rules direct courts grant a party leave to amend their complaint “when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “When a plaintiff does not seek leave to amend a deficient complaint after a defendant moves to dismiss it, the court must inform the plaintiff that he has leave to amend within a set period of time, unless amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002) (citing Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir.2000)). “Futility means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In determining whether a claim would be futile, the district court applies the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dammann & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 238, 243 (3d Cir.2010) (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir.1997)). The Court will dismiss Macauley’s RICO claims with prejudice, because no amendment will cure: (1) her lack of standing; (2) her lack of damages; (3) her inability to allege a pattern of racketeering activity; and (4) the extensive deficiencies noted in all of her substantive RICO claims. Even with the benefit of limited discovery, Ma-cauley admits that her Complaint and RICO Case Statement contain nothing more than “legal conclusions based on what she knows at this point, i.e., that her name was forged on several documents to complete the sale of several over-valued properties.” (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Gateway’s Mot. J. Pleadings at 3.) As the Third Circuit has recently recognized, “the concern expressed in Twombly is just as applicable to a RICO case, which resembles an antitrust case in point of complexity and the availability of punitive" }, { "docid": "26526", "title": "", "text": "brought with respect to prison conditions). The court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir.2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). Because plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (citations omitted). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic or delusional” factual scenario. Neitzke, 490 at 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir.1989); see, e.g., Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir.1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took an inmate’s pen and refused to give it back). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.1999) (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the court must grant plaintiff leave to amend her complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir.2002). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868" }, { "docid": "12907861", "title": "", "text": "at issue in the case before it. See Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992). Therefore, “if an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatsoever’ to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.” See id. (citation omitted); see also Gen. Elec. Co. v. Cathcart, 980 F.2d 927, 934 (3d Cir.1992) (“‘Generally, an appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur during [its] pendency ... which prevent the appellate court from granting any effective relief.’ ”). While this matter was pending, Reaves was released on parole; if the defendants were administering statutes or regulations in such a way as to prevent his release, they are no longer. Accordingly, we will dismiss Reaves’s appeal to the extent it relates to the order denying injunctive relief. Otherwise, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of an order dismissing a complaint under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or the screening function of the Prison Litigation Reform Act is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir.2000); Unger v. Nat’l Residents Matching Program, 928 F.2d 1392, 1394 (3d Cir.1991). We may affirm the District Court on any basis supported by the record, and we will take summary action if this appeal does not present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bled-soe, 650 F.3d 246, 247-48 (3d Cir.2011) (per curiam); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. As Reaves himself acknowledges, he raised the same claims in his habeas corpus petition that he invokes in this civil suit. Doctrines of preclusion limit a party’s ability to raise claims or issues that either were or could have been litigated in a prior action: Under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, on the other hand, the second action is upon a" }, { "docid": "23054850", "title": "", "text": "to uphold Steel Valley’s policy. Therefore, the District Court did not err when it dismissed Connelly’s complaint. IV Finally, Connelly argues that the District Court erred when it dismissed his complaint with prejudice without giving him the opportunity to amend. “We review a district court decision refusing leave to amend ... for abuse of discretion.” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir.2010) (citing Bjorgung v. Whitetail Resort, LP, 550 F.3d 263, 266 (3d Cir.2008)). “It does not matter whether or not a plaintiff seeks leave to amend. We have instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable to 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 236 (3d Cir.2008) (citing Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002)). Here, the District Court dismissed Connelly’s complaint with prejudice because it determined that any amendment would be futile. Connelly, 2011 WL 5024415, at *8. We cannot say this was an abuse of discretion. The facts of this case are undisputed. Steel Valley does not challenge Connelly’s assertion that his initial salary would have been higher had his teaching experience been in Pennsylvania instead of Maryland. And Connelly concedes (as he must) that this salary classification was based on location of teaching experience rather than state of residence. Finally, though the record is sparse, there is no evidence that Connelly’s claim failed due to a lack of factual specificity. See Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir.2000) (if a complaint is dismissed “for lack of factual specificity, [plaintiff] should be given a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect, if he can, by amendment of the complaint”) (quoting Darr v. Wolfe, 767 F.2d 79, 81 (3d Cir.1985)). Thus, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Connelly leave to amend his complaint. V For the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Court’s order granting Steel Valley’s motion to dismiss. . Connelly also argues that strict scrutiny applies because he has" }, { "docid": "22039342", "title": "", "text": "amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim.” Id. at 796. In Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593 (2d Cir.2000), the Second Circuit applied the same rule and reversed a district court that had, sua sponte, dismissed a prisoner’s complaint without affording him an opportunity to amend. See also Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir.2002); Razzoli v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 230 F.3d 371, 377 (D.C.Cir.2000); Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir.1999). Only the Sixth Circuit has held otherwise that, “[ujnder the Prison Litigation Reform Act, courts have no discretion in permitting a plaintiff to amend a complaint to avoid a sua sponte dismissal.” McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir.1997). We agree with the majority of circuits that the PLRA does not preclude the district court from granting' a motion to amend. Nothing in the language of the PLRA repeals Rule 15(a). Because Brown filed his motion to amend before the district court dismissed his complaint and before any responsive pleadings were filed, Brown had the right to amend his complaint under Rule 15(a). The district court, therefore, abused its discretion when it denied Brown’s motion to amend. B. What Constitutes Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Injury? Section 1915(g), the three strikes provision, bars a prisoner, who has filed three or more complaints that have been dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim, from filing a complaint in forma pauperis, unless the prisoner is “under imminent danger oí serious physical injury.” Brown does not dispute that he has three strikes under section 1915(g). Brown, therefore, may not bring his action in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Although the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have determined that a prisoner must allege a present imminent danger, as opposed to a past danger, to proceed under section 1915(g), Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559 (2d Cir.2002); Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir.2001) (en banc); Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883 (5th Cir.1998);" }, { "docid": "23395941", "title": "", "text": "be allowed for an unsuccessful IFP applicant to pay the filing fee, see id., to a case where the unsuccessful applicant responded with a successful amendment to the complaint. Because the district court erred in denying Luevano’s original IFP application, though, our correction of that error in this decision means that Luevano’s original complaint should be deemed filed in a timely manner, as if the district court had not made that error. Finally, note that a district court can avoid the complications we face here by keeping an IFP application under advisement, rather than denying it, while the plaintiff is given a reasonable but finite time to try to cure the problems the court finds with the complaint. . See, e.g., Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir.2002) (holding that section \"1915(e)(2) did not alter our preexisting rule that in forma pauperis plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) should receive leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or futile\"); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (holding that \"[a] clearer expression of congressional intent should be required before we discard 50 years of case law\" that plaintiffs, IFP or not, should be granted leave to amend their complaints liberally pursuant to Rule 15(a)); Gomez v. USAA Federal Savings Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 796 (2d Cir.1999) (per curiam) (\"Although the language of § 1915 is mandatory, stating that 'the court shall dismiss the case' in the enumerated circumstances, we conclude that a pro se plaintiff who is proceeding in forma pauperis should be afforded the same opportunity as a pro se fee-paid plaintiff to amend his complaint prior to its dismissal for failure to state a claim, unless the court can rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim.”). It appears that only the Sixth and Eighth Circuits have come to opposite conclusions. See, e.g., McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir.1997) (holding that under the PLRA \"courts have no discretion in permitting a plaintiff" }, { "docid": "16699212", "title": "", "text": "have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Allah’s timely appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration “brings up the underlying judgment for review,” McAlister v. Sentry Ins. Co., 958 F.2d 550, 552-53 (3d Cir. 1992), we will review the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellees and denial of summary judgment to Allah, as well as its denial of Allah’s motion for reconsideration, even though the notice of appeal expressly Seeks to appeal only the denial of the motion for reconsideration. LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217, 225 n. 6 (3d Cir.2007). We exercise plenary review of a district court’s order granting or denying summary judgment, applying the same standard as the district court. See Tri-M Grp., LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406, 415 (3d Cir.2011). We will affirm only if “drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. The same standards and burdens apply on cross-motions for summary judgment. Appelmans v. City of Phila., 826 F.2d 214, 216 (3d Cir.1987). We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.2010). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s decision if the appeal presents no substantial question. See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. III. The Eighth Amendment protects prison inmates from cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). However, not all deficiencies and inadequacies in prison conditions amount to a violation of a prisoner’s constitutional rights. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 887, 349, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). To assert an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and subjective test. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). Specifically, a prisoner must show that the alleged deprivation is “sufficiently serious” and that he has been" }, { "docid": "22722336", "title": "", "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT AMBRO, Circuit Judge. Norman Grayson, an inmate at various times of the three institutions named as defendants, brought this pro se damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The District Court granted Grayson leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, but denied his further request for appointed legal counsel. Upon the defendants’ motions, the Court dismissed Gray-son’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Although the Court found that his claims had possible substantive merit if pled adequately, it did not provide leave to amend before dismissing the action. This was contrary to our Court’s rule, established before Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), that such leave must be granted when amendment could cure the deficiency and would not be inequitable. See Dist. Council 47 v. Bradley, 795 F.2d 310, 316 (3d Cir.1986); Darr v. Wolfe, 767 F.2d 79, 81 (3d Cir.1985); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n. 1 (3d Cir.1976); see also Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir.2000)(diseussing pre-PLRA law). The primary question presented on appeal is whether § 804(a)(5) of the PLRA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), altered the legal landscape so that the District Court did not need to grant leave to amend before dismissing Grayson’s deficient in forma pauperis complaint. We addressed a similar provision of the PLRA in Shane, a non-in-foma-pauperis case. There we held that S 803(d) of the PLRA, codified in part at 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l), did not alter our rule that inadequate complaints should be dismissed without granting leave to amend only if amendment would be inequitable or futile. Shane, 213 F.3d at 116-17. However, we reserved the question of whether the nearly identical § 1915(e)(2) should be interpreted differently. Id. at 117. Today we reach that question and hold that § 1915(e)(2) requires the same response. I. Grayson’s complaint alleges that surgery was performed on his knee in early 1998 at the Mayview State Hospital to correct an injury" } ]

[ { "docid": "4983664", "title": "", "text": "The Legal Standards of Local Rule 3(j) Although the Banks do not state the procedural basis for their motion to reconsider the 1992 Opinion, such motions customarily appear before the Court under Local Rule 3(j), which provides in pertinent part: There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. The standards controlling a motion for rear-gument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., are the same. See Morser v. AT & T Information Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See Violette v. Armonk Assocs. L.P., 823 F.Supp. 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Morin v. Trupin, 823 F.Supp. 201, 205 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Local Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517. II. The Banks’ Motion Fails to Satisfy the Requirements of Local Rule 3(f) The Banks’ motion for reconsideration fails to demonstrate that the later Global I Opinion elucidates new facts relevant to the summary judgment motion denied previously in the 1992 Opinion. The Banks’ argument can be distilled into the following" } ]

[ { "docid": "5169633", "title": "", "text": "underlying ground, in Miami, Florida known as Airport Executive Towers I and II. The Bleistine Plaintiffs purchased their securities between May and June, 1985, but were not added to the action until January 30, 1990. Prior Proceedings and Facts The parties, prior proceedings and facts have been thoroughly set forth in the previous opinions of this Court, familiarity with which are presumed. See In re Integrated Resources Sec. Litig., 815 F.Supp. 620 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (“Global I” and/or “Global II ”); In re Integrated Resources Sec. Litig., 850 F.Supp. 1105 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (“Global III' and/or “Global IV”). Briefly, Global I addressed the statutes of limitations governing the Plaintiffs’ federal securities claims; Global II addressed the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiffs’ federal securities claims; Global III addressed the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiffs’ federal RICO claims; and Global IV applied the prior three global Opinions to one of the surviving Later Filed Actions. The motions to reargue were considered fully submitted as of January 24, 1994. Discussion I. The Legal Standards of Local Rule 3(f) The standards controlling a motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., are the same. See Morser v. AT & T Info. Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Local Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. No oral argument shall be heard unless the court grants the motion and specially directs that the matter shall be reargued orally. No affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the court. Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See Amentrust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D." }, { "docid": "7583807", "title": "", "text": "Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), Eastlake must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See Violette v. Armonk Assocs. L.P., 823 F.Supp. 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Morin v. Truipin, 823 F.Supp. 201, 205 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Local Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517. D & T’s third party complaint alleges that, if D & T is found liable under Rule 10b-5, Eastlake is liable to D & T for contribution for Rule 10b-5 violations in connection with its failure as placement agent to discover that three major accounts receivables were recorded improperly in Qmax’s financial statements. Eastlake moved for dismissal of the Rule 10b-5 claims on the grounds that D & T did not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the scienter requirement of a Rule 10b-5 claim. In opposition to Eastlake’s motion to dismiss, D & T asserted that Eastlake had acted recklessly in failing to discover the flaws in Qmax’s financial statements. Eastlake claims in the present motion to reargue that “the Court erroneously applied a negligence standard to Eastlake’s claims that D & T did not plead or demonstrate facts from which the requisite rule 10b-5 scienter could be inferred.” Eastlake asserts that, rather than mere negligence, the scienter required to show a violation of Rule 10b-5 must be at least recklessness, which is defined as an “extreme departure from standards of ordinary care.” (Eastlake Mem. at 3 (quoting Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38," }, { "docid": "10232058", "title": "", "text": "the sanction for which should be dismissal of Mr. Peker’s case. April 14,1997. OPINION AND ORDER ON REARGUMENT KOELTL, District Judge: In an Opinion and Order dated May 5, 1997, this Court adjudged the plaintiff, Mr. Peker, and his wife, Mrs. Peker, in contempt and dismissed this action with prejudice. The plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order pursuant to Local Rule 3(j). A motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked the controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court in the underlying motion. See Walsh v. McGee, 918 F.Supp. 107, 110 (S.D.N.Y.1996); see also Local Rule 3(j); In re Houbigant, 914 F.Supp. 997, 1001 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Bank Leumi Trust Co. of New York v. Istim, Inc., 902 F.Supp. 46, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1995). Local Rule 3(j) is “narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court.” Walsh, 918 F.Supp. at 110; see also United States v. Mason Tenders Dist. Council of Greater New York, 909 F.Supp. 882, 889 (S.D.N.Y.1995). The Court must not allow reargument to be a substitute for appealing a final judgment or to permit a party to reargue those issues already considered merely because a party does not like the outcome. See Houbigant, 914 F.Supp. at 1001; Mason Tenders, 909 F.Supp. at 889. In this ease, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court overlooked either controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court in Magistrate Judge Peek’s Memorandum, which certified facts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) demonstrating the contempt of Mr. and Ms. Peker and recommended dismissal of the case as the appropriate sanction, in the transcript and audiotape of the relevant conference, in the hearing held by this Court on April 25, 1997, and in the two written submissions by the plaintiff. Instead, the plaintiff simply disagrees with the conclusions reached by the Court. The motion for reconsideration is therefore without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff’s motion for reargument" }, { "docid": "5169634", "title": "", "text": "motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., are the same. See Morser v. AT & T Info. Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Local Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. No oral argument shall be heard unless the court grants the motion and specially directs that the matter shall be reargued orally. No affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the court. Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See Amentrust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Local Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517; Korvek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547,1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986). As such, a party in its motion for reargument “may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court.” Litton Indus., Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb, Inc., No. 86 Civ. 6447, 1989 WL 162315, at *4, 1989 LEXIS 9145, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 1989). II. The" }, { "docid": "16448469", "title": "", "text": "of an order dated July 31, 1997 (the “Order”), extending Dietrich’s time to serve Witz with the Amended Complaint, and for dismissal of the action against him because Dietrich did not serve him with the complaint within 120 days of the institution of the action as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. According to Witz, he has been prejudiced by the late service of the complaint because Terry Marsh (“Marsh”), President and Chief Executive Officer of Scorpion, was indicted approximately a year after the commencement of this action and has advised that because of the pending indictment against him, he would decline now to testify in this action on Fifth Amendment grounds. Witz’s reconsideration motion is governed by Local Rule 6.3, which provides, in pertinent part: “There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked.” Thus, to be entitled to reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion. See Ameritrust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237, 238 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd sub nom. Fulani v. Bentsen, 35 F.3d 49 (2d Cir.1994); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm, Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 6.3 is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See American Alliance v. Eagle Ins., 163 F.R.D. 211, 213 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (citing Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985)). In deciding a reconsideration motion, the Court must not allow a party to use the motion as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser v. AT & T Information" }, { "docid": "2663597", "title": "", "text": "on the ballot in each of the fifty states. Plaintiff Lenora B. Fulani for President is the political organization that ran Fulani’s 1992 presidential campaign. Defendant Nicholas F. Brady was the Secretary of the Treasury, and Defendant Shirley D. Peterson was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue at the time of the events alleged in Fulani’s Amended Complaint (the “Federal Defendants”). Defendant League of Women Voters (the “League”) is a private, not-for-profit charitable trust established by the League of Women Voters of the United States in the District of Columbia in 1957 and devoted exclusively to educational purposes. Prior Proceedings and Facts The underlying facts, the claims at issue, and the prior proceedings in this action are described in detail in the Opinion and need not be restated here. See 809 F.Supp. at 1113-16. The present motion was filed on February 8,1993. Oral argument was heard on March 17, 1993, and the motion was considered submitted as of that date. Discussion I. Fulani’s Motion For Reargument Is Denied A. The Legal Standards Of Local Rule SG) The standards controlling a motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., are the same. See Morser v. AT & T Information Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Local Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so" }, { "docid": "22581413", "title": "", "text": "repeatedly misrepresented to Shamis and others at Wishbone the financial status of Roberts; and (4) whether Korman actively participated in a fraudulent conveyance of Roberts inventory to Jay Vee in order to avoid Wishbone’s security interest.” Shamis, 34 F.Supp.2d at 897. With respect to Christy, the Court granted summary judgment, dismissing plaintiffs claim of successor liability as to Christy, holding that “[a]s Shamis has not established that Christy is a mere continuance of Roberts, nor a de facto merger between Roberts and Christy, nor a fraudulent transfer, Shamis’ claim that Christy is a successor of Roberts must fail.” Id., 34 F.Supp.2d at 899. The Opinion also granted dismissal of plaintiffs claim of fraudulent transfer against Christy, holding that “Shamis fails to present any evidence of a fraudulent transfer between Roberts and Christy. Moreover, Shamis offers no opposition in his papers to summary judgment in favor of Christy on the fraudulent transfer claim.” Id., at 900. The Court did not dismiss the action in its entirety as against Christy finding that disputed issues of fact remained with respect to alter ego liability. Id. Discussion A. Standard for Reargument Local Rule 6.3 provides in pertinent part: “There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked.” Thus, to be entitled to reargument, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion. See Ameritrust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Local Rule 6.3 is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du" }, { "docid": "17425987", "title": "", "text": "1292(b) is denied. II. The Legal Standards of Local Rule 30) The standards controlling a motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., are the same. See Morser v. AT & T Info. Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Local Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Local Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517; Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986). Finally, a Local Rule 3(j) motion must be served within ten days after the docketing of the court’s determination of the original motion. A. SZS’s Motion For Reargument Is Denied SZS’s motion for reargument may be distilled to the following four claims: (1) the language concerning the easement is not ambiguous; (2) the Defendant did not owe a duty on the basis of foreseeability of harm to the Plaintiff in the absence of a special relationship; (3) Plaintiffs’ allegations" }, { "docid": "22460835", "title": "", "text": "VIII, X— XII, XVI and XVII. The October Opinion granted the motion to dismiss Counts IV (against all but PPI-Canada), V, VIII, XI, and XII. This left claims of breaches of covenants of good faith and fair dealing against PPI-Canada (Count IV); tortious interference with contracts against the PPI Entities and Bonoma (Count X); post petition breaches of contract against PPI-Canada (XVI); and trademark cancellation under the Lanham Act against PPI (Count XVII) in addition to those claims which PPI had not moved to dismiss. PPI now moves to rear-gue the failure to dismiss Counts X and XVII and moves to dismiss Counts IV, X and XVI as against PPI-Canada in deference to the pending Canadian action. The October Opinion also denied ACB’s motion to dismiss for forum non-conveniens. On November 3, 1995 the Honorable James L. Garrity, of the Bankruptcy Court issued an Opinion which resolved the issues remanded from this Court. See In re Houbigant, 188 B.R. 347 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995). While that Opinion does not affect the present motions directly, it is noted here in order to create a full record of these complicated proceedings. On November 7, 1995 PPI filed these motions for reargument, to dismiss and for clerical revisions. Oral argument was heard on November 15, 1995 and the motions were considered fully submitted at that time. Discussion I. Motions to Reargue A. Standard for Considering Motions to Reargue Local Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. No oral argument shall be heard unless the court grants the motion and specially directs that the matter shall be rear-gued orally. No affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the court. Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the moving party must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See Ameritrust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D." }, { "docid": "14567151", "title": "", "text": "201, 205 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992). Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appeal. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517. When the requisites of a Rule 3(j) motion — overlooked facts or caselaw — have not been met, a court may address the substance of the arguments raised in a Rule 3(j) motion to provide additional clarification of the issues sought to be reargued. This clarification serves to apprise the parties that, even if reargument were granted, it would be unavailing. CMNY Capital, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 821 F.Supp. 152, 162 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Carolco Pictures, Inc. v. Sirota, 700 F.Supp. 169, 170 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Discussion Pain and Suffering The first issue raised by the Defendants relates to the denial of their motion to remit the awards for pain and suffering. The Second Circuit has stated that a court should remit a verdict only if it is so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience. Petramale v. Local No. 17 of Laborers’ Int’l Union, 847 F.2d 1009, 1012 (2d Cir.1988). In deciding whether to remit the awards for pain and suffering in this case, the January 21 Opinion noted that, if remittitur were to be contemplated at all, reduction of the verdict could be permitted only so far as the “maximum amount that would be upheld ... as not excessive” and not a penny less. The Court further noted that, in determining whether an award “shocked” the judicial conscience, it was appropriate to refer to awards in other actions of a similar character. January 21 Opinion at *14. In determining whether the awards in the present case “shocked” the judicial conscience, the Court considered a number of factors, among them the opinion" }, { "docid": "5169635", "title": "", "text": "245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Local Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517; Korvek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547,1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986). As such, a party in its motion for reargument “may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court.” Litton Indus., Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb, Inc., No. 86 Civ. 6447, 1989 WL 162315, at *4, 1989 LEXIS 9145, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 1989). II. The RAMI Pate Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reargue is Denied The RAM/Pate Plaintiffs allege three purported matters of fact or law overlooked by the Court in the Opinion which justify reargument: (1) the Court overlooked the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the RAM 86 investment was allegedly known to be worthless from the outset and was therefore fraudulent; (2) the Court overlooked the Second Circuit’s ruling in Cruden v. Bank of New York, 957 F.2d 961 (2d Cir.1992) (“Cruden ”); and (3) the Court overlooked the fact that RAM 86 was a public offering, not governed under Regulation D, Rules 501-08, 17 C.F.R. 230.501-.508, of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”). A. The Opinion Did Not Overlook the “Gravamen” of the Proposed Amended Complaint The RAM Plaintiffs contend that this Court overlooked the “gravamen” of their Proposed Amended Complaint in that the Defendants allegedly used the RAM partnerships to “cash out” uneconomical mortgages and that Defendants knew that the mortgages to be acquired by the RAM partnerships were worthless." }, { "docid": "16448470", "title": "", "text": "matters that were put before it on the underlying motion. See Ameritrust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237, 238 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd sub nom. Fulani v. Bentsen, 35 F.3d 49 (2d Cir.1994); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm, Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 6.3 is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See American Alliance v. Eagle Ins., 163 F.R.D. 211, 213 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (citing Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985)). In deciding a reconsideration motion, the Court must not allow a party to use the motion as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser v. AT & T Information Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir.1987). Therefore, a party may not “advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court.” Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 768 F.Supp. 115, 116 (S.D.N.Y.1991); see Litton Indus., Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb Inc., No. 86 Civ. 6447, 1989 WL 162315, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.4, 1989). The decision to grant or deny the motion is within the sound discretion of the district court. See Schaffer v. Soros, No. 92 Civ. 1233, 1994 WL 592891 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 1994). Because Witz’s motion does not present “matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked that might materially have influenced its earlier decision,” Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517, the motion is denied. In the Order, Judge McKenna granted Dietrich’s motion for an extension of time to effectuate service of the summons and complaint on Witz. Rule 4(m) provides, in relevant part, that: If the service of the summons and complaint is not" }, { "docid": "17425986", "title": "", "text": "sought by SZS is therefore inappropriate when the denial of summary judgment, as in Monaghan VI, was rooted in the conclusion that triable issues of fact remain unresolved. In the present motion to reargue, SZS has not presented an issue of controlling law requiring interlocutory review under the standards set forth under Section 1292(b). Further, in the opinion - on the underlying denial of summary judgment the Court determined that: while the question of whether one party owes another a duty is a question of law, the answer is inevitably tied to factual questions regarding the circumstances and conditions at issue. In this case, those facts include the foreseeability and notice SZS had of prior criminal acts on the Premises — a fact that is assumed in the Plaintiffs’ favor pursuant to both Rule 56 and Monaghan V, and the extent to which any duty SZS may have had as landlord was superseded by duties assumed by others through contractual agreements. Monaghan VI, 827 F.Supp. at 240. Accordingly, SZS’s motion for certification pursuant to section 1292(b) is denied. II. The Legal Standards of Local Rule 30) The standards controlling a motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., are the same. See Morser v. AT & T Info. Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Local Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American" }, { "docid": "22460837", "title": "", "text": "501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd 35 F.3d 49 (2d Cir.1994); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). A Rule 3(j) motion is not a motion to reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved. See Morser v. AT & T Information Systems, 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir.1987). As such, a party in its motion for reargument “may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court.” Litton Indus., Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb, Inc., 1989 WL 162315, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4,1989). B. Motion to Reargue Count X is Denied In response the PPI’s motion to dismiss Count X, the Court reasoned and concluded as follows: ... to state a cause of action for tortious interference with business relations a plaintiff is required to show “the defendant’s interference with business relations existing between the plaintiff and a third party, either with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or by means that are ‘dishonest, unfair or in any other way improper.’ ” If the defendant’s interference is intended, at least in part, to advance its own competing interests, the claim will fail unless the means employed include criminal or fraudulent conduct. (Emphasis in original) (Citations omitted). PPX Enters., Inc. v. Audio Fidelity [Audiofidelity] Enterps., Inc., 818 F.2d 266, 269 (2d Cir.1987); see also Volvo N. Am. v. Men’s Int’l Professional Tennis Council, 857 F.2d 55, 74 (2d Cir.1988); Robert J. McRell Assocs. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am.," }, { "docid": "4983665", "title": "", "text": "Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Local Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517. II. The Banks’ Motion Fails to Satisfy the Requirements of Local Rule 3(f) The Banks’ motion for reconsideration fails to demonstrate that the later Global I Opinion elucidates new facts relevant to the summary judgment motion denied previously in the 1992 Opinion. The Banks’ argument can be distilled into the following four steps: (1) the Global I Opinion found that the limited partners’ securities fraud claims are time barred; (2) since the securities fraud claims are time barred there cannot be any fraud; (3) therefore the Banks acted in good faith; and, as a result, (4) the Court must now reverse itself and declare the Banks to be holders in due course. A. The 1992 Opinion Denied Summary Judgment Because the Facts Did Not Warrant a Determination that They Were the Holders In Due Course In the 1992 Opinion, the Banks argued that they were entitled to summary judgment because they had made out a prima facie case that they were the holders in due course. This Court denied summary judgment on several grounds. Initially, the Court outlined the standards as set forth under New York’s Uniform Commercial Code for a holder in due course: A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument (a) for value; and (b) in good faith; and (c) without notice that it is overdue or has been" }, { "docid": "14567150", "title": "", "text": "50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were made September 14. These motions and issues related to judgment molding were addressed in the January 21 Opinion. This motion was considered fully submitted as of February 9, 1994. Standard for Motion to Reargue Under Rule 3(j) Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: “[t]here shall be served with [a] notice of motion [for reargument] a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked.” The standards controlling a motion for reargument pursuant to Rule 3(j) and a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., are the same. See Morser v. AT & T Info. Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Rule 3(j), the Defendants must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the it on the underlying motion. See Violette v. Armonk Assocs. L.P., 823 F.Supp. 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Morin v. Trupin, 823 F.Supp. 201, 205 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992). Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appeal. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517. When the requisites of a Rule 3(j) motion — overlooked facts or caselaw — have not been met, a court may address the substance of the arguments raised in a Rule 3(j) motion to provide additional clarification of the issues sought to be reargued. This clarification serves to apprise the parties that, even if reargument were granted, it would be unavailing. CMNY Capital, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 821 F.Supp. 152, 162 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Carolco Pictures, Inc. v. Sirota, 700 F.Supp. 169, 170 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Discussion Pain" }, { "docid": "2663598", "title": "", "text": "The standards controlling a motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., are the same. See Morser v. AT & T Information Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Local Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive' arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Local Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517; Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986). Finally, a Local Rule 3(j) motion must be served within ten days after the docketing of the courts’s determination of the original motion. B. Fulani Has Failed To Satisfy The Requirements Of Local Rule 3G) In the first instance, Fulani’s Local Rule 3(j) motion is untimely. The Opinion was dated and filed on January 5, 1993. Fulani’s motion was filed on February 8, 1993, well beyond the ten-day time limit set forth in Rule 59(e) and, as such, it is untimely. However, notwithstanding this untimeliness, which, in itself, constitutes a sufficient ground to deny Fulani’s motion, a review of the" }, { "docid": "7583806", "title": "", "text": "its Review of Qmax’s financial statements. D & T’s Third Party Complaint alleges that Eastiake represented Qmax to the Investors as a financially sound going concern, which would be able to repay the Notes from either the operating revenues derived from the Joint Venture or the proceeds of the Public Offering or both, although Eastiake had an obligation to conduct its own due diligence investigation into the business, operations and prospects of Qmax, and as agent of Qmax, Eastiake had access to material non-public proprietary information about Qmax’s business. Discussion Standard for Motion to Reargue Under Local Rule 3(j) Local Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: “There shall be served with [a] notice of motion [for reargument] a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked.” The standards controlling a motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., are the same. See Morser v. AT & T Info. Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); Lotze v. Hoke, 654 F.Supp. 605, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), Eastlake must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See Violette v. Armonk Assocs. L.P., 823 F.Supp. 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Morin v. Truipin, 823 F.Supp. 201, 205 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Local Rule 3(j) motion, the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517. D & T’s third party complaint alleges that, if D & T is found liable under Rule 10b-5, Eastlake is liable to D" }, { "docid": "22460836", "title": "", "text": "in order to create a full record of these complicated proceedings. On November 7, 1995 PPI filed these motions for reargument, to dismiss and for clerical revisions. Oral argument was heard on November 15, 1995 and the motions were considered fully submitted at that time. Discussion I. Motions to Reargue A. Standard for Considering Motions to Reargue Local Rule 3(j) provides in pertinent part: There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. No oral argument shall be heard unless the court grants the motion and specially directs that the matter shall be rear-gued orally. No affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the court. Thus, to be entitled to reargument under Local Rule 3(j), the moving party must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying motion. See Ameritrust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd 35 F.3d 49 (2d Cir.1994); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y.1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Local Rule 3(j) is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). A Rule 3(j) motion is not a motion to reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved. See Morser v. AT & T Information Systems, 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir.1987). As such, a party in its motion for reargument “may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to" }, { "docid": "22581414", "title": "", "text": "with respect to alter ego liability. Id. Discussion A. Standard for Reargument Local Rule 6.3 provides in pertinent part: “There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked.” Thus, to be entitled to reargument, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion. See Ameritrust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. Dew, 151 F.R.D. 237 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Fulani v. Brady, 149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y.1992); B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F.Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., 760 F.Supp. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Ashley Meadows Farm Inc. v. American Horse Shows Ass’n, 624 F.Supp. 856, 857 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Local Rule 6.3 is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court. See Caleb & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). In deciding a Local Rule 6.3 motion, the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517; Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986). Therefore, a party in its motion for reargument “may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court.” Litton Indus., Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb, Inc., 1989 WL 162315, at * 3 (S.D.N.Y.1989). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reargument is within the sound discretion of the district court. See Schaffer v. Soros, 1994 WL 592891 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 1994). B. Korman’s Motion is Denied Korman contends that in denying him summary judgment, the Court overlooked controlling law governing summary judgment and treated Korman’s motion as a Rule 9(b) motion. As noted in the Opinion, the essential challenge made by Korman on the underlying motion was that Shamis’ Second Amended Complaint failed to satisfy" } ]

[ { "docid": "21562819", "title": "", "text": "doubt that the defendant performed the acts alleged. See State v. Warren, 363 A.2d at 96. Nonetheless, it is plain that the insanity plea is more like a plea of guilty than it is like a plea of not guilty since, while not relieving the State of all burden to prove that the defendant per formed the acts charged, the insanity plea lessens that burden considerably as a practical matter by barring the defendant from contesting or impeaching the State’s proof and from presenting other evidence that could counter that proof. Accordingly, we turn to principles pertaining to pleas of guilty. In the absence of special circumstances, the validity of a plea of guilty is determined by reference to whether it was intelligent and voluntary. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709. As a general matter, a plea is deemed “intelligent” if the accused had the advice of counsel and understood the consequences of his plea, even if only in a fairly rudimentary way; it is deemed “voluntary” if it is not the product of actual or threatened physical harm, mental coercion overbearing the defendant’s will, or the defendant’s sheer inability to weigh his options rationally. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 750, 90 S.Ct. at 1470. The Brady v. United States Court made clear, however, that this test suffices only in the “absen[ce of] misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents.” Id. at 757, 90 S.Ct. at 1473. Since a defendant’s decision whether or not to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by his appraisal of the prosecution’s case, id. at 756, 90 S.Ct. at 1473, and of information that may be available to cast doubt on the fact or degree of his culpability, we conclude that even a guilty plea that was “knowing” and “intelligent” may be vulnerable to challenge if it was entered without knowledge of material evidence withheld by the prosecution. Given the practical similarities between guilty pleas and pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity," } ]

[ { "docid": "9731623", "title": "", "text": "at 22. The district court disagreed. It applied the standard for volun-tariness set forth in various court opinions, including Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), and concluded that the pleas were made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. United States v. Henry, 713 F.Supp. 1182, 1192 (N.D.Ill.1989). For our part, we start with the proposition that a guilty plea is voluntary “when it is not induced by threats or misrepresentations and the defendant is made aware of the direct consequences of the plea.” Brady, 397 U.S. at 755, 90 S.Ct. at 1472. A valid guilty plea should represent “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). In Boykin, the Supreme Court identified three fundamental rights that a defendant surrenders in pleading guilty, the surrender of which the defendant must be apprised: the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to a jury trial, and the right to confront one’s accusers. 395 U.S. at 242-43, 89 S.Ct. at 1712. In addition, the record affirmatively must disclose that the defendant entered the plea understanding^ and voluntarily. Id. A waiver of these rights will not be presumed from a silent record, id. at 243, 89 S.Ct. at 1712, but if the defendant’s intelligent awareness can be reasonably inferred from the transcript or the custom and practice of the court, the plea passes constitutional muster. Gallman, 907 F.2d at 644. In accepting Henry’s 1973 and 1975 pleas, neither trial court admonished Henry as to all three of the fundamental rights particularized in Boykin. Nevertheless, the district court found that Henry’s pleas were “invulnerable to constitutional attack,” Henry, 713 F.Supp. at 1192, because the constitution does not require the specific admonitions listed in Boykin as a condition precedent to the validity of a guilty plea. To reach this conclusion, the court observed that five years after Boykin, the Supreme Court proposed an amendment" }, { "docid": "23524052", "title": "", "text": "Appellant’s guilty plea de novo. United States v. Libretti, 38 F.3d 523, 529 (10th Cir.1994), aff'd, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 356, 133 L.Ed.2d 271 (1995). “The longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is ‘whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’ ” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 369, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). A guilty plea entered upon the advice of counsel is invalid if the plea was coerced, Osborn v. Shillinger, 997 F.2d 1324, 1327 (10th Cir.1993), or if the advice of defendant’s counsel was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. at 56, 106 S.Ct. at 369; McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 1449, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970). Appellant advances several reasons why his guilty plea was not voluntary: (1) the structure and application of the plea bargain was coercive; (2) Appellant’s attorney, code-fendants and their attorneys coerced Appellant into agreeing to the plea bargain; and (3) Appellant’s attorney rendered ineffective assistance in the context of the plea process. 1. Structure and Application of Plea Bargain Appellant asserts that the “package deal” plea bargain offered by the government was inherently coercive. We have recognized “that threats to prosecute or promises of leniency to third persons to induce guilty pleas can pose a danger of coercion” and therefore require special care “to insure that the plea was in fact entered voluntarily and was not the product of coercion.” Mosier v. Murphy, 790 F.2d 62, 66 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 988, 107 S.Ct. 582, 93 L.Ed.2d 584 (1986). Moreover, we have noted that “the inclusion of such third persons can increase the leverage possessed by prosecutors and therefore imposes upon them a high standard of good faith.” Id. (citing United States v. Nuckols. 606 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir.1979)). Nevertheless, we have insisted that an accused’s choice" }, { "docid": "22138090", "title": "", "text": "plea was voluntarily and knowingly made by the accused. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis that the guilty pleas were both “voluntary” and “intelligent,” citing Boykin. Nowhere in Brady was anything said by the Court to indicate that specific articulation of the three constitutional rights set forth in Boykin was required when the plea was entered, the Court stating in footnote 4 (397 U.S. at 747, 90 S.Ct. at 1468) that “[t]he new element added in Boykin was the requirement that the record must affirmatively disclose that a defendant who pleaded guilty entered his plea understanding^ and voluntarily.” To the same effect as the holding in Brady, see Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970), decided the same day. In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), decided the year after Boykin, the Supreme Court said in determining the validity of guilty pleas that “[t]he standard was and remains whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); . . .” Id., 400 U.S. at 31, 91 S.Ct. at 164. The Supreme Court declined to vacate Alford’s guilty plea because the record in the post-conviction state court hearing “confirmed that Alford had been fully informed by his attorney as to his rights on a plea of not guilty and as to the consequences of a plea of guilty. Since the record in this ease affirmatively indicates that Alford was aware of the consequences of his plea of guilty and of the rights waived by the plea, no issues of substance under Boykin v. Alabama (citation omitted), would be presented even if that case was held applicable to the events here in question.” Id., 400 U.S. at 29 n. 3, 91 S.Ct. at 163. We note that the Court’s decision was predicated on evidence received at the post-conviction hearing. As in Brady and Parker, there is no indication that any" }, { "docid": "23059873", "title": "", "text": "undermined by the short period of time — two hours — -that he had to consider the plea agreement. Doe further argues that the limited length of time, in combination with his mental defects, rendered his plea involuntary. The test for determining whether a plea is valid is “whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” Hill, 474 U.S. at 56, 106 S.Ct. 366 (quoting Alford, 400 U.S. at 31, 91 S.Ct. 160) (quotation marks omitted); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). “[T]he record must affirmatively disclose that a defendant who pleaded guilty entered his plea understandingly and voluntarily.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 747 n. 4, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). A guilty plea is coerced where a defendant is “induced by promises or threats which deprive [the plea] of the nature of a voluntary act.” Iaea v. Sunn, 800 F.2d 861, 866 (9th Cir.1986) (quotation marks and citation omitted). To determine the voluntariness of the plea, we look to the totality of the circumstances, examining both the defendant’s “subjective state of mind” and the “constitutional acceptability of the external forces inducing the guilty plea.” Id. The case law on this issue is quite limited. However, the amount of time Doe had to consider the plea is only relevant if it somehow rendered his plea coerced, and therefore involuntary. Recall that the jury had already been empaneled and that the court had delayed opening arguments until the following morning in order to provide Doe’s counsel and the prosecution an opportunity to reconsider a plea bargain. Therefore, there was a plausible reason for the arguably short two hours Doe had to consider the proposed plea agreement. With this in mind, the proper question for review is whether the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. We conclude that it was not. In accepting Doe’s plea, the state trial court conducted a thorough" }, { "docid": "9731622", "title": "", "text": "theme, Henry attacks the basis for his enhanced sentence: the convictions them selves. For a conviction to count for enhancement purposes, it must have been constitutionally obtained. United States v. Gallman, 907 F.2d 639, 642 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1110, 113 L.Ed.2d 219 (1991) (citations omitted). Once the government has shown that a defendant has three prior convictions for burglary or robbery, the burden rests with the defendant to show that a particular conviction was unconstitutional. Id. at 643. Henry argues that his 1973 and 1975 convictions should not be counted as predicate offenses for the enhancement provisions of section 1202(a)(1) because the convictions resulted from guilty pleas that were not voluntarily and intelligently given. (Henry does not attack the validity of his 1978 conviction.) He contends that the transcripts of the proceedings at which he pleaded guilty to the 1973 and 1975 charges demonstrate that he neither chose to plead guilty nor understood the full consequences of his actions, and that he was “railroaded through the system.” Appellant’s Brief at 22. The district court disagreed. It applied the standard for volun-tariness set forth in various court opinions, including Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), and concluded that the pleas were made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. United States v. Henry, 713 F.Supp. 1182, 1192 (N.D.Ill.1989). For our part, we start with the proposition that a guilty plea is voluntary “when it is not induced by threats or misrepresentations and the defendant is made aware of the direct consequences of the plea.” Brady, 397 U.S. at 755, 90 S.Ct. at 1472. A valid guilty plea should represent “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). In Boykin, the Supreme Court identified three fundamental rights that a defendant surrenders in pleading guilty, the surrender of which the defendant must be apprised: the" }, { "docid": "21575043", "title": "", "text": "and the district court acted well within its discretion in denying it. B. The Post-Sentence Motion In her post-sentence motion, Loughery argued that her plea was not intelligently made and therefore was invalid because Hartman failed to inform her of McNa,lly and its significance. A guilty plea is valid only if voluntarily and intelli gently made, “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); accord North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (plea must “represent] a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant”). The decision whether to plead guilty must be made by the defendant after consultation with counsel. See American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice 4-5.2(a)(i) (2d ed. 1980) (discussing which decisions must ultimately be made by the accused and which by counsel) (“ABA Standards”). A plea is not voluntary or intelligent if the advice given by defense counsel on which the defendant relied in entering the plea falls below the level of reasonable competence such that the defendant does not receive effective assistance of counsel. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-60, 106 S.Ct. 366, 369-71, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 1608, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). The Court has developed a two-part test to determine whether the advice of counsel on which the deféndant relied in entering her plea sinks to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. First, “ 'the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’ ” Hill, 474 U.S. at 57, 106 S.Ct. at 369 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Second, “the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Id. 474 U.S. at 59, 106 S.Ct. at 370." }, { "docid": "1637561", "title": "", "text": "that the state’s decision not to seek the death penalty at the original proceeding did not constitute an “acquittal” of the death penalty and that the state was not barred from seeking the death penalty on retrial. Osborn v. Shillinger, 803 F.Supp. at 375-76. Relying primarily on Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 749-50, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469-70, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), the district court found that neither the fact that Osborn pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty nor the alleged court and counsel errors prior to his plea made his plea involuntary. Osborn v. Shillinger, 803 F.Supp. at 374-76. The court also determined that there was no evidence of vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing authority, and thus he was not entitled to a presumption of vindictiveness, and that Osborn had not carried his burden of proving vindictiveness. Id. at 377. The court therefore dismissed the petition. We first address Osborn’s coercion claim. “The longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is “whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’ ” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 369, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)); see also McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1171, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). A valid guilty plea may not be obtained through coercion. See, e.g., Brady, 397 U.S. at 750, 90 S.Ct. at 1470; Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Whether a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary under the constitution is a question of federal law. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 431, 103 S.Ct. 843, 849, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983). “The voluntariness of [a] plea can be determined only by considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it.” Brady, 397 U.S. at 749, 90 S.Ct. at 1469. Generally, a collateral attack on a conviction resulting from a guilty plea is “confined to whether" }, { "docid": "1803910", "title": "", "text": "F.2d 962, 967 (5th Cir.1992). Had appellate counsel done so, with the benefit of the Free Speech Coalition case having been decided before oral argument in Oakes’s case, the Court of Appeals would have then considered the issue of whether his plea was voluntary and knowing when made. If they had considered the issue, the record supports the conclusion that the Court of Appeals would have found that Oakes’s plea was voluntarily and intelligently made. “A guilty plea is constitutionally valid only to the extent it is ‘voluntary’ and ‘intelligent.’ ” Bousley, 523 U.S. at 618, 118 S.Ct. 1604 (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)); see also Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 28, 113 S.Ct. 517, 523, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). A plea does not qualify as voluntary and intelligent unless the defendant: (1) was informed of the nature of the charges against him and all direct consequences of his plea; and (2) understood the constitutional rights that he was waiving by entering a guilty plea. See Brady, 397 U.S. at 754-55, 90 S.Ct. at 1472. The standard is “whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). Voluntariness is determined by examining all the relevant circumstances surrounding it. Brady, 397 U.S. at 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463 (“Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”). Oakes’s voluntariness argument is specifically directed at the claim that he would not have pled guilty if he had known that the government would be required to prove that the children depicted in the images were actual children. In Brady the Supreme Court discussed the negotiated plea process stating: Often the decision to plead guilty is heavily influenced by the defendant’s appraisal of the prosecution’s case against him and by the apparent likelihood of securing leniency should a guilty plea" }, { "docid": "1637562", "title": "", "text": "and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’ ” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 369, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)); see also McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1171, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). A valid guilty plea may not be obtained through coercion. See, e.g., Brady, 397 U.S. at 750, 90 S.Ct. at 1470; Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Whether a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary under the constitution is a question of federal law. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 431, 103 S.Ct. 843, 849, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983). “The voluntariness of [a] plea can be determined only by considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it.” Brady, 397 U.S. at 749, 90 S.Ct. at 1469. Generally, a collateral attack on a conviction resulting from a guilty plea is “confined to whether the underlying plea was both counseled and voluntary.” United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569, 109 S.Ct. 757, 762, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989). Thus, a guilty plea bars subsequent challenges based on nonjurisdictional, pre-plea errors. See, e.g., Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62 n. 2, 96 S.Ct. 241, 242 n. 2, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 1608, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) (“When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.”). The district court’s alleged errors in excluding him from jury voir dire, seating an allegedly biased juror, and allowing a prosecution witness in the courtroom when not testifying are such pre-plea errors that Osborn cannot collaterally attack. Moreover, we agree with the district court that these alleged errors do not make Osborn’s guilty plea" }, { "docid": "23596426", "title": "", "text": "506 U.S. 20, 35, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) (pre-AEDPA case). Fields has not demonstrated a violation of AEDPA because he has failed to show that the OCCA’s conclusion that he entered his plea voluntarily “was contrary to, • or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court ... or ... was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts....” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea of guilty. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Miles, 61 F.3d at 1465. “A plea can be involuntary even if the threats or promises do not come from a person within the criminal justice system.” 5 Wayne R. LaFave, et al., Criminal Procedure § 21.4(b), at 157 n. 33 (2d ed.1999). “Acts that might constitute coercion if done by the court or a prosecutor may not rise to that level if done by others.” Iaea v. Sunn, 800 F.2d 861, 867 (9th Cir.1986) (citing United States ex rel. Brown v. LaVallee, 424 F.2d 457, 461 (2d Cir.1970) (explaining that statements that might have been coercive when made by a prosecutor or judge are not coercive when made by defendant’s mother and his counsel)). “[Cjoercion by the accused’s counsel can render a plea involuntary.” United States v. Estrada, 849 F.2d 1304, 1306 (10th Cir.1988). “The longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is 'whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’ ” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). “A plea may be involuntary when an attorney materially misinforms the defendant of the consequences of the plea,” United States v. Rhodes, 913 F.2d 839, 843 (10th Cir.1990), e.g., by falsely alleging that promises or guarantees exist, see Braun v. Ward, 190 F.3d 1181, 1189" }, { "docid": "11040564", "title": "", "text": "F.2d 1484, 1486 (7th Cir.1990). A guilty plea, however, is valid only if it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Moreover, a guilty plea must have a factual basis and the defendant must admit to that basis. United States v. Frye, 738 F.2d 196, 199 (7th Cir.1984). The defendant must also understand “the law in relation to the facts.\" McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1171, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). A valid guilty plea should therefore reflect “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). This court, in determining the constitutionality of a guilty plea, may look “beyond the transcript of the plea hearing to all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” Marx v. United States, 930 F.2d 1246, 1250 (7th Cir.1991) (quoting Haase v. United States, 800 F.2d 123, 127 (7th Cir.1986)). The Constitution “does not prescribe any formula for the creation of that knowledge” required to support a guilty plea. Wildes, 910 F.2d at 1486. The voluntariness of a guilty plea, however, must be established in the record; waiver of the important constitutional rights surrendered upon such a plea “cannot [be] presume[d] ... from a silent record.” Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242-43, 89 S.Ct. at 1712. The waived rights need not be explained fully during a guilty plea proceeding to comply with the constitution, but a court must at least apprise defendants of their “right to plead guilty and that, if they plead guilty, they waive the right to trial.” United States v. Henry, 933 F.2d 553, 559 (7th Cir.1991) (holding that the constitutional minimum requirements are set forth in the Supreme Court’s proposed amendment to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, H.R.Rep. No. 94-247, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 21-22 (1975), reprinted in 1975 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 674, 693-94). Stewart’s guilty plea was governed by Illinois Supreme Court" }, { "docid": "6460007", "title": "", "text": "advice or suggestion as to how to deal with the People’s offered plea bargain.” Carrion v. Smith, 549 F.3d 583, 591 n. 4 (2d Cir.2008). If Attorney Terranova had failed to explain the sentencing exposure Martin faced upon a guilty verdict and the demonstrable weaknesses in the defense case, he would have been derelict in his duties under Strickland and the Sixth Amendment. Martin’s allegations seem to be nothing more than a case of “buyer’s remorse,” as his third attorney pointed out. Simply because Martin did not like counsel’s advice does not mean that it was deficient, much less unreasonable in light of prevailing professional norms. Martin has failed to demonstrate that counsel performed in an objectively unreasonable manner in advising him strongly to take a favorable plea agreement. Because he cannot fulfill the performance prong of Strickland, there is no need for the court to consider prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Martin has not demonstrated that the state court incorrectly applied Strickland or unreasonably applied Strickland. Thus, under any standard of review, his claim must fail. 3. Petitioner’s claim of an involuntary plea is without merit. a. Standard For Determining the Validity of a Guilty Plea The Supreme Court has held that, under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, a trial court can only accept a guilty plea which is “done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” United States v. Adams, 448 F.3d 492, 497 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005)); accord Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 400, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993). Thus, the standard is well-established for determining whether a guilty plea passes constitutional muster: “[Wjhether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). Where a defendant is" }, { "docid": "23558726", "title": "", "text": "plea is voluntary. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1170-71, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). “The long standing test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is ‘whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’ ” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 369, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). Under this test, Lovett’s guilty plea is valid. It is also unimpeached; even now Lovett does not allege that he did not do what he admitted in open court to having done. Accordingly, if the district court’s failure to mention to Lovett his right to appointed counsel was error, it was harmless. Fed.R. Crim.P. 11(h). See United States v. Caston, 615 F.2d 1111, 1115-16 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 831, 101 S.Ct. 99, 66 L.Ed.2d 36 (1980). See also United States v. Stead, 746 F.2d 355, 357 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 1403, 84 L.Ed.2d 790 (1985); Guichard, supra, 779 F.2d at 1142-43. As this appeal illustrates, however, a district court should track the language of Rule 11 unless there is a persuasive reason for not doing so. As the Third Circuit recently stated, Undoubtedly, the trial judge was convinced that petitioner freely and voluntarily entered his plea with full knowledge of the possible consequences. We recognize the concern of conscientious district judges that the plea colloquy be used to make relevant findings and that it not be reduced to a meaningless oral questionnaire. Nevertheless, the issues raised here demonstrate once again that faithful adherence to the text of Rule 11 ... can forestall needless appeals. Plodding through the litany, which may not be immediately necessary for the critical determinations on voluntariness, might consume a few additional seconds, but will ultimately save time by preventing appeals or collateral proceedings. Rule 11 has a dual purpose — not only to assure the validity of the plea, but also to deter meritless appeals. We, therefore," }, { "docid": "22327322", "title": "", "text": "the District Court Committed Plain Error When it Accepted Lessner’s Guilty Plea Lessner argues that the District Court should not have accepted her guilty plea before questioning her on her statements to the Court that she was under the care of mental health professionals and taking “10 pills a day.” (J.A. at 50.) Because no contemporaneous objection was raised, we review the adequacy of the plea colloquy for plain error. Fed R.Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). Plain error exists only when (1) an error was committed (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Stevens, 223 F.3d 239, 242 (3d Cir.2000). Even then, the decision to correct the error is discretionary. United States v. Campbell, 295 F.3d 398, 404 (3d Cir.2002). A court of appeals should exercise its discretion “only if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Stevens, 223 F.3d at 242 (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). By entering a plea of guilty, a criminal defendant waives his or her constitutional rights to be tried by a jury, to confront his or her accusers, and to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination. Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). Like all waivers of constitutional rights, a guilty plea must be made “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, ‘with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.’ ” Bradshaw v. Stumpf 545 U.S. 175, 183, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005) (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)). A district court commits reversible error by accepting a defendant’s guilty plea without creating a record to show that the plea was knowing and voluntary. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure sets forth the standards governing the acceptance of guilty pleas. It" }, { "docid": "6361692", "title": "", "text": "in Willett’s petition had not been presented in state court, and it dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. In this appeal, Willett contends that the district court erred. We agree. I. A guilty plea is constitutionally valid only if the defendant has made a “voluntary and intelligent choice” among the various courses of conduct open to him or her. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). In North Carolina v. Alford, the United States Supreme Court was confronted with the question whether a defendant’s plea of guilty in state court was rendered constitutionally invalid because it was accompanied by a protestation of innocence. The Court held, “In view of the strong factual basis for the plea demonstrated by the State and Alford’s clearly expressed desire to enter it despite his professed belief in his innocence, . . . the trial judge did not commit constitutional error in accepting it.” 400 U.S. at 38, 91 S.Ct. at 168. The Court elaborated as follows: Because of the importance of protecting the innocent and of insuring that guilty pleas are a product of free and intelligent choice, various state and federal court decisions properly caution that pleas coupled with claims of innocence should not be accepted unless there is a factual basis for the plea, . . . and until the judge taking the plea has inquired into and sought to resolve the conflict between the waiver of trial and the claim of innocence. . In the federal courts, Fed.Rule Crim. Proc. 11 expressly provides that a court “shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.” 400 U.S. at 38 n. 10, 91 S.Ct. at 167-168 n. 10 (citations omitted). When presented with an equivocal plea entered in a state adjudication, this court, following Alford, found the plea valid because it was “knowingly and voluntarily entered and surrounded by other circumstances establishing [defendant’s] guilt.”" }, { "docid": "6460008", "title": "", "text": "of review, his claim must fail. 3. Petitioner’s claim of an involuntary plea is without merit. a. Standard For Determining the Validity of a Guilty Plea The Supreme Court has held that, under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, a trial court can only accept a guilty plea which is “done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” United States v. Adams, 448 F.3d 492, 497 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005)); accord Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 400, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993). Thus, the standard is well-established for determining whether a guilty plea passes constitutional muster: “[Wjhether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). Where a defendant is represented by counsel at the plea, and enters the plea based upon counsel’s advice, the voluntariness of the plea depends upon whether counsel’s advice was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. Id. (citations omitted). As discussed above, I have determined that trial’s counsel’s advice concerning the advantageousness of the plea was well within the range of competence demanded by attorneys in criminal cases. A conviction which is based upon an involuntary plea of guilty is inconsistent with due process of law and is subject to collateral attack by federal habeas corpus. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 772, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); see also United States v. Simmons, 164 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1998). “[N]ot every disagreement with defense counsel amounts to a conflict of interest. [I]t is to be expected that counsel will often be placed in the difficult position of having to comment on an asserted disagreement with her client, if only to inform the court as to whether she believes that she can continue" }, { "docid": "22327323", "title": "", "text": "507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). By entering a plea of guilty, a criminal defendant waives his or her constitutional rights to be tried by a jury, to confront his or her accusers, and to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination. Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). Like all waivers of constitutional rights, a guilty plea must be made “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, ‘with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.’ ” Bradshaw v. Stumpf 545 U.S. 175, 183, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005) (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)). A district court commits reversible error by accepting a defendant’s guilty plea without creating a record to show that the plea was knowing and voluntary. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure sets forth the standards governing the acceptance of guilty pleas. It does not, in itself, embody a constitutional directive. See United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979) (noting that a violation of Rule 11 “is neither constitutional nor jurisdictional”). Rather, “it is designed to assist the district judge in making the constitutionally required determination that a defendant’s guilty plea is truly voluntary,” and in producing “a complete record at the time the plea is entered of the factors relevant to this vol-untariness determination.” McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 465, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). A district court may not accept a plea of guilty without first personally addressing the defendant, under oath and in open court, and ascertaining that the plea is voluntary. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1), (2). The court must also ascertain that the defendant understands the rights that he or she is waiving by pleading guilty, and that there is a factual basis for the plea. Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1), (3). Even if a court deviates from these requirements, the error is harmless if it" }, { "docid": "5149190", "title": "", "text": "of a firearm, in exchange for the prosecution dropping the special circumstance allegation of murder for financial gain. The petitioner argues that he did not receive any benefit from the plea bargain because the prosecution could not have proven the special circumstance allegation of murder for financial gain. Specifically, petitioner argues that because the first premium payment on Jordan’s life insurance policy was not paid, he could not have collected on the life insurance. A guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent, entered with a sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences resulting from a waiver of certain fundamental rights. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Voluntariness must be demonstrated by tangible evidence in the record, as determined by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 749, 90 S.Ct. at 1469; Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. at 242, 89 S.Ct. at 1712. “The longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is “whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 369, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). Here, there is no doubt that petitioner’s plea was voluntary. The record of the plea shows he specifically waived his rights to jury trial, confrontation and the privilege against self-incrimination. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. at 243, 89 S.Ct. at 1712; United States v. Ullyses-Salazar, 28 F.3d 932, 939 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1367, 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995). He was advised of the charges and the sentence he was to receive. The petitioner was not threatened, or pressured to plead guilty, as he acknowledged. Chizen v. Hunter, 809 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir.1986). The petitioner, nevertheless, argues that the plea agreement was “fraudulent,” asserting he" }, { "docid": "13130679", "title": "", "text": "first-degree murder charges against Moran, stated the death penalty could be imposed, and inquired whether Moran understood the charges and penalties. The court asked whether Moran recognized the possible defenses to the crimes with which he was charged, and whether he had discussed these defenses with his counsel. See Harding, 834 F.2d at 857. Moran’s affirmative answers to the court’s questions were unequivocal. See Robinson, 913 F.2d at 714; Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir.1989). The court’s colloquy with Moran was probing and thorough, see Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723-34, 68 S.Ct. 316, 323, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948), and satisfied its duty under Faretta. See Balough, 820 F.2d at 1487-88. We conclude, as did the post-conviction Nevada state court, that Moran knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. 2. Guilty Pleas To determine whether a defendant’s guilty plea is “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action,” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), a trial court must follow the guidelines set forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711-12, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). See Godinez, — U.S. at - n. 12, 113 S.Ct. at 2687 n. 12. Under Boykin, the record of the plea proceeding must reflect that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial, the right to confront his accusers, and his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Parke v. Raley, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 517, 523, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992); Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242-3, 89 S.Ct. at 1711-12; United States v. Butcher, 926 F.2d 811, 817 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 959, 111 S.Ct. 2273, 114 L.Ed.2d 724 (1991). Prior to accepting Moran’s guilty pleas, the trial court engaged in an extensive canvass to determine whether Moran understood the rights he was forsaking by pleading guilty. As noted by the Court in Godinez, — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2683, the trial court determined that [Moran] was not pleading guilty in response to threats or promises, that" }, { "docid": "1644997", "title": "", "text": "that his plea is invalid, i.e., it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered into. See Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 508, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) (“It is well-settled that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty made by an accused person, who has been advised by competent counsel, may not be collaterally attacked.”). We must therefore determine whether a state court in October 1994 would have felt compelled to rule that Matthew’s due process rights were violated because of the failure to disclose the CPS documents, whether or not that failure amounts to a Brady violation. We again find that, given the legal landscape in existence at the time of Matthew’s conviction, a state court would not have felt compelled to hold in Matthew’s favor, and thus that a new rule would be required. The test for determining a guilty plea’s validity is “ ‘whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’ ” Hill, 474 U.S. at 56, 106 S.Ct. 366 (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). Courts assessing whether a defendant’s plea is valid look to “all of the relevant circum stances surrounding it”, Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463, and may consider such factors as whether there is evidence of factual guilt. Although the Court’s opinions have often used both “voluntary” and “intelligent” to describe various characteristics of constitutionally valid guilty pleas, several conditions appear necessary. The defendant pleading guilty must be competent, see Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 756, 90 S.Ct. 1463, and must have notice of the nature of the charges against him, see Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 645 n. 13, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976); Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329, 334, 61 S.Ct. 572, 85 L.Ed. 859 (1941). The plea must be entered “voluntarily,” i.e., not be the product of “actual or threatened physical harm, or ... mental coercion overbearing the will of the defendant” or of state-induced" } ]

[ { "docid": "22148456", "title": "", "text": "certain other expenditures were not chargeable as a matter of law, and that still other expenditures were not chargeable because the unions had failed to sustain their burden of proving that the expenditures were made for chargeable activities. 643 F. Supp. 1306 (1986). Following a partial settlement, petitioners took an appeal limited to the claim that the District Court erred in holding that the costs of certain disputed union activities were constitutionally chargeable to the plaintiff faculty members. Specifically, petitioners objected to the District Court’s conclusion that the union constitutionally could charge them for the costs of (1) lobbying and electoral politics; (2) bargaining, litigation, and other activities on behalf of persons not in petitioners’ bargaining unit; (3) public-relations efforts; (4) miscellaneous professional activities; (5) meetings and conventions of the parent unions; and (6) preparation for a strike which, had it materialized, would have violated Michigan law. The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting in large part, affirmed. 881 F. 2d 1388 (CA6 1989). After reviewing this Court’s cases in the area, the court concluded that each of the challenged activities was sufficiently related to the unions’ duties as the exclusive bargaining representative of petitioners’ unit to justify compelling petitioners to assist in subsidizing it. The dissenting judge concurred with respect to convention expenses but disagreed with the majority’s resolution of the other items challenged. Id., at 1394. Because of the importance of the issues, we granted certio-rari. 496 U. S. 924 (1990). h-1 1 — 4 This is not our first opportunity to consider the constitutional dimensions of union-security provisions such as the agency-shop agreement at issue here. The Court first addressed the question in Railway Employes v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225 (1956), where it recognized the validity of a “union-shop” agreement authorized by § 2 Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), as amended, 64 Stat. 1238, 45 U. S. C. § 152 Eleventh, as applied to private employees. As with the Michigan statute we consider today, the RLA provision at issue in Hanson was permissive in nature. It was more expansive than the Michigan Act," } ]

[ { "docid": "11571258", "title": "", "text": "argue that nonunion employees’ silence cannot be construed as a waiver of their right to dissent from paying for the union’s ideological expenditures with their agency shop fees. Hence, employees should be required to pay only those union costs related to collective bargaining unless they affirmatively consent to pay for the union’s political and ideological expenditures. This assumes that the revised notice of November 20 was constitutionally defective. If that notice cured the deficiencies of the May 3 letter, as found by the district court, then a more accurate characterization of the plaintiffs’ argument would be that nonmember silence in response to sufficient opportunity for dissenting from paying nonchargeable union expenses indicates acquiescence. A. The Abood Court recognized that fair share agreements impinge on nonmember employees’ rights, but held that forced contribution, in and of itself, did not violate those employees’ rights because the government had strong public policy interests in labor peace and the elimination of “free riders.” 431 U.S. at 222, 225, 97 S.Ct. at 1792, 1794. Rather, the Abood Court determined, nonmember employees’ First Amendment rights were violated only when their exacted funds were used to support ideological causes which they opposed. Id. at 235, 97 S.Ct. at 1799. Abood adopted the reasoning and rulings in the Supreme Court’s earlier Railway Labor Act cases. See Railway Employes’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 238, 76 S.Ct. 714, 721, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956); International Ass’n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 744, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 1787, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961); Brotherhood of Ry. and Steamship Clerks v. Allen, 373 U.S. 113, 122, 83 S.Ct. 1158, 1163, 10 L.Ed.2d 235 (1963). Together these cases stand for the proposition that dissenting union and nonunion members must inform the union that they oppose the use of their funds for ideological expenditures. Considering whether this requirement unconstitutionally burdened the employees in a case involving employees of a public body, the Court determined that a public employee does not have a weightier First Amendment interest than a private employee. Abood, 431 U.S. at 229-30, 97 S.Ct. at 1796-97. Thus the RLA cases" }, { "docid": "10982102", "title": "", "text": "Id. at 235-36, 97 S.Ct. at 1799-1800. The Abood decision was not the first time that the Supreme Court had the opportunity to pass on the constitutional implications of union security provisions such as the agency shop. In Railway Employees’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1956), the Court held that section 2, Eleventh, of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh, which authorized railway carriers and labor organizations acting as exclusive representatives of bargaining units to enter into union shop agreements, did not violate the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the congressional intent of eliminating the free rider problem by requiring those who enjoy the benefits of union representation to contribute to the support of the union. 351 U.S. at 231, 76 S.Ct. at 717. Further, the Court stated that such congressional action was a valid exercise of power under the commerce clause given the legitimate governmental interest in industrial peace and stabilized labor-management relations. Id. at 233-34, 76 S.Ct. at 718-19. One question left undecided by the Hanson Court — whether the required payment of union dues in a union shop could be used to force support of ideological causes or political candidates, see id. at 238, 76 S.Ct. at 721 — was decided several years later in International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961). Street also involved a union shop under section 2, Eleventh of the RLA. In that case, the union had expended union funds, over the objection of dissenting union members, in the support of political causes to which plaintiff-dissenters were opposed. The Court held that the union’s use of an employee’s money, over his objection, “to support candidates for public office, and advance political programs, is not a use which helps defray the expenses of the negotiation or administration of collective agreements, or the expenses entailed in the adjustment of grievances and disputes.” Id. at 768, 81 S.Ct. at 1800. Construing the RLA in such a way as to" }, { "docid": "2118163", "title": "", "text": "notice contained “no audit opinion” by an independent accountant that verifies the allocation between expenses chargeable to all employees and expenses chargeable only to Union members. The district court granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed. II The Supreme Court first considered the constitutionality of a union shop, of which an agency shop is a variation, in the context of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. The Court concluded that Congress had the power, in the exercise of its right to regulate commerce, to permit a union shop “as a stabilizing force” to promote “industrial peace” and that the union shop provision of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh, did not violate the First or Fifth Amendments. Railway Employes’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 233, 238, 76 S.Ct. 714, 718, 721, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956). Ruling that the Railway Labor Act permissibly required beneficiaries of trade unionism to contribute to the costs of collective bargaining, the Court cautioned that “[i]f ‘assessments’ are in fact imposed [by the union] for purposes not germane to collective bargaining, a different problem would be presented.” Id. at 235, 76 S.Ct. at 720. See also International Ass’n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961) (legislative history of Railway Labor Act mandated a construction that the act did not authorize expenditures by unions of funds on political causes unrelated to collective bargaining). These decisions rested on the implied principle that the governmental interest in trade unionism and the industrial peace that was anticipated justified the compromise of the First Amendment rights of dissenting employees. By governmental action these employees were compelled to associate with and participate in an organization with whose agenda and principles they disagreed. Later decisions of the Supreme Court expressly acknowledged the principle. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 222, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 1792, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977) (interference in employees’ First Amendment rights are justified by the legislative assessment of the importance of union shops to the system of" }, { "docid": "6388402", "title": "", "text": "the public employer violate the First Amendment rights of non-member employees. Second, do the statutory provisions providing for a demand and return system for the recovery of impermissible expenditures of representation fees overcome the substantive and procedural due process challenges to the New Jersey representation fee plan. The resolution of these questions must start with the state of the law as developed in a trilogy of United States Supreme Court cases — Railway Employees’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956); International Assoc, of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961); Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977). The Court recognized an important governmental interest which is advanced by agency shop provisions. The confusion and conflict that could arise if rival teachers’ unions, holding quite different views as to the proper class hours, class sizes, holidays, tenure provisions, and grievance procedures, each sought to obtain the employer’s agreement, are no different in kind from the evils that the exclusivity rule in the Railway Labor Act was designed to avoid.... The desirability of labor peace is no less important in the public sector, nor is the risk of “free riders” any smaller. Abood at 224, 97 S.Ct. at 1793. The existence of the important government interests advanced by the agency shop arrangement supports the impingement upon associational freedom which an agency shop entails. In Abood the Court dealt with a challenge to a collective bargaining agreement provision which required every teacher who had not become a union member within 60 days of hire (or within 60 days of the effective date of the provision) to pay the union a service charge equal to the regular dues required of union members. The Court observed that “insofar as the service charge is used to finance expenditures by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment, [the Hanson and Street decisions] appear to require validation of the agency shop agreement before us”, id. pp. 225, 226, 97 S.Ct." }, { "docid": "16812709", "title": "", "text": "FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Defendant Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) appeals from a judgment in a suit brought by former ALPA members for a declaration freeing them from the obligation to pay service charges under an agency shop agreement and reimbursement of service charges paid. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion. The court found that ALPA’s insistence that plaintiffs pay service charges was illegal under section 2, Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh (1976). I BACKGROUND A. The Railway Labor Act. The purposes of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), originally enacted in 1926 and substantially revised in 1934, see Felter v. Southern Pacific Co., 359 U.S. 326, 326 n. 1, 79 S.Ct. 847, 850 n. 1, 3 L.Ed.2d 854 (1959), are, inter alia, to secure uninterrupted operations by commercial rail carriers, to protect the associational rights of the employees of such carriers, and to promote speedy settlement of labor disputes between the employees and the carriers. 45 U.S.C. § 151a (1976). Before 1951, the RLA prohibited carriers and labor organizations from making either union-shop or agency-shop agreements. Felter, 359 U.S. at 330-33, 79 S.Ct. at 851-53. In 1951, however, the RLA was amended to allow carriers and carrier employee unions to bargain for union or agency-shop clauses. This amendment enabled unions to be relieved of the burden of “free riders” (non members who receive the benefits of the union’s representation but do not support the union). See Act of Jan. 10, 1951, ch. 1220, 64 Stat. 1238 (1951) (currently codified at 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh (b) (1976)); Felter, 359 U.S. at 330-31, 79 S.Ct. at 851-52. Subsequently, the Railway Labor Act, including the union security provision of section 2, Eleventh, was made applicable to air carriers. See 45 U.S.C. § 181 (1976). Section 2, Eleventh (a) of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh (a), provides that carriers and their unions may: make agreements, requiring, as a condition of continued employment, that ... all employees shall become members of the labor organization representing their craft or class: Provided, That no" }, { "docid": "8156673", "title": "", "text": "likely to have a widespread effect on labor-management relations at the McLaughlin Company. Accordingly, jurisdiction under § 301 is proper. See also Seay v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 427 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1970), on remand, 371 F.Supp. 754 (D.C.Cal.1973), aff’d in part, rev’d and remanded in part, 533 F.2d 1126 (9th Cir. 1976) (“While appellants’ complaint does not allege a violation of the collective bargaining agreement on its face inasmuch as the agreement does not specifically discuss the permissible purposes for which agency dues may be expended, Section 301 must be given a broad reading.” Id. at 1000) The UAW, in addition to seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, has also alleged that the plaintiff’s complaint does not afford a basis for relief. Against the plaintiff’s assertion of constitutional violations and fair representation claims, the UAW contends that there is no state action and that the Union’s policy of paying strike benefits only to those individuals who participate in strike-related activities is a legitimate expenditure of non-members’ fees. The UAW also argues that it has not breached any duty owed the plaintiff because its actions do not rise to the level of arbitrary or discriminatory conduct and because plaintiff’s employment relationship was unaffected. The issue of state action presents a close inquiry, necessitating an excursion into the past. Under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 152 Eleventh, Congress explicitly provided for union or agency shops notwithstanding state laws. In Railway Employees Department v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714,100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956), the Court held that union security agreements entered into pursuant to this section of the Railway Labor Act were imbued with sufficient governmental conduct to subject the agreement to constitutional guarantees of free speech and association. The Court viewed the congressional enactment as an explicit effort to permit union security clauses, vigorously trumpeting that “the federal statute is the source of the power and authority by which any private rights are lost or sacrificed.” Id. at 232, 76 S.Ct. at 718. The NLRA, however, overrides no state law with respect to agency shop agreements. While the" }, { "docid": "7064109", "title": "", "text": "PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: BACKGROUND The Railway Labor Act, as amended in 1951, permits employers engaged in interstate rail or air commerce to include in collective bargaining contracts either a union shop or an agency fee provision. Railway Labor Act, § 2, subd. 11, 45 U.S.C. § 152, subd. 11 (hereafter “Section 2, Eleventh”). A union shop provision requires employees to join the union that represents their craft or class. 45 U.S.C. § 152, subd. 11(a). An agency fee provision requires employees to pay the union a fee equal to union dues, initiation fees, and assessments, but does not require employees actually to join the union. 45 U.S.C. § 152, subd. 11(b). Such provisions prevent “free riders” from reaping the benefits of collective bargaining without contributing financial support to the union’s efforts. In Railway Employees’ Department v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such financial support requirements, specifically rejecting contentions that a union shop provision violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of protesting employees. Five years later, in International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961), the Court reaffirmed Hanson, but construed the Railway Labor Act as prohibiting the union from using any portion of an employee’s mandatory dues to support political and ideological causes once the employee has informed the union of his or her objection to those expenditures. That construction allowed the Court to avoid deciding the First Amendment challenge to the use of union dues to support political activities. That issue was not faced until 1977 when, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 1799, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), the Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits a union from financing political and ideological causes not germane to collective bargaining duties by using a portion of the dues of employees who object to advancing those causes. The instant action commenced in 1973, when appellants, a group of Western Airlines employees, challenged the dues payment obligation imposed by a union shop" }, { "docid": "7522405", "title": "", "text": "BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge: Forty-two nonunion commercial airline pilots appeal a judgment of the district court, entered after a bench trial, in favor of the Air Line Pilots Association, which is a union representing pilots employed by various airlines. The district court held that the Association need not rebate the portion of the pilots’ agency fees the Association spent to support strikes at airlines that did not employ the objecting pilots or the portion of the fees that the Association allocated to a contingency fund for support of future strikes. The district court also held that the Association’s current procedure for making rebates to the pilots, adopted after the decision of Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292, 106 S.Ct. 1066, 89 L.Ed.2d 232 (1986), satisfied the requirements explained in that case and that the procedure used before Hudson was decided substantially complied with the requirements. We affirm on both issues. I Section 2 Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 152 Eleventh, which is applicable to airlines, permits employers and unions to execute bargaining agreements requiring employees to become union members. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of section 2 Eleventh under the commerce clause. Railway Employees’Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956). Nevertheless, the Court has consistently held that a union cannot exact funds from a nonmember to spend for purposes that would infringe nonmembers’ constitutional rights. In International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961), the Court construed the statute to allow employees to elect not to join the union, or to resign, and to pay agency fees to the union in lieu of dues. In Street and subsequent cases, the Court drew a line between two categories of expenditures, those germane to collective bargaining and those which would infringe a nonmember’s rights. It recognized that Congress enacted the statute to eliminate “free-riders— employees in the bargaining unit on whose behalf the union was obliged to perform its statutory functions, but who refused to contribute to the" }, { "docid": "7522406", "title": "", "text": "employers and unions to execute bargaining agreements requiring employees to become union members. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of section 2 Eleventh under the commerce clause. Railway Employees’Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956). Nevertheless, the Court has consistently held that a union cannot exact funds from a nonmember to spend for purposes that would infringe nonmembers’ constitutional rights. In International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961), the Court construed the statute to allow employees to elect not to join the union, or to resign, and to pay agency fees to the union in lieu of dues. In Street and subsequent cases, the Court drew a line between two categories of expenditures, those germane to collective bargaining and those which would infringe a nonmember’s rights. It recognized that Congress enacted the statute to eliminate “free-riders— employees in the bargaining unit on whose behalf the union was obliged to perform its statutory functions, but who refused to contribute to the cost thereof.” Ellis v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks, 466 U.S. 435, 447, 104 S.Ct. 1883, 1892, 80 L.Ed.2d 428 (1984). In Ellis, the Court explained what portion of the nonmembers’ agency fees a union could retain and what portion it must rebate. The Court prescribed the following test: ... [W]hen employees such as petitioners object to being burdened with particular union expenditures, the test must be whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employers on labor-management issues. Under this standard, objecting employees may be compelled to pay their fair share of not only the direct costs of negotiating and administering a collective bargaining contract and of settling grievances and disputes, but also the expenses of activities or undertakings normally or reasonably employed to implement or effectuate the duties of the union as exclusive repre sentative of the employees in the bargaining unit. 466 U.S. at 448, 104 S.Ct. at 1892. The pilots" }, { "docid": "23451339", "title": "", "text": "Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. An “agency-shop” arrangement permits a union, obliged to act on behalf of all employees in the bargaining unit, to charge nonunion workers their fair share of the costs of the representation. The purposes for which a union may spend the “agency fee” paid by nonmembers, however, are circumscribed by the First Amendment (when public employers are involved) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or Railway Labor Act (RLA) (when private employers subject to their provisions are involved). In Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S. 292 (1986), we held that the First Amendment requires public-employee unions to accord workers who object to the agency fee “a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decision-maker.” Id., at 310. Petitioner Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA or Union), a private-sector labor organization covered by the RLA, acknowledges that it is bound by Hudson. ALPA endeavored to comply with Hudson’s “impartial decisionmaker” requirement by referring all fee disputes to a neutral arbitrator. In the action now before us, nonunion pilots challenged the agency fee collected by the Union in 1992. ALPA urged that the challengers must exhaust the arbitration process before pursuing judicial remedies. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the pilots resisting the agency fee may proceed at once in federal court. We hold, in accord with the Court of Appeals, that employees need not submit fee disputes to arbitration when they have never agreed to do so. I ALPA represents, as exclusive bargaining agent, pilots employed by most United States commercial air carriers, including Delta Air Lines (Delta). In November 1991, ALPA and Delta amended their collective-bargaining agreement to include, inter alia, an “agency-shop” clause. That clause, similar to provisions in ALPA’s agreements with other carriers, required each pilot who was not an ALPA member to pay the Union a monthly “service charge as a contribution for the administration of [the collective-bargaining agreement] and the representation of such employee.” App. 31. On December 12, 1991, five Delta pilots filed this action against" }, { "docid": "1773422", "title": "", "text": "important contribution of the union shop to the system of labor relations established by Congress,” the Court made clear its view that even the use of agency fees for contract negotiation and administration is an interference with First Amendment liberty (though a lawful interference), offering as an example the union’s negotiating a clause requiring the employer to reimburse employees for the expense of abortions. Id.', see also id. at 256, 97 S.Ct. at 1810 (concurring opinion); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, supra, 104 S.Ct. at 3255; id. at 3257-61 (concurring opinion). Such interference is a deprivation of liberty that is forbidden to the states and their agencies without due process of law. Contrary intimations in Railway Employes’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 236-38, 76 S.Ct. 714, 720-21, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956), are no longer authoritative. The two grounds we have suggested for regarding the plaintiffs’ procedural challenge as properly brought under section 1983 — free speech and due process, as we have loosely called them — have different implications for the scope of protection. The first implies that the public employer must establish a procedure that will make reasonably sure that the wages of nonunion employees will not be used to support those of the union’s political and ideological activities that are not germane to collective bargaining. The second implies that the procedure must make reasonably sure that those employees’ wages will not be used to support any union activities that are not germane to collective bargaining, whether or not the activities are political or ideological. Thus expenditures not germane to collective bargaining, but not political or ideological either, would have a different status under the first and second grounds. But since the second ground is valid, it follows that the employer’s obligation is not limited to establishing a procedure for preventing the diversion of nonunion employees’ wages to political or ideological activities unrelated to the union’s collective bargaining responsibilities; the procedure must make reasonably sure that the agency fee is not used for any unrelated activities. Having established the legal standard for evaluating the procedure in this case," }, { "docid": "18729923", "title": "", "text": "section 8(a)(3). Id. at 127. Senator Hill, the manager of the bill in the Senate, assured the Senate that the intention of section 2, Eleventh was “merely to extend to employees and employers subject to the Railway Labor Act rights now possessed by employees and employers under the Taft-Hartley Act in industry generally.” 96 Cong.Rec. 15,-737 (1950).. Senator Taft, the co-author of section 8(a)(3), was equally explicit. He declared during debate that section 2, Eleventh “inserts in the railway mediation law almost the exact provisions ... of the TaftHartley law, so that the conditions regarding the union shop and the check-off are carried into the relations between railroad unions and railroads.” 96 Cong.Rec. 16,-267 (1950). See also S.Rep. No. 2262, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 3, 5 (1950); H.R.Rep. No. 2811, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 405 (1950). As is obvious, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find two statutes more identical in language and legislative purpose than section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA and section 2, Eleventh ~f the RLA. It is incon ceivable that two such statutes would be construed differently. For this reason it seems fair to assume that the construction given one by the Supreme Court would be equally applicable to the other, and we proceed on that basis in construing section 8(a)(3). The first consideration of either of these statutes by the Supreme Court was in Railway Employes’ Department v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1956). In that case, which involved a charge of unconstitutionality against section 2, Eleventh under the First Amendment free speech and association clause and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Court found the statute, which authorizes the collection of a dues-equivalent from non-union, objecting employees by an exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, valid so far as the unions’ use of the fees was for purposes “germane to collective bargaining” Id. at 235, 76 S.Ct. at 720. The Court reserved ruling on the permissibility of the-collection of the dues-equivalent from objecting employees “for purposes not germane to collective bargaining,” though it was the" }, { "docid": "10732892", "title": "", "text": "of religion under the First Amendment. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, 316 F.Supp. 1369, and plaintiff appeals. Defendants first contend that plaintiff was discharged as the result of a private arrangement, and that the governmental activity necessary to bring the First Amendment in play was not present. Judge Coffin would subscribe to this. The majority of the court, however, while acknowledging that the present case may go a little further, finds insufficient basis for distinguishing Railway Employes’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 1956, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112. There the Railway Labor Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh, authorized union shop provisions in collective bargaining agreements. The state constitution contained a so-called “right to work” provision, which prohibited such agreements. Employees of a railroad, who did not wish to join the union, brought suit to enjoin enforcement of the union shop provision of its collective bargaining agreement. In holding that the Railway Labor Act controlled, the Court first considered whether Congress, having merely permitted union shop agreements when entered into by private parties, had given such agreements “the imprimatur of the federal law” so as to prevail over the state statute. The Court concluded that it had. It then turned to the question whether Congress could do this despite the resulting burden put on a dissenting employee’s constitutional rights, deciding in favor of the union shop, see post. Defendants would distinguish Hanson because, unlike the Railway Labor Act, section 14(b) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 164(b), allows the state to outlaw union shop agreements. This misapprehends what Hanson basically decided. If federal support attaches to the union shop if and when two parties agree to it, it is the same support, once it attaches, even though the consent of a third party, the state, is a pre-condition. The means by which the agreement is attained does not affect the significant language in Hanson, 351 U.S. at 232, 76 S.Ct. at 718, “[T]he federal statute is the source of the power and authority by which any private rights are lost or sacrificed.”" }, { "docid": "10982101", "title": "", "text": "amended its Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) to expressly authorize an agency shop system for union representation of public employees. The constitutionality of the amended Act was challenged in the Michigan courts and ultimately appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), the Court held that an agency shop clause in a collective bargaining agreement between the Board of Education and the Detroit Federation of Teachers did not violate the first and fourteenth amendment rights of freedom of expression and association of nonunion members of the bargaining unit who were required to pay service fees, at least insofar as the service fees were used to finance union expenditures for the purposes of “collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.” Id. at 225-26, 97 S.Ct. at 1794. The Court also indicated that a service fee payor could not be required to fund union expenditures for political activity or ideological causes not germane to the union’s duties as collective bargaining representative. Id. at 235-36, 97 S.Ct. at 1799-1800. The Abood decision was not the first time that the Supreme Court had the opportunity to pass on the constitutional implications of union security provisions such as the agency shop. In Railway Employees’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1956), the Court held that section 2, Eleventh, of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh, which authorized railway carriers and labor organizations acting as exclusive representatives of bargaining units to enter into union shop agreements, did not violate the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the congressional intent of eliminating the free rider problem by requiring those who enjoy the benefits of union representation to contribute to the support of the union. 351 U.S. at 231, 76 S.Ct. at 717. Further, the Court stated that such congressional action was a valid exercise of power under the commerce clause given the legitimate governmental interest in industrial peace and stabilized labor-management relations. Id. at 233-34," }, { "docid": "17631570", "title": "", "text": "are compelled to pay union dues, and Keller suggests the two groups are entitled to the same protection. The second is that the Court’s decisions about compelled contributions to ideological speech reinforce, rather than undercut, a germaneness test for non-ideological expenditures. 2. Compelled Dues And Germane Purposes The germaneness requirement in cases not involving ideological issues has its origin in the Supreme Court’s 1956 opinion in Railway Employes’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956). The Court upheld against a First Amendment challenge an amendment to the Railway Labor Act that allowed closed shop agreements, notwithstanding state law. See id. at 236-38. Hanson was concerned with the “free rider” problem, that is, non-union employees benefitting from union activities without having to pay for those activities. The Court held that “the requirement for financial support of the collective-bargaining agency by all who receive the benefits of its work” was constitutional. Id. at 238, 76 S.Ct. 714. The Court also expressly noted that “[i]f ‘assessments’ are in fact imposed for purposes not germane to collective bargaining, a different problem would be presented.” Id. at 235, 76 S.Ct. 714 (footnote omitted). The Court later held that neither public sector nor private sector employees could be compelled to pay for ideological activities that were not germane to the unions’ purposes. See Abood, 431 U.S. at 234-36, 97 S.Ct. 1782. The “different problem” alluded to in Hanson — assessments imposed for non-ideological activities not germane to collective bargaining — was taken up in Ellis, a case addressing private sector employees, see 466 U.S. at 439, 104 S.Ct. 1883. The specific issue before the Court was “the legality of burdening objecting employees with six specific union expenses that fall between the extremes” of activities plainly related to collective bargaining and activities plainly political or ideological. Id. at 440, 104 S.Ct. 1883. The Court reversed in part a decision upholding compulsory payment for all the expenditures, holding that the union’s rebate scheme was inadequate and that it was error to permit the union “to spend compelled dues for its general litigation" }, { "docid": "1420772", "title": "", "text": "at 1162. The meaning of this statement is clear: under the statutory scheme created by the RLA, employees who fail to object individually to the amount of the compulsory union dues have no right to receive relief from the payment of those dues. Accord Seay v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 427 F.2d 996, 1004 (9th Cir.1970) (on remand in action against union under the RLA, district court should include as plaintiffs only those employees who raised an objection to the use of agency fees for political purposes). In Abood, the Supreme Court considered the contention that a union shop arrangement affecting public employees violated the constitutional rights of those employees who objected to “public-sector unions as such or to various union activities financed by the compulsory service fees.” 431 U.S. at 211, 97 S.Ct. at 1787. The Court had to rule first on the constitutional validity of compelling employees to support a particular collective bargaining representative. Citing Railway Employees’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956) and Street, the Court ruled that such a requirement “is constitutionally justified by the legislative assessment of the important contribution of the union shop to the system of labor relations established by Congress,” id. at 222, 97 S.Ct. at 1793, and concluded that the same justifications presumptively supported the establishment of the Michigan agency shop law. Id. at 225, 97 S.Ct. at 1794. The Court then had to determine whether the state could constitutionally permit “the use of nonunion members’ fees for purposes other than collective bargaining.” Id. at 232, 97 S.Ct. at 1798. The Court ruled that the union could use the funds for such purposes provided that the money came from employees who did not object to the expenditures. Thus the Court held that the Constitution required the same right to object to political expenditures previously articulated in the context of the Railway Labor Act in Street and Allen. The Court rejected the notion, advanced by the plaintiffs in this case, that the only funds from nonunion members that the union could constitutionally use for political or" }, { "docid": "5831391", "title": "", "text": "431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a public employer and the union serving as the employees' exclusive bargaining representative may, consistent with the First Amendment, agree to require those employees who choose not to become union members to pay an \"agency fee” to the union \"to finance expenditures by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.” Id. at 225-26, 97 S.Ct. 1782. This is because \"Congress determined that it would promote peaceful labor relations to permit a union and an employer to conclude an agreement requiring employees who obtain the benefit of union representation to share its cost, and that legislative judgment was surely an allowable one.” Id. at 219, 97 S.Ct. 1782 (citing Railway Employees’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 235, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956)). . The school districts may withhold agency fees from the plaintiffs' paychecks without the plaintiffs' authorization. See Cal. Ed.Code § 45061; Cumero v. Public Employment Relations Board, 49 Cal.3d 575, 262 Cal.Rptr. 46, 778 P.2d 174 (Cal.1989) (where nonmember of union chose not to pay service fee under organizational security arrangement, school district was entitled to deduct service fee from nonmember's paycheck, even before such deductions became expressly authorized by section 45061). . Nonunion teachers are called agency fee payers because they pay fees under the terms of their employers’ agency shop agreements. In contrast, union teachers pay \"membership dues.” . Chargeable fees are comprised of \"not only the direct costs of negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining contract and of settling grievances and disputes, but also the expenses of activities or undertakings normally or reasonably employed to implement or effectuate the duties of the union as exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.” Ellis v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks, 466 U.S. 435, 448, 104 S.Ct. 1883, 80 L.Ed.2d 428 (1984). Nonchargeable fees include those expenditures that \"support or advance the union’s political or ideological causes.” Prescott v. County of El Dorado, 177 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.1999), vacated, 528 U.S." }, { "docid": "17631569", "title": "", "text": "association lobbying efforts for gun control, see id. at 15-16, 110 S.Ct. 2228, but she may be forced to contribute to bar association activities related to disciplining members for ethical code violations, see id. This case raises a third issue: whether compelled bar association dues may be used to fund non-ideological and non-germane activities. The Colegio’s basic argument is that the germaneness test is used only in judging whether members may be charged for expenditures of an ideological nature. While the Supreme Court has not directly addressed this question in the context of bar associations, the logic and lan guage of its reasoning in other cases convince us that the district court erred in concluding that a germaneness inquiry is irrelevant to Romero’s constitutional challenge. There are two reasons for our conclusion. The first is that the Court has consistently used a germaneness test in the union context for non-ideological expenditures. No reason has been presented to give attorneys who are compelled to belong to an integrated bar less protection than is given employees who are compelled to pay union dues, and Keller suggests the two groups are entitled to the same protection. The second is that the Court’s decisions about compelled contributions to ideological speech reinforce, rather than undercut, a germaneness test for non-ideological expenditures. 2. Compelled Dues And Germane Purposes The germaneness requirement in cases not involving ideological issues has its origin in the Supreme Court’s 1956 opinion in Railway Employes’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956). The Court upheld against a First Amendment challenge an amendment to the Railway Labor Act that allowed closed shop agreements, notwithstanding state law. See id. at 236-38. Hanson was concerned with the “free rider” problem, that is, non-union employees benefitting from union activities without having to pay for those activities. The Court held that “the requirement for financial support of the collective-bargaining agency by all who receive the benefits of its work” was constitutional. Id. at 238, 76 S.Ct. 714. The Court also expressly noted that “[i]f ‘assessments’ are in fact imposed for purposes" }, { "docid": "18729924", "title": "", "text": "two such statutes would be construed differently. For this reason it seems fair to assume that the construction given one by the Supreme Court would be equally applicable to the other, and we proceed on that basis in construing section 8(a)(3). The first consideration of either of these statutes by the Supreme Court was in Railway Employes’ Department v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1956). In that case, which involved a charge of unconstitutionality against section 2, Eleventh under the First Amendment free speech and association clause and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Court found the statute, which authorizes the collection of a dues-equivalent from non-union, objecting employees by an exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, valid so far as the unions’ use of the fees was for purposes “germane to collective bargaining” Id. at 235, 76 S.Ct. at 720. The Court reserved ruling on the permissibility of the-collection of the dues-equivalent from objecting employees “for purposes not germane to collective bargaining,” though it was the clear implication of the decision that such use would be unconstitutional. Id. at 238, 76 S.Ct. at 721. Five years later in International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961), the Supreme Court was directly confronted with the question whether a union, acting as the exclusive bargaining representative under an agency contract as authorized under section 2, Eleventh, could constitutionally collect and use the dues-equivalent exacted from an objecting employee in the unit for “political purposes.” The result of sustaining this argument would have been a decision rendering the statute unconstitutional. The Court found it unnecessary, though, to consider the constitutionality of the union’s collection and use of the dues-equivalent under the statute because it held that it was “not only ‘fairly possible’ but entirely reasonable” to construe the statute itself in a way making it unnecessary to consider the statute’s constitutionality. Id. at 750, 81 S.Ct. at 1790. In adopting this procedure, the Court was merely following a rule often applied and recently restated in Ellis" }, { "docid": "10529582", "title": "", "text": "of the section, negotiated union security provisions and began to charge all employees — members and nonmembers — equal dues. The constitutionality of § 2, Eleventh was almost immediately challenged. But, in Railway Employees Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956), the Court held that “the requirement for financial support of the collective bargaining agency,” under § 2, Eleventh did not violate the First or Fifth Amendments. Id. at 238, 76 S.Ct. at 721. In 1961, a new challenge appeared, brought by employees who did not want their compelled contribution to go to the union’s traditional involvement in political activities. The Court answered this question against the background of § 2, Eleventh’s origins: The history of union security in the railway industry is marked first, by a strong and long-standing tradition of voluntary unionism on the part of the standard rail unions; second, by the declaration in 1934 of a congressional policy of complete freedom of choice of employees to join or not to join a union; third, by the modification of the firm legislative policy against compulsion, but only as a specific response to the recognition of the expenses and burdens incurred by the unions in the administration of the complex scheme under the Railway Labor Act. Street, 367 U.S. at 750-51, 81 S.Ct. at 1790-91. The Street Court concluded that “Congress did not completely abandon the policy of full freedom of choice embodied in the 1934 Act, but rather made inroads on it for the limited purpose of eliminating the problems created by the ‘free rider.’ ” Id. at 767, 81 S.Ct. at 1799. And thus, the Court construed § 2, Eleventh to “deny the unions, over an employee’s objection, the power to use his exacted funds to support political causes which he opposes.” Id. at 768-69, 81 S.Ct. at 1800. Hanson and Street had involved private employees, union shops, and the RLA. NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734, 83 S.Ct. 1453, 10 L.Ed.2d 670 (1963), raised the legitimacy of the agency shop. General Motors argued that § 8(a)(3) of" } ]

[ { "docid": "6894787", "title": "", "text": "for adjudication. See Triple G Landfills, Inc. v. Board of Comm’rs, 977 F.2d 287 (7th Cir.1992) (holding that plaintiffs constitutional challenge to county ordinance regulating landfills was ripe even though plaintiff had not applied for, or obtained, a state permit to operate a landfill). II. Severability The Plaintiffs contend that the severance of Section 5 from Law No. 1 was inappropriate. They argue that, by severing Section 5, the district court created a completely different ordinance that the Board never intended to enact. We disagree. The determination of whether an invalid portion of a state statute can be severed from the valid portions so that the remainder of the statute can be preserved is a question of state law. National Advertising Co. v. Town of Niagara, 942 F.2d 145, 148 (2d Cir.1991). Under New York law, “a court should refrain from invalidating an entire statute when only portions of it are objectionable.” Id. Although the presence of a severability clause is not dispositive, “[t]he preference for severance is particularly strong when the law contains a severability clause.” Id. New York state courts apply the following standard to determine whether severance is appropriate: The question is in every case whether the legislature, if partial invalidity had been foreseen, would have wished the statute to be enforced with the invalid part exscind-ed, or rejected altogether. The answer must be reached pragmatically, by the exercise of good sense and sound judgment, by considering how the statutory rule will function if the knife is laid to the branch instead of at the roots. People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 60, 129 N.E. 202 (1920), cert. denied, 256 U.S. 702, 41 S.Ct. 624, 65 L.Ed. 1179 (1921). We believe that severance of Section 5 was permissible in this case. The record indicates that, had the Board foreseen that Section 5 would be declared unconstitutional, they would have intended that the ordinance be enforced without the offending section. By including Section 7, which provides that “[t]he invalidity of any Section or provision of this Local Law shall not invalidate any" } ]

[ { "docid": "3022020", "title": "", "text": "a national, state, or local service organization is safer or more beautiful than that of a private or international service organization. In sum, § 1163.03(a)(l)A and E violate the Equal Protection Clause on their face because they distinguish between and classify speakers in a manner that affects fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment. IV. Severability of the Ordinance The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the unlawful portions of the sign ordinance cannot be severed without fundamentally disrupting the intention of the drafters. “Severability of a local ordinance or state law is a question of state law....” City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 772, 108 S.Ct. 2138. As the Supreme Court of Ohio explained, “in order to sever a portion of a statute, we must first find that such severance will not fundamentally disrupt the statutory scheme of which the unconstitutional provision is a part.” State ex rel. Maurer v. Sheward, 71 Ohio St.3d 513, 644 N.E.2d 369, 377 (1994), cited with approval in Women’s Medical Professional Carp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 202 (6th Cir.1997) and Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Seven Hills, 35 F.Supp.2d 575, 580 (N.D.Ohio 1999). Because severance of the unconstitutional portions would fundamentally disrupt the statutory scheme as a whole, the illegal provisions are not severa-ble and the ordinance is struck down in its entirety. The Court is sympathetic to the City’s desire to provide its citizens with a safe and aesthetically pleasing place to live and recognizes that city officials and law directors are often “obligated to be on the front lines of conflict between public regulation and freedom of speech.” However, the means and ends of regulations which implicate First Amendment freedoms must withstand scrutiny. Because the City’s sign ordinance contains a thicket of content-based distinctions, an impermissible system of prior restraint, and violates equal protection, it fails constitutional scrutiny. V. Other Issues The City objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation re garding counts one, two, three, four, and five. (Def.’s Objections at 2.) For the reasons set out above, the Court rejects the City’s objections as to counts one," }, { "docid": "3986965", "title": "", "text": "stated the general rule over seventy years ago: “Our right to destroy is bounded by the limits of necessity. Our duty is to save unless in saving we pervert.” Id. 230 N.Y. at 62-63, 129 N.E. at 208. The preference for severance is particularly strong when the law contains a severability clause. See People v. Kearse, 56 Misc.2d 586, 596, 289 N.Y.S.2d 346, 358 (Civ.Ct.1968) (stating that inclusion of a severability clause in a statute creates a presumption that the legislature intended the act to be divisible); see also Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 686, 107 S.Ct. 1476, 1481, 94 L.Ed.2d 661 (1987) (same). The presence of such a clause, however, is not dispositive. See New York State Superfund Coalition, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Environmental Conservation, 75 N.Y.2d 88, 94, 550 N.E.2d 155, 157, 550 N.Y.S.2d 879, 881 (Ct.App.1989) (holding that objectionable sections were not severable from entire statute despite presence of a severability clause); see also United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 585 n. 27, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 1218 n. 27, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968) (the ultimate determination of severability will rarely turn on the presence or absence of a sever-ability clause). We should not, for example, treat a severability clause as an invitation from the legislature to write whatever statute we can fashion from the constitutional remnants as augmented by our imagination. The New York Court of Appeals has identified the following standard for determining whether severance is appropriate: The principle of division is not a principle of form. It is a principle of function. The question is in every case whether the legislature, if partial invalidity had been foreseen, would have wished the statute to be enforced with the valid part exscinded, or rejected altogether. The answer must be reached pragmatically, by the exercise of good sense and sound judgment, by considering how the statutory rule will function if the knife is laid to the branch instead of at the roots. Alpha Portland, 230 N.Y. at 60, 129 N.E. at 207. Put another way, the legislature could not have intended" }, { "docid": "3986964", "title": "", "text": "S.Ct. at 2895 (citing Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 563-66, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2350-51, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980)). B. Severability The district court correctly applied the logic of Metromedia and Babylon to Niagara’s sign ordinance. The fact that portions of the statute are unconstitutional, however, does not end our inquiry. We must determine whether the invalid portions of the statute can be severed from the valid portions so the remainder of the statute can be preserved. Severability is a question of state law. See Environmental Encapsulating Corp. v. City of New York, 855 F.2d 48, 60 (2d Cir.1988) (citing Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387, 395-96, 61 S.Ct. 962, 964, 85 L.Ed. 1416 (1941)). As a general rule, a court should refrain from invalidating an entire statute when only portions of it are objectionable. Cf. People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 60-61, 129 N.E. 202, 207 (1920), cert. denied, 256 U.S. 702, 41 S.Ct. 624, 65 L.Ed. 1179 (1921). Justice Cardozo stated the general rule over seventy years ago: “Our right to destroy is bounded by the limits of necessity. Our duty is to save unless in saving we pervert.” Id. 230 N.Y. at 62-63, 129 N.E. at 208. The preference for severance is particularly strong when the law contains a severability clause. See People v. Kearse, 56 Misc.2d 586, 596, 289 N.Y.S.2d 346, 358 (Civ.Ct.1968) (stating that inclusion of a severability clause in a statute creates a presumption that the legislature intended the act to be divisible); see also Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 686, 107 S.Ct. 1476, 1481, 94 L.Ed.2d 661 (1987) (same). The presence of such a clause, however, is not dispositive. See New York State Superfund Coalition, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Environmental Conservation, 75 N.Y.2d 88, 94, 550 N.E.2d 155, 157, 550 N.Y.S.2d 879, 881 (Ct.App.1989) (holding that objectionable sections were not severable from entire statute despite presence of a severability clause); see also United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 585 n. 27, 88 S.Ct." }, { "docid": "7505602", "title": "", "text": "with such an ordinance, we have no choice but to conclude that Middletown has impermissibly favored certain types of temporary commercial signs over noncommercial political signs. While a contractor is free to post without a permit a temporary sign on a construction site in a public right-of-way indicating the name of his business, a person wishing to post a temporary campaign sign in the same public right-of-way must first obtain a permit. The Second Circuit is clear that a regulation of noncommercial speech must comply with strict content-neutrality. See Knoeffler, 87 F.Supp.2d at 331 (“[T]he Second Circuit ... [requires] strict content neutrality for all regulation of noncommercial speech.”). Where, as here, the ordinance favors certain types of commercial speech over noncommercial speech on the basis of its content, the law must be declared unconstitutional. In the plurality decision in Metromedia, adopted by the Second Circuit in National Advertising Co. v. Town of Niagara, 942 F.2d 145 (2d Cir.1991), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a municipal ordinance that permitted only onsite advertising with various exceptions. In examining the opinion, the Second Circuit stated that given that commercial speech is afforded less protection than other types of protected speech, the plurality concluded that it would be improper to prefer commercial speech over noncommercial speech. This is, in essence, what the city did by preferring onsite advertising, a type of commercial speech, over all other types of speech, including noncommercial speech. Town of Niagara, 942 F.2d at 147. In light of the applicable Second Circuit precedent, we grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the ground that by exempting certain commercial signs from the ordinance requirements, Middletown impermissibly favored certain temporary signs over others on the basis of their content. 8. Village of Chester Plaintiff challenges the following provision of the Chester Code, Signs, § 98-19: G. Signs permitted in any district. The following signs shall be permitted in any district and shall not require a permit: }¡í S»! ‡ # % # (3) Political campaign signs announcing the candidates seeking public political office and other data pertinent hereto, up to an" }, { "docid": "14821692", "title": "", "text": "through ERISA plans — which it held are preempted — and those provided through non-ERISA plans — which it held are not preempted by ERISA. GE argues the district court erred by not invalidating the entire statute or, in the alternative, the entirety of the supplements provisions. We think the district court correctly decided the severability issue. The severability of a state statute is to be determined according to state law. See Doyle v. Suffolk County, 786 F.2d 523, 526-27 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 98, 93 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). When portions of a New York statute are found unconstitutional, the intent of the state legislature in originally enacting the statute is the touchstone in determining whether the remainder of the statute is severable and may be spared from the unconstitutional taint. See People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 60, 129 N.E. 202 (1920), cert. denied, 256 U.S. 702, 41 S.Ct. 624, 65 L.Ed. 1179 (1921); N.Y. Statutes § 150(d) (McKinney 1991). As formulated by then Judge Cardozo, the Alpha rule holds: The principle of division is not a principle of form. It is a principle of function. The question is in every case whether the legislature, if partial invalidity had been foreseen, would have wished the statute to be enforced with the valid part exs-cinded, or rejected altogether. The answer must be reached pragmatically, by the exercise of good sense and sound judgment, by considering how the statutory rule will function if the knife is laid to the branch instead of at the roots. 230 N.Y. at 60, 129 N.E. 202. As we stated in Doyle the “legislative policy should be given effect unless application of the portion of a statute remaining after partial invalidation yields results that the legislature seems unlikely to have wanted or if the remaining portion is such a minor fragment of a comprehensive provision as to make it likely that the legislature would prefer either no provision or the opportunity to craft a new one.” 786 F.2d at 527. The first step therefore is" }, { "docid": "14821693", "title": "", "text": "then Judge Cardozo, the Alpha rule holds: The principle of division is not a principle of form. It is a principle of function. The question is in every case whether the legislature, if partial invalidity had been foreseen, would have wished the statute to be enforced with the valid part exs-cinded, or rejected altogether. The answer must be reached pragmatically, by the exercise of good sense and sound judgment, by considering how the statutory rule will function if the knife is laid to the branch instead of at the roots. 230 N.Y. at 60, 129 N.E. 202. As we stated in Doyle the “legislative policy should be given effect unless application of the portion of a statute remaining after partial invalidation yields results that the legislature seems unlikely to have wanted or if the remaining portion is such a minor fragment of a comprehensive provision as to make it likely that the legislature would prefer either no provision or the opportunity to craft a new one.” 786 F.2d at 527. The first step therefore is to examine the statute and its legislative history. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Tully, 63 N.Y.2d 191, 196, 481 N.Y.S.2d 55, 470 N.E.2d 853 (1984). Labor Law § 220 implements Article I, § 17 of the New York Constitution which provides: The New York Court of Appeals has stated that Article I, § 17’s purpose is “the protection of workingmen against being induced, or obliged, to accept wages below the prevailing rate from a public employer.” Bucci v. Village of Port Chester, 22 NY2d 195, 201, 292 N.Y.S.2d 393, 239 N.E.2d 335 (1968); see Fata v. S.A. Healy Co., 289 N.Y. 401, 405, 46 N.E.2d 339 (1943); Austin v. City of New York, 258 N.Y. 113, 116-17, 179 N.E. 313 (1932). No laborer, workman or mechanic, in the employ of a contractor or subcontractor engaged in the performance of any public work, shall ... be paid less than the rate of wages prevailing in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where such public work is to be situated, erected or" }, { "docid": "7505580", "title": "", "text": "not a fee at all, but a deposit that is fully refundable when the temporary political signs are removed after the election. Plaintiffs argument that the statute provides a permit fee exclusion for signs posted by service clubs, charitable, civic and religious organizations and for special promotional devices renders the ordinance constitutionally infirm is unpersuasive. The exemption for special promotional devices contains no reference to the content of the device whatsoever and therefore withstands constitutional scrutiny. Furthermore, the ordinance is constitutional even assuming that § 120-43(0) applies to all temporary political signs, including those posted by service clubs, charitable, civic and religious organizations. A municipality is entitled to provide preferential treatment to institutions serving the public interest, whether it be favorable tax status or waiving sign permit fees. While a municipality may not regulate speech on the basis of its content, the suggestion that a municipality violates the First Amendment by waiving otherwise applicable sign permit fees for public interest organizations is belied by common sense. See Infinity Outdoor Inc. v. City of New York, 165 F.Supp.2d 403, 422-23 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (noting that “[w]hen ... faced with a city ordinance which exempted signs placed by civic, philanthropic, educational, and religious organizations on their lots from regulations applied to other non-commercial signs ... the Seventh Circuit did not read Supreme Court precedent as requiring a local legislature to make a voluminous record in order to justify such common-sense exceptions”) (citations and quotations omitted). Contrary to plaintiffs argument, our decision here is consistent with Knoejfler, where we struck down a municipal sign ordinance because several classes of signs were exempted from a permit requirement. 87 F.Supp.2d at 330. There, the “classes of exempted signs [were] distinguished based upon the content of the signs,” see id., whereas here no such content-based exemptions exist. The requirement that an applicant post a refundable deposit with the municipality furthers Greenwood Lake’s significant interests in aesthetics and maintaining property values. The deposit is innocuously designed to ensure prompt removal of the temporary political signs or to cover the expense of removal and effects no genuine burden on First" }, { "docid": "3986959", "title": "", "text": "SNEED, Circuit Judge: This is a First Amendment case in which a billboard company challenges a town’s sign ordinance. The district court held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment by elevating commercial speech over noncommercial speech and by impermissi-bly favoring certain types of noncommercial speech over others based on content. The court then attempted to save the statute by excising the unconstitutional elements. We agree that the ordinance violates the First. Amendment but find that the unconstitutional portions cannot properly be severed or limited. We therefore invalidate the statute as a whole. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW Niagara’s Local Law No. 2 regulates all types of signs and outdoor advertising within the town’s limits. See Niagara, New York, Local Law No. 2, art. I, § 100.0 (1987). Its purposes include protecting property values, creating a more attractive economic and business climate, preserving the natural beauty of designated areas, providing a more enjoyable and pleasing community, and enhancing traffic safety. Local Law No. 2, art. I, § 100.0, art. IV, § 400.4. The key sections of the act provide that signs may only contain onsite advertising — that is, they may only describe business transacted, services rendered, or goods sold and produced on the premises where the sign is located. Local Law No. 2, art. II, §§ 200.8, .13 — .16, art. VII, § 702.2. Thus, a property owner could erect a sign that said “Fried Chicken Sold Here” but not one saying “Save the Whales” or “Buy Brand X Beer,” unless Brand X were sold there. The law provides a variety of exceptions to this broad rule. For example, the law allows signs for historical purposes, bulletin boards for libraries and places of worship, temporary political signs during an election, temporary signs announcing ga rage sales, and temporary signs promoting events sponsored by civic, fraternal, and church groups, fire companies, and veterans and nonprofit organizations. Finally, the bulk of the law concerns time, place, and manner restrictions describing the permit process and the sizes and characteristics of signs that are allowed. The law covers eleven pages and contains more" }, { "docid": "8418251", "title": "", "text": "invalid part exscinded, or rejected altogether.’ ” See In re New York State Superfund Coalition, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 75 N.Y.2d 88, 94, 550 N.E.2d 155, 157, 550 N.Y.S.2d 879, 881 (N.Y.1989) (quoting People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 60, 129 N.E. 202, 207 (N.Y.1920)). We find that the tombstone provision is indeed severable from the rest of Article 17-A. That the City Council would have wished the bulk of Article 17-A to be upheld despite the invalidity of the tombstone provision seems beyond doubt. Severance of the tombstone provision would not, in our view, significantly interfere with the central thrust of Article 17-A — to limit cigarette advertising in areas where young people are likely to congregate. This conclusion is reinforced by the City Council’s inclusion of an express severability clause indicating its general desire to salvage any valid portions of the ordinance in the event that another portion is adjudged invalid. See National Advertising Co. v. Town of Niagara, 942 F.2d 145, 148 (2d Cir.1991) (New York law) (noting that “[t]he preference for severance is particularly strong when the law contains a sever-ability clause”). We conclude, therefore, that while the tombstone provision of Article 17-A is preempted by § 1334(b), the remaining provisions of the ordinance are valid and enforceable. II. First Amendment The parties urge us to decide whether Article 17-A unduly restricts commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. However, because the district court granted summary judgment to the Advertisers on preemption grounds alone, it did not pass upon the merits of the First Amendment claim. In our view, the district court should have the opportunity to consider this issue in the first instance. See Sullivan v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., 962 F.2d 1101, 1110 (2d Cir.1992). We remand so that it may do so. CONCLUSION We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court insofar as it held that the tombstone provision of Article 17-A is preempted under the FCLAA," }, { "docid": "1303709", "title": "", "text": "prefer to abandon a maximum age limit. The inquiry, in each context, is always said to require a determination of legislative intent, see People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 60, 129 N.E. 202, 207 (1920); see also Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 108, 96 S.Ct. at 677; Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation v. Washington, supra, 552 F.2d at 1336; People v. Liberta, supra, 64 N.Y.2d at 171, 485 N.Y.S.2d at 218, 474 N.E.2d at 578; Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully, supra, 63 N.Y.2d at 196, 481 N.Y.S. at 57, 470 N.E.2d at 855, but it is not the traditional inquiry as to what the legislatures intended their broad statutory language to mean when applied to a specific set of facts. Rather, the question is what they would have intended had they foreseen that their statute would be declared partially invalid. We can do no more than make an educated guess, mindful that legislative policy should be given effect unless application of the portion of a statute remaining after partial invalidation yields results that the legislature seems unlikely to have wanted or if the remaining portion is such a minor fragment of a comprehensive provision as to make it likely that the legislature would prefer either no provision or the opportunity to craft a new one. There is a presumption that the legislature would prefer the portion remaining after partial invalidation to continue in effect. See, e.g., Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 104 S.Ct. 3262, 3269, 82 L.Ed.2d 487 (1984) (plurality opinion); Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 108, 96 S.Ct. at 677. That presumption is reenforced with respect to section 58(l)(a) by the broad severability provision contained in N.Y.Civ. Serv.Law § 186 (McKinney 1983). Though section 186 does not in terms apply to the type of partial invalidation that occurred in Hahn, where a provision was held invalid as applied to a group within its coverage, as distinguished from the invalidation of an entire provision, sentence, or clause, the thrust of the severability provision evidences a" }, { "docid": "3986963", "title": "", "text": "that the San Diego law also ran afoul of the First Amendment because of its exception provisions. Ordinarily, the government may not pick and choose among various types of noncommercial speech based on their content. Id. at 514-15, 101 S.Ct. at 2896. By allowing exceptions for signs with selected noncommercial content, such as news information and historical information, but not other types of noncommercial speech, the law contained impermissible content-based restrictions. Id. at 515, 101 S.Ct. at 2896. A majority of the Metromedia court did agree on one point. Five justices found that the ordinance did not violate the First Amendment by allowing onsite commercial speech while forbidding commercial speech pertaining to offsite commerce. See Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 493-512, 101 S.Ct. at 2885-2895 (plurality opinion Parts I-IV joined by Justice Stevens). The Court noted that the government has more freedom in discriminating among various types of commercial speech than among noncommercial speech and found that the San Diego law satisfied the Central Hudson test for laws that affect commercial speech. Id. at 512, 101 S.Ct. at 2895 (citing Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 563-66, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2350-51, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980)). B. Severability The district court correctly applied the logic of Metromedia and Babylon to Niagara’s sign ordinance. The fact that portions of the statute are unconstitutional, however, does not end our inquiry. We must determine whether the invalid portions of the statute can be severed from the valid portions so the remainder of the statute can be preserved. Severability is a question of state law. See Environmental Encapsulating Corp. v. City of New York, 855 F.2d 48, 60 (2d Cir.1988) (citing Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387, 395-96, 61 S.Ct. 962, 964, 85 L.Ed. 1416 (1941)). As a general rule, a court should refrain from invalidating an entire statute when only portions of it are objectionable. Cf. People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 60-61, 129 N.E. 202, 207 (1920), cert. denied, 256 U.S. 702, 41 S.Ct. 624, 65 L.Ed. 1179 (1921). Justice Cardozo" }, { "docid": "407265", "title": "", "text": "The Second Circuit has not yet considered this issue.'') (internal citations omitted); Compare GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc. v. City of Tucson, 950 F.Supp. 968 (D.Ariz.1996) (finding no private right of action); with TCG Detroit v. City of Dearborn, 977 F.Supp. 836 (E.D.Mich.1997), affirmed, 206 F.3d 618 (6th Cir.2000)(finding a private right of action). In any event, since this Court has held that § 253(a) was violated, § 253(c) is automatically triggered, and the Court need not decide that open issue here. . \"The determination of whether an invalid portion of a state statute can be severed from the valid portions so that the remainder of the statute can be preserved is a question of state law.\" Gary D. Peake Excavating Inc. v. Town Board of the Town of Hancock, 93 F.3d 68, 72 (2d Cir.1996). The New York test for sever-ability is whether the state legislature “would have wished the statute to be enforced with the invalid part exscinded, or rejected altogether.” Greater New York Metropolitan Food Council, Inc. v. Giuliani, 195 F.3d 100, 110 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, under New York law, \" 'a court should refrain from invalidating an entire statute when only portions of it are objectionable.’ Although the presence of a severability clause is not dispositive, ‘[t]he preference for severance is particularly strong when the law contains a severability clause.’ ” Gary D. Peake, 93 F.3d at 72 (quoting National Advertising Co. v. Town of Niagara, 942 F.2d 145, 148 (2d Cir.1991)). Given the presence of the severability provision in the Ordinance, see § 3-1 of the Ordinance, and the New York standard of severability, this Court declines to invalidate the entire Ordinance, but rather just the portions of the statute it finds invalid. . § 2-7-0 l(i), which permits the Council to consider the adequacy of the proposed compensation to be paid to the City, is again set aside for a later discussion (infra § II.B.2). . As noted earlier (supra at note 3) certain provisions objected to by TCG are mooted by the replacement of the May 1999 draft with the August" }, { "docid": "1303708", "title": "", "text": "for married men and for females and extending coverage of criminal statutes to formerly excluded classes. Or, less frequently, a provision may be found to be overinclusive, thereby requiring a court to determine whether the legislature, had it known it could not legislate broadly, would have preferred to have no statute or to have the statute limited to apply to all those except the impermissibly included class. See Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation v. Washington, 552 F.2d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir.1977) (invalidating provision to the extent that it confers state criminal jurisdiction over Indian lands and declaring invalid remainder of statute conferring civil jurisdiction), rev’d, 439 U.S. 463, 99 S.Ct. 740, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979) (upholding exercise of state criminal jurisdiction). Our case falls in this last category, requiring us to decide whether, after the partial invalidation of section 58(l)(a) as applied to those between 40 and 70, the New York legislature would prefer to have the statute’s maximum age limit applied to all except those between 40 and 70 or would prefer to abandon a maximum age limit. The inquiry, in each context, is always said to require a determination of legislative intent, see People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 60, 129 N.E. 202, 207 (1920); see also Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 108, 96 S.Ct. at 677; Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation v. Washington, supra, 552 F.2d at 1336; People v. Liberta, supra, 64 N.Y.2d at 171, 485 N.Y.S.2d at 218, 474 N.E.2d at 578; Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully, supra, 63 N.Y.2d at 196, 481 N.Y.S. at 57, 470 N.E.2d at 855, but it is not the traditional inquiry as to what the legislatures intended their broad statutory language to mean when applied to a specific set of facts. Rather, the question is what they would have intended had they foreseen that their statute would be declared partially invalid. We can do no more than make an educated guess, mindful that legislative policy should be given effect unless application of the portion of" }, { "docid": "3986971", "title": "", "text": "true that the ordinance contains many provisions not severed such as definitions, certain general regulations as well as specific regulations governing temporary signs, political signs, plaza and mall sign sizes, and permit procedures, the manner in which these provisions are affected by the constitutionally required surgery is uncertain. For example, the ordinance in section 101.3 defines a billboard as follows: “Any sign that attracts attention to an object, product, service, place, activity, institution, organization or business not available or located on the premises where the sign is installed.” Section 200.6 provides that billboards are not permitted in the Town of Niagara. This structure fitted nicely with section 200.8, which required signs on the premises to exhibit only advertising incidental to the lawful use of the premises. This provision, however, has been eliminated from the ordinance. Does a sign on a business premises, not restricted as the eliminated ordinance required, become a billboard not permitted in the Town of Niagara? Another anomaly appears when section 200.12, which requires all signs to avoid giving a false or deceptive impression, is applied to a noncommercial sign without regard to its location. We could close our eyes to these and other problems of adjusting Niagara’s ordinance to the demands of the Constitution and give full effect to the severance clause of the ordinance. Were we convinced that the remaining structure was capable of being administered in a fair, coherent, and equitable manner, we would do so. We are not so convinced. When we consider how the statute will function when “the knife is laid to the branch instead of at the roots,” we conclude that severance of the invalid sections would create a statute that is confusing and unworkable. See Alpha Portland, 230 N.Y. at 60, 129 N.E. at 207. Nor do we believe that it is proper for us to restore some provisions deleted by the district court and to rewrite others so as to make possible the type of administration that could resolve satisfactorily the problems the Town of Niagara now confronts. In short, it is clear to us that the ordinance" }, { "docid": "3986972", "title": "", "text": "deceptive impression, is applied to a noncommercial sign without regard to its location. We could close our eyes to these and other problems of adjusting Niagara’s ordinance to the demands of the Constitution and give full effect to the severance clause of the ordinance. Were we convinced that the remaining structure was capable of being administered in a fair, coherent, and equitable manner, we would do so. We are not so convinced. When we consider how the statute will function when “the knife is laid to the branch instead of at the roots,” we conclude that severance of the invalid sections would create a statute that is confusing and unworkable. See Alpha Portland, 230 N.Y. at 60, 129 N.E. at 207. Nor do we believe that it is proper for us to restore some provisions deleted by the district court and to rewrite others so as to make possible the type of administration that could resolve satisfactorily the problems the Town of Niagara now confronts. In short, it is clear to us that the ordinance must be redrafted and that the Town of Niagara, not this court, should do it. The message of the district court, which we affirm, is clear. By elevating commercial speech over noncommercial speech and by impermissibly favoring certain types of noncommercial speech over other types of noncommercial speech based on content, the ordinance in its present form is unconstitutional. We decline to affirm the district court’s effort to save a portion of the ordinance, and refuse to undertake a similar effort on our part. III. CONCLUSION We are particularly hesitant to undertake revisions of the ordinance in light of the fact that we are a federal court interpreting a local ordinance. The interests of federalism and comity dictate conservatism in imposing our interpretive views on state statutes. See Brochett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 508, 105 S.Ct. 2794, 2804, 86 L.Ed.2d 394 (1985) (O’Connor, J., concurring). Mindful of our responsibility to respect the interests of comity and federalism, we find that the ordinance must be declared unconstitutional as a whole. The decision of" }, { "docid": "8418250", "title": "", "text": "“clear and manifest,” Vango Media, 34 F.3d at 72 (quoting Ci-pollone, 505 U.S. at 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608) (internal quotations omitted), we find no such clear intent here. To the contrary, the legislative history of § 1334(b) suggests that Congress wanted to give such regulations a wide berth. See S.Rep. No. 91-566, reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2663 (noting that § 1334(b) is “narrowly phrased” and “would in no way affect [local power] with respect to the taxation or the sale of cigarettes to minors, or the prohibition of smoking in public buildings, or similar police regulations ” (emphasis added)). E. Severability In light of our determination that only the tombstone provision is preempted by the FCLAA, we must determine whether that provision is severable from the remaining portions of the ordinance. Severability questions are governed by state law. See Environmental Encapsulating Corp. v. City of New York, 855 F.2d 48, 60 (2d Cir.1988). In New York, the test for severability is “whether the Legislature ‘would have wished the statute to be enforced with the invalid part exscinded, or rejected altogether.’ ” See In re New York State Superfund Coalition, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 75 N.Y.2d 88, 94, 550 N.E.2d 155, 157, 550 N.Y.S.2d 879, 881 (N.Y.1989) (quoting People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 60, 129 N.E. 202, 207 (N.Y.1920)). We find that the tombstone provision is indeed severable from the rest of Article 17-A. That the City Council would have wished the bulk of Article 17-A to be upheld despite the invalidity of the tombstone provision seems beyond doubt. Severance of the tombstone provision would not, in our view, significantly interfere with the central thrust of Article 17-A — to limit cigarette advertising in areas where young people are likely to congregate. This conclusion is reinforced by the City Council’s inclusion of an express severability clause indicating its general desire to salvage any valid portions of the ordinance in the event that another portion is adjudged invalid. See National Advertising Co. v. Town of Niagara, 942 F.2d 145," }, { "docid": "7505592", "title": "", "text": "with respect to political signs posted by individuals on or about their private residences”). The Hampton-burgh durational limitation is content-based in that it restricts the posting period of signs relating to certain events. While a 60-day posting limit on all temporary signs would pass constitutional scrutiny, Hamptonburgh permits the posting of some temporary signs beyond a 60-day period. See § 150-24(E)(6) (“Temporary, nonilluminated promotional signs not to exceed 12 square feet in total ... accessory to the construction, reconstruction, repair or conversion of a residential or nonresidential use, not to exceed two years or the entire period of construction, etc., whichever is less.”). Accordingly, the pro vision is content-based. Hamptonburgh s stated purpose “to protect the aesthetic character of the town by regulating the size, lighting and placement of signs and time of placement of signs” is insufficient to survive strict scrutiny. (Walsh Aff., Ex. E.) Therefore, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the durational limitation. However, summary judgment is denied with respect to § 120-24(E)(10), for the provision applies to all signs larger than a specified size and is therefore content-neutral and furthers Hamptonburgh’s significant interest in aesthetics. 4. Town of New Windsor Plaintiff alleges that the following provision of the New Windsor Code, Art. I, Zoning, is unconstitutional: § 48-18(M) Exempt Signs. The following signs are exempt from the permit requirements set forth by this local law * * * * . * (15) Political campaign signs pertaining to candidates for public office, political parties or public referendums, provided that said signs are posted only during a period commencing 45 days prior to the election or referendum to which the signs apply and are removed 10 days after such election or referendum. It is the obligation of the individuales) identified on the campaign sign to remove the same. The New Windsor Code exempts eighteen classes of signs from the permit requirement. Some classes are subject to similar durational restrictions, but some are not. See §§ 48-18(M)(5) (temporary holiday decoration signs); (6) (house numbers and nameplates); (8) (memorial signs, tablets, plaques); (10) (no trespassing or" }, { "docid": "3022019", "title": "", "text": "those classifications that affect fundamental rights, are subject to strict scrutiny. Id. (citations omitted). Where an ordinance affects rights protected under the First Amendment, strict scrutiny is applied “because it implicates a constitutionally protected fundamental right, the right to freedom of speech.” Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippeioa Indians, 172 F.3d at 410 (citing cases). The City, even in its objections to the Report and Recommendation, has not advanced a compelling interest that is served by the distinctions between speakers in these provisions; nor has the City shown that those distinctions are the least restrictive means for serving any purported interests. Even assuming that the City’s interests of safety and aesthetics are the reasons for the distinctions, these distinctions are not “necessary” to serve these interests. In fact, the distinctions do not seem to be even “rationally related” to the City’s interests. It is beyond reason to think the signs of public or semi-public entities are inherently safer or more aesthetically pleasing than the signs of business entities, or that the sign of a national, state, or local service organization is safer or more beautiful than that of a private or international service organization. In sum, § 1163.03(a)(l)A and E violate the Equal Protection Clause on their face because they distinguish between and classify speakers in a manner that affects fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment. IV. Severability of the Ordinance The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the unlawful portions of the sign ordinance cannot be severed without fundamentally disrupting the intention of the drafters. “Severability of a local ordinance or state law is a question of state law....” City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 772, 108 S.Ct. 2138. As the Supreme Court of Ohio explained, “in order to sever a portion of a statute, we must first find that such severance will not fundamentally disrupt the statutory scheme of which the unconstitutional provision is a part.” State ex rel. Maurer v. Sheward, 71 Ohio St.3d 513, 644 N.E.2d 369, 377 (1994), cited with approval in Women’s Medical Professional Carp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 202 (6th" }, { "docid": "15132615", "title": "", "text": "“was not required to exhaust administrative remedies since it challenged the ordinances as facially invalid”); . see also MacDonald v. Safir, 206 F.3d 183, 189 (2d Cir.2000) (“[T]here is no need for a party actually to apply or to request a permit in order to bring a facial challenge to an ordinance (or parts of it) ....”) (relying upon City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 755-56, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988)); Charette v. Town of Oyster Bay, 159 F.3d 749, 757 (2d Cir.1998) (“[Making] no effort to apply for a permit .... does not, of course, deprive [plaintiff] of standing to assert that the [zoning ordinance] is facially invalid ... .”). Were Lamar to succeed on the merits of its claims, it likely would be able to erect at least some of the signs it has asserted an intent to build, even if the size restrictions were held valid and severable. The district court, therefore, erred in concluding that Lamar had not established that its injuries were redressable. We hold that Lamar has standing. We find it unnecessary, in light of our reasoning, to review that portion of the district court’s decision addressing the sev-erability of the ordinance’s provisions, because we find Lamar would have standing even assuming arguendo that the size provisions are lawful and severable. In reversing the district court’s decision on standing, we thus also vacate its ruling on severability, as that discussion is rendered superfluous in light of our holding. Should Lamar prevail on any of its arguments that parts of the ordinance are invalid, the district court should then revisit the issue of severability and ask again “whether the Legislature Vould have wished the statute to be enforced with the invalid part ex-scinded, or rejected altogether.’ ” Greater N.Y. Metro. Food Council, Inc. v. Giuliani, 195 F.3d 100, 110 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting In re N.Y. State Superfund Coalition, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 75 N.Y.2d 88, 94, 550 N.Y.S.2d 879, 550 N.E.2d 155 (1989)); Niagara, 942 F.2d at 147-48 (finding existence of severability clause" }, { "docid": "3986966", "title": "", "text": "1209, 1218 n. 27, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968) (the ultimate determination of severability will rarely turn on the presence or absence of a sever-ability clause). We should not, for example, treat a severability clause as an invitation from the legislature to write whatever statute we can fashion from the constitutional remnants as augmented by our imagination. The New York Court of Appeals has identified the following standard for determining whether severance is appropriate: The principle of division is not a principle of form. It is a principle of function. The question is in every case whether the legislature, if partial invalidity had been foreseen, would have wished the statute to be enforced with the valid part exscinded, or rejected altogether. The answer must be reached pragmatically, by the exercise of good sense and sound judgment, by considering how the statutory rule will function if the knife is laid to the branch instead of at the roots. Alpha Portland, 230 N.Y. at 60, 129 N.E. at 207. Put another way, the legislature could not have intended a provision to be severed if the balance of the legislation is incapable of functioning independently. See Superfund Coalition, 75 N.Y.2d at 94, 550 N.E.2d at 157, 550 N.Y.S.2d at 881; see also Alaska Airlines, 480 U.S. at 684, 107 S.Ct. at 1479-80. Thus, severance is inappropriate when the valid and invalid provisions are so intertwined that excision of the invalid provisions would leave a regulatory scheme that the legislature never intended. Superfund Coalition, 75 N.Y.2d at 94, 550 N.E.2d at 157-58, 550 N.Y.S.2d at 881. C. The District Court’s Approach The district court ruled that the ordinance could be saved by severing eleven provisions, including the provisions that restricted signs to onsite advertising and the provisions that exempted certain types of noncommercial speech. After listing the provisions to be severed and noting that the law contains a severability clause the district court made the following comments: What is the effect of severing the above provisions on the operation of the ordinance? Those provisions ... which previously allowed on-site commercial billboards but did not allow" } ]

[ { "docid": "20859975", "title": "", "text": "credit in the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, and ordered the Air Force to “deposit into the registry of the court each month an amount equal to 65% of the monthly retirement pay due ... Byrne” until its further order. This appeal followed. Full Faith and Credit Means Full, Not Just Equitable, Credit Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the federal courts must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect in a subsequent federal case that it would be given in subsequent cases in the courts of that state. A.L.T. Corp. v. Small Business Administration, 801 F.2d 1451, 1455 (5th Cir.1986). In Texas, a state court judgment is given preclusive effect unless a party can successfully maintain a collateral attack against that judgment. Such an attack can succeed in Texas if the court rendering judgment has: (i) no jurisdiction of the person of a party, or his property, (ii) no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit, (iii) no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment entered, or (iv) no capacity to act as a court. Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex.1985); Austin Independent School District v. Sierra Club, 495 S.W.2d 878, 881 (Tex.1973). The district courts are the general trial courts of Texas, and have jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where jurisdiction is expressly conferred on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body. Tex. Const. art. V, § 8. The Air Force raises no jurisdictional question under Texas law, and we perceive none. Its contention that the Texas district courts lacked jurisdiction rests entirely on the sovereign immunity defense. A collateral attack upon this judgment upon this basis fails. Sovereign Immunity No Defense to Mere Erroneous Decision The Air Force acknowledges that the United States has in 42 U.S.C. § 659 waived sovereign immunity with respect to process brought for the enforcement of legal obligations to provide child support. The Air Force has steadfastly maintained— and ironically we wholeheartedly agree— that the 53rd district court decision and that of the 98th district based thereon were plainly wrong, because the" } ]

[ { "docid": "9935094", "title": "", "text": "aff'd, 229 F.2d 859 (9th Cir.1956). A state court’s holding regarding its jurisdiction over probate matters is binding on federal courts and is immune from collateral attack under the doctrine of res judicata. Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. N.C. Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 706-07, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111, 115-16, 84 S.Ct. 242, 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963). The probate exception to federal court jurisdiction is invoked because the state probate court must have exclusive in rem jurisdiction over all claims either against or on behalf of the decedent’s estate. The probate jurisdiction extends to all probate matters whether based on a theory of tax liability, debt, gift, bequest, tort, or any other theory that interferes with the probate of wills or the state court’s ability to engage in the administration of estates. Such jurisdiction is necessary for a probate court to perform its function properly in determining the lawful distribution of the decedent’s estate. Because probate proceedings are actions in rem, they bind all persons unless set aside in the manner provided by law. Mooney v. Harlin, 622 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex.1981). “An in rem judgment ... is binding upon the whole world and specifically upon persons who have rights or interest in the subject matter, and this is so whether those persons were or were not personally served.” Ladehoff v. Ladehoff, 436 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex.1968). The probate court ruled it had exclusive jurisdiction over all of Vickie Lynn Marshall’s claims against E. Pierce Marshall. That ruling was binding on the United States district court. Durfee, 375 U.S. at 115-16, 84 S.Ct. 242; see also TEX. PROB. CODE §§ 5A(b), 5(f) (“[A]ny cause of action appertaining to estates or incident to an estate shall be brought in a statutory probate court” rather than in the district court, including “all matters relating to the collection, settlement, partition, and distribution of estates of deceased persons.”). Upon the death of J. Howard Marshall II, and after the publication of notice to creditors, all claims against the" }, { "docid": "14833374", "title": "", "text": "Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 421, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 1188, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979); Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 736, 66 S.Ct. 853, 858, 90 L.Ed. 970 (1946). However, the appellants’ premise that the state court did not have jurisdiction over their claim is incorrect. Although the district courts “have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11,” the district courts do not have “exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11.” See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1471(a), (b) note (West Supp.1991) (currently codified at 28 U.S. C.A. §§ 1334(a), (b) (West Supp.1991)) (emphasis added). Thus, under section 1471, the only aspect of the bankruptcy proceeding over which the district courts and their bankruptcy units have exclusive jurisdiction is “the bankruptcy petition itself.” See In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 92 (5th Cir.1987). In other matters arising in or related to title 11 cases, unless the Code provides otherwise, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction, and bankruptcy courts are prohibited from relitigating these matters if the state courts have already resolved them. See Grogan v. Garner, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 654, 658 n. 11, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991); Goss v. Goss, 722 F.2d 599, 602 (10th Cir.1983) (concluding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the bankruptcy court from redetermining the debtor’s dischargeability for alimony payments); Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224, 227-28 (6th Cir.1981) (noting that collateral estoppel prevents a party from relit-igating, in the bankruptcy court, factual issues decided by the state court). Consequently, both the Texas court and the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to resolve the contract dispute between the City and the appellants, and this court is bound by the state judgment. See Evans, 896 F.2d at 977-78. Next, the appellants argue that the automatic stay, provided for in section 362(a) of the Code, was in effect at the time the appellants filed their amended complaint in state court and that this deprived the state court of jurisdiction. But the automatic stay terminates when the debt- or’s property “is no longer" }, { "docid": "22935613", "title": "", "text": "third-party suit to reopen the estate was an action in rem over which it had jurisdiction to review the rights of all affected parties. Id. at 373-74. Williams, Jr.’s petition was therefore denied. B. Discussion 28 U.S.C. § 1738 provides that judicial proceedings of any court of any ... State ... shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of [the] State ... from which they are taken. This statute places upon federal courts the same burden as the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause places upon state courts — “to give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged.” Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1889, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). Accord Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 896, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 704 & n. 9, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366 & n. 9, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982). Our statement in Stone II that we were “not bound by the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court— its decision involved different parties and applicable law,” 891 F.2d at 404, was addressed to Gulf American’s finding of fraud on the part of Stewart and Smith. Paternity was not then an issue before us. Unlike the laches question presented in Stone II, we look to Alabama law to determine whether principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel bar the parties’ respective arguments concerning heirship and paternity. See, e.g., Kremer, 456 U.S. at 481-82, 102 S.Ct. at 1897-98. Generally, res judicata (claim preclusion) operates to prevent the parties or their privies to a prior action from litigating any matter that was or could have been decided in a previous suit. See Murphy v. Gallagher, 761 F.2d 878, 879 (2d Cir.1985). Broadly speaking, “a final judgment" }, { "docid": "8103536", "title": "", "text": "28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), this Court's jurisdiction is original, but \"not exclusive”. See Wood, 825 F.2d at 92 (With respect to bankruptcy matters, district courts enjoy exclusive jurisdiction only over \"the bankruptcy petition itself”). Thus, the state court is of equal and competent jurisdiction to hear and determine Morrow's claim pursuant to § 525. Indeed, the Grimes and Kwasnik cases — both decided by California courts construing § 525. — cited by the Debtor highlight the fallacy of his position. . The Debtor's reliance on Gonzales is misplaced. Gonzales involved a state court collateral attack on the propriety of the filing of a bankruptcy petition. As discussed supra at fn. 12, the bankruptcy petition itself is within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). Of course, this has no application to proceedings such as the instant one, over which state courts share concurrent jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). . See Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 14 L.Ed.2d 50 (1965). . A federal court must give full faith and credit to a state court judgment only if that court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation or the parties before it. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 805, 105 S.Ct. 2965, (1985); Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Association, 455 U.S. 691, 704-05, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982); Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 421, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 1188, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), reh’g denied, 441 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 2018, 60 L.Ed.2d 389 (1979); Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 66 S.Ct. 853, 90 L.Ed. 970 (1946), reh'g denied, 328 U.S. 879, 66 S.Ct. 1335, 90 L.Ed. 1647 (1946), cited in In the Matter of Brady, Texas, Municipal Gas Corporation, 936 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom. Sanders v. City of Brady, Texas, 502 U.S. 1013, 112 S.Ct. 657, 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991). For a discussion of the California Superior Court's concurrent jurisdiction to decide the Debtor’s claim pursuant to 11" }, { "docid": "1180709", "title": "", "text": "of the plaintiffs contention that particular conduct is illegal\"); Continental Cas. Co. v. Canadian Universal Ins., 605 F.2d 1340, 1342-1343 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 929, 100 S.Ct. 1317, 63 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980) (dismissal \"for want of a judicial controversy between live litigants” is not a judgment on the merits, but on jurisdiction); McCarney v. Ford Motor Co., 657 F.2d 230, 232-234 (8th Cir.1981) (standing determination does not reach merits but involves questions of justiciability and is quasi-jurisdictional in nature); Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd., 601 F.2d 429, 439-440 (9th Cir.1979) (standing question is \"akin to that of jurisdiction”). . The res judicata effects of jurisdictional judgments have variously been discussed in terms of issue preclusion and estoppel. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 20 Reporter’s Note to Comment b (1982). . See Dozier v. Ford Motor Co., supra note 66, 227 U.S. App.D.C. at 14-15, 702 F.2d at 1192-1193 (amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction); Carr v. District of Columbia, 207 U.S. App.D.C. 264, 272-273, 646 F.2d 599, 607-608 (1980) (subject-matter jurisdiction); Estevez v. Nabers, 219 F.2d 321 (5th Cir.1955) (lack of justiciable controversy); Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Homestake Mining Co., 722 F.2d 1407, 1411— 1413 (8th Cir.1983) (subject-matter jurisdiction); see also Segal v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 606 F.2d 842, 844-845 (9th Cir.1979) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction results in issue preclusion, which unlike bar, forecloses litigation only of those issues of fact or law that were actually litigated and necessarily decided by a valid and final judgment between the parties); see generally IB J. Moore, J. Lucas & T. Currier, Moore’s Federal Practice fi 0.405[5] (2d ed. 1984) (discussing preclusive effect of jurisdictional judgments). For cases applying collateral estoppel principles to standing questions, see noté 73 infra. . 440 U.S. 147, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). . Id. at 153-154, 99 S.Ct. at 973-974, 59 L.Ed.2d at 217. . See Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 706-707, 709 n. 16, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366-1367, 1368 n. 16, 71 L.Ed.2d 558," }, { "docid": "18719700", "title": "", "text": "that a federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.” Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 896, 79 L.Ed.2d 56, 61 (1984). “Section 1738 embodies concerns of comity and federalism that allow the State to determine, subject to the requirements of the statute and the Due Process Clause, the preclusive effect of judgments in their own courts.” Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 1332, 84 L.Ed.2d 274, 281 (1985). Nevertheless, these principles of full faith and credit are subject to some further limitations. A major limitation is the caveat that a state court judgment is entitled to its preclusive effect in another forum only if the first court has “power to pass on the merits — had jurisdiction, that is, to render judgment.” See Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Association, 455 U.S. 691, 704, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366, 71 L.Ed.2d 558, 570 (1982) (quoting Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 110, 84 S.Ct. 242, 244, 11 L.Ed.2d 186, 190 (1963)). “This limitation flows directly from the principles underlying the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It is axiomatic that a judgment must be supported by a proper showing of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the relevant parties.” Id., 455 U.S. at 704, n. 10, 102 S.Ct. at 1366 n. 10, 71 L.Ed.2d at 558 n. 10. The SBA has leveled its attack on the Texas judgment on three grounds which we have organized to correspond to the full faith and credit principles discussed above. First, the SBA claims that the judgment is void under Texas law, thus rendering it unworthy of full faith and credit in federal court, since such a judgment would be subject to collateral attack in a Texas court. Second, the SBA argues that the original Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over the SBA because service of" }, { "docid": "14833372", "title": "", "text": "Texas judgment for three reasons. First, they contend that the Texas court did not have jurisdiction over the appellants’ damage claim and that, therefore, a subsequent Texas court would not bar the appellants’ damage claim under the doctrine of res judicata. Second, they assert that even if the Texas court did have jurisdiction over their claim, a fair reading of that court’s opinion indicates that it did not intend to resolve the dispute but was referring both parties to the bankruptcy court. Third, they maintain that a Texas court would not apply the doctrine of res judicata without strong public policy reasons for doing so, which, they contend, do not exist in this case. The appellants also argue that giving full faith and credit to the Texas judgment would deprive them of their fifth amendment right to due process. A. The State Court’s Jurisdiction The appellants first contend that the bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction over their damage claim, which arose out of the debtor’s decision to reject the farm-out agreement under section 365(g)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, and that, therefore, the state court did not have jurisdiction. See Evans v. Dale, 896 F.2d 975, 978 (5th Cir.1990) (holding that property settle ment reached in a divorce proceeding did not bar federal securities claim, over which the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction). Under Texas law, before the doctrine of res judicata will apply, the court rendering the prior judgment must have had jurisdiction over the dispute. See Salazar v. United States Air Force, 849 F.2d 1542, 1547 (5th Cir.1988); Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex.1985). Similarly, a federal court does not have to give full faith and credit to a state court judgment if the state court did not have jurisdiction over the subject of the litigation or of the parties before it. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 805, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 2971, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985); Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 704-05, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982);" }, { "docid": "22210592", "title": "", "text": "the jurisdiction of the rendering state court, the doctrine of issue preclusion has long been applied to afford res judicata effect to a state court’s resolution of any jurisdictional issue, even if erroneous, as long as the state court fully and fairly considered the jurisdictional claim. Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111, 84 S.Ct. 242, 245, 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963). Only the due process clause limits the state court judgment’s preclusive effect. See Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 481-83, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1897-98, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). If, as Migra requires, the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion are to be applied with equal force in federal court where applicable as a matter of state law, then the rendering court’s law of claim preclusion must apply as fully to jurisdictional defects as to any other, subject only to the requirements of due process. Accord, Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Association, 455 U.S. 691, 709-10 n. 16, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1368 n. 16, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982). Finding the due process clause not implicated in this case, we therefore must look exclusively to Washington state law to determine the preclusive effect to be given the father’s failure to assert the jurisdictional claim he now asserts at the proper time in the Washington litigation. Under Washington law, it is clear that the mother’s attempt to ascribe res judicata effect to the father’s failure to assert a claim under § 1738A in the Washington courts must fail. It is well settled in Washington that whether the rendering court in a prior proceeding had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation is a question that may be raised collaterally. See e.g., Schiffman v. Hanson Excavating Co., 82 Wash.2d 681, 513 P.2d 29, 32 (1973). Further, principles of waiver, consent and estoppel have no application where the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cause of action. See State ex rel. Pioli v. Higher Education Personnel Board, 16 Wash.App. 642, 558 P.2d 1364, 1367 (1976); Rust v. Western" }, { "docid": "22935614", "title": "", "text": "Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 704 & n. 9, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366 & n. 9, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982). Our statement in Stone II that we were “not bound by the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court— its decision involved different parties and applicable law,” 891 F.2d at 404, was addressed to Gulf American’s finding of fraud on the part of Stewart and Smith. Paternity was not then an issue before us. Unlike the laches question presented in Stone II, we look to Alabama law to determine whether principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel bar the parties’ respective arguments concerning heirship and paternity. See, e.g., Kremer, 456 U.S. at 481-82, 102 S.Ct. at 1897-98. Generally, res judicata (claim preclusion) operates to prevent the parties or their privies to a prior action from litigating any matter that was or could have been decided in a previous suit. See Murphy v. Gallagher, 761 F.2d 878, 879 (2d Cir.1985). Broadly speaking, “a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by the parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 973, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). Accord Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 414, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); Henderson v. Scott, 418 So.2d 840, 841-42 (Ala.1982); Wheeler v. First Ala. Bank of Birmingham, 364 So.2d 1190, 1199 (Ala.1978) (parties must be “substantially identical”). Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) comes into play when the subsequent action is “upon a different claim or demand.” United States v. Moser, 266 U.S. 236, 241, 45 S.Ct. 66, 67, 69 L.Ed. 262 (1924). Accord Allen, 449 U.S. at 94, 101 S.Ct. at 414; Owen v. Miller, 414 So.2d 889, 891 (Ala. 1981); Wheeler, 364 So.2d at 1199. In such case, “the inquiry is whether the point or question presented for determination in the subsequent action is the same as that litigated and determined in the original action.” Moser, 266 U.S. at 241, 45 S.Ct. at 67; accord Montana," }, { "docid": "17470945", "title": "", "text": "Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 629 (9th Cir.1987). The Vice Chancellor downgraded the value of the federal claims even as he expressed reluctance to assess the merits of those claims because they were “outside the jurisdiction of this Court.” Id., 1993 WL 43024 at *4. Objectors argued that the settlement was collusive because the defendants “cut a deal” with the named plaintiffs in the Delaware action and their attorneys in order to extinguish the claims pending in the federal litigation. In re MCA Inc. Shareholders Litig., WL 43024, at *5. The Vice Chancellor acknowledged that the potential for this type of abuse “clearly exists in representative litigation,” and that “suspicions abound” when “the settling parties have previously proposed a patently inadequate settlement in which the class would have received no monetary benefit but the attorneys would have received $1 million in fees.” Id. at *4. Nonetheless, he refused to make a finding of collusion on the record before him because objectors “offered no evidence of any collusion.” Id. at *5. The judgment incorporating the terms of the settlement was summarily affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. In re MCA Inc. Shareholders Litig., 633 A.2d 370 (Del.1993). B. The Full Faith and Credit Question 1. The Jurisdiction of State Courts to Release Exclusively Federal Claims in a Class Settlement Matsushita first argues that the Epstein action is precluded because the Delaware judgment releasing the federal claims is entitled to full faith and credit. As a general rule, the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, “requires federal courts to give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged.” Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1889, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). This rule does not apply, however, if the state court “did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the relevant parties.” Underwrirers Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accidental Health Insurance Gty. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 704-05, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1365-66, 71 L.Ed.2d" }, { "docid": "1180710", "title": "", "text": "Estevez v. Nabers, 219 F.2d 321 (5th Cir.1955) (lack of justiciable controversy); Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Homestake Mining Co., 722 F.2d 1407, 1411— 1413 (8th Cir.1983) (subject-matter jurisdiction); see also Segal v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 606 F.2d 842, 844-845 (9th Cir.1979) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction results in issue preclusion, which unlike bar, forecloses litigation only of those issues of fact or law that were actually litigated and necessarily decided by a valid and final judgment between the parties); see generally IB J. Moore, J. Lucas & T. Currier, Moore’s Federal Practice fi 0.405[5] (2d ed. 1984) (discussing preclusive effect of jurisdictional judgments). For cases applying collateral estoppel principles to standing questions, see noté 73 infra. . 440 U.S. 147, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). . Id. at 153-154, 99 S.Ct. at 973-974, 59 L.Ed.2d at 217. . See Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 706-707, 709 n. 16, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366-1367, 1368 n. 16, 71 L.Ed.2d 558, 571-572, 573 n. 16 (1982) (principles of res judicata apply to jurisdictional judgments where \"the second court’s inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which renders the original judgment”); Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 172, 59 S.Ct. 134, 138, 83 L.Ed. 104, 109 (1938) (\"[a]fter a party has his day in court, with opportunity to present his evidence and his view of the law, a collateral attack upon the decision as to jurisdiction there rendered merely retries the issue previously determined. There is no reason to expect that the second decision will be more satisfactory than the first\"); IB J. Moore, J. Lucas & T. Currier, supra note 69, f 0.405[5], at 227, 229-230 (‘‘[w]here the issue of jurisdiction is raised and is determined in favor of jurisdiction and the case then proceeds to a judgment on the merits, on wellsettled principles the judgment is not later open to collateral attack on the jurisdictional issue, whether or not the determination thereon was erroneous”) (footnote" }, { "docid": "8103537", "title": "", "text": "full faith and credit to a state court judgment only if that court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation or the parties before it. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 805, 105 S.Ct. 2965, (1985); Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Association, 455 U.S. 691, 704-05, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982); Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 421, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 1188, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), reh’g denied, 441 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 2018, 60 L.Ed.2d 389 (1979); Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 66 S.Ct. 853, 90 L.Ed. 970 (1946), reh'g denied, 328 U.S. 879, 66 S.Ct. 1335, 90 L.Ed. 1647 (1946), cited in In the Matter of Brady, Texas, Municipal Gas Corporation, 936 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom. Sanders v. City of Brady, Texas, 502 U.S. 1013, 112 S.Ct. 657, 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991). For a discussion of the California Superior Court's concurrent jurisdiction to decide the Debtor’s claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 525, see discussion at fn. 12, supra. . A judgment is defined as \"any judgment, order or decree from which an appeal lies.\" Cal. Rules of Court 136(g). . See Merry v. Coast Community College Dist., 97 Cal.App.3d 214, 229, 158 Cal.Rptr. 603 (4 Dist.1979). . See also Cal.Code Civ.Proc. § 1908. . See Schultz v. Harney, 27 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1618, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 276, 279 (1994) (\"It is established beyond all reasonable dispute that a final judgment or order, even if erroneous or clearly contrary to a statute, is res judicata if the court had jurisdiction in the fundamental sense, that is, jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. (Moffat v. Moffat (1980) 27 Cal.3d 645, 655, 165 Cal.Rptr. 877, 612 P.2d 967; Hollywood Circle, Inc. v. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1961) 55 Cal.2d 728, 733, 13 Cal.Rptr. 104, 361 P.2d 712; Signal Oil and Gas Co. v. Ashland Oil and Refining Co. (1958) 49 Cal.2d 764, 777, 322 P.2d 1; Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McConnell (1955) 44 Cal.2d" }, { "docid": "1074327", "title": "", "text": "court’s jurisdiction to render that judgment, the modern decisions of this Court have carefully delineated the permissible scope of such an inquiry. From these decisions there emerges the general rule that a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit — even as to questions of jurisdiction — when the second court’s inquiry disclosed that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment. Id. at 111, 84 S.Ct. at 244. Accord Jackson, Full Faith and Credit — The Lawyer’s Clause of the Constitution, 45 Colum.L.Rev. 1, 8 (1945); Vestal, supra note 3, at 43-44. See also Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident Ins. Assoc., 455 U.S. 691, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982): To be sure, the struction of our nation as a union of States, each possessing equal sovereign powers, dictates some basic limitations on the full-faith-and-credit principles enumerated above. Chief among these limitations is the caveat, consistently recognized by this Court, that “a judgment of a court in one State is conclusive upon the merits in a court in another State only if the court in the first State had power to pass on the merits — had jurisdiction, that is, to render the judgment.” Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 110 [84 S.Ct. 242, 244, 11 L.Ed.2d 186] (1963). Consequently, before a court is bound by the judgment rendered in another State, it may inquire into the jurisdictional basis of the foreign court’s decree. If that court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the relevant parties, full faith and credit need not be given. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 421 [99 S.Ct. 1182, 1188, 59 L.Ed.2d 416] (1979). Id. 102 S.Ct. at 1365. . See Vestal, supra note 3, at 44 — 45 (“Under some circumstance the policy of the forum state may be so strong on a particular point that it may be able to avoid the doctrine of full faith and credit and refuse to honor the judgment handed down in the first state.”)." }, { "docid": "14833371", "title": "", "text": "State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.” Section 1738 directs this federal court to give the Texas judgment the same effect as it would have in a Texas court. See Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 525, 106 S.Ct. 768, 772, 88 L.Ed.2d 877 (1986); Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 381, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 1332, 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985); Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 896, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Co., 456 U.S. 461, 482, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1898, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96, 101 S.Ct. 411, 415, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980). The bankruptcy court’s decision to give full faith and credit to the state court judgment was a conclusion of law, which we review de novo, see In re Fabricators, Inc., 926 F.2d 1458, 1464 (5th Cir.1991). The appellants argue that a Texas court would not give full faith and credit to this Texas judgment for three reasons. First, they contend that the Texas court did not have jurisdiction over the appellants’ damage claim and that, therefore, a subsequent Texas court would not bar the appellants’ damage claim under the doctrine of res judicata. Second, they assert that even if the Texas court did have jurisdiction over their claim, a fair reading of that court’s opinion indicates that it did not intend to resolve the dispute but was referring both parties to the bankruptcy court. Third, they maintain that a Texas court would not apply the doctrine of res judicata without strong public policy reasons for doing so, which, they contend, do not exist in this case. The appellants also argue that giving full faith and credit to the Texas judgment would deprive them of their fifth amendment right to due process. A. The State Court’s Jurisdiction The appellants first contend that the bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction over their damage claim, which arose out of the debtor’s decision to reject the farm-out agreement under section 365(g)(1) of" }, { "docid": "22943127", "title": "", "text": "not considered. See, e.g., Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Ass’n, - U.S. -, -, & n.16, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366 & n.16, 71 L.Ed.2d 558, 571-73 & n.16 (1982); cases discussed in note 27 infra. This initial federal inquiry into subject matter jurisdiction found in Underwriters appears to be abandoned in the Court’s decision rendered two months later in Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., - U.S. -, -, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1897, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). In Kremer the Court explained that the heretofore unannounced source of the “full and fair opportunity” proviso is the due process clause of the Constitution and not federally imposed principles of res judicata. The analysis in Kremer has the effect of eliminating the initial inquiry into subject matter jurisdiction because the only concern is whether requirements of due process were met. If there was due process the judgment is enforceable despite a lack of jurisdiction; if due process was not afforded then the judgment is not enforceable regardless of the existence of jurisdiction, see part IV B(2) infra. Therefore, the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is as irrelevant to enforcement as is an error on the merits. This approach reduces full faith and credit analysis to only an inquiry into what effect a judgment has in its rendering state, for a state is not allowed to give effect to a judgment rendered in violation of due process. To summarize, in Underwriters and previous cases the Supreme Court has stated that “[i]f [the rendering] court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the relevant parties, full faith and credit need not be given, ... [but] principles of res judicata apply to questions or jurisdiction as well as to other issues,” limiting the scope of review over jurisdiction. - U.S. at -, 102 S.Ct. at 1365-66, 71 L.Ed.2d at 570-71. However, in Kremer the Court stated resolutely that “§ 1738 does not allow federal courts to employ their own rules of res judicata in determining the effect of state judgments,” - U.S. at -, 102" }, { "docid": "22943126", "title": "", "text": "where rendered); Hazen Research, Inc. v. Omega Minerals, Inc., 497 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir. 1974); Yale v. National Indemnity Co., 602 F.2d 642, 644 (4th Cir. 1979). . Another limitation, discussed below in part IV B(2), is that the judgment must comply with the requirements of due process. See also note 6 infra. . Unfortunately California does not have a procedure by which this court can certify to its courts the dispositive questions of state law that must be answered in this case. . Recent Supreme Court authority suggests a possible change in analysis from a two-step inquiry to a unified theory of full faith and credit. In its prior decisions the Court has stated that a judgment rendered without subject matter jurisdiction is not given full faith and credit; however, principles of res judicata apply to jurisdictional issues as well as to the merits, and if there has been a full and fair litigation of jurisdictional issues, or even a full and fair opportunity to litigate such issues, then possible jurisdictional defects are not considered. See, e.g., Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Ass’n, - U.S. -, -, & n.16, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366 & n.16, 71 L.Ed.2d 558, 571-73 & n.16 (1982); cases discussed in note 27 infra. This initial federal inquiry into subject matter jurisdiction found in Underwriters appears to be abandoned in the Court’s decision rendered two months later in Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., - U.S. -, -, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1897, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). In Kremer the Court explained that the heretofore unannounced source of the “full and fair opportunity” proviso is the due process clause of the Constitution and not federally imposed principles of res judicata. The analysis in Kremer has the effect of eliminating the initial inquiry into subject matter jurisdiction because the only concern is whether requirements of due process were met. If there was due process the judgment is enforceable despite a lack of jurisdiction; if due process was not afforded then the judgment is not enforceable regardless of the" }, { "docid": "22943090", "title": "", "text": "rendered it, the judgment may be collaterally attacked in federal court. Therefore, Verone’s contention that California law should be ignored and that Fred should be required to repair to California courts for his collateral attack is patently incorrect. The requirement of full faith and credit is tempered, however, by “some basic limitations.” Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Assoc., - U.S. -, -, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1365, 71 L.Ed.2d 558, 570 (1982). The chief such limitation is that full faith and credit will not be given a judgment if the rendering court did not have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Id Thus the requirement of full faith and credit does not initially attach if the judgment suffers jurisdictional defects that render it void. A judgment is not always open for collateral attack on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, however. Federal principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply even to jurisdictional issues. Id. at -, 102 S.Ct. at 1366; see note 27 infra. To summarize this two-level analysis, collateral attack of the California judgments might occur under two sets of principles. Under federal principles we determine whether the judgments possess the requisite validity to apply full faith and credit. If full faith and credit applies we look to state law to determine how much credit they deserve. Conversely put, the California judgments are not to be enforced if they are subject to successful collateral at tack either under the “basic limitations” of federal law or under California law. III. The effect of the prior Florida divorce During the pendency of Yerone’s California suit for legal separation, and before any judgment was entered, Fred obtained in Florida a presumptively valid divorce. Subsequently the California court entered a judgment of legal separation and entered the two monetary judgments concerning spousal support and property rights sought to be enforced here. Fred contends that, despite the fact that the Florida decree did not purport to adjudicate support and property rights, the Florida decree had the effect under California law of depriving the" }, { "docid": "17470946", "title": "", "text": "terms of the settlement was summarily affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. In re MCA Inc. Shareholders Litig., 633 A.2d 370 (Del.1993). B. The Full Faith and Credit Question 1. The Jurisdiction of State Courts to Release Exclusively Federal Claims in a Class Settlement Matsushita first argues that the Epstein action is precluded because the Delaware judgment releasing the federal claims is entitled to full faith and credit. As a general rule, the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, “requires federal courts to give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged.” Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1889, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). This rule does not apply, however, if the state court “did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the relevant parties.” Underwrirers Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accidental Health Insurance Gty. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 704-05, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1365-66, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982). See also Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 283, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 2661-62, 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 110, 84 S.Ct. 242, 244-45, 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963); Grubb v. Public Util. Comm’n, 281 U.S. 470, 475, 50 S.Ct. 374, 376-77, 74 L.Ed. 972 (1930); Thompson v. Whitman, 85 U.S. (18 Wall) 457, 469, 21 L.Ed. 897 (1873). The Epstein plaintiffs argue that the Delaware class settlement is not entitled to full faith and credit to the extent it released federal claims which are beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of state courts. Matsushita responds that courts have uniformly held that a state court class action settlement properly may preclude, by release, continued litigation by members of the class of all claims — state or federal, whether or not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts — arising out of the same subject matter or transaction. Supplemental Brief of Matsushita at 13. In other words, Matsushita reads existing case law as sanctioning the release of exclusively" }, { "docid": "14833373", "title": "", "text": "the Bankruptcy Code, and that, therefore, the state court did not have jurisdiction. See Evans v. Dale, 896 F.2d 975, 978 (5th Cir.1990) (holding that property settle ment reached in a divorce proceeding did not bar federal securities claim, over which the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction). Under Texas law, before the doctrine of res judicata will apply, the court rendering the prior judgment must have had jurisdiction over the dispute. See Salazar v. United States Air Force, 849 F.2d 1542, 1547 (5th Cir.1988); Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex.1985). Similarly, a federal court does not have to give full faith and credit to a state court judgment if the state court did not have jurisdiction over the subject of the litigation or of the parties before it. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 805, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 2971, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985); Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 704-05, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982); Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 421, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 1188, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979); Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 736, 66 S.Ct. 853, 858, 90 L.Ed. 970 (1946). However, the appellants’ premise that the state court did not have jurisdiction over their claim is incorrect. Although the district courts “have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11,” the district courts do not have “exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11.” See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1471(a), (b) note (West Supp.1991) (currently codified at 28 U.S. C.A. §§ 1334(a), (b) (West Supp.1991)) (emphasis added). Thus, under section 1471, the only aspect of the bankruptcy proceeding over which the district courts and their bankruptcy units have exclusive jurisdiction is “the bankruptcy petition itself.” See In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 92 (5th Cir.1987). In other matters arising in or related to title 11 cases, unless the Code provides otherwise, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction, and bankruptcy courts are prohibited from" }, { "docid": "1796328", "title": "", "text": "state would give preclusive effect to the judgment); In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, 200 F.3d 317, 319 n. 1, 320 (5th Cir.2000) (noting that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1783); Gauthier v. Continental Diving Services, 831 F.2d 559, 561 (5th Cir.1987) (declining to apply the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because doing so would require the federal court to give greater deference to a state court judgment than that state’s courts would give the judgment); Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston Corp., 100 F.3d 1348 (7th Cir.1996) (East-erbrook, J., dissenting on request for rehearing en banc). Federal jurisdiction is therefore proper under Rooker-Feldman if the state law does not provide preclusive effect to the state court judgment. In a class action lawsuit, a court may exercise jurisdiction over absent class members only if the court follows certain due process procedures. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 811-12, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985). A court must ensure that class members have received adequate notice, representation, and an opportunity to opt-out. Id. at 812, 105 S.Ct. 2965. The settlement judgment has no preclusive effect if the court does not comply with • these procedures. Id. at 805, 105 S.Ct. 2965. Thus, to merit full faith and credit, a state must adhere to the due process guidelines of Shutts. In light of Shutts, it would seem that Rooker-Feldman does not apply where a state court has not followed the due process requirements for class certification. In the instant case, Richard attempts to escape the reach of Rooker-Feldman by alleging such procedural infirmities. He argues that as a result of the due process deficiencies, the Cox state court did not properly exercise jurisdiction over him. Given the class action nature of this ease, it is necessary to resolve the following tension in applying Rooker-Feldman. On the one hand, federal courts can examine jurisdictional matters brought before them. If the absent class members were not subject to the state court’s jurisdiction or bound by its judgment, then federal courts would have jurisdiction over the" } ]

[ { "docid": "20606186", "title": "", "text": "decided five years after Loving. Unlike the defendants in many of the other same-sex marriage cases before other federal courts, however, defendants here do not contend that Baker forecloses this Court’s review or mandates the disposition of this case. See also Merritt v. Attorney Gen., No. 13-215, 2013 WL 6044329, at *2 (M.D.La. Nov. 14, 2013) (citing Baker for the proposition that the Constitution does not require states to permit same-sex marriage). The Court need not enter the differing contentions about the viability of Baker v. Nelson. . This Court is not the first to reach this conclusion, even post-Windsor. See Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536, 544 (W.D.Ky.2014) (\"If the inquiry here is viewed as a contours-of-the-right question, holding that the fundamental right to marry encompasses same-sex marriage would be a dramatic step that the Supreme Court has not yet indicated a willingness to take.”); see also Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 393, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 WL 3702493, at *25, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298, at *92 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014) (Niemeyer, J., dissenting)(\"At bottom, the fundamental right to marriage does not include a right to same-sex marriage.”); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, 1113, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 WL 3537847, *35, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 13733, *147-* 148 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014) (Kelly J„ concurring in part and dissenting in part)(\"Removing gender complementarity from the historical definition of marriage is simply contrary to the careful analysis prescribed by the Supreme Court when it comes to substantive due process.”). . Plaintiffs also summarily allege violations of their fundamental rights to remain married and to parental authority, but these claims fail for the same reason. The Court notes, however, that other federal district court opinions post-Windsor have favored same-sex marriages under all standards of review. See, e.g., Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181 (D.Utah 2013), aff'd, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982 (W.D.Wis.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D.Pa.2014). . One case, pre-Windsor but rather close in time, Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F.Supp.2d 996 (D.Nev.2012), from Nevada, stands apart" } ]

[ { "docid": "19646777", "title": "", "text": "Lee v. Orr, 2013 WL 6490577 (N.D.Ill., Dec. 10, 2013) Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181 (Utah 2013) Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F.Supp.2d 968 (S.D.Ohio 2013) Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252 (N.D.Okla.2014) Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F.Supp.2d 542 (W.D.Ky.2014) Lee v. Orr, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 21, 2014) Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F.Supp.2d 456 (E.D.Va.2014) De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632 (W.D.Tex.2014) Tanco v. Haslam, 7 F.Supp.3d 759 (M.D.Tenn.2014) DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D.Mich.2014) Henry v. Himes, 14 F.Supp.3d 1036 (S.D.Ohio 2014) Latta v. Otter, 19 F.Supp.3d 1054 (Idaho 2014) Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128 (Ore.2014) Evans v. Utah, 21 F.Supp.3d 1192 (Utah 2014) Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D.Pa.2014) Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982 (W.D.Wis.2014) Baskin v. Bogan, 12 F.Supp.3d 1144 (S.D.Ind.2014) Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536 (W.D.Ky.2014) Burns v. Hickenlooper, 2014 WL 3634834 (Colo., July 23, 2014) Bowling v. Pence, 39 F.Supp.3d 1025 (S.D.Ind.2014) Brenner v. Scott, 999 F.Supp.2d 1278 (N.D.Fla.2014) Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F.Supp.3d 910 (E.D.La.2014) General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Resinger, 12 F.Supp.3d 790 (W.D.N.C.2014) Hamby v. Parnell, 56 F.Supp.3d 1056 (Alaska 2014) Fisher-Borne v. Smith, 14 F.Supp.3d 695 (M.D.N.C.2014) Majors v. Horne, 14 F.Supp.3d 1313 (Ariz.2014) Connolly v. Jeanes, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 5320642 (Ariz., Oct. 17, 2014) Guzzo v. Mead, 2014 WL 5317797 (Wyo., Oct. 17, 2014) Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, 54 F.Supp.3d 157 (P.R.2014) Marie v. Moser, 65 F.Supp.3d 1175, 2014 WL 5598128 (Kan., Nov. 4, 2014) Lawson v. Kelly, 58 F.Supp.3d 923 (W.D.Mo.2014) McGee v. Cole, 66 F.Supp.3d 747, 2014 WL 5802665 (S.D.W.Va., Nov. 7, 2014) Condon v. Haley, 21 F.Supp.3d 572 (S.C.2014) Bradacs v. Haley, 58 F.Supp.3d 514 (S.C.2014) Rolando v. Fox, 23 F.Supp.3d 1227 (Mont.2014) Jernigan v. Crane, 64 F.Supp.3d 1260, 2014 WL 6685391 (E.D.Ark., Nov. 25, 2014) Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, 64 F.Supp.3d 906, 2014 WL 6680570 (S.D.Miss., Nov. 25, 2014) Inniss v. Aderhold, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL 300593 (N.D.Ga., Jan. 8, 2015) Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, 61 F.Supp.3d 862 (S.D.2015) Caspar v. Snyder, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL" }, { "docid": "15913606", "title": "", "text": "discrimination “in part because of the high visibility of the sex characteristic”). For this reason, to afford greater protection to sexual orientation than .gender would seem inappropriate. In addition, some courts have found sexual orientation similar to gender in various ways. See Windsor, 699 F.3d at 184-85 (listing parallels between the status of women at the time the Court found they constituted a suspect class and homosexual individuals today, and finding homosexual persons to be quasi-suspect class based in part on analogy to gender); accord Wolf, 986 F.Supp.2d at 1014-15, 2014 WL 2558444, at *29; Whitewood v. Wolf, 1:13-CV-1861, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 430, 2014 WL 2058105, at *14 (M.D.Pa. May 20, 2014). For example, although the acceptance of homosexual persons has “improved markedly in recent decades,” they still face “pervasive, although at times more subtle, discrimination ... in the political arena.” Windsor, 699 F.3d at 184 (quoting Frontiero, 411 U.S. at 685-86, 93 S.Ct. 1764) (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court finds that homosexual persons constitute a quasi-suspect class “based on the weight of the factors and on analogy to the classifications recognized as suspect and quasi-suspect.” Windsor, 699 F.3d at 185. In so doing, it agrees with the Second Circuit and the many other district courts to confront this question. See id.; see, e.g., Whitewood, 992 F.Supp.2d at 430, 2014 WL 2058105, at *14; Wolf, 986 F.Supp.2d at 1014-15, 2014 WL 2558444, at *29. Quasi-suspect classes are given intermediate scrutiny. See Clark, 486 U.S. at 461, 108 S.Ct. 1910. Therefore, here, the state must show that the sexual orientation classification imposed by Kentucky’s laws is “substantially related to an important governmental objective.” Id. IV. Ultimately, Kentucky’s laws banning same-sex marriage cannot withstand constitutional review regardless of the standard. The Court will demonstrate this by analyzing Plaintiffs’ challenge under rational basis review. ' Under this standard, Plaintiffs have the burden to prove either that there is no conceivable legitimate purpose for the law or that the means chosen to effectuate a legitimate purpose are not rationally related to that purpose. “Rational basis review, while deferential, is not ‘toothless.’ ” Peoples" }, { "docid": "20606178", "title": "", "text": "three standards. Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 WL 3702493, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 WL 3537847, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 13733 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2014); Brenner v. Scott, 999 F.Supp.2d 1278 (N.D.Fl.2014); Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 14-1817, 2014 WL 3634834, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100894 (D.Colo. July 23, 2014); Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536 (W.D.Ky.2014); Baskin v. Bogan, - F.Supp.3d -, Nos. 14-355, 14-404 & 14-406, 2014 WL 2884868, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86114 (S.D.Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982 (W.D.Wis.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D.Pa.2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128 (D.Or.2014); Latta v. Otter, — F.Supp.3d , No. 13-482, 2014 WL 1909999, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D.Mich.2014); Tanco v. Haslam, 7 F.Supp.3d 759, No. 13-1159, 2014 WL 997525, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463 (M.D.Tenn. March 14, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632 (W.D.Tex.2014); Lee v. Orr, No. 13-8719, 2014 WL 683680, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21620 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 21, 2014); McGee v. Cole, 993 F.Supp.2d 639 (S.D.W.Va.2014). Contra Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F.Supp.2d 996 (D.Nev.2012) (applying rational basis to reject an Equal Protection challenge to Nevada's same-sex marriage ban). See United States v. Windsor, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013). . Windsor, in the context of the issues presented to this Court, is unclear (contrary to the conclusions in many recent federal court decisions). It is by its own terms, limited. Its “opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.” 133 S.Ct. at 2696. However, Windsor also references an amorphous but alluring “evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.” Id. at 2693. Hence this Court’s unease that Windsor merely offers bits and pieces of hope to both sides. See also id. at 2696 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting)(\"The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the" }, { "docid": "15913613", "title": "", "text": "even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted. On the other side, many responses reinforced in very personal ways how unconstitutional discrimination harms individuals and families to their very core. These responses reinforce the notion that invalidating Kentucky’s laws validates the enduring relationships of same-sex couples in the same way that opposite-sex couples’ relationships are validated. Since this Court’s Bourke opinion, the legal landscape of same-sex marriage rights across the country has evolved considerably, with eight additional federal district courts and one circuit court invalidating state constitutional provisions and statutes that denied same-sex couples the right to marry. See Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178, 755 F.3d 1193, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014); Baskin, — F.Supp.2d -, 2014 WL 2884868; Wolf, 986 F.Supp.2d 982; Whitewood, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 2014 WL 2058105; Geiger, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 2014 WL 2054264; Latta v. Otter, 1:13-CV-00482-CWD, — F.Supp.2d -, 2014 WL 1909999 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); De Leon, 975 F.Supp.2d 632; DeBoer, 973 F.Supp.2d 757; Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F.Supp.2d 456 (E.D.Va.2014). With this opinion, this Court joins their company. Sometimes, by upholding equal rights for a few, courts necessarily must require others to forebear some prior conduct or restrain some personal instinct. Here, that would not seem to be the case. Assuring equal protection for same-sex couples does not diminish the freedom of others to any degree. Thus, same-sex couples’ right to marry seems to be a uniquely “free” constitutional right. Hopefully, even those opposed to or uncertain about same-sex marriage will see it that way in the future. The Court’s holding today is consistent with Bourke, although it requires different relief. The ability to marry in one’s state is arguably much more meaningful, to those on both sides of the debate, than the recognition of a marriage performed in another jurisdiction. But it is for that very reason that the Court is all the more confident in its ruling today. Being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT to the extent Ky.Rev.Stat. §§ 402.005 and .020(l)(d) and" }, { "docid": "20606177", "title": "", "text": "Louisiana Constitution, the Louisiana Department of Revenue shall not recognize same-sex marriages when determining filing status. If a taxpayer’s federal filing status of married filing jointly, married filing separately or qualifying widow is pursuant to IRS Revenue Ruling 2013-17 [ruling that same-sex couples legally married in states that recognize such marriages will be treated as married for federal tax purposes], the taxpayer must file a separate Louisiana return as single, head of household or qualifying widow, as applicable. The taxpayer(s) who filed a federal return pursuant to IRS Revenue Ruling 2013-17 may not file a Louisiana state income tax return as married filing jointly, married filing separately or qualifying widow. The taxpayer must provide the same federal income tax information on the Louisiana State Return that would have been provided prior to the issuance of Internal Revenue Service Ruling 2013-17. La. Revenue Info. Bulletin No. 13-024 (Sept. 13, 2013). . Plaintiffs have seemingly abandoned their Full Faith and Credit Clause claim. . All federal court decisions post -Windsor have stricken same-sex marriage bans under all three standards. Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 WL 3702493, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 WL 3537847, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 13733 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2014); Brenner v. Scott, 999 F.Supp.2d 1278 (N.D.Fl.2014); Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 14-1817, 2014 WL 3634834, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100894 (D.Colo. July 23, 2014); Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536 (W.D.Ky.2014); Baskin v. Bogan, - F.Supp.3d -, Nos. 14-355, 14-404 & 14-406, 2014 WL 2884868, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86114 (S.D.Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982 (W.D.Wis.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D.Pa.2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128 (D.Or.2014); Latta v. Otter, — F.Supp.3d , No. 13-482, 2014 WL 1909999, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D.Mich.2014); Tanco v. Haslam, 7 F.Supp.3d 759, No. 13-1159, 2014 WL 997525, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463 (M.D.Tenn. March" }, { "docid": "20606185", "title": "", "text": "marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to strict scrutiny.”). Defendants aptly note that it could not be maintained that the states violate a general fundamental right to marry when they restrict marriages between minors, first cousins, or more than two people, for example. In a case such as this, the plaintiffs necessarily assert an interest apart from and beyond the historic and traditional right to many. Even plaintiffs admit that such unions would have unacceptable “significant so- ' cietal harms.” . Defendants point to Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972), in support of the proposition that there is no Supreme Court precedent for a fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex. In Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court summarily rejected \"for want of a substantial federal question” the claim that the Constitution requires a state to authorize same-sex marriage. Defendants point out that Baker was decided five years after Loving. Unlike the defendants in many of the other same-sex marriage cases before other federal courts, however, defendants here do not contend that Baker forecloses this Court’s review or mandates the disposition of this case. See also Merritt v. Attorney Gen., No. 13-215, 2013 WL 6044329, at *2 (M.D.La. Nov. 14, 2013) (citing Baker for the proposition that the Constitution does not require states to permit same-sex marriage). The Court need not enter the differing contentions about the viability of Baker v. Nelson. . This Court is not the first to reach this conclusion, even post-Windsor. See Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536, 544 (W.D.Ky.2014) (\"If the inquiry here is viewed as a contours-of-the-right question, holding that the fundamental right to marry encompasses same-sex marriage would be a dramatic step that the Supreme Court has not yet indicated a willingness to take.”); see also Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 393, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 WL 3702493, at *25, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298, at *92 (4th Cir. July 28," }, { "docid": "20606187", "title": "", "text": "2014) (Niemeyer, J., dissenting)(\"At bottom, the fundamental right to marriage does not include a right to same-sex marriage.”); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, 1113, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 WL 3537847, *35, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 13733, *147-* 148 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014) (Kelly J„ concurring in part and dissenting in part)(\"Removing gender complementarity from the historical definition of marriage is simply contrary to the careful analysis prescribed by the Supreme Court when it comes to substantive due process.”). . Plaintiffs also summarily allege violations of their fundamental rights to remain married and to parental authority, but these claims fail for the same reason. The Court notes, however, that other federal district court opinions post-Windsor have favored same-sex marriages under all standards of review. See, e.g., Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181 (D.Utah 2013), aff'd, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982 (W.D.Wis.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D.Pa.2014). . One case, pre-Windsor but rather close in time, Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F.Supp.2d 996 (D.Nev.2012), from Nevada, stands apart from the decisions descriptively spawned by Windsor and the contests that followed throughout the nation. Plaintiffs say little, if anything, about Sevcik. See also Merritt v. Attorney Gen., No. 13-215, 2013 WL 6044329 (M.D.La. Nov. 14, 2013). . The Tenth Circuit, in a split decision, has recently spoken. Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2014). As has the Fourth Circuit. Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 WL 3702493, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014). . In the words of the Fourth Circuit: “Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security.” Bostic, 760 F.3d at 384, 2014 WL 3702493, at *17, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298, at *67. But see id. at 391, 2014 WL 3702493, at *23, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298, at *86-*87 (Niemeyer, J„ dissenting)(\"To now define the previously recognized fundamental right to ‘marriage’ as a concept that" }, { "docid": "20606181", "title": "", "text": "14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 WL 3702493, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 WL 3537847, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 13733 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2014); Brenner v. Scott, 999 F.Supp.2d 1278 (N.D.Fl.2014); Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 14-1817, 2014 WL 3634834, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100894 (D.Colo. July 23, 2014); Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536 (W.D.Ky.2014); Baskin v. Bogan, - F.Supp.3d -, Nos. 14-355, 14-404 & 14-406, 2014 WL 2884868, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86114 (S.D.Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982 (W.D.Wis.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D.Pa.2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128 (D.Or.2014); Latia v. Otter, -F.Supp.3d-, No. 13-482, 2014 WL 1909999, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D.Mich.2014); Tonco v. Haslam, 7 F.Supp.3d 759, No. 13-1159, 2014 WL 997525, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463 (M.D.Tenn. March 14, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632 (W.D.Tex.2014); Lee v. Orr, No. 13-8719, 2014 WL 683680, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21620 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 21, 2014); McGee v. Cole, 993 F.Supp.2d 639 (S.D.W.Va.2014). But cf. Bishop, 760 F.3d at 1113-14, 2014 WL 3537847, at *35, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 13733, at *148 (Kelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)(\"Absent a fundamental right, traditional rational basis equal protection principles should apply, and apparently as a majority of this panel believes, the Plaintiffs cannot prevail on that basis.”). . This Court does not enter the dispute of which \"science” on this issue is correct. The contentious debate in social science literature about what is “marriage” in today’s world does not drive or inform the Court’s decision. . In his concurrence in the recent case of Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, 1096-1109, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 WL 3537847, *21-30, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 13733, *93-*133 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014), Judge Holmes also declined to agree that state laws limiting same-sex marriage suffer from unconstitutional animus. Judge Holmes, in a very careful opinion, explained that a finding" }, { "docid": "15913619", "title": "", "text": "- F.Supp.2d -, -, 2014 WL 2884868, at *6 (S.D.Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolfv. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982, 991-92, 2014 WL 2558444, at *6 (W.D.Wis.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 1:13-CV-1861, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 420-21, 2014 WL 2058105, at *6 (M.D.Pa. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 6:13-CV-01834-MC, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1133 n. 1, 2014 WL 2054264, at *1 n. 1 (D.Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, 1:13-CV-00482-CWD, - F.Supp.2d -, -, 2014 WL 1909999, at *9 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632, 648-49 (W.D.Tex.2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757, 773 n. 6 (E.D.Mich.2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F.Supp.2d 456, 470 (E.D.Va.2014); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1277 (N.D.Okla.2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1195 (D.Utah 2013). The only post -Windsor case disallowing a challenge to a state ban on same-sex marriage is Merritt v. Attorney Gen., CIV.A. 13-00215-BAJ, 2013 WL 6044329, at *2 (M.D.La. Nov. 14, 2013). The Court does not find Merritt persuasive, as the viability of Baker was not briefed, and the court did not clearly state that it was dismissing on Baker grounds. . Under the inapplicable but analogous canon of constitutional avoidance, courts are instructed to exercise judicial restraint to avoid unnecessarily reaching a question of constitutional law. Cf. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 346-48, 56 S.Ct 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandéis, J. concurring) (listing seven situations in which constitutional avoidance is appropriate). . This Court’s Bourke opinion discussed but did not decide this issue. See - F.Supp.2d at ----, 2014 WL 556729, at *4-5. .Since Windsor, every court to consider these factors has concluded that each applies to homosexual persons. See, e.g., Wolf, 986 F.Supp.2d at 1012-15, 2014 WL 2558444, at *27-29; Whitewood, 992 F.Supp.2d at 426-30, 2014 WL 2058105, at *11-14. .\"Immutability and lack of political power are not strictly necessary factors to identify a suspect class.” Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 181 (2d Cir.2012) (citing City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 442 n. 10, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313" }, { "docid": "15913618", "title": "", "text": "the First Amendment, and (4) the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. . This Court's Bourke analysis was limited in scope to the distribution of state benefits to same-sex couples validly married outside Kentucky. See Bourke v. Beshear, 3:13-CV-750-H, - F.Supp.2d -, -, 2014 WL 556729, at *1 (W.D.Ky. Feb. 12, 2014). Therefore, the precedential value of Baker was not at issue. . In addition, at the oral argument for Windsor's companion case Hollingsworth v. Perry, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013), Justice Ginsburg interrupted counsel's argument that Baker precluded the Court's consideration of the claim by saying: \"Mr. Cooper, Baker v. Nelson was 1971. The Supreme Court hadn’t even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny.” Transcript of Oral Argument at *12, Hollingsworth v. Perry, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) (No. 12-144), available at 2013 WL 1212745. . See, e.g., Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178, 755 F.3d 1193, 1207-08, 2014 WL 2868044, at *10 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, 1:14-CV-00355-RLY-TAB, - F.Supp.2d -, -, 2014 WL 2884868, at *6 (S.D.Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolfv. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982, 991-92, 2014 WL 2558444, at *6 (W.D.Wis.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 1:13-CV-1861, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 420-21, 2014 WL 2058105, at *6 (M.D.Pa. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 6:13-CV-01834-MC, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1133 n. 1, 2014 WL 2054264, at *1 n. 1 (D.Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, 1:13-CV-00482-CWD, - F.Supp.2d -, -, 2014 WL 1909999, at *9 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632, 648-49 (W.D.Tex.2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757, 773 n. 6 (E.D.Mich.2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F.Supp.2d 456, 470 (E.D.Va.2014); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1277 (N.D.Okla.2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1195 (D.Utah 2013). The only post -Windsor case disallowing a challenge to a state ban on same-sex marriage is Merritt v. Attorney Gen., CIV.A. 13-00215-BAJ, 2013 WL 6044329, at *2 (M.D.La. Nov. 14, 2013). The Court does not find Merritt persuasive, as the viability of Baker was not briefed, and" }, { "docid": "19127706", "title": "", "text": "Court’s action in Baker has been described as binding precedent.” (citations omitted)). However, since Windsor was decided, nearly every federal court to have considered the issue — -including the district court below— has ruled that Baker does not control. See Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-cv-64-bbc, 986 F.Supp.2d 982, 988-92, 2014 WL 2558444, at *3-6 (W.D.Wis. June 6, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv-1861, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 418-21, 2014 WL 2058105, at *4-6 (M.D.Pa. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, Nos. 6:13-cv-01834-MC & 6:13-cv-02256-MC, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1133, 2014 WL 2054264, at *1 n. 1 (D.Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13—cv-00482-CWD, - F.Supp.3d -, -, 2014 WL 1909999, at *9 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757, 774 n. 6 (E.D.Mich.2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632, 648-49 (W.D.Tex.2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F.Supp.2d 456, 470 (E.D.Va.2014); McGee v. Cole, No. 3:13-24068, 993 F.Supp.2d 639, 651-52, 2014 WL 321122, at *10 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 29, 2014); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1277 (N.D.Okla.2014); Kitchen, 961 F.Supp.2d at 1195. But see Merritt v. Att’y Gen., No. 13-215-BAJ-SCR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163235, at *2 (M.D.La. Oct. 2, 2013), magistrate judge report adopted by 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162583 (M.D.La. Nov. 13, 2013) (citing Baker as controlling in dismissing pro se complaint, but not considering whether doctrinal developments had undermined Baker). We acknowledge that the question presented in Windsor is not identical to the question before us. DOMA interfered with New York’s decision “that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons,” a decision designed to “correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood.” Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2689. The “State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way,” and “its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community.” Id." }, { "docid": "19646776", "title": "", "text": "J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc) United States District Court Decisions Adams v. Howerton, 486 F.Supp. 1119 (C.D.Cal.1980) Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 290 F.Supp.2d 1004 (Neb.2003) Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 368 F.Supp.2d 980 (Neb.2005) Wilson v. Ake, 354 F.Supp.2d 1298 (M.D.Fla.2005) Smelt v. County of Orange, 374 F.Supp.2d 861 (C.D.Cal.2005) Bishop v. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson, 447 F.Supp.2d 1239 (N.D.Okla.2006) Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, 698 F.Supp.2d 234 (Mass.2010) Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 699 F.Supp.2d 374 (Mass.2010) Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D.Cal.2010) Dragovich v. Department of Treasury, 764 F.Supp.2d 1178 (N.D.Cal.2011) Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D.Cal.2012) Dragovich v. Department of Treasury, 872 F.Supp.2d 944 (N.D.Cal.2012) Windsor v. United States, 833 F.Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y.2012) Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, 881 F.Supp.2d 294 (Conn.2012) Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065 (Haw.2012) Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F.Supp.2d 996 (Nev.2012) Merritt v. Attorney General, 2013 WL 6044329 (M.D.La., Nov. 14, 2013) Gray v. Orr, 4 F.Supp.3d 984 (N.D.Ill.2013) Lee v. Orr, 2013 WL 6490577 (N.D.Ill., Dec. 10, 2013) Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181 (Utah 2013) Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F.Supp.2d 968 (S.D.Ohio 2013) Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252 (N.D.Okla.2014) Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F.Supp.2d 542 (W.D.Ky.2014) Lee v. Orr, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 21, 2014) Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F.Supp.2d 456 (E.D.Va.2014) De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632 (W.D.Tex.2014) Tanco v. Haslam, 7 F.Supp.3d 759 (M.D.Tenn.2014) DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D.Mich.2014) Henry v. Himes, 14 F.Supp.3d 1036 (S.D.Ohio 2014) Latta v. Otter, 19 F.Supp.3d 1054 (Idaho 2014) Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128 (Ore.2014) Evans v. Utah, 21 F.Supp.3d 1192 (Utah 2014) Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D.Pa.2014) Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982 (W.D.Wis.2014) Baskin v. Bogan, 12 F.Supp.3d 1144 (S.D.Ind.2014) Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536 (W.D.Ky.2014) Burns v. Hickenlooper, 2014 WL 3634834 (Colo., July 23, 2014) Bowling v. Pence, 39 F.Supp.3d 1025 (S.D.Ind.2014) Brenner v. Scott, 999 F.Supp.2d 1278 (N.D.Fla.2014) Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F.Supp.3d 910 (E.D.La.2014) General Synod" }, { "docid": "19646778", "title": "", "text": "of the United Church of Christ v. Resinger, 12 F.Supp.3d 790 (W.D.N.C.2014) Hamby v. Parnell, 56 F.Supp.3d 1056 (Alaska 2014) Fisher-Borne v. Smith, 14 F.Supp.3d 695 (M.D.N.C.2014) Majors v. Horne, 14 F.Supp.3d 1313 (Ariz.2014) Connolly v. Jeanes, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 5320642 (Ariz., Oct. 17, 2014) Guzzo v. Mead, 2014 WL 5317797 (Wyo., Oct. 17, 2014) Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, 54 F.Supp.3d 157 (P.R.2014) Marie v. Moser, 65 F.Supp.3d 1175, 2014 WL 5598128 (Kan., Nov. 4, 2014) Lawson v. Kelly, 58 F.Supp.3d 923 (W.D.Mo.2014) McGee v. Cole, 66 F.Supp.3d 747, 2014 WL 5802665 (S.D.W.Va., Nov. 7, 2014) Condon v. Haley, 21 F.Supp.3d 572 (S.C.2014) Bradacs v. Haley, 58 F.Supp.3d 514 (S.C.2014) Rolando v. Fox, 23 F.Supp.3d 1227 (Mont.2014) Jernigan v. Crane, 64 F.Supp.3d 1260, 2014 WL 6685391 (E.D.Ark., Nov. 25, 2014) Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, 64 F.Supp.3d 906, 2014 WL 6680570 (S.D.Miss., Nov. 25, 2014) Inniss v. Aderhold, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL 300593 (N.D.Ga., Jan. 8, 2015) Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, 61 F.Supp.3d 862 (S.D.2015) Caspar v. Snyder, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL 224741 (E.D.Mich., Jan. 15, 2015) Searcey v. Strange, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7776 (S.D.Ala., Jan. 23, 2015) Strawser v. Strange, 44 F.Supp.3d 1206 (S.D.Ala.2015) Waters v. Ricketts, 48 F.Supp.3d 1271 (Neb.2015) State Highest Court Decisions Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971) Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky.1973) Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993) Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C.1995) Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A.2d 864 (1999) Brause v. State, 21 P.3d 357 (Alaska 2001) (ripeness) Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003) In re Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440 Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (2004) Li v. State, 338 Or. 376, 110 P.3d 91 (2005) Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 446 Mass. 350, 844 N.E.2d 623 (2006) Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415, 908 A.2d 196 (2006) Andersen v. King County, 158 Wash.2d 1, 138 P.3d 963 (2006) Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 855 N.E.2d 1" }, { "docid": "10096250", "title": "", "text": "961 F.Supp.2d 1181. . 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an enabling statute that provides individuals with access to remedies for violations of their federal constitutional or statutory rights. . Several of our sister district courts have reached precisely this same conclusion in recently penned opinions. See Latta, - F.Supp.2d -, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417, 2014 WL 1909999; Henry v. Himes, No. 14-129, - F.Supp.2d --, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51211, 2014 WL 1418395 (S.D.Ohio April 14, 2014); De Leon, 975 F.Supp.2d 632; Bostic, 970 F.Supp.2d 456; Kitchen, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181. . We use the terms “heightened scrutiny” and \"intermediate scrutiny” interchangeably to refer to the analysis applicable to laws targeting quasi-suspect classes. . An additional strand of equal protection jurisprudence protects against the infringement of fundamental rights and applies strict scrutiny where the government discriminates among people as to the exercise of such rights. See generally Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles & Policies 691 (4th ed.2011). Based on our discussion supra, determining that Plaintiffs have suffered a deprivation of their fundamental right to marry and be recognized as married, we conclude that strict scrutiny is appropriate under the fundamental rights strand of equal protection jurisprudence. However, we focus our attention on the more typical application of equal protection principles, involving the constitutionality of distinctions among classes. . Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that, when evaluating statutes categorizing on the basis of sexual orientation, “[tjhis Court should apply at least the intermediate scrutiny applied to quasi-suspect classifications ....” (Doc. 114, p. 50). Interpreting that Plaintiffs’ arguments largely advocate for the application of intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, we, too, confine our analysis to the appropriateness of heightened scrutiny. As an additional, alternative argument, Plaintiffs also contend that the Marriage Laws impose sex-based classifications and, on this ground, are subject to intermediate scrutiny. We find this characterization less compelling, observing, as a practical matter, that \"the intentional discrimination occurring in this case has nothing to do with gender-based prejudice or stereotypes[.]” Bishop, 962 F.Supp.2d at 1286; see In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384, 439 (2008)" }, { "docid": "10096251", "title": "", "text": "and be recognized as married, we conclude that strict scrutiny is appropriate under the fundamental rights strand of equal protection jurisprudence. However, we focus our attention on the more typical application of equal protection principles, involving the constitutionality of distinctions among classes. . Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that, when evaluating statutes categorizing on the basis of sexual orientation, “[tjhis Court should apply at least the intermediate scrutiny applied to quasi-suspect classifications ....” (Doc. 114, p. 50). Interpreting that Plaintiffs’ arguments largely advocate for the application of intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, we, too, confine our analysis to the appropriateness of heightened scrutiny. As an additional, alternative argument, Plaintiffs also contend that the Marriage Laws impose sex-based classifications and, on this ground, are subject to intermediate scrutiny. We find this characterization less compelling, observing, as a practical matter, that \"the intentional discrimination occurring in this case has nothing to do with gender-based prejudice or stereotypes[.]” Bishop, 962 F.Supp.2d at 1286; see In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384, 439 (2008) (\"[DJiscrimination on the basis of sex[ ] and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ... traditionally have been viewed as distinct phenomena.”). . See, e.g., SmithKline, 740 F.3d at 483-84; Windsor, 699 F.3d at 185; Latta, - F.Supp.2d at -, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417, at *22, 2014 WL 1909999, at *7; Henry, - F.Supp.2d at -, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51211, at *46-51, 2014 WL 1418395, at *15-17; De Leon, 975 F.Supp.2d at 651-53, 2014 WL 715741, at *13-14, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *39; Obergefell, 962 F.Supp.2d at 991; Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 824 F.Supp.2d 968, 989-90 (N.D.Cal.2012); Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 881 F.Supp.2d 294, 333 (D.Conn. 2012); Perry, 704 F.Supp.2d at 997; In re Balas, 449 B.R. 567, 575 (Bankr.C.D.Cal. 2011) (decision of 20 Bankruptcy ludges); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 895-96 (Iowa 2009); In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal. Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d at 444; Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Pub. Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407, 475-76 (2008). . See San Antonio" }, { "docid": "19127705", "title": "", "text": "concluded that “doctrinal developments” had superseded Baker. Kitchen, 961 F.Supp.2d at 1194-95. We agree. Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person ... can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003). The decision in Baker also pre-dates the Court’s opinion in Windsor. Several courts held prior to Windsor that Baker controlled the same-sex marriage question. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.2012) (“Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”); Donaldson v. State, 367 Mont. 228, 292 P.3d 364, 371 n. 5 (2012) (“The U.S. Supreme Court’s action in Baker has been described as binding precedent.” (citations omitted)). However, since Windsor was decided, nearly every federal court to have considered the issue — -including the district court below— has ruled that Baker does not control. See Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-cv-64-bbc, 986 F.Supp.2d 982, 988-92, 2014 WL 2558444, at *3-6 (W.D.Wis. June 6, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv-1861, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 418-21, 2014 WL 2058105, at *4-6 (M.D.Pa. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, Nos. 6:13-cv-01834-MC & 6:13-cv-02256-MC, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1133, 2014 WL 2054264, at *1 n. 1 (D.Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13—cv-00482-CWD, - F.Supp.3d -, -, 2014 WL 1909999, at *9 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757, 774 n. 6 (E.D.Mich.2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632, 648-49 (W.D.Tex.2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F.Supp.2d 456, 470 (E.D.Va.2014); McGee v. Cole, No. 3:13-24068, 993 F.Supp.2d 639, 651-52, 2014 WL 321122, at *10 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 29, 2014); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1277 (N.D.Okla.2014); Kitchen, 961" }, { "docid": "12219439", "title": "", "text": "status as binding precedent. Bostic, 970 F.Supp.2d at 469-70. Every federal court to consider this issue since the Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013), has reached the same conclusion. See Bishop v. Smith, Nos. 14-5003, 14-5006, 760 F.3d 1070, 1078-81, 2014 WL 3537847, at *6-7 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178, 755 F.3d 1193, 1204-08, 2014 WL 2868044, at *7-10 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014); Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536, 540-43, 2014 WL 2957671, at *2-3 (W.D.Ky.2014); Baskin v. Bogan, Nos. 1:14-cv-00355-RLY-TAB, 1: 14-CV-00404-RLY-TAB, — F.Supp.2d -, -, 2014 WL 2884868, at *4-6 (S.D.Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982, 989-91 (W.D.Wis.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv-1861, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 419-21, 2014 WL 2058105, at *5-6 (M.D.Pa. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, Nos. 6:13-cv-01834-MC, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1132-34 n. 1, 6:13-cv-02256-MC, 2014 WL 2054264, at *1 n. 1 (D.Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, No. 1: 13-cv-00482-CWD, — F.Supp.2d -, -, 2014 WL 1909999, at *8-9 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757, 773 n. 6 (E.D.Mich.2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632, 647-49 (W.D.Tex.2014); McGee v. Cole, No. 3:13-24068, 993 F.Supp.2d 639, 649-52, 2014 WL 321122, at *8-10 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 29, 2014). Windsor concerned whether section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) contravened the Constitution’s due process and equal protection guarantees. Section 3 defined “marriage” and “spouse” as excluding same-sex couples when those terms appeared in federal statutes, regulations, and directives, rendering legally married same-sex couples ineligible for myriad federal benefits. 133 S.Ct. at 2683, 2694. When it decided the case be low, the Second Circuit concluded that Baker was no longer precedential, Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 178-79 (2d Cir.2012), over the dissent’s vigorous arguments to the contrary, see id. at 192-95 (Straub, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part). Despite this dispute, the Supreme Court did not discuss Baker in its opinion or during oral argument. The Supreme Court’s willingness to decide Windsor without mentioning Baker" }, { "docid": "20606180", "title": "", "text": "distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their ‘historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,'... may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.”). . This Court is not persuaded by the Ninth Circuit's decision to the contrary in Smith-Kline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir.2014). Even less explicit regarding the appropriate standard of review are the split decisions in the Tenth and Fourth Circuits. See Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 WL 3702493, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 WL 3537847, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 13733 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2014). . The Court acknowledges that its decision runs counter to all but two other federal court decisions. See Merritt v. Attorney Gen., No. 13-215, 2013 WL 6044329 (M.D.La. Nov. 14, 2013); Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F.Supp.2d 996 (D.Nev.2012). But see Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 WL 3702493, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 14298 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 WL 3537847, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 13733 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.2014); Brenner v. Scott, 999 F.Supp.2d 1278 (N.D.Fl.2014); Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 14-1817, 2014 WL 3634834, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100894 (D.Colo. July 23, 2014); Love v. Beshear, 989 F.Supp.2d 536 (W.D.Ky.2014); Baskin v. Bogan, - F.Supp.3d -, Nos. 14-355, 14-404 & 14-406, 2014 WL 2884868, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86114 (S.D.Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982 (W.D.Wis.2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D.Pa.2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128 (D.Or.2014); Latia v. Otter, -F.Supp.3d-, No. 13-482, 2014 WL 1909999, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D.Mich.2014); Tonco v. Haslam, 7 F.Supp.3d 759, No. 13-1159, 2014 WL 997525, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463 (M.D.Tenn. March 14, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632 (W.D.Tex.2014); Lee v." }, { "docid": "15913612", "title": "", "text": "-, 2014 WL 2884868, at *13 (S.D.Ind. June 25, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 6:13-CV-01834-MC, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1145-46, 2014 WL 2054264, at *13 (D.Or. May 19, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757, 764-65 (E.D.Mich.2014); Bishop, 962 F.Supp.2d at 1291; Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1211-12 (D.Utah 2013). In sum, the laws challenged here violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and do not further any conceivable legitimate governmental purpose. Therefore, Kentucky’s laws cannot withstand rational basis review. V. In Bourke, this Court devoted considerable thought and effort to addressing the sincere questions and concerns of Kentuckians about the recognition of same-sex .marriage. See — F.Supp.2d at --, 2014 WL 556729, at *10-12. All those comments are equally true today. Not surprisingly, the Bourke opinion received significant attention and response, both in support and in-opposition. Those opposed by and large simply -believe that the state has the right to adopt a particular religious or traditional view of marriage regardless of how it may affect gay and lesbian persons. But, as this Court has respectfully explained, in America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted. On the other side, many responses reinforced in very personal ways how unconstitutional discrimination harms individuals and families to their very core. These responses reinforce the notion that invalidating Kentucky’s laws validates the enduring relationships of same-sex couples in the same way that opposite-sex couples’ relationships are validated. Since this Court’s Bourke opinion, the legal landscape of same-sex marriage rights across the country has evolved considerably, with eight additional federal district courts and one circuit court invalidating state constitutional provisions and statutes that denied same-sex couples the right to marry. See Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178, 755 F.3d 1193, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014); Baskin, — F.Supp.2d -, 2014 WL 2884868; Wolf, 986 F.Supp.2d 982; Whitewood, 992 F.Supp.2d 410, 2014 WL 2058105; Geiger, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 2014 WL 2054264; Latta v. Otter, 1:13-CV-00482-CWD, — F.Supp.2d -, 2014 WL 1909999 (D.Idaho May 13, 2014); De Leon, 975 F.Supp.2d 632; DeBoer, 973 F.Supp.2d 757;" }, { "docid": "15913617", "title": "", "text": "provisions is: 402.005: As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, \"marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. 402.020(1): Marriage is prohibited and void: (d) Between members of the same sex. 402.040(2): A marriage between members of the same sex is against Kentucky public policy and shall be subject to the prohibitions established in KRS 402.045. 402.045: (1) A marriage between members of the same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction shall be void in Kentucky. (2) Any rights granted by virtue of the marriage, or its termination, shall be unenforceable in Kentucky courts. KY.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 402.005-.045 (West 2014). . Plaintiffs also allege that Kentucky’s laws violate (1) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, (3) freedom of association as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and (4) the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. . This Court's Bourke analysis was limited in scope to the distribution of state benefits to same-sex couples validly married outside Kentucky. See Bourke v. Beshear, 3:13-CV-750-H, - F.Supp.2d -, -, 2014 WL 556729, at *1 (W.D.Ky. Feb. 12, 2014). Therefore, the precedential value of Baker was not at issue. . In addition, at the oral argument for Windsor's companion case Hollingsworth v. Perry, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013), Justice Ginsburg interrupted counsel's argument that Baker precluded the Court's consideration of the claim by saying: \"Mr. Cooper, Baker v. Nelson was 1971. The Supreme Court hadn’t even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny.” Transcript of Oral Argument at *12, Hollingsworth v. Perry, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) (No. 12-144), available at 2013 WL 1212745. . See, e.g., Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178, 755 F.3d 1193, 1207-08, 2014 WL 2868044, at *10 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, 1:14-CV-00355-RLY-TAB," } ]

[ { "docid": "1102765", "title": "", "text": "Bankruptcy Law in Practice, § 253 (1978). Brown at 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n. 10; See, Cell v. Barrow (In re Barrow), 87 B.R. 879 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1988). Fortunately for this Court, Judge Bihary, in In re Brownley, supra, and Chief Judge Martin in Molldrem v. Wagner (In re Wagner), 79 B.R. 1016 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1987), have charted a course through the judicial maze. This decision will not plough over old fertile fields done so ably by these judges, but will seek to more definitively describe the approach to be taken in deciding whether collateral estoppel should be applied. In any consideration of collateral estoppel where there is a state court judgment, the initial inquiry must focus on Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which requires this federal court to give full faith and credit to judicial proceedings of any state court. From there the inquiry goes to the Supreme Court decision in Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985). As provided by the statute and the Marrese decision, federal courts, when considering the application of collateral estop- pel to state court judgments, are required to initially determine whether state law would allow the judgment to have an issue preclusion effect. If the answer is “yes”, then the federal court must determine if there is an exception to the full faith and credit standard established by Title 28 U.S. C. § 1738, i.e., would federal law preempt the state law. It is to be noted that unless there is a federal court adjudication, the federal standard of collateral estoppel does not apply. In the case at bar, this Court must look to California law to determine that state’s criteria regarding the use of the stipulated final judgment to collaterally estop subsequent litigation. Marrese, supra at 386, 105 S.Ct. at 1334-35; Wagner, supra at 1019. Ferrill, The Preclusive Effect of State Court Decisions in Bankruptcy, (Second Installment), 55 American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 55, 68 (1985). The second part of the Marrese analysis requires a determination of whether Congress has intended federal law to" } ]

[ { "docid": "23680154", "title": "", "text": "findings to meet the federal test of non-dischargeability and allow the bankruptcy court to discern from the record the subsidiary facts upon which is based the asserted non-dischargeability of the debt in issue. Matter of Poston, 735 F.2d 866 (5th Cir.1984); Matter of Allman, 735 F.2d 863 (5th Cir.1984); Carey Lumber Co. v. Bell, 615 F.2d 370 (5th Cir.1980); surveyed in Pronske Bankruptcy, 17 Tex.Tech.L.Rev. 448 (1986). The “identical standards” requirement of the language quoted from Brown, supra, is critical to the analysis of the case at bar. The vast majority of bankruptcy courts have held that, to warrant denial of a discharge under 11 U.S.C. sec. 523, the evidence must be “clear and convincing”. See, Ferriell, The Preclusive Effect of State Court Decisions in Bankruptcy, (First Installment) 58 Am.Bankr.L.J. 349, 362 (1984). The “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard has been described by the United States Supreme Court as an intermediate standard, between a preponderance of the evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt; requiring of the unbiased trier of fact a firm belief or conviction in the truth of the matters allegedly shown by the evidence. Oriel v. Russell, 278 U.S. 358, 49 S.Ct. 173, 73 L.Ed. 419 (1929). Several bankruptcy courts have held that collateral estoppel would not apply to judicial determinations when the evidentiary standard applied was that of a preponderance of the evidence rather than the clear and convincing standard employed in discharge-ability determinations. See e.g., In re D'Annolfo, 54 B.R. 887 (Bankr.D.Mass.1985); Matter of Schwartz, 44 B.R. 266 (Bankr.D.Minn.1984); In re Huriash, 26 B.R. 372 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1982); In re Iannelli, 12 B.R. 561 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1981). Consistent with the Texas law regarding submission of issues to a jury, the issues in the prior proceeding were submitted to the jury on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence. Issues of fact determined by a jury in civil proceedings in Texas are uniformly decided on the evidentiary standard of a “preponderance of the evidence”. Sanders v. Harder, 148 Tex. 593, 227 S.W.2d 206 (1950). Even in cases where the required evidentiary standard is the more exacting standard of “clear" }, { "docid": "4787813", "title": "", "text": "the Bankruptcy Court must carefully review the record in the prior case and hold a hearing at which the parties have an opportunity to present evidence to determine whether these standards have been met. This test is similar to the one set out in Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982). There are minor differences in this federal test among the various circuits, but the Ross criteria appears to be the most frequently utilized. See, e.g., Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224 (6th Cir.1981); In re Carothers, 22 B.R. 114, 119 (Bankr.D.Minn.1982); United States Life Title Ins. Co. v. Dohm, 19 B.R. 134, 137 (N.D.Ill.1982); In re Supple, 14 B.R. 898, 899 (Bankr.D.Conn.1981). The most difficult part of the test is the “identity of issue” requirement, as the Court in In re Supple stated: [a] bankruptcy court cannot give collateral estoppel effect to a prior state court adjudication if the issue before the bankruptcy court differs from the issue which was before the state court. The standards employed by the state court in reaching its decision must comport with federal standards. To insure such an identity of standards, a bankruptcy court must scrutinize the entire record of the state court proceedings. Id. at 904. It should also be noted that the party seeking to assert collateral estoppel has the burden of proving all the requisites for its application. Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224, 229, supra, In re Spector, 22 B.R. 226, 231 (N.D.N.Y.1982). Any reasonable doubt as to what should be decided should be resolved against using it as estoppel. Id. The Seventh Circuit has not addressed the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bankruptcy cases as it relates to the issue preclusion effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent nondis-chargeability proceeding as of the date of this opinion. There are numerous difficulties in giving the findings of fact of a state court judgment issue preclusive effect in a bankruptcy court dischargeability proceeding. First, the standard of proof may be different. The bankruptcy courts generally, including this Court, require that the plaintiffs prove his case" }, { "docid": "16838823", "title": "", "text": "establish the fraud required by § 523(a)(2)(A) is entirely dependent on the contents of the individual record. In Trewyn, for example, submission of a copy of the judgment alone was insufficient to bar discharge because the judgment provided only minimal evidence without revealing the factual basis for the circuit court’s conclusions. Although plaintiff has apparently submitted the complete record of the Illinois case, its contents include only pleadings, judgment, and judgment following prove up. This record is too sparse to establish the required elements. The Illinois court documents establish no basis for the judgment other than defendant’s default and provide no findings of fact to evaluate the elements of fraud required to bar discharge. Plaintiff alleges that the award of attorney’s fees under the fraud count of its state court complaint is sufficient to establish that the judgment was based on fraud. For this contention to be sustained, plaintiff must prove that the standard for establishing fraud to obtain attorney’s fees was determined by a standard equivalent to the elements required to bar a discharge in bankruptcy. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 139, n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979). Where the standard of proof in the prior proceeding differs from that required in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court may not give collateral estoppel effect to the earlier judgment. In Re Iannelli, 12 B.R. 561, 564 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1981). Plaintiff introduced no evidence to prove similarity of standards. The complaint by itself is insufficient to show the standard actually used by the Illinois judge. On a motion for summary judgment, the allegations of a complaint cannot be used or accepted as proof of the facts therein alleged. 73 Am. Jur.2d Summary Judgment § 16 (1974). Finally, for collateral estoppel to be effective the issue to be precluded must have been actually litigated in the prior proceeding. In Re Supple, 14 B.R. 898, 903 (Bkrtcy.D.Conn.1981). Both Houtman and Trewyn involved judgments rendered after a trial on the issues. Where the prior judgment was procured by default, the relevant issue has not been actually litigated. In Re Iannelli, supra. Zeunert’s argument" }, { "docid": "14747333", "title": "", "text": "81. Norman appeals that judgment on various grounds, which we consider seriatim. 1. Non-dischargeability and the use of collateral estoppel Appellant’s principal contention is that fraud and defalcation were not issues actually litigated in the state court proceeding, which was limited solely to determining if a dissolution and accounting of the brothers’ partnership interests were warranted. Thus, it is posited, collateral estoppel improperly was invoked. We disagree. The Supreme Court has noted that “[i]f, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17 [of the Bankruptcy Act, the precursor to section 523 of the current Bankruptcy Code], then collateral estoppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court.” Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2213 n. 10, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) (dictum). Notwithstanding the Felsen dictum, some courts have placed limitations on the use of collateral estoppel in the context of section 523(a)(4). We, however, agree with and adopt the precedent cited by the bankruptcy court in its decision and find that, consistent with the Felsen dictum, collateral estoppel is applicable in the context of a section 523(a)(4) determination. Stone, 90 B.R. at 74-75. Thus, invocation of collateral estoppel in such circumstances will be appropriate when issues before the bankruptcy court are the same as issues actually and necessarily litigated in a prior proceeding that have been determined by a final judgment. MA & M Inc. v. Supple (In re Supple), 14 B.R. 898, 903-04 & n. 7 (Bankr.D.Conn.1981) (and cases collected therein). Here, had the bankruptcy court’s holding rested solely on the question of fraud, appellant’s argument on appeal might derive firmer support. One need not engage in fraud to be found in breach of a fiduciary duty, and it might be argued that any findings of fraud by the state court were neither necessary to nor a part of the court's determination that appellant had breached his fiduciary duties as a partner. We need not reach that issue, however," }, { "docid": "18734524", "title": "", "text": "in a prior state court suit, stating: If, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17, then collateral es-toppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court, (emphasis added) Id. at 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n. 10. The issue reserved is the one before this court. Review of case law shows that since Brown v. Felsen, lower courts have split on the collateral estoppel issue. Some courts have given full issue preclusion effect to prior state court judgments. See e.g. Matter of Ross, 602 F.2d 604 (3rd Cir.1979); Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224, 227-28 (6th Cir.1981); In re Pitner, 696 F.2d 447 (6th Cir.1982); Schwartz v. Ren ville Farmers Co-Op Credit Union, 44 B.R. 266 (DC Minn.1984); In re Mueller, 34 B.R. 869 (Bkrtcy.D.C.Colo.1983). These courts point to the foregoing language in Brown v. Felsen, and hold that there is no reason to relitigate issues that were necessary to the outcome of the state court suit since the parties had every incentive to litigate vigorously before state courts which are as capable and fair as bankruptcy courts. Thus, while the bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction to draw the legal conclusion that a debt is nondis-chargeable by applying the bankruptcy statute to the facts, there is no reason to relitigate the facts. See In re Mueller, 34 B.R. at 871, citing Spilman v. Harley, supra. Additional arguments in favor of issue preclusion include encouraging reliance on judicial decisions, barring vexatious litigation, and considerations of judicial economy. There is no question that careful use of the doctrine of collateral estoppel can help free judicial resources for the resolution of other disputes. See Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. at 131, 99 S.Ct. at 2209; Vestal, Rationale of Preclusion, 9 St. Louis U.L.J. 29 (1964); Ferriell at 350. However, other courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit, take the view that Congress granted exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy dischargeability issues to bankruptcy courts and therefore the use of collateral" }, { "docid": "4706986", "title": "", "text": "the right to proceed with his case, if the motion were not granted. DISCUSSION The issue as to the effect to be given a prior judgment in a state court in a subse quent dischargeability proceeding was exhaustively examined in Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979). That case establishes that in determining whether a debt previously reduced to judgment is discharged in bankruptcy, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable and does not bar reexamination of the issues previously decided. Left open by the Supreme Court was the scope to be given the companion doctrine of collateral estoppel, or what the Restatement of Judgments (2d) terms “issue preclusion.” With reference to that doctrine, the Supreme Court said in a significant footnote: “Whereas res judicata forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously, collateral estoppel treats as final only those questions actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit. If, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17, then collateral estoppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court.” (Footnotes omitted.) 442 U.S. at 139 n.10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n.10. There are significant differences of opinion respecting precisely what these words signify, but it is not necessary to resolve these difficult questions in this case because a default judgment, like the one here involved, does not give rise to collateral estoppel. Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224, 228 (6th Cir. 1981); Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Hale, 618 F.2d 143, 145-46 (1st Cir. 1980); Matter of McMillan, 579 F.2d 289, 293 (3d Cir. 1978); In re McKenna, 4 B.R. 160,162 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1980); In re Iannelli, 12 B.R. 561 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. 1981). This is because the “relevant issue [must have been] actually litigated and determined in the prior” proceeding. Trans-World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51, 58 (2d Cir. 1971) (quoting Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 326, 75 S.Ct. 865, 867, 99 L.Ed. 1122 (1955)). Discussing issue" }, { "docid": "18758138", "title": "", "text": "(In re Wade), 26 B.R. 477 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1983). Plaintiffs, however, contend that the Florida State Court judgment necessitates a finding by this Court that the debt is nondischargeable. Whether a prior State Court judgment may be used in a dischargeability proceeding to establish facts by collateral estoppel has been addressed in several bankruptcy decisions. See, e.g., Berkfield v. Goodman (In re Goodman), 25 B.R. 932 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ill.1982); Harb v. Toscano (In re Toscano), 23 B.R. 736 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass.1982); North Central Wool Marketing Corp. v. Carothers (In re Carothers), 9 B.C.D. 680, 22 B.R. 114 (Bkrtcy.D.Minn.1982); Revelle Motors, Inc. v. Spector (In re Spector), 22 B.R. 226 (Bkrtcy.N.D.N.Y.1982); Manning v. Iannelli (In re Iannelli), 12 B.R. 561 (Bkrtcy. S.D.N.Y.1981); First National Bank v. Grainger (In re Grainger), 20 B.R. 7 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C.1981); Long v. Trewyn (In re Trewyn), 12 B.R. 543 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Wis. 1981); also see Millhiser, Thomas McN. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel in Bankruptcy Discharge Proceedings. 37 W & L L.Rev. 281 (1980). Collateral estoppel applies when: 1. the issue sought to be precluded is the same as that involved in the prior action; 2. the issue has been actually litigated; 3. the issue has been determined by a valid and final judgment; and 4. the determination was essential to the final judgment. Carothers, 22 B.R. at 119; Ianelli, 12 B.R. at 563; Millhiser, at 282-3. Although the issue in Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) involved res judicata and the effect of a prior state court judgment in an action for denial of discharge, the court addressed the collateral estoppel issue, stating that “[i]f in the course of adjudicating a state law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17, then collateral estop-pel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court.” (emphasis added). Id. at 139 N. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 N. 10. Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act is the predecessor of § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. This identity of standards test has not been" }, { "docid": "14635294", "title": "", "text": "than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (Supp.1984). In nondis-chargeability proceedings, in order for the court to give collateral estoppel effect to findings by a state court, “all the relevant issues in the subsequent proceeding must have been actually litigated and determined in the prior proceeding.” In re Longo, 37 B.R. 900, 901 (Bankr.D.Mass.1984). “Collateral estoppel or “issue preclusion” prevents parties from relitigating only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in a prior proceeding.” J. Ferriell, The Preclusive Effect of State Court Decisions in Bankruptcy, 58 Am.Bankr.L.J. 349, 350 (1984) (hereinafter referred to as “Ferried”). Where a creditor has obtained a judgment against a debtor in a lawsuit prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court, faced with the creditor’s action for a nondischargeability under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, must determine what effect should be given to the prior litigation. Although the doctrine of res judicata has no place in nondischargeability proceedings because of the bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction to determine nondischargeability, Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979), the principles of collateral estoppel can apply in nondischargeability cases so that issues that have been fully litigated in a prior state proceeding need not be relitigated. Id. at 140 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n. 10. An issue previously determined may not be relitigated where the following elements are satisfied: the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that in the prior action; the issue must have been actually litigated; the issue must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and, the determination must have been essential to the judgment. In re Ross, 602 F.2d 604, 608 (3d Cir.1979). Whether the standards employed in the state action were the same as those to be utilized under § 523 requires an inquiry into state law. In re Greenblatt, 8 B.R. 994 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1981). “In many cases, differences between state law upon which the prior judgment was based and the federal standards for nondischargeability will make it improper to give the" }, { "docid": "4636648", "title": "", "text": "in this federal test among the various circuits, but the Ross criteria appears to be the most frequently utilized. See, e.g., Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224 (6th Cir.1981); In re Carothers, 22 B.R. 114,119 (Bankr.D.Minn.1982); United States Life Title. Ins. Co. v. Dohm, 19 B.R. 134, 137 (N.D.Ill.1982); In re Supple, 14 B.R. 898, 899 (Bankr.D.Conn.1981). The most difficult part of the test is the “identity of issue” requirement, as the Court in In re Supple stated: [a] bankruptcy court cannot give collateral estoppel effect to- a prior state court adjudication if the issue before the bankruptcy court differs from the issue which was before the, state court. The standards employed by the state court in reaching its decision must comport with federal standards. To insure such an identity of standards, a bankruptcy court must scrutinize the entire record of the state court proceedings. Id. at 904. It should also be noted that the party seeking to assert collateral estoppel has the burden of proving all the requisites for its application. Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224, 229, supra, In re Spector, 22 B.R. 226, 231 (N.D.N.Y.1982). Any reasonable doubt as to what should be decided should be resolved against using it as es-toppel. Id. The Seventh Circuit has not addressed the application of the doctrine of issue preclusion to bankruptcy cases as it relates to the issue preclusion effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent nondischarge-ability proceeding as of the date of this opinion. There are numerous difficulties in giving the finding of fact of a state court judgment issue preclusive effect in a bankruptcy court dischargeability proceeding. First, the standard of proof may be different. The bankruptcy courts generally, including this Court, require that the plaintiffs prove his case by clear and convincing evidence when asserting a debt is not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4) and (6). See, In re Kimzey, 761 F.2d 421, 423 (7th Cir.1985) where the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a party objecting to dischargeability based on fraud must establish each element of the claim by" }, { "docid": "18758139", "title": "", "text": "that involved in the prior action; 2. the issue has been actually litigated; 3. the issue has been determined by a valid and final judgment; and 4. the determination was essential to the final judgment. Carothers, 22 B.R. at 119; Ianelli, 12 B.R. at 563; Millhiser, at 282-3. Although the issue in Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) involved res judicata and the effect of a prior state court judgment in an action for denial of discharge, the court addressed the collateral estoppel issue, stating that “[i]f in the course of adjudicating a state law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17, then collateral estop-pel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court.” (emphasis added). Id. at 139 N. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 N. 10. Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act is the predecessor of § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. This identity of standards test has not been met in the instant proceeding. The elements of fraud in a proceeding, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), to determine the dischargeability of a debt are comparable to the elements of common law fraud in the State of Florida; however, the standard of proof in a proceeding to determine, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the discharge-ability of a debt differs from the standard of proof in a fraud case under the common law of the State of Florida. The rationale of Brown with its identity of standards test has been widely applied to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) cases. See e.g., In re Goodman, 25 B.R. at 938; In re Spector, 22 B.R. at 231; In re Supple, 14 B.R. 898 (Bkrtcy.D.Conn.1981). In Brown, the United States Supreme Court held that “the bankruptcy court is not confined to a review of the judgment and record in the prior state court proceeding when considering the dischargeability of [a] debt.” See id. at 138-39, 99 S.Ct. at 2212-13. A. This court has held that all nine common law elements" }, { "docid": "4636647", "title": "", "text": "installment, 58 Amer. Bankr.LJ. 349, 357 (1985). The general test most frequently applied by the bankruptcy courts is found in In re Ross, 602 F.2d 604, 5 BCD 700 (3rd Cir.1979). Ross sets out a four point test before the doctrine of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel can bar the relitigation of a dischargeability issue. This test is as follows: 1. The issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that in the prior action; 2. The issue must have been actually litigated; 3. The issue must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and 4. The determination must have been essential to the judgment. Id. 602 F.2d at 608. The Court in Ross held that the Bankruptcy Court must carefully review the record in the prior case and hold a hearing at which the parties have an opportunity to present evidence to determine whether these standards have been met. This test is similar to the one set out in Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982). There are minor differences in this federal test among the various circuits, but the Ross criteria appears to be the most frequently utilized. See, e.g., Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224 (6th Cir.1981); In re Carothers, 22 B.R. 114,119 (Bankr.D.Minn.1982); United States Life Title. Ins. Co. v. Dohm, 19 B.R. 134, 137 (N.D.Ill.1982); In re Supple, 14 B.R. 898, 899 (Bankr.D.Conn.1981). The most difficult part of the test is the “identity of issue” requirement, as the Court in In re Supple stated: [a] bankruptcy court cannot give collateral estoppel effect to- a prior state court adjudication if the issue before the bankruptcy court differs from the issue which was before the, state court. The standards employed by the state court in reaching its decision must comport with federal standards. To insure such an identity of standards, a bankruptcy court must scrutinize the entire record of the state court proceedings. Id. at 904. It should also be noted that the party seeking to assert collateral estoppel has the burden of proving all the requisites for its application. Spilman v. Harley," }, { "docid": "16761571", "title": "", "text": "Court in In re Supple stated: [a] bankruptcy court cannot give collateral estoppel effect to a prior state court adjudication if the issue before the bankruptcy court differs from the issue which was before the state court. The standards employed by the state court in reaching its decision must comport with federal standards. To insure such an identity of standards, a bankruptcy court must scrutinize the entire record of the state court proceedings. Id. at 904. It should also be noted that the party seeking to assert collateral estoppel has the burden of proving all the requisites for its application. Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224, 229, supra; In re Spector, 22 B.R. 226, 231 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1982). Any reasonable doubt as to what should be decided should be resolved against using it as estoppel. Id. In the specific context of a nondis-chargeability proceeding in the bankruptcy court in order to give collateral estop-pel effect to a prior state court judgment, the bankruptcy court must first determine if all of the elements of collateral estoppel as established by applicable state law have been met. Id. 120 B.R. at 972-976. (Emphasis supplied). Subsequent to this Court’s decision in In re Diaz, the Supreme Court in Grogan v. Garner; — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 654, n. 11, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991) stated as follows: 11. Our prior cases have suggested, but have not formally held, that the principles of collateral estoppel apply in bankruptcy proceedings under the current Bankruptcy Code. See e.g., Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 48 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 353, 360, n. 8, 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986); Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. at 139, n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213, n. 10. Cf. Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 736, 66 S.Ct. 853, 857, 90 L.Ed. 970 (1946) (applying collateral es-toppel under an earlier version of the bankruptcy laws). Virtually every court of appeals has concluded that collateral estoppel is applicable in discharge exception proceedings. See, In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621, 630 (CA 3 1990); Combs v. Richardson, 838 F.2d 112, 115 (CA 4 1988); Klingman v. Levinson, 831" }, { "docid": "14635296", "title": "", "text": "state judgment any preclu-sive effect. However, where the bankruptcy court is satisfied that the issues resolved in the previous trial are the same as those raised in the dischargeability hearing, issue preclusion may be permitted.” Ferriell, 58 Am.Bankr.L.J., supra at 360. Where a state court jury has rendered a judgment against a debtor for fraud and breach of trust which presents the same elements of proof which must be- established by the creditor under § 523 (a)(2)(A), summary judgment on the creditors’ nondischarge-ability action is appropriate. In re Greenblatt, 8 B.R. 994, 997 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1981). However, if the standard of proof used by the state court was less burdensome than the standard of proof required to be met in nondischargeability proceedings, collateral estoppel effect cannot be given to the state court judgment. Ferriell, 58 Am.Bankr.L.J., supra, at 362-63. Thus if the state judgment relied upon was based on a finding of fraud by the preponderance of the evidence, issue preclusion is not possible where the bankruptcy court requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. Ferriell, 58 Am.Bankr.L.J., supra, at 363. The overwhelming majority of courts (including this court) requires proof of the fraud by clear and convincing evidence in nondischargeability proceedings under § 523(a)(2)(A). E.g., In re Kimzey, 761 F.2d 421 (7th Cir.1985); In re Wade, 43 B.R. 976 (Bankr.D.Colo.1984); In re Labuda, 37 B.R. 47 (Bankr.D.Fla.); In re Kirst, 37 B.R. 275 (Bankr.D.Tenn.1982); In re Toscano, 23 B.R. 736 (Bankr.D.Mass.1982); In re Aldrich, 16 B.R. 825 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.1982). A few bankruptcy courts have employed a preponderance of the evidence test. In re Baiata, 12 B.R. 813 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1981); In re Raimos, 8 B.R. 490 (Bankr.D.Wisc.1981). Under the former Bankruptcy Act, fraud within the dis-chargeability exception of § 17a(2) had to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The legislative history to § 523(a)(2) of the Code confirms that the quantum of proof requires clear and convincing evidence of fraud. L. King, 3 Collier On Bankruptcy, ¶ 523.09, at 523-54 (15th ed. Sup.1984). I disagree with the plaintiff’s assertion that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies in fraud nondischargeability cases. In re" }, { "docid": "2619392", "title": "", "text": "1064, 1067, 5 B.C.D. 253, Bankr.L.Rep. (CCH) 1167, 126 (5th Cir.1979). Collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of the same issue between the same parties in different proceedings. See In re Goodman, 25 B.R. 932, 935 n. 4 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1982). Collateral estoppel requires that the precise issue in the later proceeding was raised in the prior proceeding, that the issue was actually litigated, and that the determination was necessary to the outcome. Matter of Lombard, 739 F.2d 499, 502, Bankr.L.Rep. (CCH) II 69,952 (10th Cir.1984); Spilman v. Hasley, supra, 656 F.2d at 228; Matter of Merrill, supra, 594 F.2d at 1067; In re Ross, 602 F.2d 604, 608, 5 B.C.D. 700 (3rd Cir.1979); In re Marks, 40 B.R. 614, 617 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C.1984); In re Mueller, 34 B.R. 869, 9 C.B.C.2d 856, 859 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo.1983). While the Supreme Court has concluded that for purposes of determining the dis-chargeability of a debt, the doctrine of res judicata does not prevent the bankruptcy court from conducting an independent inquiry and receiving extrinsic evidence relating to dischargeability, it expressly left open the question of collateral estoppel: If, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17 [the predecessor of § 523], then collateral estoppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) (emphasis added). The Tenth Circuit, In Goss v. Goss, 722 F.2d 599, 12 B.C.D. 75, Bankr.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 69,523 (10th Cir.1983), specifically held that collateral estoppel applies to a state court’s determination that certain obligations embodied in a divorce decree were in the nature of maintenance and support, and could not be relitigated in a proceeding before the bankruptcy court to determine whether the debt was nondischargeable. The court held that “[w]here a state court has jurisdiction to determine dischargeability concurrent with that of the bankruptcy court, ... collateral estoppel should be applied.” Id. at 604. However, the court refrained from deciding whether collateral estoppel should apply" }, { "docid": "14635295", "title": "", "text": "442 U.S. 127, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979), the principles of collateral estoppel can apply in nondischargeability cases so that issues that have been fully litigated in a prior state proceeding need not be relitigated. Id. at 140 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n. 10. An issue previously determined may not be relitigated where the following elements are satisfied: the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that in the prior action; the issue must have been actually litigated; the issue must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and, the determination must have been essential to the judgment. In re Ross, 602 F.2d 604, 608 (3d Cir.1979). Whether the standards employed in the state action were the same as those to be utilized under § 523 requires an inquiry into state law. In re Greenblatt, 8 B.R. 994 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1981). “In many cases, differences between state law upon which the prior judgment was based and the federal standards for nondischargeability will make it improper to give the state judgment any preclu-sive effect. However, where the bankruptcy court is satisfied that the issues resolved in the previous trial are the same as those raised in the dischargeability hearing, issue preclusion may be permitted.” Ferriell, 58 Am.Bankr.L.J., supra at 360. Where a state court jury has rendered a judgment against a debtor for fraud and breach of trust which presents the same elements of proof which must be- established by the creditor under § 523 (a)(2)(A), summary judgment on the creditors’ nondischarge-ability action is appropriate. In re Greenblatt, 8 B.R. 994, 997 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1981). However, if the standard of proof used by the state court was less burdensome than the standard of proof required to be met in nondischargeability proceedings, collateral estoppel effect cannot be given to the state court judgment. Ferriell, 58 Am.Bankr.L.J., supra, at 362-63. Thus if the state judgment relied upon was based on a finding of fraud by the preponderance of the evidence, issue preclusion is not possible where the bankruptcy court requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. Ferriell, 58" }, { "docid": "1074316", "title": "", "text": "is not confined to a review of the judgment and record in the prior state-court proceeding when considering the dis-chargeability of respondent’s debt.” Id. at 138-39, 99 S.Ct. at 2212-13. The Court reasoned that Congress intended for the bankruptcy court to resolve dischargeability issues and that by limiting the application of res judicata, the bankruptcy court would be able to weigh all the evidence and accurately determine whether the debtor did in fact commit deceit, fraud, or malicious conversion. Id. at 138, 99 S.Ct. at 2212. Although Brown involved Section 17 of the prior Bankruptcy Act, Brown’s rationale has been universally applied to dis-chargeability proceedings under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. See e.g. In re Dohm, 10 B.R. 132 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1981); In re Spector, 22 B.R. 226 (Bkrtcy.N.D.N.Y.1982); In re Supple, 14 B.R. 898 (Bkrtcy.D.Conn.1981). Accordingly, this court holds that res judicata does not limit this court to the California judgment and record in determining the dischargeability of the debt arising from the California judgment. Brown, however, did not address the issue of whether collateral estoppel may preclude the relitigation in a dischargeability hearing of issues which were addressed in a prior court proceeding. 442 U.S. at 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n. 10. Thus, if the elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied, issues actually decided in a prior suit cannot be relitigated. Id. The well-recognized elements of collateral estoppel are: (1) The issue sought to be precluded must be the same issue as that involved in the prior action; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated; (3) that issue must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and (4) the determination must have been essential to the final judgment. In re Allen, 3 B.R. at 357-58. See Spector, 22 B.R. at 231; Supple, 14 B.R. at 903. In the case at bar, the California judgment was procured by default. Consequently, the issues therein were not actually litigated. Since the second element of collateral estoppel is not satisfied, this court holds that it is not bound by the issues decided in the California judgment through" }, { "docid": "23600963", "title": "", "text": "judicata did not preclude the bankruptcy court from going behind a prior state court judgment to determine if a debt is nondischargeable stated in a footnote that collateral estoppel should be applied if the state court’s factual findings were based on standards identical to those used by the bankruptcy court in its dischargeability determination. The court stated: This case concerns res judicata only, and not the narrower principle of collateral estoppel. Whereas res judicata forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously, collateral estoppel treats as final only those questions actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit, [citations omitted] If, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17, then collateral estoppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar litigation of those issues in bankruptcy court. Brown, 442 U.S. at 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n. 10. A majority of the courts have adhered to' the foregoing analysis by the Supreme Court and applied collateral estoppel when the state law standards as those required to prove nondischargeability of debt under the Bankruptcy Code. See Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224, 227 (6th Cir.1981); Matter of Merrill, 594 F.2d 1064, 1067 (5th Cir.1979); Matter of Ross, 602 F.2d 604, 607-08 (3d Cir.1979); In re Shepherd, 56 B.R. 218, 219 (W.D.Va.1985); In re Bishop, 55 B.R. 687, 688-89 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.1985); In re Perrin, 55 B.R. 401, 402 (Bankr.D.N.D.1985); In re D’Annolfo, 54 B.R. 887, 888-89 (Bankr.D.Mass.1985). This Court has also held when a case is actually litigated on the merits, although the prior judgment cannot be given res judicata or claim preclusions effect, if all of the four elements of collateral estoppel or issue preclusions are present, and the non-bankruptcy court applies the same clear and convincing standard of proof, which the Bankruptcy Court must apply in the context of a nondischargeability proceeding, the findings of fact by that Court can have collateral estoppel application in any subsequent nondischargeability proceeding. See In re Tomsic, (Gellenbeck v. Tomsic, 104 B.R. 22, 29-40 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1987).. The" }, { "docid": "5996449", "title": "", "text": "of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.” Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326, 99 S.Ct. 645, 649, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979) (footnote and citation omitted). The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to a bankruptcy court’s consideration of debt dischargeability. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 138-39, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979). As to the applicability of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the United States Supreme Court noted in dicta that “[i]f, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17 [of the former Bankruptcy Act], then collateral es-toppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court.” Id. at 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n. 10, 60 L.Ed.2d at 776 n. 10. In view of these expressions, courts have uniformly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel in proceedings under both the former Bankruptcy Act as well as the Code. Revelle Motors, Inc. v. Spector (In re Spector), 22 B.R. 226, 231 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y. 1982) (Marketos, B.J.); Rolls Tools, Ltd. v. Herman (Matter of Herman), 6 B.R. 352, 359-60 (S.D.N.Y.1980); First National Bank of Boston v. Overmeyer (In re Overmeyer), 52 B.R. 111, 116 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.) motion to amend denied, 53 B.R. 952 (1985); Matter of Esposito, 44 B.R. 817, 823 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984); Moreno v. Schwartz (In re Schwartz), 36 B.R. 355, 357 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1984); Great American Insurance Co. v. Graziano (In re Graziano), 35 B.R. 589, 594 (Bankr.E.D.N. Y.1983); Wiese v. Sloan (In re Sloan), 18 B.R. 1021, 1023-24 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1982); MA & M Inc. v. Supple (Matter of Supple), 14 B.R. 898, 903-04 (Bankr.D.Conn. 1981); In re Iannelli, 12 B.R. 561, 563 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1981); Tickner v. Allen (Matter of Allen), 3 B.R. 355, 357-59 (Bankr W.D.N.Y.1980). Cf. City Stores Co. v. Mall, Inc., 42 B.R. 685, 688 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (holding that doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata apply with full force" }, { "docid": "16838824", "title": "", "text": "in bankruptcy. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 139, n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979). Where the standard of proof in the prior proceeding differs from that required in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court may not give collateral estoppel effect to the earlier judgment. In Re Iannelli, 12 B.R. 561, 564 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1981). Plaintiff introduced no evidence to prove similarity of standards. The complaint by itself is insufficient to show the standard actually used by the Illinois judge. On a motion for summary judgment, the allegations of a complaint cannot be used or accepted as proof of the facts therein alleged. 73 Am. Jur.2d Summary Judgment § 16 (1974). Finally, for collateral estoppel to be effective the issue to be precluded must have been actually litigated in the prior proceeding. In Re Supple, 14 B.R. 898, 903 (Bkrtcy.D.Conn.1981). Both Houtman and Trewyn involved judgments rendered after a trial on the issues. Where the prior judgment was procured by default, the relevant issue has not been actually litigated. In Re Iannelli, supra. Zeunert’s argument that the prove up of damages constituted sufficient litigation is without merit. Documenting monetary damages in a default proceeding does not constitute litigation on the factual issue of fraud. Absent the res judicata or collateral es-toppel sought by the plaintiff, each of the elements of his claim not admitted by defendant’s answer must be proved. Material facts remaining to be proved, summary judgment is hereby denied." }, { "docid": "4787812", "title": "", "text": "out above have been ignored by the federal courts in bankruptcy cases relating to the issue of nondischargeability and the effect of prior state litigation. “Instead the bankruptcy courts have applied federally developed rules of issue preclusion often without acknowledgment of the customary practice,” Ferrell, The Preclu-sive Effect of State Court Decisions in Bankruptcy, First installment, 58 Amer. Bankr.L.J. 349, 357 (1985). The general test most frequently applied by the bankruptcy courts is found in In re Ross, 602 F.2d 604, 5 B.C.D. 700 (3rd Cir.1979). Ross sets out a four point test before the doctrine of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel can bar the relitigation of a dischargeability issue. This test is as follows: 1. The issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that in the prior action; 2. The issue must have been actually litigated; 3. The issue must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and 4. The determination must have been essential to the judgment. Id. 602 F.2d at 608. The Court in Ross held that the Bankruptcy Court must carefully review the record in the prior case and hold a hearing at which the parties have an opportunity to present evidence to determine whether these standards have been met. This test is similar to the one set out in Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982). There are minor differences in this federal test among the various circuits, but the Ross criteria appears to be the most frequently utilized. See, e.g., Spilman v. Harley, 656 F.2d 224 (6th Cir.1981); In re Carothers, 22 B.R. 114, 119 (Bankr.D.Minn.1982); United States Life Title Ins. Co. v. Dohm, 19 B.R. 134, 137 (N.D.Ill.1982); In re Supple, 14 B.R. 898, 899 (Bankr.D.Conn.1981). The most difficult part of the test is the “identity of issue” requirement, as the Court in In re Supple stated: [a] bankruptcy court cannot give collateral estoppel effect to a prior state court adjudication if the issue before the bankruptcy court differs from the issue which was before the state court. The standards employed by the state court in reaching its" } ]

[ { "docid": "22550481", "title": "", "text": "wrongful-death statutes by allowing recovery whenever an applicable state statute favored such recovery. Congress acted in 1920 to furnish the remedy denied by the courts for deaths beyond the jurisdiction of any State, by pass ing two landmark statutes. The first of these was the Death on the High Seas Act, 41 Stat. 537, 46 U. S. C. §761 et seq. Section 1 of that Act provides that: “Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond a marine league from the shore of any State, . . . the personal representative of the decedent may maintain a suit for damages in the district courts of the United States, in admiralty, for the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s wife, husband, parent, child, or dependent relative against the vessel, person, or corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued.” Section 7 of the Act further provides: “The provisions of any State statute giving or regulating rights of action or remedies for death shall not be affected by this [Act]. Nor shall this [Act] apply to the Great Lakes or to any waters within the territorial limits of any State . . . .” The second statute was the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, which, by extending to seamen the protections of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, provided a right of recovery against their employers for negligence resulting in injury or death. This right follows from the seaman’s employment status and is not limited to injury or death occurring on the high seas. The United States, participating as amicus curiae, contended at oral argument that these statutes, if construed to forbid recognition of a general maritime remedy for wrongful death within territorial waters, would perpetuate three anomalies of present law. The first of these is simply the discrepancy produced whenever the rule of The Harrisburg holds sway: within territorial waters, identical conduct violating federal law (here the furnishing of an unseaworthy vessel) produces liability if the victim is merely injured, but" } ]

[ { "docid": "18450214", "title": "", "text": "review of the administrative rulings in either the Court of Claims or a United States District Court, and I therefore attach no significance to Court of Claims’ jurisdictional limitations. See generally Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 61, Comment g (Tent.Draft No. 1, 1973).' There is no allegation that the Court of Claims was not a court of competent jurisdiction to decide the issues before it. As a court established under Article III of the Constitution (28 U.S.C. § 171), its judgments are entitled to full judicial weight. . In its recent opinion in Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974), the Court held that a wrongful death action by the widow of a seaman injured as a result of the unseaworthiness of the defendant’s vessel was not merged into a judgment obtained by her husband for personal injuries that he suffered as a result of the unseaworthiness. The Court concluded: “Moragne [v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970) (recognizing action for wrongful death based on unseaworthiness)] created a true wrongful-death remedy — founded upon the death itself and independent of any action the decedent may have had for his own personal injuries. Because the respondent’s suit involves a different cause of action, it is not precluded by res judicata.’’ 414 U.S. at 578, 94 S.Ct. at 811 (footnote omitted). The Court distinguished cases holding to the contrary as based “not' ... so much upon principles of res judicata or public policy as upon statutory limitations on the wrongful death action.” Id. at 579, 94 S.Ct. at 812. The recent liberalization of the cause of action concept was not discussed, and although the Court’s holding would fit the “legal wrong” analysis of Baltimore Steamship, supra, it apparently is also in accord with more modern res judicata theories. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 92.1 (Tent.Draft No. 3, 1976). . In the Court of Claims, plaintiff also sought back pay pursuant to the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, which authorizes an action for back" }, { "docid": "12545251", "title": "", "text": "a seaman’s wrongful death does not include recovery for loss of society. Id. at -, -, 111 S.Ct. at 326, 328, 112 L.Ed.2d at 291, 294. The present appeal concerns the implications of this second holding. More particularly, cross-appellant Bertucci argues that the reasoning the Supreme Court used in Miles in precluding recovery of nonpecuni-ary damages in a general maritime law in a wrongful death action also applies to a seaman’s personal injury action. According to Bertucci, that same reasoning should bar the spouse of an injured seaman from recovering nonpecuniary losses, such as loss of society. The Murrays contend that Miles does not apply to an injury case and that we should uphold the jury’s award of loss of society to Mrs. Murray under two earlier decisions, American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274, 100 S.Ct. 1673, 64 L.Ed.2d 284 (1980) and Cruz v. Hendy Int’l Co., 638 F.2d 719 (5th Cir.1981). For the reasons that follow, we agree with Bertucci that Miles precludes Mrs. Murray’s recovery for loss of society. To explain our conclusion, however, we must first consider how the Supreme Court arrived at its holding in Miles. As the Supreme Court noted in Miles, the Court first addressed the scope of damages recoverable in a wrongful death action brought under the general maritime law in Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974). The decedent in Gaudet was a longshoreman who was killed while working in state territorial waters. In Gaudet, the Court held, inter alia, that a dependent plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, could recover for her loss of society in a maritime wrongful death action. Four years later, in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618, 98 S.Ct. 2010, 56 L.Ed.2d 581 (1978), the Court considered the scope of recovery under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U.S.C.App. § 761 et seq. In declining to award loss of society damages to Higginbotham’s widow, the Court limited its holding in Gaudet to deaths occurring in territorial waters. In Higginbotham, the Court concluded that," }, { "docid": "1317998", "title": "", "text": "wrongful-death acts have been implemented with success for decades.” 398 U.S. at 408, 90 S.Ct. at 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d at 361. In the wake of Moragne, some circuit courts concluded that the uniformity with which the Supreme Court had been concerned in that case involved uniform bases of liability rather than standard damage recoveries, and held that nonpecuniary damages could be awarded by utilizing state remedies to supplement the new Moragne cause of action. See, e. g., Dennis v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 5 Cir. 1972, 453 F.2d 137, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 948, 93 5. Ct. 286, 34 L.Ed.2d 218; Greene v. Vantage Steamship Corp., 4 Cir. 1972, 466 F.2d 159. Others concluded that the policy of uniformity embodied in Moragne required that the statutory and judicially-developed limitation to pecuniary damages of DOHSA and the Jones Act be extended to claims under general maritime law. See, e. g., Simpson v. Knutsen, 9 Cir. 1971, 444 F.2d 523; In re United States Steel Corp., 6 Cir. 1970, 436 F.2d 1256, cert. denied, 1971, 402 U.S. 987, 91 S.Ct. 1649, 29 L.Ed.2d 153. The Supreme Court decided that nonpecuniary damages could be recovered by survivors of a longshoreman for death resulting from unseaworthiness in Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 1974, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9. There the decedent had, while living, recovered for injuries suffered on state waters, but later died as a result of the same event; his widow sued under Moragne. Although the Court refused to allow double recovery, it did hold the widow entitled to compensation for pecuniary damages, including loss of support, and services, as well as funeral expenses. The Court then turned to the nonpecuniary claim for loss of society and, noting that recovery for this intangible deprivation had been available under the majority of state wrongful death statutes prior to the decision in Moragne, it permitted the award. Id. at 587-90, 94 S.Ct. at 816-17, 39 L.Ed.2d at 22-24. Neither Moragne nor Gaudet involved a Jones Act seaman. Each of them dealt only with an unseaworthiness claim asserted under general maritime" }, { "docid": "7416704", "title": "", "text": "of beneficiaries limits a right of action for wrongful death to \"... decedent’s wife, husband, parent, child, or dependent relative .... ” Id. (emphasis added). The pertinent Washington State statute provides a wrongful death remedy for the benefit of the wife, husband, and children of the deceased, and, if none of the above are applicable, then to parents, sisters or minor brothers who were dependent upon the deceased person for support. Wash.Rev.Code § 4.20.020 (1974) (emphasis added). Thus, defendants argue that the guiding law, that of DOHSA and of Washington State, precludes plaintiffs, nondependent siblings of the decedent, from maintaining a wrongful death action pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Moragne. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, look for support in more recent Supreme Court decisions. In 1974, while addressing the subsidiary issue of damages under the general maritime wrongful death remedy, the Supreme Court stated that the decision in Moragne was “... designed to extend to the dependents of maritime wrongful-death victims admiralty’s ‘special solicitude for the welfare of those men who undertake] to venture upon hazardous and unpredictable sea voyages.’ ” Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 577, 94 S.Ct. 806, 811, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974), citing Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. at 387, 90 S.Ct. at 1780. The Court in Gaudet not only held that the wrongful death remedy was independent of any action the decedent may have had for his own personal injuries, but also extended damages to include recovery for loss of society. Gaudet relied on the more expansive state statutes which allowed recovery for loss of society as opposed to DOHSA which limits damages to pecuniary loss. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. at 586-87, 94 S.Ct. at 815-16. By analogy, plaintiffs argue that the decision in Gaudet implies that the general maritime wrongful death remedy is more comprehensive and provides for greater recovery than DOHSA, and, therefore, should provide a right of action for nondependent relatives (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition, PP. 4-5). This argument is not well-founded. In Gaudet, the Supreme Court clearly intended that the expansion" }, { "docid": "13054707", "title": "", "text": "eleven states permitted recovery; today, 36 states recognize a wife’s right to be compensated. Christofferson v. Halliburton Co., 534 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1976). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court may be regarded as having implicitly approved compensating the wife of a seaman for loss of consortium in maritime wrongful death actions by holding that a wife may recover for loss of society. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 587, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974). In Gaudet, the Supreme Court was asked to extend its holding in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970) — that an action for wrongful death is maintainable under federal maritime law — to an action for wrongful death by a longshoreman’s widow, although the decedent had recovered damages during his life for personal injuries. Included in the damages sought in Gaudet was a claim for loss of decedent’s society. Finding that the widow’s damages were distinct from her husband’s the Court delineated the damages for which she and her family might recover: “Our review of [the statutory and common law] authorities, and the policies of maritime law, persuade us that, under the maritime wrongful death remedy, the decedent’s dependents may recover damages for their loss of support, services, and society, as well as funeral expenses.” Gaudet, supra, 414 U.S. at 584, 94 S.Ct. at 814. In determining whether recovery for loss of society (defined as including love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort and protection) was recoverable in a wrongful death action, the Court canvassed various state wrongful statutes, finding that a majority permitted such recovery. Thus, allowing compensation for loss of society in maritime wrongful death actions was approved as “aligning] [that] remedy with a majority of state wrongful-death statutes.” Id. at 587-88, 94 S.Ct. at 816. The Court went on to state that its decision was “compelled” if the Court was “to shape the remedy to comport with the humanitarian policy of the maritime law to show ‘special solicitude’ for those who are injured within its jurisdiction.” Id. at 588, 94" }, { "docid": "22535465", "title": "", "text": "the issue before us must necessarily be consistent with the extension of this “special solicitude” to the dependents of the seafaring decedent. Petitioner, Sea-Land Services, Inc. (Sea-Land), would attach no significance to this extension in shaping the maritime wrongful-death remedy. It argues that the wrongful-death remedy should recognize no loss independent of the decedent’s claim for his personal injuries, and therefore that respondent had a wrongful-death remedy only “in the event Gaudet failed to prosecute [his own claim] during his lifetime.” Brief for Petitioner 6. But Moragne had already implicitly rejected that argu ment; for we there recognized that a single tortious act might result in two distinct, though related harms, giving rise to two separate causes of action: “in the case of mere injury, the person physically harmed is made whole for his harm, while in the case of death, those closest to him- — usually spouse and children — seek to recover for their total loss of one on whom they depended.” Id., at 382. Thus, Moragne created a true wrongful-death remedy- — -founded upon the death itself and independent of any action the decedent may have had for his own personal injuries. Because the respondent’s suit involves a different cause of action, it is not precluded by res judicata. For res judicata operates only to bar “repetitious suits involving the same cause of action. [The bar] rests upon considerations of economy of judicial time and public policy favoring the establishment of certainty in legal relations. The rule provides that when a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment on the merits of a cause of action, the parties to the suit and their privies are thereafter bound 'not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.' Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351, 352. The judgment puts an end to the cause of action, which cannot again be brought into litigation between the parties upon any ground whatever," }, { "docid": "7711222", "title": "", "text": "by the decedent’s recovery for injuries during his lifetime. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the guiding principle underlying the “new maritime wrongful-death remedy” was derived from the following principle of admiralty law: “ ‘[I]t better becomes the humane and liberal character of proceedings in admiralty to give than to withhold the remedy, when not required to withhold it by established and inflexible rules . .’ [citations omitted].” Id. at 583, 94 S.Ct. at 814. The Court summarized its conclusions regarding the development of the maritime law as follows: Since the policy underlying the remedy is to insure compensation of the dependents for their losses resulting from the decedent’s death, the remedy should not be precluded merely because the decedent, during his lifetime, is able to obtain a judgment for his own personal injuries. No statutory language or “established and inflexible rules” of maritime law require a contrary conclusion. Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, the question in the instant case is whether the guiding principles of admiralty law, as expanded in Gaudet and Moragne, should permit a spouse to recover for loss of consortium as a result of injuries to her husband not causing death, or alternatively, whether “established and inflexible rules” of maritime law would preclude such recovery. After concluding that principles of res judicata would not bar a suit for wrongful death, the Gaudet Court turned to defendant’s argument that allowing recovery in the case would subject it to “double liability.” In considering this argument, the Court found it necessary to identify the specific items of compensable harm encompassed by the maritime wrongful death remedy, ruling that they included the following: “[L]oss of support, services, and society, as well as funeral expenses.” Id. at 584, 94 S.Ct. at 814. Relying on general wrongful death principles, general maritime law, and cases decided under the Death on the High Seas Act, the Court had little difficulty including support, services and funeral expenses within its catalogue of compensable harm; however, the question of whether or not recovery for loss of “society” should be allowed presented a closer question, particularly in light of" }, { "docid": "7416705", "title": "", "text": "venture upon hazardous and unpredictable sea voyages.’ ” Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 577, 94 S.Ct. 806, 811, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974), citing Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. at 387, 90 S.Ct. at 1780. The Court in Gaudet not only held that the wrongful death remedy was independent of any action the decedent may have had for his own personal injuries, but also extended damages to include recovery for loss of society. Gaudet relied on the more expansive state statutes which allowed recovery for loss of society as opposed to DOHSA which limits damages to pecuniary loss. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. at 586-87, 94 S.Ct. at 815-16. By analogy, plaintiffs argue that the decision in Gaudet implies that the general maritime wrongful death remedy is more comprehensive and provides for greater recovery than DOHSA, and, therefore, should provide a right of action for nondependent relatives (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition, PP. 4-5). This argument is not well-founded. In Gaudet, the Supreme Court clearly intended that the expansion of general maritime law be limited to the measure of damages recoverable by the decedent’s dependents. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. at 577, 583-84, 591, 94 S.Ct. at 814, 818. In Gaudet there are repeated statements by the Supreme Court that damages recoverable for a wrongful death are designed to compensate a decedent’s dependents. These statements are consistent with the policy underlying the creation of the general maritime wrongful death remedy — to provide recovery for dependent relatives. Id. at 583, 94 S.Ct. at 814; see also Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. at 394-96, 90 S.Ct. at 1784-85. Further, the expansive interpretation as to damages in Gaudet was predicated upon the majority of state statutes which allow recovery for loss of society in a wrongful death action. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. at 587 n.21, 94 S.Ct. at 816 n.21. Plaintiffs do not even argue that most states allow non-dependent relatives to recover in a wrongful death action. Thus, the rationale supporting the Supreme Court’s decision in Gaudet" }, { "docid": "9959228", "title": "", "text": "court concluded that because the parents in that case were not dependent on their son and because they could not have recovered loss of society damages under the Jones Act or DOHSA, it did not contravene the aim of providing special solicitude to seamen by denying them recovery for loss of society. The United States Supreme Court has indicated that it would approve of the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Miles. In Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974), the court held that loss of society damages are recoverable in Moragne actions, but did not delineate which beneficiaries could receive such benefits. The language of the Court, however, suggests that dependency is the critical factor. For example, the Court quoted Moragne: [I]n the case of mere injury, the person physically harmed is made whole for his harm, while in the case of death, those closest to him — usually spouse and children — seek to recover for their total loss of one on whom they depended. Gaudet, 414 U.S. at 578, 94 S.Ct. at 811 (quoting Moragne, 398 U.S. at 382, 90 S.Ct. at 1778) (emphasis added). The Court further stated: Since the policy underlying the remedy is to insure compensation of the dependents for their losses resulting from the decedent’s death, the remedy should not be precluded merely because the dece dent, during his lifetime, is able to obtain a judgment for his own personal injuries. Gaudet, 414 U.S. at 583, 94 S.Ct. at 814 (emphasis added). We believe this language indicates that the Supreme Court would deny recovery for loss of society damages by a non-dependent parent. Further, we agree with the reasoning of the court below and of the Fifth Circuit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM that portion of the District Court’s decision finding that non-dependent parents of a decedent may not recover damages for loss of society. III. Proximate Cause Defendant Whittaker argues that the trial court’s determination that water entered the Sea Mar through the air vents, that such water accumulated in the boat in sufficient quantity to disable the" }, { "docid": "7834456", "title": "", "text": "330) from the stores of maritime employers. Analogizing to Gaudet’s treatment of the nonstatutory remedy for wrongful death created in Moragne the majority brings to life and action one horrible from Justice Powell’s parade in dissent: Thus, it would be possible in theory for a person injured at sea to recover for his personal injuries and, following his death, for his survivors to attempt to bring suit under the High Seas Act. But certainly the Act would not be read as allowing the subsequent action. Gaudet, 414 U.S. at 600, 94 S.Ct. at 822. And, true to the tradition noted above, my brothers brush aside express statutory language that by implication forbids a wrongful-death action following a decedent’s judgment. Dealing as they do with a statutory remedy and congressional language closely in point, their decision is even more radical than Gaudet. And since I thought and think, with all deference, that decision a wrong one, this one seems to me far more so. I respectfully dissent. . Schill, Moragne-Gaudet: Three If by Sea, 13 Hous.L.Rev. 917 (1976). . Sea-Land Services v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974). . Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970). . The substitution provision of the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. § 765, provides that where one who suffers injuries covered by the Act dies while his personal injury action is pending, that action may be converted by his personal representative into one under the Act for wrongful death." }, { "docid": "7711221", "title": "", "text": "sued seeking recovery for his wrongful death; but the defendant successfully argued in district court that the maritime wrongful death remedy, as first established in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970), should recognize no loss independent of the decedent’s claim for his personal injuries. The trial court’s dismissal on res judicata grounds was reversed by this court, 463 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1972), and this reversal was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court stated that “Moragne created a true wrongful-death remedy — founded upon the death itself and independent of any action the decedent may have had for his own personal injuries,” id. 414 U.S. at 578, 94 S.Ct. at 811; and ruled as follows: “Because the respondent’s suit involves a different cause of action, it is not precluded by res judicata.\" Id. In reaching this conclusion, the Gaudet Court noted that a majority of the state courts, as well as courts interpreting the FELA, had ruled that an action for wrongful death is barred by the decedent’s recovery for injuries during his lifetime. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the guiding principle underlying the “new maritime wrongful-death remedy” was derived from the following principle of admiralty law: “ ‘[I]t better becomes the humane and liberal character of proceedings in admiralty to give than to withhold the remedy, when not required to withhold it by established and inflexible rules . .’ [citations omitted].” Id. at 583, 94 S.Ct. at 814. The Court summarized its conclusions regarding the development of the maritime law as follows: Since the policy underlying the remedy is to insure compensation of the dependents for their losses resulting from the decedent’s death, the remedy should not be precluded merely because the decedent, during his lifetime, is able to obtain a judgment for his own personal injuries. No statutory language or “established and inflexible rules” of maritime law require a contrary conclusion. Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, the question in the instant case is whether the guiding principles of admiralty law, as expanded in Gaudet and Moragne, should permit" }, { "docid": "7834411", "title": "", "text": "expunge three anomalies of the admiralty which DOHSA perpetuated. Within territorial waters, unseaworthiness produced liability if the victim was injured, but not if he were killed. Identical breaches of the duty to provide a seaworthy ship produced liability outside the three-mile limit but not within a state’s navigable waters unless state law so provided. Finally, what Harlan termed the “ ‘strangest’ anomaly”, a true Jones Act seaman lacked any remedy for death caused by unseaworthiness within territorial waters, while a longshoreman, doing the work of a seaman, would have such a remedy. Emphasizing the necessity for uniformity, Harlan stated, Our recognition of a right to recover for wrongful death under general maritime law will assure uniform vindication of federal policies, removing the tensions and discrepancies that have resulted from the necessity to accommodate state remedial statutes to exclusively maritime substantive concepts. 398 U.S. at 401, 90 S.Ct. at 1788, 26 L.Ed.2d at 357, 1970 A.M.C. at 987. The Mystery of Footnote 10 The second thunderbolt from on high came in Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9, 1973 A.M.C. 2572 (1974). Helen Gaudet’s husband, a longshoreman, was severely injured aboard Sea-Land’s vessel SS CLAIBORNE in Louisiana navigable waters. He brought an action based on unseaworthiness, in which he recovered damages for past and future wages, pain and suffering, and medical and incidental expenses. Shortly after the action terminated, Gaudet died. Helen Gaudet then brought a wrongful-death action in federal court. The District Court dismissed the claim on grounds of res judicata and failure to state a claim. On appeal to this Court, we reversed, holding that “Mrs. Gaudet retained a compensable cause of action for Mr. Gaudet’s death wholly apart from and not extinguished by the latter’s recovery for his personal injuries . .. . ” 463 F.2d 1331, 1332, 1972 A.M.C. 2573, 2574 (5th Cir. 1972). As Judge, now Chief Judge, Clark put it, “such an action is not one that can be sued out, sold out, compromised, or lost by the deceased’s actions or inaction before it ever comes into being.”" }, { "docid": "22928912", "title": "", "text": "L.Ed. 143 (1953). Supreme Court cases provide several examples of the creation of remedies under general maritime law for nonpecuniary damages that supplement federal maritime statutory remedies. In Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970), a longshoreman’s widow sued for the wrongful death of her husband. She joined claims of negligence and unseaworthiness under the general maritime law. The Court held that a common law cause of action for wrongful death lies, even though federal statutes have sought to create a uniform remedy for negligently-caused deaths, because additional, nonstatutory federal remedies would create uniformity by substituting for the patch-work of state wrongful death laws. 398 U.S. at 400-01, 90 S.Ct. at 1787-88. In Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 583, 94 S.Ct. 806, 814, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974), the Court, in allowing for suit by the widow of a longshoreman who had recovered damages for his injuries prior to work-related death, stated that Moragne created a wrongful-death remedy independent of any action that the decedent during his lifetime may have had for his own personal injuries. Finally, in American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274, 283, 100 S.Ct. 1673, 1678, 64 L.Ed.2d 284 (1980), the Court held that the wife of a harbor worker injured aboard a ship on state territorial waters could maintain a general maritime action for damages for the loss of her husband’s society. While all of these cases implicated longshoremen or harbor workers, none of these eases involved an action under the LHWCA. Moreover, other cases have not shown a similar readiness to create general maritime nonpecuniary damage remedies. In Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618, 98 S.Ct. 2010, 56 L.Ed.2d 581 (1978), the Court construed the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U.S.C. § 762, as forbidding general maritime law supplementation of the elements of compensation provided for by that Act. DO-SHA expressly limits a decedent’s survivors’ recovery to their “pecuniary loss” and hence additional damages for nonpecuniary losses could not be had. Distinguishing Moragne and Gaudet, Justice" }, { "docid": "7834447", "title": "", "text": "in dissent, commented acerbically: “After her husband’s judgment was affirmed on appeal, Mrs. Gaudet commenced this action by, in essence, changing a few lines in her husband’s complaint and filing it again in the same United States District Court as a Moragne wrongful death action. That court’s dismissal of Mrs. Gaudet’s complaint on res judicata grounds is hardly surprising, given the striking similarity between the two Gaudet complaints. Both complaints were based on the maritime doctrine of unseaworthiness, a condition that Mrs. Gaudet alleged was established as a matter of res judicata by Mr. Gau-det’s successful lawsuit.... The same facts and injuries were alleged.. . . Both sought recovery, in the amount of $250,000.... Thus, on the face of the complaints, Mrs. Gaudet apparently sought recovery solely for elements of damages that had been encompassed by her husband’s judgment.” 414 U.S. at 611, 94 S.Ct. at 828, 39 L.Ed.2d at 35, 1973 A.M.C. at 2601-02 (Powell, J., dissenting). . See, e.g., Mellon v. Goodyear, 277 U.S. 335, 345, 48 S.Ct. 541, 544, 72 L.Ed. 906, 910 (1928); Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 69, 33 S.Ct. 192, 195, 57 L.Ed. 417, 421 (1913). . “Any potential for such double liability can be eliminated by the application of familiar principles of collateral estoppel to preclude a decedent’s dependent from attempting to reliti-gate the issue of the support due from the decedent’s future wages.” 414 U.S. at 592, 94 S.Ct. at 818, 39 L.Ed.2d at 25, 1973 A.M.C. at 2587. . Edelman, Recovery for Wrongful Death Under General Maritime Law, 55 Tul.L.Rev. 1123, 1148 (1981). . The panel members expressed their disagreement but explained that our prior panel decision in Law v. Sea Drilling, supra, foreclosed consideration of the question whether DOHSA constituted the exclusive wrongful death remedy outside territorial waters. 545 F.2d at 436, n.19, 1977 A.M.C. at 312. The Supreme Court, it suffices to say, suffered no such compunctions and expressly disapproved our earlier holding, 436 U.S. at 619, n.1, 98 S.Ct. at 2011, 56 L.Ed.2d at 583, 1978 A.M.C. at 1060, in reversing the Higginbotham panel." }, { "docid": "7340924", "title": "", "text": "intended beneficiaries of the new cause of action as being dependents of the deceased. E.g., id. at 382, 90 S.Ct. at 1778 (“in the case of death, those closest to him [the decedent] — usually spouse and children — seek to recover for their total loss of one on whom they depended”); id. at 385, 90 S.Ct. at 1779 (“courts have recognized ... calculation of loss sustained by dependents or by the estate of the deceased”). In Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974), the Supreme Court addressed for the first time maritime wrongful death claims for loss of society. The Court held that the widow of a longshoreman killed on state territorial waters could recover damages on her (Sieracki) unseaworthiness claim for loss of support, services and society and for funeral expenses, even though her husband had recovered in his lifetime for his personal injuries. Id. at 583-91, 94 S.Ct. at 814-18; cf. American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274, 100 S.Ct. 1673, 64 L.Ed.2d 284 (1980) (holding that the wife of a harbor worker nonfatally injured in state waters may sue for loss of society under general maritime law). The Court defined society broadly: The term “society” embraces a broad range of mutual benefits each family member receives from the others’ continued existence, including love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, and protection. Gaudet, 414 U.S. at 585, 94 S.Ct. at 815. But as it did in Moragne, the Court in Gaudet continued to refer to the beneficiaries of its decision as dependents. E.g., id. at 577, 94 S.Ct. at 811 (“the creation of a uniform federal cause of action for maritime death, designed to extend to the dependents of maritime wrongful death victims”); id. at 583, 94 S.Ct. at 814 (“the policy underlying the remedy is to insure compensation of the dependents [of the deceased]”); id. at 584, 94 S.Ct. at 814 (“it is necessary first to identify the particular harms suffered by the dependents”); id. at 585-86, 94 S.Ct. 815 (“the deprivation of these benefits [i.e., loss" }, { "docid": "1317999", "title": "", "text": "987, 91 S.Ct. 1649, 29 L.Ed.2d 153. The Supreme Court decided that nonpecuniary damages could be recovered by survivors of a longshoreman for death resulting from unseaworthiness in Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 1974, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9. There the decedent had, while living, recovered for injuries suffered on state waters, but later died as a result of the same event; his widow sued under Moragne. Although the Court refused to allow double recovery, it did hold the widow entitled to compensation for pecuniary damages, including loss of support, and services, as well as funeral expenses. The Court then turned to the nonpecuniary claim for loss of society and, noting that recovery for this intangible deprivation had been available under the majority of state wrongful death statutes prior to the decision in Moragne, it permitted the award. Id. at 587-90, 94 S.Ct. at 816-17, 39 L.Ed.2d at 22-24. Neither Moragne nor Gaudet involved a Jones Act seaman. Each of them dealt only with an unseaworthiness claim asserted under general maritime law. Neither of them intimates even in dicta a change in the Jones Act rule. Other reasons, somewhat more complex, appear to preclude interpreting the Jones Act as being supplemented by a Moragne -engendered negligence action for damages if (but only if) death occurs in territorial waters or on land. Moragne did not create or even discuss an action for negligence; it dealt only with death occasioned by unseaworthiness. The suggestion that the Jones Act measure of damages can be supplemented by the Moragne -cause-of-action-Gaudet-damages rule will not bear analysis; that hybrid could be spawned in but one context, the coupling of unseaworthiness (capable of producing Gaudet) with a Jones Act claim to give birth to Jones Act damages for negligence. To consider the Moragne-Gaudet result a supplemental remedy to the Jones Act when the suit is for negligence only is not to supplement the statute but to alter the interpretation it has continuously received. We turn then to the most recent signal from the Supreme Court, its decision in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham," }, { "docid": "7834412", "title": "", "text": "414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9, 1973 A.M.C. 2572 (1974). Helen Gaudet’s husband, a longshoreman, was severely injured aboard Sea-Land’s vessel SS CLAIBORNE in Louisiana navigable waters. He brought an action based on unseaworthiness, in which he recovered damages for past and future wages, pain and suffering, and medical and incidental expenses. Shortly after the action terminated, Gaudet died. Helen Gaudet then brought a wrongful-death action in federal court. The District Court dismissed the claim on grounds of res judicata and failure to state a claim. On appeal to this Court, we reversed, holding that “Mrs. Gaudet retained a compensable cause of action for Mr. Gaudet’s death wholly apart from and not extinguished by the latter’s recovery for his personal injuries . .. . ” 463 F.2d 1331, 1332, 1972 A.M.C. 2573, 2574 (5th Cir. 1972). As Judge, now Chief Judge, Clark put it, “such an action is not one that can be sued out, sold out, compromised, or lost by the deceased’s actions or inaction before it ever comes into being.” 463 F.2d at 1336, 1972 A.M.C. at 2580. On certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed our holding. Justice Brennan, in an expansive reading of Moragne, stated: Since the policy underlying the remedy is to ensure compensation of the dependents for their losses resulting from the decedent’s death, the remedies should not be precluded merely because the decedent, during his lifetime, is able to obtain a judgment for his own personal injuries. 414 U.S. at 583, 94 S.Ct. at 814, 39 L.Ed.2d at 19, 1973 A.M.C. at 2580. Distinguishing those cases which held that recovery during the decedent’s lifetime barred an action for wrongful death, he pointed out that they rested “not ... so much upon principles of res judicata or public policy as upon statutory limitations on the wrongful-death action.” 414 U.S. at 579, 94 S.Ct. at 812, 39 L.Ed.2d at 18, 1973 A.M.C. at 2577. As Moragne established a “judge-made” maritime wrongful-death remedy independent of statute, those prior cases did not control. As to damages, Justice Brennan conceded the possibility of double liability but confidently" }, { "docid": "7711220", "title": "", "text": "a fully land-locked trial judge, I am somewhat reluctant to disagree with my more experienced brethren of the appellate bench on this admiralty matter. I am even more reluctant to express an opinion of what the admiralty law “should be”; however, as noted by the Supreme Court, “ ‘Congress has largely left to this Court the responsibility for fashioning the controlling rules of admiralty law . . . .’ [citation omitted].” Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 588 n. 22, 94 S.Ct. 806, 816, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974). Given this license, I believe that it is now time to fully extend the remedy sought by appellant to the wives of injured seaman; and I disagree with the other members of this panel that Gaudet mandates a different result. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent from the decision to affirm the district court’s order of dismissal. In Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, supra, the seaman had already recovered $140,000.00 from the defendant in a personal injury suit. After his death shortly thereafter, his wife then sued seeking recovery for his wrongful death; but the defendant successfully argued in district court that the maritime wrongful death remedy, as first established in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970), should recognize no loss independent of the decedent’s claim for his personal injuries. The trial court’s dismissal on res judicata grounds was reversed by this court, 463 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1972), and this reversal was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court stated that “Moragne created a true wrongful-death remedy — founded upon the death itself and independent of any action the decedent may have had for his own personal injuries,” id. 414 U.S. at 578, 94 S.Ct. at 811; and ruled as follows: “Because the respondent’s suit involves a different cause of action, it is not precluded by res judicata.\" Id. In reaching this conclusion, the Gaudet Court noted that a majority of the state courts, as well as courts interpreting the FELA, had ruled that an action for wrongful death is barred" }, { "docid": "13054706", "title": "", "text": "of the sea, admiralty judges often look to the law prevailing on the land. See Gilmore and Black, Admiralty (1957), § 1-16. At least this much is true. If the common law recognized a wife’s claim for loss of consortium, uniformly or nearly so, a United States admiralty court would approach the problem here by asking itself why it should not likewise do so; if the common law denied such a claim, uniformly or nearly so, the inquiry would be whether there was sufficient reason for an admiralty court’s nevertheless recognizing one.” Id. at 259-60 (citations omitted). Thus, although the general maritime law is controlling where an injury occurs aboard ship, Jordan v. States Marine Corp., 257 F.2d 232 (9th Cir. 1958), the common law precedent is clearly relevant to the availability of recovery for loss of consortium as a legitimate remedy where a stevedore is injured aboard ship or on land. Since Igneri there has been substantial change in the common law view of a wife’s recovery for loss of consortium. In 1963 only eleven states permitted recovery; today, 36 states recognize a wife’s right to be compensated. Christofferson v. Halliburton Co., 534 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1976). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court may be regarded as having implicitly approved compensating the wife of a seaman for loss of consortium in maritime wrongful death actions by holding that a wife may recover for loss of society. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 587, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974). In Gaudet, the Supreme Court was asked to extend its holding in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970) — that an action for wrongful death is maintainable under federal maritime law — to an action for wrongful death by a longshoreman’s widow, although the decedent had recovered damages during his life for personal injuries. Included in the damages sought in Gaudet was a claim for loss of decedent’s society. Finding that the widow’s damages were distinct from her husband’s the Court delineated the damages for which she" }, { "docid": "7711219", "title": "", "text": "interpose a holding on the substantive law of Louisiana which is contrary to the law as delineated by the Louisiana Court of Appeals. Persuasive as the arguments may be that the law is changing, we hold that it has not changed yet, and that the district court was correct in deciding the case on the controlling law. AFFIRMED. . In his dissenting opinion Judge Freeman suggests that our decision retreats from the prior Circuit precedent established in Skidmore v. Grueninger, 506 F.2d 716 (5th Cir. 1975). That case is distinguishable from the one at bar. There we simply applied Gaudet, supra, which was handed down during the pendency of the Skidmore appeal. Like Gaudet, Skidmore involved a wrongful death claim, and we held that the decedent’s spouse was entitled to recover for loss of consortium. That holding is consistent with our decision here that a claim for loss of consortium cannot be made until the seaman’s death, and therefore the wife of a nonfatally injured seaman cannot recover. RICHARD C. FREEMAN, District Judge (dissenting): As a fully land-locked trial judge, I am somewhat reluctant to disagree with my more experienced brethren of the appellate bench on this admiralty matter. I am even more reluctant to express an opinion of what the admiralty law “should be”; however, as noted by the Supreme Court, “ ‘Congress has largely left to this Court the responsibility for fashioning the controlling rules of admiralty law . . . .’ [citation omitted].” Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 588 n. 22, 94 S.Ct. 806, 816, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974). Given this license, I believe that it is now time to fully extend the remedy sought by appellant to the wives of injured seaman; and I disagree with the other members of this panel that Gaudet mandates a different result. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent from the decision to affirm the district court’s order of dismissal. In Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, supra, the seaman had already recovered $140,000.00 from the defendant in a personal injury suit. After his death shortly thereafter, his wife then" } ]

[ { "docid": "22084885", "title": "", "text": "nor statute withdraws such jurisdiction. We also agree that the Exchanges have standing under the two-part test of Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 (1970). Appellants’ complaint alleged that a substantial portion of the transactions on their exchanges involved securities that are subject to the New York transfer tax, and that the higher tax on out-of-state sales of such securities diverted business from their facilities to exchanges in New York. This diversion was the express purpose of the challenged statute. See infra, at 325-328, and nn. 7, 10. The allegation establishes that the statute has caused them “injury in fact,” and that a case or controversy exists. 397 U. S., at 151-152. The Exchanges are asserting their right under the Commerce Clause’to engage in interstate commerce free of discriminatory taxes on their»business and they allege that the transfer tax indirectly infringes on that right. Thus, they are “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected ... by the . . . constitutional guarantee in question.” Id., at 153. Moreover, the Exchanges brought this action also on behalf of their members. “[A]n association may have standing solely as the representative of its members ... [if it] allege[s] that its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justiciable case had the members themselves brought suit.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 511 (1975). See also National Motor Freight Assn. v. United States, 372 U. S. 246 (1963); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 458-460 (1958). The Exchanges’ complaint alleged that their members traded on their own accounts in securities subject to the New York transfer tax. The members therefore suffer an actual injury within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause, and the Exchanges satisfy the requirements for representational standing. After the decision by the New York Court of Appeals in this case, § 21 (2) (d) of the Federal Securities Acts Amendments of 1975 became effective. This amendment provides that no State may" } ]

[ { "docid": "19744339", "title": "", "text": "plaintiffs’ motion was moot in light of the court’s discretion to review the record independently. Id. at 234. The court then held that the Town Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims but determined that Cross Sound had third-party standing to raise the claims on behalf of its passengers. Id. at 235-38. In addition, the court held that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at 238. Turning to the merits of the Complaint, the District Court first addressed Cross Sound’s dormant Commerce Clause claims. The court rejected Cross Sound’s contentions that the Ferry Law clearly discriminated against interstate commerce and that it was therefore invalid per se, finding instead that the law applied equally to all in-state and out-of-state ferry operators and that Cross Sound failed to identify any local interest favored by it. Id. at 239-40. The court then examined the Ferry Law under the balancing test set forth in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970), and concluded that any burden imposed on interstate commerce was not clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits secured, which included better health and safety for Town residents. Town of E. Hampton, 406 F.Supp.2d at 240-41. The court held that Cross Sound “failed to even allege” a different burden on interstate commerce than on intrastate commerce and that, in any event, Cross Sound “offered no evidence in support of such allegation.” Id. at 240 (internal quotation marks omitted). In its analysis, the District Court noted that Cross Sound’s Commerce Clause claims were devoted largely to the application of the per se invalidity test and that the Pike analysis was raised in a coneluso-ry fashion only. Id. The court next evaluated the Ferry Law under the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and New York Constitutions and rejected Cross Sound’s claims that the law infringed upon the fundamental right to travel and was therefore subject to strict scrutiny review. Id. at 242. Concluding that the law did not implicate the right to travel, the District Court applied rational basis" }, { "docid": "14072199", "title": "", "text": "of the above is that Section 13 of the Interstate Commerce Act, granting reasonable protection to states and citizens against the sort of power play revealed in this litigation, still stands and still beautifully illustrates the original high purpose of the Act. Under it these plaintiffs are entitled definitely to a real investigation, and, I think, to a hearing on their charges, before these ferries are sunk without a trace. Defective Notice The statute, (13a(1)), plainly never contemplated a valid notice of discontinuance of the entire New York Central Hudson River ferry service to consist of two words, “all ferries”. The notice of discontinuance indicated is to cover specifically each train or ferry to be abandoned. The section speaks of proposed “discontinuance or change, in whole or in part, of the operation or service of any train or ferry operating from a point in one State to a point in another State.” It then refers to “such train or ferry”. As used, the word “train” has its normal meaning, one transportation unit. It is not to be twisted into denoting a line of railroad. Nor is “ferry” in the text to be converted from a single vessel to the New York Central fleet of ferries. It is one of the strange features of this dispute that the Interstate Commerce Commission’s own interpretation of the kind of notice required by Section 13a(1) is steadfastly ignored. Two days after the amendment was approved, the Commission issued its rules and regulations under it and these provided that “A separate notice, shall be given in respect of each train or ferry concerning which a discontinuance or change of operation is proposed.” (Emphasis supplied). This was the necessary interpretation called for by the statutory language. Nevertheless the Commission permitted the vitally defective notice to effect the destruction of the whole public passenger Hudson River ferry system of the defendant railroad, all, according to the Commission and the railroad, without recourse. This lack of compliance with even the scant notice provisions of 13a (1) is sufficient to reveal the ruthlessness of the effort to forthwith abandon" }, { "docid": "23599184", "title": "", "text": "administrative employees within the meaning of § 13(a)(1) of the Act, or were not seamen within the meaning of § 13(a) (3) of the Act; and on the further ground that the third person, with respect to whom violations of the Act were found by the court, was not an employee of the company. The Administrator appeals from the order dismissing the suit as to A. C. Johnson, assigning as error the refusal of the court to hold that A. C. Johnson was an employer of the employees of the ferry company within the meaning of the Act. All of the ferry company’s employees are engaged in interstate commerce. Apparently all except three are seamen exempt from the provisions of the Act. The company did not comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provision of the Act with respect to the three persons which the court found to be entitled to the protection of the Act. The required record of hours of labor and wages was not kept by the company. The company operates three vessels in its ferry business. It maintains its office upon a floating barge adjacent to the Arkansas shore of the river at Helena. This floating barge or landing stage is attached to the shore by cables, enabling it to rise and fall with the rise and fall of the river. This arrangement is necessary because of frequent variations in the water level of the Mississippi, making it impossible to maintain on the river bank a permanent landing stage which at all stages of the river would be conveniently accessible to approach by the ferry boats. The purpose of the floating barge is to provide a feasible and convenient method for receiving and discharging passengers to and from the ferry boats at all stages of the river. The ferry company maintains on the barge an office for the transaction of business and waiting rooms for its passengers. The barge 'is connected with the shore by a movable bridge which may be raised or lowered with changes in the river stage, and is served by electric" }, { "docid": "19744354", "title": "", "text": "F.3d 46, 55 n. 9 (2d Cir.1998). Cross Sound does not contend that the Ferry Law operates extraterritorially by regulating commerce wholly beyond New York’s borders. Nor does it argue that the law conflicts in any respect with the regulatory requirements imposed by other jurisdictions. Cross Sound’s only argument is that the Ferry Law imposes a disparate impact on interstate travelers. As Cross Sound alleges in its Complaint: The Ferry Law is protectionist legislation that, facially, in practical effect, and in its purpose, restricts the flow of commerce between New England and the South Fork of Long Island, and forces significant quantities of such commerce to take a more circuitous, more timely and more costly and burdensome route through Southold and Shelter Island. The Ferry Law creates burdens on interstate commerce that are clearly excessive in relation to any putative local benefits.... The Ferry Law inflicts harm on Cross Sound Ferry’s passengers and customers, including by increasing the time and cost of interstate commerce, causing direct competitive harm to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, ... and decreasing the general health, welfare, and safety of Cross Sound Ferry’s passengers and customers.... The Ferry Law limits the vessel horsepower and capable speed of vessels carrying passengers in interstate commerce that can use any Passenger Ferry Terminal in East Hampton, thereby rendering commercial passenger water carrier service on the waters between New London, Connecticut and East Hampton unfeasible and impractical. Although the Ferry Law does not clearly discriminate in favor of local interests, Cross Sound claims that it raises the cost of interstate transit because interstate travelers must take an alternate route that is longer and more expensive. The District Court therefore erred when it determined that Cross Sound “has failed to even allege any ... difference” between the burdens on interstate and intrastate commerce. Town of E. Hampton, 406 F.Supp.2d at 240 (internal quotation marks omitted). The disparity alleged is that the Ferry Law shifts the burden or cost of traffic from Town drivers onto interstate travelers because intra-Town drivers benefit from reduced traffic volume on the local roads while interstate travelers" }, { "docid": "22565988", "title": "", "text": "are required to assume all “well-pleaded factual allegations” are true and assess the complaint only to “determine whether [the allegations] plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief’ at this stage of litigation, Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950, we conclude that plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Despite NYTA’s arguments to the contrary, the size of the burden on an individual plaintiff is irrelevant. NYTA correctly observes that the lead plaintiffs in this putative class action have alleged only a small injury to themselves inasmuch as they do not claim to have paid the nonresident toll on a regular basis. Plaintiffs have alleged that, during the relevant class period, each paid the full-price toll during “a trip through the State of New Jersey.” J.A. 164 (Am.Compl.1ffl 5-6). However, NYTA’s observation is not a basis for dismissing plaintiffs claim. Plaintiffs seek to represent an entire class of “United States citizens who, since March 6, 2000[,] ... paid tolls at the Grand Island bridges without the benefit of the resident discount.” J.A. 169 (Am.Compl^ 27). Although we are not aware of the precise number of potential plaintiffs, we are confident that neither the number of prospective class members nor the cumulative difference between the tolls they paid and those paid by Grand Island residents is negligible. In any event, we have recognized a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause where three individuals, who were “recruited to be plaintiffs,” paid a passenger fee of between 50 cents and two dollars, which comprised a “relatively ... small portion of [a] total ferry ticket price” for the use of state-provided facilities. See Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. v. Bridgeport Port Auth., 567 F.3d 79, 82, 83 (2d Cir.2009). This is so because, as the preceding discussion illustrates, whether a state policy violates the dormant Commerce Clause does not depend on the extent of its impact on an individual plaintiff. Rather, a state policy that is challenged under the dormant Commerce Clause must be judged by its overall economic impact on interstate commerce in relation to the putative local benefits conferred." }, { "docid": "19744355", "title": "", "text": "and decreasing the general health, welfare, and safety of Cross Sound Ferry’s passengers and customers.... The Ferry Law limits the vessel horsepower and capable speed of vessels carrying passengers in interstate commerce that can use any Passenger Ferry Terminal in East Hampton, thereby rendering commercial passenger water carrier service on the waters between New London, Connecticut and East Hampton unfeasible and impractical. Although the Ferry Law does not clearly discriminate in favor of local interests, Cross Sound claims that it raises the cost of interstate transit because interstate travelers must take an alternate route that is longer and more expensive. The District Court therefore erred when it determined that Cross Sound “has failed to even allege any ... difference” between the burdens on interstate and intrastate commerce. Town of E. Hampton, 406 F.Supp.2d at 240 (internal quotation marks omitted). The disparity alleged is that the Ferry Law shifts the burden or cost of traffic from Town drivers onto interstate travelers because intra-Town drivers benefit from reduced traffic volume on the local roads while interstate travelers are denied the most direct route to the Town. Moreover, in support of its motion for summary judgment, Cross Sound submitted the affidavit of Ronald N. Hill, a traffic engineer, who analyzed the impact of the Ferry Law on interstate travel. Hill opined that the Ferry Law increases trip length for passengers traveling from points in New England to East Hampton and “forces travelers and commerce to take a longer, circuitous, and thus more timely and costly route.” The District Court therefore also erred in concluding that Cross Sound “offered no evidence in support of ... an allegation” of disparate impact. Id. On the burden side of the Pike balancing equation, genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to the degree of the burden on interstate commerce. Genuine issues of material fact also exist on the benefits side of the Pike equation. Cross Sound contends that any burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive when compared to the local benefits and relies on Hill’s affidavit to challenge the alleged benefits of the Ferry Law." }, { "docid": "8616111", "title": "", "text": "could not allow the New York Central Railroad to discontinue its passenger ferries across the Hudson River, while continuing to operate ferries for freight, if the ferries were all part of the same line of railroad. (Under § 1 (3) of the Act, the term “railroad” includes “ferries used by or operated in connection with any railroad.”) After Congress passed § 13a, the New York Central Railroad, among others, succeeded in eliminating its Hudson River passenger ferries. See New Jersey v. United States, 168 F. Supp. 324, aff’d per curiam, 359 U. S. 27. In fact, the New York Central Railroad claimed that its inability to discontinue the passenger ferries was the reason Congress enacted § 13a. 168 F. Supp., at 337, n. 1. Apparently those who were concerned with the protection of the rights of the States were not satisfied with the compromise amendment, perhaps because it retained the phrase “engaged in the transportation of passengers or property in interstate . . . commerce.” In any event, they were successful in obtaining the omission of any reference to transportation in interstate commerce, since the Act as passed limited Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction, in the first instance, to the discontinuance of “any train . . . operating from a point in one State to a point in any other State.” H. R. 12832 provided that: “this section [§ 13a] shall not apply to the operations of or services performed by any carrier by railroad on a fine of railroad located wholly within a single State.” 104 Cong. Rec. 12547. Also, the House bill eliminated the Interstate Commerce Commission’s jurisdiction over discontinuance of stations, depots and other facilities, leaving the state regulatory agencies’ power untouched. This change, embodied in the Act, is additional evidence of Congress’ intent to leave regulation of local operations to the States." }, { "docid": "1417788", "title": "", "text": "Mr. Justice McReywolds delivered the opinion of the Court. The Chesapeake Beach Railway Company, incorporated under Maryland laws and carrier by railroad subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, operates a line twenty-nine miles long which commences in the District of Columbia and passes southeastward through Maryland to Chesapeake Beach, twenty miles south of Annapolis. Connec tions are made and freight interchanged with the Baltimore & Ohio and Pennsylvania railroads. The charter empowers it to build and operate a railroad, etc., to construct docks, piers, bridges and retaining walls along the bay shore and to “ own and employ steamboats or other vessels to connect the said railroad or railroads with other points by water communication.” December 26, 1929, proceeding under § 1, pars. 18, 19, 20, Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by Transffórtation Act, 1920, 49 U. S- C., the Railway Company petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission to grant a certificate declaring “ that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction, or operation, or construction and operation,” of the proposed addition or extension to its line. It stated the purpose “ to establish and operate, either directly or through a wholly owned subsidiary, a ferry for the transportation of passengers and property between the terminus of its said line at Chesapeake Beach, across Chesapeake Bay [16 miles], and a point on Trippe’s Bay in Dorchester County, Maryland.” And it averred that “ the present and future public convenience and necessity require the establishment of the proposed ferry so as to afford a direct route by rail and water between the City of Washington and surrounding territory and the eastern shore of Maryland and also to provide a direct route for the transportation of automobiles and other vehicles between such points.” Notice was given to the Governor of Maryland; publication followed; all as required by the statute. . The Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Company (appellant), Maryland corporation, which operates a ferry from Annapolis across Chesapeake Bay, intervened and opposed the Railway’s application “ for the reason that the ferry service proposed to be operated by the" }, { "docid": "7924789", "title": "", "text": "shall have Power ... [t]o regulate Commerce ... among the several states.” Art I, § 8, cl. 3. . Defendants also contest Plaintiffs’ standing to challenge Sections 5 and 6 on the ground that Plaintiffs do not have a “legally protected interest” within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although we ultimately conclude that Plaintiffs lack standing, we reject Defendants' suggestion that an individual litigant has no legally protected interest under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause provides a cause of action'— i.e., a legally protected interest—to any person injured by discrimination against, or by an unreasonable burden upon, interstate commerce, Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 450, 111 S.Ct. 865, 872, 112 L.Ed.2d 969 (1991), even if that person’s injury is indirect, see Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 448-54, 112 S.Ct. 789, 797-800, 117 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992) (interest in collecting tax revenues sufficient to confer standing to bring Commerce Clause challenge). Furthermore, Defendants are mistaken that the Commerce Clause protects only nonresidents from state regulations that excessively burden commerce. In-state residents may also assert a Commerce Clause challenge although, of course, they have the same burden to establish standing as have out-of-state residents, see Oregon Waste Sys. v. Department of Env. Quality, - U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 1345, 1349, 128 L.Ed.2d 13 (1994) (in-state landfill operators entitled to challenge their own state’s regulations burdening interstate commerce and their ability to provide commercial services to nonresident customers); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). . Plaintiffs have also offered evidence that the scheduling of the permitting application process makes it difficult for nonresidents to plan hunting trips to Wyoming. See Scott Aff. at ¶ 15, Aplt.App. at 313-14. However, as Plaintiffs have not challenged the timing of the general licensing scheme, we do not view this evidence as relevant to Plaintiffs’ case. . Indeed, given the absence of any specific evidence of a less favorable success rate in receiving hunting licenses among nonresidents, it is possible that the separate quota scheme actually favors nonresidents and benefits rather than" }, { "docid": "3725040", "title": "", "text": "its claims under the Interstate Commerce Act, in contrast, Cross-Sound seeks an order requiring the Commission to regulate Viking's ferry service. That remedy, if we were to direct it, would redress the injuries-in-fact that Cross-Sound asserts. I therefore agree with the majority’s implicit conclusion that Cross-Sound has standing to bring its Interstate Commerce Act claims. . Section 10544(a) provides: Except to the extent the Interstate Commerce Commission finds it necessary to exercise jurisdiction to carry out the [national] transportation policy of section 10101 of this title, the Commission does not have jurisdiction under this subchapter over transportation by water carrier when the transportation is provided— (4) by a ferry. 49 U.S.C. § 10544(a). . Section 10101(a) provides: [T]o ensure the development, coordination, and preservation of a transportation system that meets the transportation needs of the United States, ... it is the policy of the United States Government to provide for the impartial regulation of the modes of transportation subject to this subtitle, and— (1) in regulating those modes— (A) to recognize and preserve the inherent advantage of each mode of transportation; (B) to promote safe, adequate, economical, and efficient transportation; (C) to encourage sound economic conditions in transportation, including sound economic conditions among carriers; (D) to encourage the establishment and maintenance of reasonable rates for transportation, without unreasonable discrimination or unfair or destructive competitive practices; (E) to cooperate with each State and the officials of each State on transportation matters; and (F) to encourage fair wages and working conditions in the transportation industry. 49 U.S.C. § 10101(a). . Section 10362(c) provides: [R]ail properties are suitable for rail transportation continuation subsidies if the cost of the required subsidy to the taxpayers for the properties each year is less than— (4) the cost to the environment measured by damage caused by increased pollution. 49 U.S.C. § 10362(c) (emphasis added). . Since competitors are not within the zone of interests that NEPA and CZMA protect, I doubt, in addition, that Cross-Sound meets the requirements of prudential standing. See Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 861 F.2d 277, 283-84 (D.C.Cir.1988) (per curiam) (“When we" }, { "docid": "16137819", "title": "", "text": "by the Commerce Clause, and we agree. Huish seeks to protect its right to contract with a compa ny that can transport its waste for out-of-state processing and/or disposal. In making this claim, Huish is asserting its individual right as a consumer to purchase waste processing and disposal services across State boundaries, an interest that falls squarely within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause. The Clause protects not only producers, but also consumers like Huish who “ ‘may look to the free competition from every producing area in the Nation to protect [it] from exploitation by any.’ ” Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 450, 111 S.Ct. 865, 112 L.Ed.2d 969 (1991) (quoting H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 539, 69 S.Ct. 657, 93 L.Ed. 865 (1949)). The defendants rely on two cases from our sister circuits in arguing that Huish’s grievance does not satisfy the zone of interests test: Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc. v. Washoe County, 110 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir.1997), and Ben Oehrleins and Sons and Daughter, Inc. v. Hennepin County, 115 F.3d 1372, 1382 (8th Cir.1997). Individuals for Responsible Government involved a challenge to county ordinances that required all residents to purchase garbage collection and disposal services from a company chosen by the county. Unlike the ordinance and agreement in this case, however, the challenged ordinances in Individuals for Responsible Government permitted residential customers to opt out of the requirement and dispose of their own garbage, without any restriction on the location of disposal. Residents who elected this self-help option were exempted from paying fees to the county-designated hauler, provided the residents submitted appropriate documentation to the hauler. Individuals for Responsible Gov’t, 110 F.3d at 701. Three residents who apparently failed to submit the required documentation for the exemption sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinances violated the dormant Commerce Clause. Id. at 701-02. The Ninth Circuit held that these residents did not satisfy the “zone of interests” test. Id. at 704. The court observed that the ordinances did impose a barrier to interstate commerce by" }, { "docid": "8958763", "title": "", "text": "(1) that Plaintiffs have standing to assert their rights individually and to assert just tertii the rights of foreign-state sellers; (2) that the statute is not protected by the twenty-first amendment’s reserved powers; and (3) summary judgment should be granted in favor of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs first note that Defendant offers no authority and no analysis to support his contention that they lack standing to challenge § 107.07(f). For standing, to meet the constitutional requirements under Article III, a plaintiff must allege “a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions!!]” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). A plaintiff “must allege some threatened or actual injury ... before a federal court may assume jurisdiction.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973). Here Plaintiffs allege and provide evidence that they have ordered wines from Wied-erkehr, but that because Wiederkehr must comply with § 107.07(f), Wiederkehr has refused to ship the wine. They have also demonstrated that many other Texans desire to do the same. Plaintiffs claim they have not only been injured by a duty imposed on them by the § 107.07(a) not to import wine unless they carry it across the border into Texas, but also by the denial of their ability to conduct interstate commerce because of the duty imposed on out-of-state wineries by § 107.07(f). Asserting that the standing requirement is not narrow or rigidly formalistic, Plaintiffs claim that they come within the “zone of interest” of persons injured by the prohibition against purchasing wine from out-of-state vintners under § 107.07(f). The “zone of interest” test is applied to commerce clause issues. Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 449, 111 S.Ct. 865, 112 L.Ed.2d 969 (1991); Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U.S. 318, 320-21 n. 3, 97 S.Ct. 599, 50 L.Ed.2d 514 (1977). Plaintiffs satisfy the three-pronged test for standing established in Lujan v. Defenders" }, { "docid": "8616110", "title": "", "text": "§ 1 (18) of the Act, that appellee’s bus service to New York is not part of a “line of railroad” and that appellee need not obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity before providing the bus transportation. New York, S. & W. R. Co. Common Carrier Application, 46 M. C. C. 713, 725. Admittedly “line of railroad” is a different term from “operation or service of any train.” However we should be loath to suggest that a train could operate where no line of railroad existed. As to the second alternative, it is answer enough to note that the statute reads “any train or ferry.” No mention of “bus” is made. The railroads appealing to this Court did not take issue with the Interstate Commerce Commission decisions holding that the Commission lacked power to authorize partial discontinuances. They argued that instead of partially discontinuing service they were abandoning a line of railroad. In the Board of Public Utility Comm’rs of New Jersey case the three-judge District Court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission could not allow the New York Central Railroad to discontinue its passenger ferries across the Hudson River, while continuing to operate ferries for freight, if the ferries were all part of the same line of railroad. (Under § 1 (3) of the Act, the term “railroad” includes “ferries used by or operated in connection with any railroad.”) After Congress passed § 13a, the New York Central Railroad, among others, succeeded in eliminating its Hudson River passenger ferries. See New Jersey v. United States, 168 F. Supp. 324, aff’d per curiam, 359 U. S. 27. In fact, the New York Central Railroad claimed that its inability to discontinue the passenger ferries was the reason Congress enacted § 13a. 168 F. Supp., at 337, n. 1. Apparently those who were concerned with the protection of the rights of the States were not satisfied with the compromise amendment, perhaps because it retained the phrase “engaged in the transportation of passengers or property in interstate . . . commerce.” In any event, they were successful in obtaining the omission" }, { "docid": "16137818", "title": "", "text": "can be redressed with a favorable result. Huish must also satisfy a prudential limitation on our jurisdiction' — a further standing requirement — -by showing that the interest it seeks to protect “arguably fall[s] within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory provision or constitutional guarantee invoked in the suit.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162, 117 S.Ct. 1154,137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997); see also Association of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). In this case, the constitutional guarantee arises under the Commerce Clause, which is designed to prevent economic protectionism and insure the free movement of goods between State borders, prohibiting “laws that would excite ... jealousies and retaliatory measures” among the several States. C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, 511 U.S. 383, 390, 114 S.Ct. 1677, 128 L.Ed.2d 399 (1994). Huish argues that it meets this additional standing requirement because it has pleaded an injury that falls within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause, and we agree. Huish seeks to protect its right to contract with a compa ny that can transport its waste for out-of-state processing and/or disposal. In making this claim, Huish is asserting its individual right as a consumer to purchase waste processing and disposal services across State boundaries, an interest that falls squarely within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause. The Clause protects not only producers, but also consumers like Huish who “ ‘may look to the free competition from every producing area in the Nation to protect [it] from exploitation by any.’ ” Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 450, 111 S.Ct. 865, 112 L.Ed.2d 969 (1991) (quoting H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 539, 69 S.Ct. 657, 93 L.Ed. 865 (1949)). The defendants rely on two cases from our sister circuits in arguing that Huish’s grievance does not satisfy the zone of interests test: Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc. v. Washoe County, 110 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir.1997), and Ben" }, { "docid": "19744336", "title": "", "text": "part: A. Special Permit required. No person shall construct, commence to use, or substantially expand a passenger ferry terminal, nor commence any passenger ferry service, without having first obtained a special permit pursuant to Article V hereof which specifically authorizes the proposed use and approves the onshore terminal facility to be employed. B. Vessel limitations. No ferry which has more than two thousand (2,000) installed horsepower and the capability of travelling at a speed in excess of twenty (20) knots, nor any vehicle ferry of any description, shall dock at or otherwise make use of any passenger ferry terminal, or be allowed to dock at or make use of such facility, except in case of emergency. These restrictions apply regardless of the origin, destination, or ownership of the ferries utilizing the Town’s terminals. The Ferry Law distinguishes between ferries and excursion boats. The law defines “ferry” to mean “[a] vessel used in the business of carrying passengers between any port or place in the Town of East Hampton and any other port or place without the Town. Compare ‘excursion boat.’ ” In contrast to a ferry, which picks up passengers at one point and drops them off at another, an “excursion” boat is defined as “[a] vessel used on a commercial basis to take passengers to sea from any port or place within the Town of East Hampton, and which returns those passengers to the point of origin without an intervening stop at any port or other land not located in the Town.” Excursion boats include boats used on a commercial basis for “party-fishing trips ... sight-seeing trips or tours ..., a dinner cruise vessel, or a vessel employed on gambling trips outside the territorial waters of the State of New York. Compare ‘ferry.’ ” IV. Proceedings in the District Court On September 8, 2004, Cross Sound and the Town Plaintiffs commenced the instant action, alleging that the Ferry Law violates the dormant Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution, and that it" }, { "docid": "14072196", "title": "", "text": "The above is in effect everything urged against the applicability of 13(1) and (2). Answering it, what the carrier has done is in direct contravention of the provisions of the chapter as amended because despite the addition of 13a(l), paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 13 remain and they, by their terms, cover all situations, including that contemplated by 13a(l). In addition to the above, it should be noted that, though forced to move hurriedly by the extraordinary time pressure of 13a (1), the complainants clearly made known their fundamental grievances to the Commission. The New Jersey state and public utility complaint is not confined to 13a(1). It mentions preliminarily “That said notice was issued by defendant (New York Central Railroad) under the terms of the new Section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act”. It then goes on to say: “That the Commission has previously found that there are 4,000 passengers on defendant’s River Division and 3,000 local ferry passengers who use the ferry service described in II above, and that to permit the discontinuance of said ferry service without public hearing and investigation would deprive the users of the ferry service of an opportunity to be heard, and would deprive them of a service for which there is no alternative. Fairness and justice require that public hearing and investigation be held to determine the question of present and future public convenience and necessity.” It prays: “Wherefore, complainants pray that defendant be required to answer the charges herein, and that the Commission enter an order requiring said ferry to be continued in operation or service, pending public hearing and investigation and a decision by the Commission as to whether present and future public convenience and necessity require the continuation of said ferry service, and will not unduly burden interstate commerce, and that such other and further order or orders be made as the Commission may consider proper in the premises.” And the complaint in this cause, filed within a few days thereafter (Sept. 4, 1958) by New Jersey and its Public Utility Commission, inter alia charged “The Commission is obligated" }, { "docid": "3725007", "title": "", "text": "to establish constitutional standing, Cross-Sound must show “that it has suffered an injury in fact traceable to the Commission’s ruling and redressable by a decision in [Cross-Sound’s] favor.” Id. In order to establish prudential standing, Cross-Sound must show “that the interest thereby abridged was arguably within the zone protected or regulated by the constitutional or statutory guaranty in question.” Id. Cross-Sound alleges that the Commission’s decision has aggrieved it both as Viking’s competitor and as a landowner. I acknowledge that the Commission’s decision might ultimately affect Cross-Sound’s fiscal health. And though the record does not reveal whether Cross-Sound owns any waterfront buildings, or bulkheads, or other littoral property, I assume that the Commission’s decision will lower the value of the company’s land. Cross-Sound would thus have suffered injuries-in-fact both as a competitor and as a landowner. But Cross-Sound would still not have attained article III standing. Cross-Sound would have us order the Commission to prepare an environmental impact statement under NEPA and a consistency determination under CZMA, both of which ostensibly would provide the Commission with information on the environmental consequences of its choices. Cross-Sound suggests that the Commission would do well to ponder the effects of its actions on the “ ‘increasingly fragile’ ” waters of the Long Island Sound. Brief for Petitioner at 38 (citation omitted); see also id. at 38 n. 13 (citing L.I. Sound Is So Polluted It Faces Long-Term Damage, N.Y. Times, July 6, 1990, at Al). I agree that as a matter of policy, it probably should. As a matter of law, however, the Commission has no power to regulate ferries for environmental reasons. Therefore, neither of the alleged injuries could be redressed by a decision in Cross-Sound's favor on its NEPA and CZMA claims, and Cross-Sound thus has no standing to bring them. The Interstate Commerce Act deprives the Commission of jurisdiction over transportation “by a ferry,” “[ejxcept to the extent the ... Commission finds it necessary to exercise jurisdiction to carry out the [national] transportation policy.” 49 U.S.C. § 10544(a)(4). In defining the word “ferry,” the Commission properly took into account the" }, { "docid": "19744328", "title": "", "text": "to enjoin its enforcement. Following joinder of issue, the Town moved for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on each cause of action in the Complaint except for their police power claim. Plaintiffs further moved to strike the Town’s Rule 56.1 Statement, contending that it was based on inadmissible evidence. The District Court granted the Town’s motion and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion and their motion to strike the Rule 56.1 Statement. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the District Court insofar as it determined that the Ferry Law did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. BACKGROUND Cross Sound is a Connecticut-based corporation that provides interstate ferry service transporting passengers, vehicles, and freight between terminals and docking facilities located in New London, Connecticut and Orient Point in Suffolk County, Long Island. Cross Sound operates seven vehicular ferries that can accommodate vehicles such as buses, trucks, and motor homes together with passengers, as well as one high-speed ferry that carries only passengers and is capable of traveling at greater speeds than vehicular ferries. Cross Sound desires to expand the geographical scope of its operations by instituting ferry service from its existing facilities in New London to those located in the Town of East Hampton. However, the Town of East Hampton currently limits access to its local terminals pursuant to the Ferry Law, a local zoning ordinance prohibiting ferry operators from landing any vehicular or high-speed ferry within the Town, except in cases of emergency. Inasmuch as the Ferry Law would preclude Cross Sound from providing any ferry service in the Town except for low-speed, passenger-only service, Cross Sound’s challenge to the law is before us in this appeal. I. Geographical Backdrop Long Island is an island in the Atlantic Ocean that comprises the southeastern most part of New York State. The island juts out eastward from the harbor of New York City for 118 miles and lies parallel to" }, { "docid": "22168685", "title": "", "text": "bridge or ferry: A State may undoubtedly create corporations for the purpose of building and running steamships to foreign ports, but it would hardly be claimed that an attempt to fix a scale of charges, for the transportation of persons or property to and from such foreign ports would not be a regulation of commerce and beyond the constitutional power of the State. ■ It is true the States have assumed the right in a number of instances, since the adoption of the Constitution, to fix the rates or tolls upon interstate ferries and bridges, and perhaps in some instances have been recognized as having the authority to do so by the courts of the several States. But we are not aware of any case in this court where such right- has been recognized. Of recent years it has been the custom to obtain the consent of Congress for the construction of bridges over navigable waters, and by the seventh section of the act of September 19, 1890, c. 907, 26 Stat. 426, 454, it is made unlawful to begin the construction of any bridge over navigable waters, until the location and plan of such bridge have been approved- by the Secretary of War, who has also been in frequent instances authorized to regulate the tolls upon such bridges, where they connected two States. So, too, in Wiggins Ferry Company v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365, it was held that a State had the power to impose a license fee, either directly or through one of its municipal corporations, upon ferry-keepers living in the State, for boats which they owned and used in conveying from a landing in the State passengers and goods across a navigable river to another State. It was said that “ the levying of a tax upon vessels or other water-craft, or the exaction of a license fee by the State within which the property subject to the exaction has -its situs, is not a regulation of commerce Within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.” Obviously the case does not touch" }, { "docid": "19744327", "title": "", "text": "MINER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. (“Cross Sound”) appeals from a summary judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Feuerstein, J.) in favor of defendant Town of East Hampton (“East Hampton” or the “Town”). Cross Sound and plaintiffs Town of Sout-hold and Town of Shelter Island (collectively, “Town Plaintiffs”) brought this action seeking a declaration that Local Law No. 40 of 1997 of the Town of East Hampton (the “Ferry Law”), which requires ferry operators to obtain a special permit before using a ferry terminal within the Town and restricts the types of ferries that may use local terminals, is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that the Ferry Law violates the dormant Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution. Plaintiffs also claimed that the law constitutes an improper and abusive exercise of the Town’s police power under the laws and Constitution of New York and sought to enjoin its enforcement. Following joinder of issue, the Town moved for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on each cause of action in the Complaint except for their police power claim. Plaintiffs further moved to strike the Town’s Rule 56.1 Statement, contending that it was based on inadmissible evidence. The District Court granted the Town’s motion and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion and their motion to strike the Rule 56.1 Statement. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the District Court insofar as it determined that the Ferry Law did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. BACKGROUND Cross Sound is a Connecticut-based corporation that provides interstate ferry service transporting passengers, vehicles, and freight between terminals and docking facilities located in New London, Connecticut and Orient Point in Suffolk County, Long Island. Cross Sound operates seven vehicular ferries that can accommodate vehicles such as" } ]

[ { "docid": "972518", "title": "", "text": "on cases involving issues pending decision in the Supreme Court. Aside from the discretion to defer judgment pending the decision of an issue on which certiorari has been granted, the District Court was clearly right in applying existing law. But the law has been changed before the case reached us on appeal. The principles announced by the Supreme Court in the Leary case, supra, are to be given prospective application. It, therefore, affords no relief to those Who were finally convicted and had exhausted the direct appellate process prior to May 19, 1969. The principles announced in a case of prospective application, however, are to be applied to convictions which were not final when the Supreme Court decision was rendered, O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 87 S.Ct. 252, 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966). A federal appellate court is bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has supervened since the entry of the judgment appealed from, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106, Bell v. State of Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 84 S.Ct. 1814, 12 L.Ed.2d 822 (1964). It is true the Scardino’s conviction was final when he entered his plea of guilty in 1966. His sentence, however, was not final. None was imposed. It was suspended pending the further order of the court. That further order is the subject of this appeal. We can only conclude that in this posture of the case to require Seardino now to go to prison for two years would be patently unconstitutional. Scardino’s failure to plead unconstitutional self incrimination in 1966 makes no difference, see the decision of the Supreme Court in Leary v. United States, supra. The Judgment of the District Court is reversed and remanded, with directions that the indictment be dismissed. . Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889, January 29, 1968; Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, January 29, 1968. See also Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (Another case in which the Judgment of the Fifth Circuit" } ]

[ { "docid": "12770912", "title": "", "text": "S.Ct. 822, 849, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). We can scarcely say under the circumstances, even assuming that Mr. Freeland, Bannister’s lawyer, had the Fifth Amendment privilege in mind, that there was an “intentional” waiver of a “known” right. We are therefore required to vacate the judgments of conviction and remand the ease to the District Court with the direction to dismiss it. See United States v. United States Coin & Currency, supra, and the quotations therefrom. . The first count charged that an offense against the statute took place on the 12tli day of July, 1966, and the second count charged a similar offense on July 19, 1966. AYe are concerned only with that part of Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969), which held that the Fifth Amendment assertion of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was a complete defense to prosecution for obtaining or transporting marihuana without paying the federal tax. The other holding in Leary, viz., that the statutory presumption of knowledge of illegal importation from the mere fact of possession violates due process, is not applicable to the ease at bar. . Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968). These cases are referred to sometimes as the “Marehetti Trilogy.” We shall refer to them on occasion hereinafter either as the “Marchetti Trilogy” or as “Marchetti.” In Marehetti, tlie assertion by the defendant of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination barred his prosecution for violating the federal wagering tax statutes (26 U.S.C. § 4411-12) (1904 Ed., Supp. 2). In Groaso, the assertion by tlie defendant of the privilege barred his prosecution for failure to pay the excise tax on wagering (26 U.S.C. § 4401), and in Haynes v. United States, a similar assertion of the privilege barred Haynes’ prosecution under the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5851). . See the transcript of the proceedings on" }, { "docid": "11525401", "title": "", "text": "Haynes, held that in order for the privilege to be a complete defense to prosecution under section 4744 (a) it must be asserted in a timely fashion and it must not be waived. 395 U.S. at 27, 89 S.Ct. 1532; United States v. Covington, 395 U.S. 57, 59, 89 S.Ct. 1559, 23 L.Ed.2d 94 (1969). We consider first whether Liguori’s assertion of the privilege was timely. At the time Liguori pleaded guilty, August 19, 1968, only two courts had considered whether Marchetti, Grosso and Haynes (decided on January 29, 1968) would permit prosecutions under section 4744(a) over an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. Leary v. United States, 392 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1968) (en banc) (privilege is no defense), cert. granted, June 10, 1968, 392 U.S. 903, 88 S.Ct. 2058, 20 L.Ed.2d 1362; United States v. Covington, 282 F.Supp. 886 (S.D. Ohio March 27, 1968) (privilege is a defense). Under these circumstances Liguori cannot be faulted for failing to anticipate the action of the Supreme Court. Otey v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 142, 417 F.2d 559, 561 (1969); Rowell v. United States, 415 F.2d 300 (8 Cir. 1969), remanded on other grounds, 397 U.S. 662, 90 S.Ct. 1407, 25 L.Ed.2d 642 (April 27, 1970); Santos v. United States, 417 F.2d 340, 345 (7 Cir. 1969), vacated on other grounds, 397 U.S. 46, 90 S.Ct. 811, 25 L.Ed.2d 36 (1970); see United States v. Lopez, 414 F.2d 272, 273 (2d Cir. 1969) (per curiam) ; Meadows v. United States, supra; United States v. Lucia, supra; United States v. Miller, supra; but see Sepulveda v. United States, 415 F.2d 321 (10 Cir. 1969); United States v. Carlisle, 303 F.Supp. 627 (W.D.Okl.1969); cf. Stoney v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 145 (E.D.Mo.1968). In Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968) petitioner failed to assert at trial or before the Supreme Court the privilege as a defense to charges based on his failure to pay the occupational tax. Since the case law at the time had rejected such a defense, the Supreme Court held that his conviction" }, { "docid": "12770928", "title": "", "text": "required the release of murderers, rapists, burglars, etc. But the only reason why Leary was convicted and sentenced was that he had refused to incriminate himself by complying with the Marihuana Tax Act, and it is a constitutional postulate of our system that refusal to incriminate one’s self is not a socially undesirable act. . For a similar analysis of Johnson and Tehan in a similar context, see United States v. Miller, 406 F.2d at 1103-1104. GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, with whom SEITZ, Chief Judge, concurs. In this collateral attack on a judgment of conviction after a guilty plea the pe-tioner asserts that his prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a) (2) was impermissible because the privilege against self-incrimination afforded an absolute defense. That defense did not exist until it was created by the decision of the Supreme Court in Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969), a decision made long after Bannister’s guilty plea. The result in Leary was foreshadowed but not decided, by the de cisions in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968), and Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968). Bannister’s case is rendered difficult because neither in Leary nor in Marchetti, Grosso or Haynes did the Supreme Court say squarely that statutes requiring conduct which for an individual would be self-incriminating were unconstitutional per se. Rather the Court stated that a person charged under the statutes would have an absolute defense to the charge if he asserted his privilege against self-incrimination. The Court may well have adopted this approach, which saved the statutes in certain cases where compliance would not involve individual self-incrimination, as an accommodation between the taxing power of Congress and the fifth amendment rights of individuals subject to such taxation. See Marchetti v. United States, supra, 390 U.S. at 58, 61, 88 S.Ct. 697. This left open the question whether the defense of the privilege against self-incrimination like the" }, { "docid": "7717552", "title": "", "text": "privilege was claimed but the answer was involuntarily given. That is an inadequate constitutional basis for the majority’s decision. The judgment ought to be reversed. . See generally, Corbin, Legal Analysis and Terminology, 29 Yale L.J. 163, 167-8 (1919). . 26 U.S.C. §§ 4411-4412. . Justices Douglas and Black thought Mackey entitled to relief, assuming a constitutional violation. 401 U.S. at 713, 91 S.Ct. 1160. Justices Brennan and Marshall did not think Marchetti was controlling, but indicated Mackey would have been entitled to use immunity if his answers had been introduced in a prosecution unrelated to the statute under which disclosure was compelled, as in our case. 401 U.S. at 710-711, 91 S.Ct. 1160. On his theory of retroactivity Justice Harlan did not reach the issue. 401 U.S. at 700, 91 S.Ct. 1160. . California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 434 n. 6, 91 S.Ct. 1535, 26 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971). . California v. Byers, supra, at 448-451, 91 S.Ct. 1535 (Harlan, J., concurring). Friendly, The Fifth Amendment Tomorrow: The Case for Constitutional Change, 37 U.Cin.L.Rev. 671 (1968) ; McKay, Self-Incrimination and the New Privacy, 1967 S.Ct.Rev. 193, 193-98 (1967). . See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 459, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Friendly, supra, at 677-79. See generally, Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment, The Right Against Self-Incrimination (1968). . Friendly, supra, at 678. . Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 76, 88 S.Ct. 709, 718, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968). . The government may compel self-incriminating admissions from a witness so long as he is given immunity from their use against Mm. . For instance, possessors of unlawful firearms, persons engaged in unlawful wagering activities, communists, and persons dealing in unlawful drugs. . Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ; Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968) ; Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968) ; Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969) ; Albertson v. Subversive" }, { "docid": "11525390", "title": "", "text": "Attorney, Judge Real dismissed the charges against Liguori in counts one, two, four, five and six. On Liguori’s motion, Judge Real, February 27, 1969, reduced the sentence to three years imprisonment to run consecutively with the unrelated sentence. No appeal was taken. On May 19, 1969 the Supreme Court decided Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969), which held that a timely assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination is a complete defense to prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a) for obtaining marihuana without having paid the transfer tax required by 26 U.S.C. § 4741(a). Thereafter on September 2, 1969, Li-guori filed a motion to the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence on the ground that his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination under the Leary decision precluded his punishment under 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a). On October 16, 1969, Judge Real denied the motion without a hearing, holding that Liguori’s guilty plea, entered with the assistance of counsel and with awareness of the nature of the offense and consequences of the plea, waived any claim he might have to applicability of the Leary deci sion to his conviction. From this decision, Liguori appeals. Since we find that Leary should be given retroactive application (as to that portion dealing with the privilege against self-incrimination), that Liguori’s assertion of the privilege on collateral attack was timely, and that his guilty plea did not waive his privilege against self-incrimination, we reverse the order of the district court. The Supreme Court in Leary, following its analogous treatment of the gambling taxes in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968) and the registration requirement under the National Firearms Act in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968), refused to hold that 26 U.S.C. § 4744 requiring a transferee of marihuana to pay a tax is unconstitutional. Instead it ruled that a timely assertion" }, { "docid": "7570312", "title": "", "text": "PER CURIAM: We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804; 5 Cir. R. 18. Clyde John Brooks pleaded guilty in 1965 to the possession of a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun which he had not registered. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5851, 5861. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment to commence at the end of a state sentence. But in Haynes v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923, the Supreme Court has held that a claim of self-incrimination provides a full defense to such a prosecution. Brooks now seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied relief, holding that Haynes was not to be applied retroactively. This Court has recently decided that two companion cases to Haynes, Marchetti v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 39; 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889, and Grosso v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, require retroactive application. United States v. Lucia, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F.2d 920, aff’d en banc, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 697. At the time of its order, the district court did not have the benefit of this decision. For the reasons enunciated in Lucia, we conclude that Brooks did not waive his right to raise the defense of self-incrimination and that Haynes like Marchetti and Grosso must be applied retroactively. In this conclusion, we follow the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, United States v. Miller, 4 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 1100; Meadows v. United States, 9 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 795, and differ with the Sixth Circuit. Graham v. United States, 6 Cir. 1969, 407 F.2d 1313. We reverse and remand for disposition consistent with this opinion." }, { "docid": "4541717", "title": "", "text": "Miranda can also be seen from Pryor v. Henderson, 403 F.2d 46, 48 (6th Cir. 1968): The fact that counsel was not appointed for Pryor at the arraignment is not a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment. * * * However, Massiah makes it clear that the constitutional guarantee of counsel forbids the use of any incriminating statement deliberately obtained for the purpose of prosecution from a defendant who has not been advised of his right to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel, and has not clearly waived that right. Another type of self-incrimination case, Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969), which held the registration provisions of the marijuana laws to be invalid, was determined not to be fully retroactive but was given limited retrospective operation in United States v. Scardino, 414 F.2d 925 (5th Cir. 1969). See also Barrett v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1060 (D. Minn.1969). On the nonretroactivity of Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968), dealing with the infringement of a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination under the National Firearms Act, see Horton v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1332 (D.Conn.1969), and Stoney v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 145 (E.D.Mo. 1968) . Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), dealing with compelled self-incrimination under federal wagering statutes, was held not to be fully retroactive in Graham v. United States, 407 F.2d 1313 (6th Cir. 1969). Contra, United States v. Lucia, 416 F.2d 920 (5th Cir. 1969) . . At his state post conviction relief hearing, Allison said: * * * I recall no coercion and no threats * * * [Bjut you are quite alone. * * * [W]hat I am trying to say is that I think it would have been better for me if I had some legal help at that time. * * * * * ' * * * * * * I do wish that I had at that time legal advice, a lawyer, who could say to" }, { "docid": "22247500", "title": "", "text": "the Customs Inspection statutes, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 1462, and the provisions of section 176a itself relating to smuggling or clandestinely introducing marihuana. (See 1956 U.S. Code Cong. &-Adm.News, pp. 3276, 3279.) Nothing in Leary or United States v. Covington (1969) 395 U.S. 57, 89 S.Ct. 1559, 23 L.Ed.2d 94, or their predecessors, Marchetti v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889; Grosso v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L. Ed.2d 906; Haynes v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923, suggests that the assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination would be a defense to a prosecution for smuggling or a defense to a prosecution for violating the general customs laws. Moreover, nothing in Leary or its antecedents provides sustenance for Scott’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted for receiving, concealing, or transporting marihuana that had been imported in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Neither Leary nor Covington held that the Marihuana Tax Act was unconstitutional on its face. Both cases held that the Act could not be constitutionally applied to a defendant, charged with violating the Act, who has made a timely assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination and who has not waived the privilege. (See also Minor v. United States (1969) 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283.) The privilege is purely personal. No one can successfully assert as a defense to his prosecution the violation of another’s privilege against self-incrimination. (Rogers v. United States (1951) 340 U. S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 438, 95 L.Ed. 344; Howard v. United States (9th Cir. 1968) 397 F.2d 72, 74; cf. Murray v. United States (9th Cir. 1968) 403 F.2d 694, 697.) Section 176a did not require Scott to register or to pay any tax. His prosecution did not in any way depend upon a successful prosecution of the person or persons who imported the marihuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act, or any other law. (Cf. Marshall v. United States (9th Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d 925.) His attack on the" }, { "docid": "11525391", "title": "", "text": "the nature of the offense and consequences of the plea, waived any claim he might have to applicability of the Leary deci sion to his conviction. From this decision, Liguori appeals. Since we find that Leary should be given retroactive application (as to that portion dealing with the privilege against self-incrimination), that Liguori’s assertion of the privilege on collateral attack was timely, and that his guilty plea did not waive his privilege against self-incrimination, we reverse the order of the district court. The Supreme Court in Leary, following its analogous treatment of the gambling taxes in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968) and the registration requirement under the National Firearms Act in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968), refused to hold that 26 U.S.C. § 4744 requiring a transferee of marihuana to pay a tax is unconstitutional. Instead it ruled that a timely assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination is an absolute defense to prosecution under that section. Thus the statute continues to be viable and prosecutions under it could be successful if, for instance, a corporation acquired marihuana without paying the transfer tax, since a corporation is not entitled to assert the privilege against self-incrimination. See George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid, 392 U.S. 286, 288-289, 88 S.Ct. 1978, 20 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1968). Except for such unique situations “we believe the effect of the Supreme Court decision [in Leary] is to prevent enforcement of the [provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)] as they are now designed because of the ‘substantiality of the risks of incrimination.’ ” United States v. Manfredonia, 391 F.2d 229, 230 (2d Cir. 1968) (discussing the effect of Marchetti and Grosso). In the present case we must decide whether Leary should be given retroactive effect to defendants whose convictions have become final before the Supreme Court rendered that decision, May 19, 1969, and whether appellant here has waived his defense based" }, { "docid": "16547871", "title": "", "text": "seq. The bombs were allegedly made without payment of the tax required by 26 U.S.C. § 5821 and § '5822(b), and without the filing of a written application to make and register the bombs with the Secretary of the Treasury as required by 26 U.S.C. § 5822(a). Counsel argues that prosecution of the defendant under § 5861(c) for possession of these explosive devices, violates his privilege against self-incrimination. In support of this contention counsel cites Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969); Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968); Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968). Congress was well aware of the impact of the Haynes decision on the effectiveness of the firearm registration provisions in The National Firearms Act. To remedy the vice of that statute, Congress amended the law with the purpose of eliminating offending provisions. Gun Control Act of 1968, P.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, 82 Stat. 1227, 26 U.S.C. A. § 5801 et seq. (Supp.1970). The question posed here is whether Congress was successful. Two District Courts have recently considered the constitutionality of 26 U. S.C.A. § 5861 as applied to one who possesses firearms which had not been registered to him — an offense under § 5861(d); to one who made firearms without having complied with the requirements of § 5822 — an offense under § 5861(f); and for transferring a firearm in violation of § 5812 — an offense under § 5861(e). See, United States v. Schultzler, 309 F.Supp. 681 (S.D.Ohio, Oct. 9, 1969); United States v. Schofer, 310 F.Supp. 1292 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 1969) (Dooling, J.). The Schultzler decision upheld the constitutionality of subdivisions (d) and (f) of § 5861 and ruled that they do not compel the defendant to incriminate himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Schofer case involved one count under subdivision (d) and one count under subdivision (e) of § 5861. The" }, { "docid": "11525400", "title": "", "text": "process — whether the government may punish a man under this statute, even if the facts reliably establish a violation. See United States v. Lucia, 416 F.2d 920, 926 (5 Cir. 1969). We are not, therefore, convinced by the reasoning in Graham v. United States, 407 F.2d 1313 (6 Cir. 1969). We decline to follow Ramseur v. United States, 425 F.2d 413 (6 Cir. 1970), and we hold that the portion of Leary dealing with the privilege against self-incrimination should be given retroactive effect. Compare, United States v. Jenkins, 427 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1970) (presumed that invalidity of presumption of importation is retroactive); United States v. Scott, 425 F.2d 55 (9 Cir. 1970) (en banc) (portion of Leary dealing with the presumption of importation is retroactive) ; accord, Rivas v. United States, 315 F.Supp. 972 (S.D.N.Y. March 19, 1970), appeal docketed, Docket No. 34834 (2d Cir. May 25, 1970). Cf. United States v. Sorenson, 308 F.Supp. 1268 (E.D.N.Y. January 27, 1970). II. TIMELINESS AND WAIVER The Court in Leary, as in Marchetti, Grosso and Haynes, held that in order for the privilege to be a complete defense to prosecution under section 4744 (a) it must be asserted in a timely fashion and it must not be waived. 395 U.S. at 27, 89 S.Ct. 1532; United States v. Covington, 395 U.S. 57, 59, 89 S.Ct. 1559, 23 L.Ed.2d 94 (1969). We consider first whether Liguori’s assertion of the privilege was timely. At the time Liguori pleaded guilty, August 19, 1968, only two courts had considered whether Marchetti, Grosso and Haynes (decided on January 29, 1968) would permit prosecutions under section 4744(a) over an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. Leary v. United States, 392 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1968) (en banc) (privilege is no defense), cert. granted, June 10, 1968, 392 U.S. 903, 88 S.Ct. 2058, 20 L.Ed.2d 1362; United States v. Covington, 282 F.Supp. 886 (S.D. Ohio March 27, 1968) (privilege is a defense). Under these circumstances Liguori cannot be faulted for failing to anticipate the action of the Supreme Court. Otey v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 142, 417" }, { "docid": "4541718", "title": "", "text": "923 (1968), dealing with the infringement of a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination under the National Firearms Act, see Horton v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1332 (D.Conn.1969), and Stoney v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 145 (E.D.Mo. 1968) . Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), dealing with compelled self-incrimination under federal wagering statutes, was held not to be fully retroactive in Graham v. United States, 407 F.2d 1313 (6th Cir. 1969). Contra, United States v. Lucia, 416 F.2d 920 (5th Cir. 1969) . . At his state post conviction relief hearing, Allison said: * * * I recall no coercion and no threats * * * [Bjut you are quite alone. * * * [W]hat I am trying to say is that I think it would have been better for me if I had some legal help at that time. * * * * * ' * * * * * * I do wish that I had at that time legal advice, a lawyer, who could say to me: Do you understand exactly what you are doing here? Do you fully understand this? Do you understand what this could do to you, how involved this could get, how this could change your entire life? But like I said, I didn’t have any advice. (H.T.1965, pp. 22-24.) . See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. at 731, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882. . See the dissents in Desist v. United States, supra, by Justice Harlan and Justice Fortas, 394 U.S. at 256, 269, 89 S.Ct. 1030. . See IB Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.-402 [3.-2-5] n. 1, n. 36 (2d ed. Supp. 1968). . The Fourth Circuit in Alford v. North Carolina, 405 F.2d 340 (1968), prob. juris, noted, 394 U.S. 956, 89 S.Ct. 1306, 22 L.Ed.2d 558 (1969), and the Supreme Court of South Carolina in State v. Harper, 251 S.C. 379, 162 S.E.2d 712 (1968), have disagreed with the New Jersey court in assessing the impact of Jackson on similar statutory schemes. In the latter case the court said that provisions" }, { "docid": "11525393", "title": "", "text": "on the privilege by pleading guilty, or has raised his defense in an untimely fashion. I. RETROACTIVITY This court has not yet considered whether to give retroactive effect to Leary, as applied to convictions which were final before that decision, or to the analogous decisions in Marchetti, Grosso and Haynes, supra. See Desi-mone v. United States, 423 F.2d 576, 577 (2d Cir. 1970) (specifically avoiding the question of the retroactivity of Haynes; Judge Bonsai, dissenting, said he would apply Haynes retroactively). Only four other circuits have addressed the problem of the retroactivity of Leary. Ram-seur v. United States, 425 F.2d 413 (6 Cir. 1970) (holding Leary is mostly prospective) ; Santos v. United States, 417 F.2d 340 (7 Cir. 1969) (holding Leary is retroactive), vacated on other grounds, 397 U.S. 46, 90 S.Ct. 811, 25 L.Ed.2d 36 (1970); United States v. Scardino, 414 F.2d 925 (5 Cir. 1969) (assuming that Leary is not retroactive, nevertheless held that Leary applied to Scardino since his sentence had not been finally ordered) ; Rowell v. United States, 415 F.2d 300 (8 Cir. 1969) (holding Leary is retroactive), remanded on other grounds, 397 U.S. 662, 90 S.Ct. 1407, 25 L.Ed.2d 642 (April 27, 1970). See Miller v. United States, 311 F.Supp. 705, 709-711 (N. D.Ohio 1970) (holding Leary is retroactive) ; United States v. King, 307 F. Supp. 217 (S.D.Cal.l969) (dictum that Leary is retroactive); contra, Barrett v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1060, 1062 (D.Minn.1969) (Leary is not retroactive). On the analogous question of the retroactivity of Marchetti, Grosso and Haynes, the other circuits are divided, all but one holding in favor of retroactivity. Meadows v. United States, 420 F.2d 795 (9 Cir. 1969) (Haynes retroactive), petition for certiorari filed, 38 U.S.L.W. 3391 (February 20, 1970); United States v. Lucia, 416 F.2d 920 (5 Cir. 1969) (Marchetti retroactive); United States v. Miller, 406 F.2d 1100 (4 Cir. 1969) (Haynes retroactive); Graham v. United States, 407 F.2d 1313 (6 Cir. 1969) (Marchetti not retroactive). See Horton v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1332 (D.Conn.1969); Stoney v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 145 (E.D.Mo.1968); Desimone v. United States," }, { "docid": "14641823", "title": "", "text": "5861(d) (Supp. 1970). Black had waived indictment and filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that the registration requirements under the statute violated his privilege against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss. Black then pleaded guilty, but reserved the right to appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss. In lieu of a transcript, additional facts were stipulated. > In his brief, Black admitted that he did not possess the sawed-off shotgun prior to the effective date of Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. He also stated therein that he obtained possession of the shotgun by transfer or by manufacture after the expiration of the statutory amnesty period ending December 1, 1968. Black contends that registration provisions of the Act are violative of his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, relying principally on Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968); Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969). In Haynes, the Supreme Court held that the assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination was a complete defense to a prosecution under the provisions of the National Firearms Act prior to its Amendment in 1968 either for the failure to register a firearm under former § 5841 of Title 26 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under former § 5851 of Title 26. The statutory scheme then in force provided that not every possessor of a firearm had to register. One who made the firearm in compliance with the statute, or who acquired it by transfer in compliance with the statute did not have to register. 26 U.S.C. § 5841. If the statutory requirements respecting making or transfer were not met, then one who possessed a firearm had to fill out a form. 26 U.S.C. § 5841. The Act’s requirements on registration and" }, { "docid": "23021971", "title": "", "text": "Tax Division, and has been approved and returned by him.” If the application is not approved, the Director retains the duplicate and returns the original to the applicant along with a statement of the reasons for disapproval. 26 C.F.R. § 179.79. When an application is not approved, the firearm cannot be made in compliance with the law. With the statutory framework in mind, we turn to appellant Marshall’s Fifth Amendment claim. Marshall contends that his conviction under the second provision of § 5851 violated his privilege against self-incrimination. In advancing this argument Marshall attempts to bring himself within the scope of the rationale underlying the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Marchetti-Grosso-Haynes trilogy and the subsequent Leary and Covington cases. Marchetti v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889; Grosso v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906; Haynes v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923; Leary v. United States, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57; United States v. Covington, 1969, 395 U.S. 57, 89 S.Ct. 1559, 23 L.Ed.2d 94. These cases stand for the proposition that where compliance with a criminal statute would have subjected the defendant to “real and appreciable” hazards of incrimination under other criminal legislation, his assertion ,of his privilege against self-incrimination precludes his conviction for non-compliance with the statute. Marchetti and Grosso involved federal statutes requiring gamblers to register and pay certain taxes. The Court concluded that compliance with these registration and tax statutes would significantly enhance the likelihood of criminal prosecution under federal and state laws. Consequently, the Court held that a defendant who raises a proper Fifth Amendment defense cannot be criminally punished for non-compliance with the registration and tax statutes. Leary and Covington involved transfer tax provisions of the Marijuana Tax Act. The Court, concluding that these provisions would force those who comply with them to incriminate themselves under state laws, held that non-compliance cannot be criminally punished in the face of a proper Fifth Amendment objection. Haynes, the case upon" }, { "docid": "16547870", "title": "", "text": "States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), the Court held that Congress intended to prosecute each sale of narcotics made in violation of the order form provisions of the statute, and not a course of conduct. Where there are separable sales, the offenses are separate and distinct. The Narcotic Act does not create the offense of engaging in the business of selling the forbidden drugs, but penalizes any sale made in the absence of either of the qualifying requirements set forth. Each of several successive sales constitutes a distinct offense, however closely they may follow each other. Blockburger, at 302, 52 S.Ct. at 181. In this case, the legislative intent to punish for every firearm unlawfully made, transferred or unlawfully possessed, is clear. There is no need to resort to the principle of lenity. 6. Self-Incrimination Claim The government has charged in twelve counts (12-23) that the defendant Melville unlawfully possessed 12 explosive bombs knowing them to have been made in violation of the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. The bombs were allegedly made without payment of the tax required by 26 U.S.C. § 5821 and § '5822(b), and without the filing of a written application to make and register the bombs with the Secretary of the Treasury as required by 26 U.S.C. § 5822(a). Counsel argues that prosecution of the defendant under § 5861(c) for possession of these explosive devices, violates his privilege against self-incrimination. In support of this contention counsel cites Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969); Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968); Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968). Congress was well aware of the impact of the Haynes decision on the effectiveness of the firearm registration provisions in The National Firearms Act. To remedy the vice of that statute, Congress amended the law with the purpose of eliminating offending provisions. Gun Control" }, { "docid": "12770922", "title": "", "text": "(6 Cir. 1970) (holding that Leary should be applied “largely prospectively”) ; United States v. Scardino, 414 F.2d 925 (5 Cir. 1969) (assuming that Leary is not retroactive, nevertheless it was held that Leary applied to Scardino since his conviction was not final); Barrett v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1080 (D.Minn.1969) (holding Leary not retroactive) . . There is, however, a body of analogous precedents which we deem to be of value in our decision here. In the decisions of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968), and Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968) (the Marchetti Trilogy), the Supreme Court held the Fifth Amendment to be a defense to federal gambling (Grosso and Marchetti) and firearms (Haynes) statutes which required incriminatory registration. The statutory provisions involved are operatively similar to those involved in Leary. Indeed, the Court’s decision in Leary was directly based upon these prior oases. On the question of the retroactivity of Marchetti and its companion cases, there has developed a split of authority. See Graham v. United States, 407 F.2d 1313 (6 Cir. 1969), vacated and remanded, 402 U.S. 938, 91 S.Ct. 1623, 29 L.Ed.2d 107 (1971) and Horton v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1332 (D.Conn.1969), denying retroactive application to final convictions. Compare United States v. Miller, 406 F.2d 1100 (4 Cir. 1969); United States v. Lucia, 416 F.2d 920 (5 Cir. 1969), rehearing en banc, 423 F.2d 697 (1970), cert. denied 402 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 1607, 29 L.Ed.2d 111 (1971), Meadows v. United States, 420 F.2d 795 (9 Cir. 1909) cert. denied, 402 U.S. 948, 91 S.Ct. 1607, 29 L.Ed.2d 111 (1971) and Isaac v. United States, 293 F.Supp. 1096 (D.S.C. 1968), granting full retroactivity. . Stovall v. Denno, supra, 388 U.S. at 298, 87 S.Ct. at 1970. . Linkletter v. Walker, supra, 381 U.S. at 639, 85 S.Ct. at 1743. . See Doughty v. Maxwell, 376 U.S. 202, 84 S.Ct. 702, 11 L.Ed.2d 650 (1964)," }, { "docid": "7717553", "title": "", "text": "671 (1968) ; McKay, Self-Incrimination and the New Privacy, 1967 S.Ct.Rev. 193, 193-98 (1967). . See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 459, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Friendly, supra, at 677-79. See generally, Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment, The Right Against Self-Incrimination (1968). . Friendly, supra, at 678. . Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 76, 88 S.Ct. 709, 718, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968). . The government may compel self-incriminating admissions from a witness so long as he is given immunity from their use against Mm. . For instance, possessors of unlawful firearms, persons engaged in unlawful wagering activities, communists, and persons dealing in unlawful drugs. . Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ; Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968) ; Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968) ; Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969) ; Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70, 86 S.Ct. 194, 15 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965). . Marchetti overruled United States v. Kah-riger, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S.Ct. 510, 97 L.Ed. 754 (1953), and Lewis v. States, 348 U.S. 419, 75 S.Ct. 415, 99 L.Ed. 475 (1955). The Court had reasoned that since the registration requirement and return dealt with prospective acts, there was no valid claim of privilege involved, because the statutory compulsion to file could be avoided entirely at the choice of the defendant, by not entering voluntarily on the conduct which made failure to file criminal. Marchetti rejected this concept of implied “waiver” (strictly speaking, it is not a waiver at all) because the filing requirement focused on past acts and because the privilege was held to apply to prospective acts. While the Court’s rejection of the “waiver” in Marchetti is not controlling, the majority opinion neither reflects the Court’s hostility to implied “waivers” nor does it give the required scrutiny of the circumstances in the present case before implying such a “waiver.” See 390" }, { "docid": "11525394", "title": "", "text": "F.2d 300 (8 Cir. 1969) (holding Leary is retroactive), remanded on other grounds, 397 U.S. 662, 90 S.Ct. 1407, 25 L.Ed.2d 642 (April 27, 1970). See Miller v. United States, 311 F.Supp. 705, 709-711 (N. D.Ohio 1970) (holding Leary is retroactive) ; United States v. King, 307 F. Supp. 217 (S.D.Cal.l969) (dictum that Leary is retroactive); contra, Barrett v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1060, 1062 (D.Minn.1969) (Leary is not retroactive). On the analogous question of the retroactivity of Marchetti, Grosso and Haynes, the other circuits are divided, all but one holding in favor of retroactivity. Meadows v. United States, 420 F.2d 795 (9 Cir. 1969) (Haynes retroactive), petition for certiorari filed, 38 U.S.L.W. 3391 (February 20, 1970); United States v. Lucia, 416 F.2d 920 (5 Cir. 1969) (Marchetti retroactive); United States v. Miller, 406 F.2d 1100 (4 Cir. 1969) (Haynes retroactive); Graham v. United States, 407 F.2d 1313 (6 Cir. 1969) (Marchetti not retroactive). See Horton v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1332 (D.Conn.1969); Stoney v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 145 (E.D.Mo.1968); Desimone v. United States, 303 F.Supp. 406 (D.Conn.1968) (alternate holding), affirmed on other grounds, 423 F.2d 576 (2d Cir. 1970), all holding that Haynes is not retroactive. Cf. Forgett v. United States, 390 U.S. 203, 88 S.Ct. 898, 19 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1968); Deckard v. United States, 381 F.2d 77 (8 Cir. 1967) (Blackmun, C.J.). The Supreme Court has established three criteria for deciding which new constitutional rules should be given only prospective effect: “(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.” Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). The most important of the criteria is the purpose of the new constitutional rule, Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 249, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969). In addition, if the new rule affects “the very integrity of the fact-finding process” then it should be given retroactive effect." }, { "docid": "4541716", "title": "", "text": "similarly with respect to the assignment of counsel at a state arraignment in New Jersey. Post-indictment interrogations so time-consuming as to actually amount to a denial of access to counsel would no doubt be subject to attack under Powell and Gideon as a deprivation of due process independently of the Massiah rule. . The similarity of the purpose of Massiah to the rule in Escobedo was emphasized in the opinion in the latter case. 378 U.S. at 484-486, 84 S.Ct. 1758. In Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 416, 86 S.Ct. 459, 465, 15 L.Ed.2d 453 (1966), the Court said: * * * [T]he Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination is not an adjunct to the ascertainment of truth. That privilege, like the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, stands as a protection of quite different constiutional values — values reflecting the concern of our society for each individual to be let alone. To recognize this is no more than to accord those values undiluted respect. The similarity of Massiah to Escobedo and Miranda can also be seen from Pryor v. Henderson, 403 F.2d 46, 48 (6th Cir. 1968): The fact that counsel was not appointed for Pryor at the arraignment is not a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment. * * * However, Massiah makes it clear that the constitutional guarantee of counsel forbids the use of any incriminating statement deliberately obtained for the purpose of prosecution from a defendant who has not been advised of his right to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel, and has not clearly waived that right. Another type of self-incrimination case, Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969), which held the registration provisions of the marijuana laws to be invalid, was determined not to be fully retroactive but was given limited retrospective operation in United States v. Scardino, 414 F.2d 925 (5th Cir. 1969). See also Barrett v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 1060 (D. Minn.1969). On the nonretroactivity of Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d" } ]

[ { "docid": "22675046", "title": "", "text": "post-office addresses of those affected by a proceeding are at hand, the reasons disappear for resort to means less likely than the mails to apprise them of its pendency.” 339 U. S., at 318. This rule was applied in New York v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U. S. 293, 296, where the Court pointed out that “[n]otice by publication is a poor and sometimes a hopeless substitute for actual service of notice,” and that “ [i] ts justification is difficult at best.” The rule was applied again in Walker v. Hutchinson City, 352 U. S. 112, in a factual situation much akin to that in the present case. In Walker part of the appellant’s land had been taken in condemnation proceedings, and he had been given “notice” of a proceeding to fix his compensation only by publication in the official city newspaper. The Court held that such notice was constitutionally insufficient, noting that the appellant’s name “was known to the city and was on the official records,” and that “[e]ven a letter would have apprised him that his property was about to be taken and that he must appear if he wanted to be heard as to its value.” 352 U. S., at 116. Decision in the case before us we think is clearly controlled by the rule stated in the Mullane case, and by the specifically relevant application of that rule in the Walker case. It is true that in addition to publishing in newspapers, the city in the present case did put some signs on trees and poles along the banks of the river. But no such sign was placed anywhere on the appellant’s property, or ever seen by her. The posting of these signs, therefore, did not constitute the personal notice that the rule enunciated in the Mullane case requires. The majority opinion in the New York Court of Appeals seems additionally to have drawn support from an assumption that the effect of the city’s diversion of the river must have been apparent to the appellant before the expiration of the three-year" } ]

[ { "docid": "6173008", "title": "", "text": "postal service’s “mail forwarding ceases after one year.” Id. at 311; see also id. at 315 (ordering that the Division “use the Internal Revenue Service Mail Forwarding Service to locate persons whose claims are at risk for ACD”). We disagree. Due process does not require that parties actually receive notice of the pendency of the government deprivation. All that is required is that the method and form of the notice be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652 (“The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.”); see Pope, 485 U.S. at 484, 489-91, 108 S.Ct. 1340 (1988). “There is ‘no rigid formula as to the kind of notice that must be given; notice required will vary with circumstances and conditions.’ ” Baker v. Latham Sparrowbush Assocs., 72 F.3d 246, 254 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 115, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956)). In reaching its conclusion that the Division’s reliance on mail forwarding was insufficient, the district court apparently gave no weight to the claimants’ responsibility to provide the Division with updated contact information whenever they change addresses. Upon filing a claim with the Division, claimants (1) are informed that they must notify the Division “of any change in [their] address, telephone number or place of employment” and that “failure to do so may jeopardize [their] rights,” (2) are provided with a change-of-contact- information form, and (3) are informed again in a follow-up letter of their obligation to notify the Division if they change their address. Simply put, we believe that when parties that are litigating claims before a government agency are obligated to notify the agency of a change of address, a requirement that the agency do more than rely on the latest information provided it by the litigants when sending out notice would demand a level of government paternalism that due process does" }, { "docid": "7609207", "title": "", "text": "proceedings on the question of just compensation. The Supreme Court has said: It cannot be disputed that due process requires that an owner whose property is taken for public use must be given a hearing in determining just compensation. The right to a hearing is meaningless without notice. Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 115, 77 S.Ct. 200, 202, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956). The question is what type of notice is constitutionally required. In Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 319, 70 S.Ct. 652, 660, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), the Supreme Court held that published notice is normally inadequate when the intended recipient of such notice “could easily be informed by other means at hand”: [Wjhen notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it____ It would be idle to pretend that publication alone, as prescribed here, is a reliable means of acquainting interested parties of the fact that their rights are before the courts. Id. at 315, 70 S.Ct. at 657-658. In the present case, Jaeckle’s name was known, and it was also known that he was a resident of Nantucket, Massachusetts. The record contains excerpts from the 1952 Nantucket telephone directory listing Jaeckle’s street address and telephone number. Additionally, there is evidence that he had lived in Nantucket for many years and that he and his wife had served in town offices. Notice sent to “Matthew Jaeckle, Nantucket, Massachusetts,” could scarcely not have reached him. The ease with which notice could have been mailed to Jaeckle must be contrasted with the actual steps taken by the government. While posting notice on land could be adequate under some circumstanc es, here one copy of the petition was posted on the 125.2 acres being condemned, apparently on a tract not owned by Jaeckle. Further, the land was undeveloped, thus diminishing the likely effectiveness of the posting. In Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 83 S.Ct. 279," }, { "docid": "7490929", "title": "", "text": "the City of Augusta, 220 F.Supp. 696, 699 (D.Me.1963). Finally, the procedures utilized by FmHA plainly failed to afford the Rickers the procedural safeguards which due process requires. Although the requirements of due process may vary with differing circumstances, Supreme Court decisions have fully established that procedural due process demands, at a minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard. Fuentes v. Shevin, supra, 407 U.S. at 80-82, 92 S.Ct. 1983; Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 377-79, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed. 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550-52, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); Gunter v. Merchants Warren National Bank, 360 F.Supp. 1085, 1088 (D.Me.1973) (three-judge court). In the instant case, the Rickers were provided neither of these essential protections. The Government asserts that the Rickers received satisfactory notice of the impending foreclosure. To be adequate, notice “must be such as is reasonably calculated to reach interested parties.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., supra, 339 U.S. at 318, 70 S.Ct. at 659. The newspaper foreclosure notices, which the Rickers did not see, plainly failed to meet this standard. “[Njotice by publication is not enough with respect to a person whose name and address are known or very easily ascertainable and whose legally protected interests are directly affected by the proceedings in question.” Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 212-13, 83 S.Ct. 279, 282, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962). Accord, Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 115-16, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., supra, at 314-19, 70 S.Ct. 652. The only communication received by the Rickers which could even remotely be construed as notice was the “Notice of Acceleration of Indebtedness and Demand for Payment.” But this document merely stated that the Rickers’ debt was accelerated, that payment was immediately due and demanded, and that unless full payment were forthcoming by May 15, 1972, “appropriate measures [would] be taken to foreclose" }, { "docid": "9333182", "title": "", "text": "the information may not be received in this manner. However, any requirement of service of seizure by the sheriff upon the person in possession of the property would destroy the efficacy of the executory process.” The notice required by due process must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane, supra, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657 (citations omitted). The reasonableness, and hence the constitutional validity, of any chosen method of notice may be defended on the ground that it is itself reasonably certain to inform those affected, or, where conditions reasonably do not permit such notice, that the form chosen is not substantially less likely to bring home notice than other of the feasible and customary substitutes. Mullane, supra. Notification by classified advertisement in a local newspaper is a particularly ineffective way to alert those in jeopardy of losing substantial property rights. The Court, in Mullane, concerned with notice by publication to members of a common trust fund, commented: “Chance alone brings to the attention of even a local resident an advertisement in small type inserted in the back [classified] pages of a newspaper, and if he makes his home outside the area of the newspaper’s normal circulation the odds that the information will reach him are large indeed. The chance of actual notice is further reduced when, as here, the notice required does not even name those whose attention it is supposed to attract, and does not inform acquaintances who might call it to [his] attention.” Mullane, supra, at 315, 70 S.Ct. at 658. The constitutional requirement that notice be calculated reasonably to reach interested persons long has been observed regarding deprivations of real property. In Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956), and Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 83 S.Ct. 279, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962), State statutes authorizing notice of condemnation proceedings by publication only were found constitutionally deficient. Under the facts in each" }, { "docid": "23585741", "title": "", "text": "U.S. 219, 226, 59 S.Ct. 861, 865, 83 L.Ed. 1249 (1939) (“Forfeitures are not favored; they should be enforced only when within both letter and spirit of the law.”). Nevertheless, Mullane counsels us to consider all of the circumstances, and we find in this case other pertinent factors, including the government’s memorandum and the conduct of plaintiffs’ counsel, which compel us to uphold the finding of the district court. For the reasons that follow, we hold that defendants met the minimum threshold requirements of due process. 1. Mullane and its Progeny We note at the onset that while Mullane clearly contemplates inquiry into the “peculiarities” and the “practicalities” of a given case, it has not generally been interpreted to require a party to make additional attempts beyond notice that is legally satisfactory at the time it is sent. See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314-15, 70 S.Ct. at 657. The Court has read an implicit bad faith standard into the notice inquiry, overturning notice even where formal procedures were followed if the notifying party knew or had reason to know that notice would be ineffective. See, e.g., Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 93 S.Ct. 30, 34 L.Ed.2d 47 (1972) (per curiam) (in forfeiture action, notice mailed to interested party’s home address was inadequate where government knew party was incarcerated awaiting trial, and where party remained in custody throughout forfeiture proceedings and did not receive notice until his release); Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141, 76 S.Ct. 724, 100 L.Ed. 1021 (1956) (in foreclosure action, notice by publication, mailing and posting was inadequate where individual involved was known by the town to be mentally disabled and under the protection of a guardian). Knowledge of the likely effectiveness of the notice is measured from the moment at which the notice was sent. Virtually all of the cases relied upon by plaintiffs share the feature — missing from this case — that the government knew at the time the notice was sent that the notice was likely to be ineffective. See Fisher v. Stutman, Nos. 85-3133-MA, 85-4307-MA, 1987 WL 20223, 1987" }, { "docid": "22925341", "title": "", "text": "Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). “The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” Id. at 315, 70 S.Ct. at 657. The Supplemental Rules require the government to give notice of the forfeiture proceedings only by publication. See Fed. R.CÍV.P. C(4). When the government can reasonably ascertain the name and address of an interested party, however, notice by publication is not sufficient, Mullane, 339 U.S. at 317-18, 70 S.Ct. at 658-59; Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 116, 77 S.Ct. 200, 202, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956); due process requires that the government send “[n]otice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice,” Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 800, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 2712, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983). Due process does not require, however, that the interested party actually receive notice. Weigner v. City of New York, 852 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1005, 109 S.Ct. 785, 102 L.Ed.2d 777 (1989). So long as the government “acted reasonably in selecting means likely to inform [the] persons affected, ... then it has discharged its burden.” Id. Nitsua argues that the government did not employ means reasonably calculated to inform Nitsua of the forfeiture proceedings and give it an opportunity to file a timely claim and answer pursuant to Supplemental Rule C(6). See Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 14, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1563, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978) (“The purpose of notice under the Due Process Clause is to apprise the affected individual of, and permit adequate preparation for, an impending ‘hearing.’ ”). Specifically, Nitsua contends the government sent it notice at an address the government knew or should have known was not likely to be effective, even though the government had been using another address to subpoena documents from Nitsua in connection with the criminal proceedings against Austin. Whether the government employed means reasonably calculated to provide Nit-sua actual" }, { "docid": "50810", "title": "", "text": "by the Narcotic Agents on March 25, 1968 is also inconsistent with a policy of enlightenment, for although on that date a bond for costs would still have been timely, the agents did not inform Menkarell of the appraisal, the notice, or the certainty of summary forfeiture if no bond was filed. This kind of summary forfeiture proceeding is entirely too summary. Due process may not demand actual notice in every case, but it forbids the use of a method of notice which is not reasonably calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means readily at hand. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), sets forth the appropriate standard. It recognizes that notice by publication may be appropriate where there are interested persons whose addresses are unknown. But where a trustee attempted to rely on a published notice, authorized by a New York statute, to bar rights of interested persons whose whereabouts were known, the procedure violated due process. Such is the case here. Menkarell’s name and address were known. He should at the least have been given a copy of the notice of proposed forfeiture. Indeed in every case of the seizure of a registered motor vehicle the name and address of the registered owner is readily available from the motor vehicle registration authorities. In these circumstances no reasons of necessity compel the resort to notice by publication in lieu of notice more likely to be effective. See Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 213, 83 S.Ct. 279, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962); Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956); New York v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. 293, 296, 73 S.Ct. 299, 97 L.Ed. 333 (1953); cf. McClendon v. Rosetti, 460 F.2d 111 (2d Cir. 1972). Thus on the record before us we must reject the government’s alternative ground for affirmance since it would appear that Menkarell’s car was forfeited to the United States by proceedings which did not comport" }, { "docid": "9333183", "title": "", "text": "of a common trust fund, commented: “Chance alone brings to the attention of even a local resident an advertisement in small type inserted in the back [classified] pages of a newspaper, and if he makes his home outside the area of the newspaper’s normal circulation the odds that the information will reach him are large indeed. The chance of actual notice is further reduced when, as here, the notice required does not even name those whose attention it is supposed to attract, and does not inform acquaintances who might call it to [his] attention.” Mullane, supra, at 315, 70 S.Ct. at 658. The constitutional requirement that notice be calculated reasonably to reach interested persons long has been observed regarding deprivations of real property. In Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956), and Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 83 S.Ct. 279, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962), State statutes authorizing notice of condemnation proceedings by publication only were found constitutionally deficient. Under the facts in each case, the names and addresses of landowners were readily ascertainable from deed records and tax rolls. Speaking for the Court in Walker, Justice Black concluded: “Measured by the principles stated in the Mullane case, we think that the notice by publication here falls short of the requirements of due process. It is common knowledge that mere newspaper publication rarely informs the landowner of proceedings against his property. In Mullane we pointed out many of the infirmities of such notice and emphasized the advantage of some kind of personal notice to interested parties. In the present case there seem to be no compelling or even persuasive reasons why such direct notice cannot be given. Appellant’s name was known to the city and was on the official records. Even a letter would have apprised him that his property was about to be taken and that he must appear if he wanted to be heard as to its value.” 352 U.S. at 116, 77 S.Ct. at 202. Notwithstanding, there are situations where resort to publication is acceptable. Often," }, { "docid": "22914841", "title": "", "text": "personal service, registered or certified mail, or, at a minimum, of service by first class mail with a return envelope, postage prepaid and addressed to the sender, as specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C)(ii) & 4(d). Although the Supreme Court has yet to be squarely presented with the question whether certified or registered mail, as opposed to first class mail, is required to constitute actual notice, I think that a discernible trend toward this position, coupled with the Court’s recognition of property rights as personal rights, e.g., Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 552, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 1122, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972), make its adoption a matter only of time. Judge Kaye’s opinion in McCann ably recounts that trend. Starting with Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), the Supreme Court rejected any rigid distinctions between in rem and in per-sonam proceedings, id. at 312-13, 70 S.Ct. at 656-57, and articulated that “[a]n elementary and fundamental requirement of due process ... is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections,” id. at 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657, and that “[t]he means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might rea sonably adopt to accomplish it.” Id. at 315, 70 S.Ct. at 657. In following years the Court held that constructive notice of condemnation proceedings was inadequate to notify a landowner whose identity was known to the city, Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 83 S.Ct. 279, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962) (publication and posting insufficient notice of condemnation proceedings to landowner ascertainable from public records), and that the posting of a summons on an apartment door was insufficient notice of a forcible entry or detainer action, Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 102 S.Ct. 1874, 72 L.Ed.2d 249 (1982). In Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791," }, { "docid": "15104717", "title": "", "text": "Stratman and Burton) whose interests were never more than recreational should have exhausted administrative remedies. The plaintiffs argue against imposition of such a requirement on the ground that they did not have actual notice of the village’s application and thus could not have utilized administrative remedies. There are, however, a vast number of occasional users of this land and actual notice to all would have been impossible. Notice was provided by publication in the Federal Register and several Alaska newspapers. The district court correctly held that neither the government nor the village was required to give actual notice to all potential recreational users, and that the publication and other notice requirements set forth in the regulations, 43 C.F.R. § 2651.2(a)(8), did not deny due process to those whose only connection with the land was, at the time of published notice, simply that of recreational users. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 317, 70 S.Ct. 652, 658, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); North Am. Pharmacal, Inc. v. HEW, 491 F.2d 546, 551-52 (8th Cir. 1973); 44 U.S.C. § 1508. Thus, while those with recreational interests have standing to challenge the agency action in question, they may not be relieved of the prerequisite of exhaustion of administrative remedies by virtue of lack of actual notice. Stratman and Burton, however, were not merely recreational users at the time of Woody Island’s application. They had record interests in land which was subject to allotment and thus were potentially affected by the village certification at the time of the application. Given the ease with which such record interests could have been ascertained, we agree with the district court’s original determination, 423 F.Supp. at 547, that Stratman and Burton were entitled to actual notice of the proposed certification. Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 212-13, 83 S.Ct. 279, 282, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962); Walker v. City of Hutchison, 352 U.S. 112, 116, 77 S.Ct. 200, 202, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., supra, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657. Since" }, { "docid": "22452803", "title": "", "text": "action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane [v. Central Hanover Trust Co.], 339 U.S. [306,] 314, 70 S.Ct. [652,] 657, [94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)]. Whether notice was adequate is measured at the time the notice was sent. See Sarit v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 987 F.2d 10, 14 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 241, 126 L.Ed.2d 195 (1993). When the government has actual knowledge of an interested party’s whereabouts at the time forfeiture is commenced, failure to direct the statutorily required personal notice to that address cannot be considered compliance with either the statute or minimum due process standards. See Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 800, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 2712, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983).... Moreover, if the government is incarcerating or prosecuting the property owner when it elects to impose the additional burden of defending a forfeiture proceeding, fundamental fairness surely requires that either the defendant or his counsel receive actual notice of the agency’s intent to forfeit in time to decide whether to compel the agency to proceed by judicial condemnation.... Woodall, 12 F.3d at 794-95 (some internal citations omitted). The claimant in Woodall had alleged that the notice of forfeiture was sent to his home, but that it was sent during the pendency of his federal criminal prosecution, the district court had ordered his release to a different residence known to the government, and no notice was mailed either to his correct address or to his attorney. Id. at 794. This court held that “if the facts in this case are as Woodall alleges — something we cannot determine on this record — he did not receive adequate notice of the administrative forfeiture and is entitled to have the forfeiture Declaration voided.” Id. at 795; see also Williams v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin., 51 F.3d 732, 735 (7th Cir.1995) (describing government’s conduct as “egregious” where government sent notice to claimant’s home address although government knew claimant had been reincarcerated in county jail, and the federal agent who initiated the forfeiture had several contacts with the claimant" }, { "docid": "6482257", "title": "", "text": "(1972)). Because Lehner does not dispute that the procedure prescribed by California law provides minimal due process, we need not evaluate its constitutionality. Her sole challenge is to HUD’s alleged failure to notify her formally of the foreclosure sale. She alleges that HUD mailed the notice to the wrong address. Although we cannot determine whether her allegation is true, the record reveals clearly that she knew the foreclosure sale was imminent. Her repeated efforts to delay the impending sale attest to her knowledge. It is apparent that government officials informed her about the sale during their repeated conversations with Lehner and her lawyer. She makes no suggestion that the written notice would have supplied information not already known to her or that it would somehow facilitate judicial review of her claims, nor did she allege that she never received actual notice of the foreclosure sale. Her constitutional argument thus boils down to due process requiring the meaningless formality of written (rather than oral) notice. We refuse to elevate form over substance. “[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). See Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961); Goichman v. Rheuban Motors, Inc., 682 F.2d 1320, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982). Similarly, the Supreme Court has “called attention to the impossibility of setting up a rigid formula as to the kind of notice that must be given; notice required will vary with circumstances and conditions.” Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 115, 77 S.Ct. 200, 202, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956). Notice should further the purposes of the requirement: “to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). See Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211, 83 S.Ct. 279, 281, 9 L.Ed.2d" }, { "docid": "22840141", "title": "", "text": "addressee of the letter. Rather, it permitted the use of a method of giving notice that would ordinarily result in such receipt. Failure to petition the Board of Tax Appeals (now the Tax Court) within 90 days of the mailing of the letter does deprive the taxpayer of a privilege, namely, withholding payment of the tax pending determination of the validity and correctness of the 'assessment by the Board (Tax Court) (§ 272(a)), and litigating the matter before the Board (Tax Court). (See Ginsburg v. United States, 1 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 470.) But it does not deprive him of all right to contest the validity or correctness of the assessment; he can still do this by paying the tax, filing a claim for refund, and if that be denied, suing in the District Court or Court of Claims, (e. g. Van Antwerp v. United States, 9 Cir., 1937, 92 F.2d 871). And if he wins, he gets his money back, normally, with interest. We have no doubt that the Congress, if it chose to do so, could have required the taxpayer to pay first and then litigate, in all cases. (Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 51 S.Ct. 608, 75 L.Ed. 1289, 1931) Particularly because this is so, we find no constitutional weakness in the use of the authorized method of sending the 90-day letter, even in those cases where it may not actually be received. The cases cited by appellant (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 1950, 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865; Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178) deal with the cutting off of all rights, not of one of two alternative remedies provided to the taxpayer by the Congress as a matter of grace. The statute, however, requires a proper giving of notice. (§ 272(a)). We think that the letters relating to the years 1945-7 and 1948 were in fact and in law sent to Cohen's “last known address.” The Commissioner normally deals with a taxpayer who has a residence or other address" }, { "docid": "22336320", "title": "", "text": "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The circuit court of Cook County denied the motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Illinois, three justices dissenting, held that, in light of the in rem nature of the proceedings, substituted service as utilized by the State did not deny appellant due process of law. People ex rel. Hanrahan v. One 1965 Oldsmobile, 52 Ill. 2d 37, 284 N. E. 2d 646 (1972). We cannot agree. In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306 (1950), after commenting on the vagueness of the classifications \"in rem, or more indefinitely quasi in rem, or more vaguely still, ‘in the nature of a proceeding in rem,’ ” this Court held that “the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution do not depend upon a classification for which the standards are so elusive and confused generally and which, being primarily for state courts to define, may and do vary from state to state.” Id., at 312. “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Id., at 314. More specifically, Múlleme held that notice by publication is not sufficient with respect to an individual whose name and address are known or easily ascertainable. Similarly, in Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U. S. 141 (1956), we held that, in the context of a foreclosure action by the town, notice by mailing, posting, and publication was inadequate where the individual involved was known by the town to be an incompetent without the protection of a guardian. See also Schroeder v. New York, 371 U. S. 208 (1962); Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U. S. 112 (1956); New York v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U. S. 293 (1953). In the instant case, the State knew that appellant was not at the address to which the notice was mailed and, moreover," }, { "docid": "23279571", "title": "", "text": "A new appeal was taken and since no new issues were raised appellants’ motion for an order permitting, the use herein of the record and briefs filed in the prior appeal (case #21,217) was granted. The district court’s jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s decision in these circumstances is well established in the Ninth Circuit. In Coleman v. United States, 9 Cir., 363 F.2d 190, reversed on other grounds, 390 U.S. 599, 88 S.Ct. 1327, 20 L.Ed.2d 170, we held that “although the Administrative Procedure Act does not permit a trial de novo of administrative decisions, it does authorize and require judicial review under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act * * 363 F.2d at 193 (citations omitted). In reviewing Coleman, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to discuss jurisdictional difficulties although jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act was an issue before the Court. The difficulty we see in the Secretary’s decision concerns appellants’ constitutional right to procedural due process of law. Having established a system of appeals, the Secretary is constitutionally bound to administer that system in a manner consistent with established concepts of due process. Due process requires that a party who is adversely affected by a Land Department decision must be afforded proper notice of action to be taken or which has been taken. See Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 83 S.Ct. 379, 9 L.Ed.2d 350; Shields v. Utah Idaho Central R. R., 305 U.S. 177, 59 S.Ct. 160, 83 L.Ed. 111. The due process clause requires that notice must be reasonably calculated to inform parties of proceedings which may directly and adversely affect their legally protected interests. Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178; Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865. The standard as applied to administrative agencies is broadly stated in Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 143, 60 S.Ct. 437, 442, 84 L.Ed. 656: “[L]aws under which [administrative] agencies operate prescribe the fundamentals of fair play. They" }, { "docid": "22840142", "title": "", "text": "do so, could have required the taxpayer to pay first and then litigate, in all cases. (Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 51 S.Ct. 608, 75 L.Ed. 1289, 1931) Particularly because this is so, we find no constitutional weakness in the use of the authorized method of sending the 90-day letter, even in those cases where it may not actually be received. The cases cited by appellant (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 1950, 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865; Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178) deal with the cutting off of all rights, not of one of two alternative remedies provided to the taxpayer by the Congress as a matter of grace. The statute, however, requires a proper giving of notice. (§ 272(a)). We think that the letters relating to the years 1945-7 and 1948 were in fact and in law sent to Cohen's “last known address.” The Commissioner normally deals with a taxpayer who has a residence or other address which is on record with the Commissioner through the taxpayer’s own tax returns. That is the situation here. The Commissioner or one of his agents may learn that the taxpayer has changed his address, or he may be so advised by the taxpayer. In such a ease, he must use the new address. The Commissioner or one of his agents may also learn that the taxpayer is temporarily sojourning elsewhere, as in a hotel or hospital or vacation resort or jail, or even abroad, while still retaining the same “permanent” address. He is not required to treat the address of temporary sojourn as the “last known address”. To so require would place an impossible administrative burden on the Commissioner. More important, it could in many cases defeat the objective of the statute by making it less rather than more likely that a letter mailed to the taxpayer would be received. This is because the taxpayer may no longer be at the temporary address when the letter is mailed. The Commissioner can hardly make a daily" }, { "docid": "22452802", "title": "", "text": "pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest.’” Id. at 793 (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)); Glasgow v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin., 12 F.3d 795, 797 (8th Cir.1994) (“a claimant’s right to compel the agency to proceed by judicial forfeiture is an important statutory cheek on the government’s power to forfeit private property. Therefore, DEA’s compliance with statutory and constitutional notice requirements are essential components of the statutory regime.”). Madewell’s assertion appears to be that because he did not receive the proper written notice, even though he was a “party who appears to have an interest in the seized article,” he was never able to challenge the forfeiture in federal court, and thus was deprived of his property without due process of law. In Woodall, this court, examining the notice requirement for administrative forfeiture, said, [T]he Constitution requires “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane [v. Central Hanover Trust Co.], 339 U.S. [306,] 314, 70 S.Ct. [652,] 657, [94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)]. Whether notice was adequate is measured at the time the notice was sent. See Sarit v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 987 F.2d 10, 14 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 241, 126 L.Ed.2d 195 (1993). When the government has actual knowledge of an interested party’s whereabouts at the time forfeiture is commenced, failure to direct the statutorily required personal notice to that address cannot be considered compliance with either the statute or minimum due process standards. See Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 800, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 2712, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983).... Moreover, if the government is incarcerating or prosecuting the property owner when it elects to impose the additional burden of defending a forfeiture proceeding, fundamental fairness surely requires that either the defendant or his counsel receive actual notice of the agency’s intent to forfeit in time to decide whether to" }, { "docid": "23279572", "title": "", "text": "to administer that system in a manner consistent with established concepts of due process. Due process requires that a party who is adversely affected by a Land Department decision must be afforded proper notice of action to be taken or which has been taken. See Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 83 S.Ct. 379, 9 L.Ed.2d 350; Shields v. Utah Idaho Central R. R., 305 U.S. 177, 59 S.Ct. 160, 83 L.Ed. 111. The due process clause requires that notice must be reasonably calculated to inform parties of proceedings which may directly and adversely affect their legally protected interests. Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178; Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865. The standard as applied to administrative agencies is broadly stated in Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 143, 60 S.Ct. 437, 442, 84 L.Ed. 656: “[L]aws under which [administrative] agencies operate prescribe the fundamentals of fair play. They require that interested parties be afforded an opportunity for hearing and that judgment must express a reasoned conclusion.” In deciding whether appellants’ right to appeal from the decision of the Los Angeles office was frustrated, the applicable standard is whether the decision was a reasoned conclusion clearly apprising appellants of the action taken, thus enabling them to determine whether their interests were adversely affected. We conclude that the decision did not satisfy due process requirements of notice in two major aspects. The first deficiency is that the decision did not adequately inform appellants that they were adversely affected. That is, the decision affirmatively promised that an adverse effect need not result; “However, the offerors are allowed the right to substitute within 30 days new offer forms (forms enclosed) eliminating any reference to unequal interests without losing their priority.” Unfortunately for appellants, the promise that loss of priority would not result was unauthorized by statute, regulation, or decision. The Secretary attached no weight to the unauthorized promise other than to term it regrettable and decided that" }, { "docid": "22914822", "title": "", "text": "may be relied upon to deliver notice where it is sent. Mullane, supra, 339 U.S. at 319, 70 S.Ct. at 660. In the context of a wide variety of proceedings that threaten to deprive individuals of their property interests, the Supreme Court has consistently held that mailed notice satisfies the requirements of due process. See, e.g., Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, supra, — U.S. at -, 108 S.Ct. at 1345 (notice to creditors in probate proceedings); Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, supra, 462 U.S. at 799-800, 103 S.Ct. at 2711-12 (notice to mortgagee of tax foreclosure); Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 455, 102 S.Ct. 1874, 1880, 72 L.Ed.2d 249 (1982) (notice to public housing tenants of forcible entry and de-tainer actions); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 214, 83 S.Ct. 279, 283, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962) (notice of condemnation proceeding); Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 116, 77 S.Ct. 200, 203, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956) (notice of condemnation proceeding); Mullane, supra, 339 U.S. at 319, 70 S.Ct. at 659 (notice to trust beneficiaries of judicial settlement of trust accounts). Though the mails are not one hundred percent reliable, none of these cases requires actual receipt of notice that is properly mailed. See, e.g., Schroeder v. City of New York, supra, 371 U.S. at 214, 83 S.Ct. at 283 (City’s duty to notify property owner of condemnation proceeding was “an obligation which the mailing of a single letter would have discharged”) (emphasis added). Weigner contends that she was constitutionally entitled to notice by certified mail, return receipt requested. No doubt that form of notice would have advantages. The signed receipt would provide virtually conclusive evidence that the notice was received, thereby permitting proof of receipt, if thought to be constitutionally required, to be established on a more substantial basis than simply weighing the inferences from mailing against the property owner’s denial. Moreover, the delivery and request for signature of a return receipt would alert the property owner to the fact that the letter contains something of more than routine interest. Indeed, a" }, { "docid": "774582", "title": "", "text": "observed in another context, “[o]ur Constitution has always been viewed as a great document of practical governance as well as the embodiment of our most precious values.” Potter v. Rain Brook Feed Co., 530 F.Supp. 569, 580 (E.D.Cal.1982). A reading of our Constitution that would, as a practical effect, stifle litigation as to national rules must be rejected on the basis that the law forbids the reading of statutes (much less the Constitution) to reach absurd results. The due process cases MSLF relies upon simply do not apply to the posture of this litigation. They do not involve challenges to national regulations, and in every case the plaintiff challenging the action was identifiable, amenable to service, and was deprived of a property interest in a direct and substantial manner. See Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983) (complete forfeiture of a security interest requires personal service or notice by mail in order to satisfy due process); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (judicial settlement of accounts of pooling of small trust estates into one common fund, whereby the investments were re-characterized required notice by mail of those beneficiaries whose addresses were readily ascertainable); Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956) (notice of condemnation proceedings published in a local newspaper was an inadequate means of informing a landowner whose name was known to the city and was on official records); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 83 S.Ct. 279, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962) (publication in a newspaper and posted notices were inadequate to apprise a property owner of condemnation proceedings when his name and address were readily ascertainable from the deed and tax rolls); Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 102 S.Ct. 1874, 72 L.Ed.2d 249 (1982) (posting a summons on the door of a tenant’s apartment was an inadequate means of providing notice of forcible entry and detainer actions). Cases such as the above, turning on a limited" } ]