Sandra Lea Lynch

In Carreras v. Sajo, Garcia & Partners, the plaintiff sued his former employer for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming his termination was due to his type II diabetes and a request for accommodation regarding work hours. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant after deeming many of the defendant's facts admitted because the plaintiff's response failed to comply with Puerto Rico's anti-ferret rule under Local Rule 56. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the procedural default properly led to the admission of facts showing no genuine dispute that the plaintiff was not disabled under the ADA and that the termination was based on unsatisfactory work performance rather than retaliation.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Katharine Richardson's claims against her former employer, Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Maine Human Rights Act through failure to accommodate her shoulder impingement syndrome and termination of her employment due to the disability. The district court granted summary judgment to Friendly's on the grounds that Richardson was not a qualified individual under the statutes because she could not perform the essential functions of her assistant manager position with or without reasonable accommodation. The First Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Richardson had not shown a genuine issue of material fact as to her ability to carry out manual tasks central to assisting with restaurant operations, even accounting for modifications to her work methods or delegation of duties to other employees. The court noted that the proposed accommodations were either inadequate to enable performance of essential functions or unreasonable as a matter of law because they would require reallocating core responsibilities. The court also rejected the interactive process claim for the same reasons.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Larios, three defendants were charged with drug trafficking offenses after being recorded on audio and video participating in a controlled cocaine transaction in a motel room rented by undercover agents. Two defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy and related charges and received 120-month sentences, while the third proceeded to trial, was convicted, and received a 168-month sentence. The defendants appealed, arguing that admission of the unauthorized audio recording at sentencing and trial violated the federal wiretap statute (Title III) because they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. The First Circuit held that any error in admitting the recording at sentencing was harmless as to the two pleading defendants and that the defendant convicted at trial had no reasonable expectation of privacy given his brief engagement with the room, and therefore affirmed the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ismael Alfonzo-Reyes, a Farm Service Agency loan manager, and his wife Vanessa Morales-Hernández, who were convicted after an 82-day jury trial of fraud, bribery, and related charges for submitting false FSA emergency loan applications on behalf of dairy farmers following Hurricane Georges in Puerto Rico. The defendants inflated claimed damages, directed the procurement of falsified supporting documents, and paid kickbacks to an FSA official to approve over $10 million in loans. On appeal to the First Circuit, the defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, certain jury instructions, sentencing calculations, and other procedural rulings. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, that the district court properly applied the advisory guidelines and considered the relevant statutory factors, and that no reversible errors occurred in the trial or sentencing proceedings.

criminal law

The case involved a civil rights lawsuit by Adam Jennings against state police officer Kenneth Jones, alleging excessive force during an arrest at a tribal smoke shop that resulted in a broken ankle. A jury initially awarded damages on excessive force and battery claims against Jones, but the district court granted a new trial after finding the verdict against the weight of credible evidence and potentially incompatible with qualified immunity. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reassessing witness credibility and the strength of the evidence on whether force was increased after resistance ended.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case was a medical malpractice action brought by Zoraida Montalvo, individually and as administratrix of her mother's estate, against multiple Puerto Rico healthcare providers for alleged failures to diagnose her mother's lung cancer, seeking damages for the mother's pain and suffering as well as the daughter's own emotional distress from the wrongful death. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the suit as time-barred under Puerto Rico's one-year statute of limitations, concluding that the claims accrued by March 5, 2003, when the mother was discharged from a New York hospital with a terminal cancer diagnosis. The First Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that the complaint filed on April 20, 2004, was timely under the applicable Puerto Rico limitations rules, including considerations of accrual tied to the date of death and the plaintiff's ability to pursue both inherited and personal claims.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Mackendy Gourdet, a Haitian native and legal permanent resident convicted of a controlled substance violation, faced removal proceedings and applied for relief under the Convention Against Torture based on anticipated detention conditions and mistreatment in Haiti. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied his application, and the First Circuit reviewed the petition, distinguishing between generally substandard prison conditions like overcrowding and lack of food or sanitation, and specific acts such as rough treatment by police. Relying on precedent including In re J-E-, the court concluded that neither category of circumstances rose to the level of torture under CAT standards. It further held that it lacked jurisdiction over certain factual claims regarding widespread practices and individualized risk, resulting in denial of the petition for review.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved a wireless carrier, Omnipoint Holdings, which was denied a variance and special use permit by the City of Cranston's Zoning Board of Review to construct a communications tower needed to address a coverage gap in its network. Omnipoint sued in federal court under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, alleging that the denial effectively prohibited the provision of personal wireless services. The district court rejected the city's argument that the decision was not final due to available state review and, after trial, ruled for Omnipoint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the zoning board's action qualified as a final action under the Act and that the denial violated the statute because the carrier had shown through evidence of exhaustive searches and alternatives that the proposed site was the only feasible option to close the gap.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

In Zuluaga v. Spencer, the petitioner appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that state prosecutors violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose before his 1994 cocaine trafficking trial that a state trooper had been found to have testified falsely in an unrelated 1980 grand jury proceeding. The state courts rejected his motions for a new trial on the grounds that the undisclosed information was inadmissible and thus could not have affected the outcome of his suppression hearing or trial. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, holding that AEDPA's deferential standard of review applied because the state courts had adjudicated the federal claim on the merits despite citing no case law, and that even under de novo review the petition failed because the evidence was inadmissible under Massachusetts law and therefore not material under Brady. The court reasoned that AEDPA deference does not require explicit citation to federal precedents and that inadmissible evidence cannot establish prejudice.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Cedeño-Pérez, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering after delivering over $200,000 in cash to an undercover ICE agent posing as a money launderer connected to a Colombian drug trafficking organization. At trial, the government presented testimony and recordings from the confidential informant, the undercover agent, and others showing Cedeño's use of code words, secretive meeting arrangements in a parking lot, and expressions of concern about police detection. Cedeño moved for acquittal, arguing the evidence failed to prove he had the required mental state that the transaction was designed to conceal the nature, source, or ownership of unlawful proceeds. The district court denied the motion, the jury convicted him, and the First Circuit affirmed, holding that a rational jury could infer the requisite knowledge and purpose from the coded communications, evasive conduct, and timing details indicating an intent to hide the funds' origins.

criminal law

Franklin Memorial Hospital sued Maine's health commissioner, challenging the state's free care laws—which require hospitals to provide uncompensated medically necessary care to residents earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level—as an unconstitutional taking of property, and similarly challenging low Medicaid (MaineCare) reimbursement rates. The district court dismissed the Medicaid count and granted summary judgment to the state on the free care claim; the First Circuit affirmed. The court held that the free care laws do not effect a taking because they are enforced through fines rather than as a licensing condition, include a hardship exemption to protect hospitals' viability, and do not compel participation in Medicaid. On the Medicaid issue, the court accepted the state's interpretation that hospitals opting out of MaineCare may still bill eligible patients directly, making participation voluntary and defeating the takings claim.

healthcarepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a Puerto Rico doctor who challenged a Board of Medical Examiners regulation restricting the practice of cosmetic surgery to board-certified plastic surgeons or dermatologists, on constitutional grounds, and who also contested the Board's later suspension of his medical license. The doctor sought preliminary injunctive relief against both the regulation and the suspension, but the district court denied the requests. On appeal, the First Circuit dismissed one appeal as moot and affirmed the denial of the second, holding that the plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm because he had relocated to California and provided no evidence of ongoing detriment from the license suspension.

business & regulatorycivil rightshealthcareprocedure

Jamal Makieh, a Syrian citizen who entered the United States in 1992 on a student visa but never enrolled and remained without permission, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture after removal proceedings were initiated in 2003; he claimed fear of the Syrian government and rising Islamic extremism. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge's denial of all relief. The First Circuit dismissed the petition for review as to asylum due to lack of jurisdiction and denied it as to withholding of removal and CAT protection, holding that the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole because Makieh had never been harmed in Syria, his family members there faced no threats, and the evidence did not show a clear probability of future persecution or torture.

immigration

This case was an appeal from a district court order imposing sanctions on attorney Gordon Blakeney for filing motions to disqualify the City of Concord's counsel and for sanctions against the city, based on claims that city communications with two plaintiffs violated federal criminal obstruction-of-justice statutes. The underlying lawsuit challenged an Army Corps of Engineers permit for construction of a bypass highway affecting a historic property owned by plaintiffs. The district court found the motions frivolous and without legal or factual foundation after granting summary judgment in the main case, and ordered Blakeney to pay over $7,500 in attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court made no error of law, no clear error of fact, and did not abuse its discretion in finding the filings vexatious, while denying the city's request for appellate fees.

criminal lawprocedureenvironmentproperty

This case involved residents of public housing complexes in Puerto Rico suing the mayor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that municipal employees seized and killed their pets in raids shortly after the municipality took control of the complexes, in violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures of effects and Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights. The mayor, facing damages claims in his personal capacity, moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, which the district court denied; he appealed that denial. The First Circuit affirmed denial of qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment and procedural due process claims but reversed on the substantive due process claims and ordered their dismissal, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal to assess the pleadings and supervisory liability. The court also revised its circuit precedent on the sequence of qualified immunity analysis to align with intervening Supreme Court rulings.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by two employees against the City of Worcester and a former official, alleging that federal grant funds under the Workforce Investment Act were improperly diverted to pay for non-grant related expenses and to settle a lawsuit. The district court dismissed the claims for failure to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), and denied leave to amend the complaint a third time. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the Supreme Court's decision in Allison Engine did not alter the particularity requirements established in prior circuit precedents like Rost and Karvelas, and that the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient details about any false statements or claims. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying further amendment after repeated failures to cure deficiencies.

federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a class action lawsuit filed in Florida state court by a Florida resident against a Florida-based supermarket chain over a data security breach that exposed customers' credit and debit card information. The defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the plaintiff sought remand under CAFA's home state exception, which mandates declining federal jurisdiction when the primary defendants and at least two-thirds of the plaintiff class are citizens of the state where the suit was filed. The district court granted the remand, and the First Circuit affirmed, ruling that the exception applied based on the class definition limited to Florida citizens and the Florida defendant, without considering claims against other related entities or broader class members. The court rejected arguments that the class definition was improperly narrowed to avoid federal jurisdiction.

procedure

The case concerned sanctions imposed by the district court on COSVI for purported bad faith in fulfilling obligations under an oral settlement agreement reached during a RICO and Puerto Rico law lawsuit filed by FAC over alleged extortion in Medicare claims processing. The district court had ordered COSVI to pay $469,000 in attorneys' fees and costs after finding bad faith based on delays in acknowledging fraud via letter and other conduct. On appeal, the First Circuit vacated the sanctions award and remanded, holding that three of the four grounds cited for bad faith were erroneous because the settlement terms were unclear, COSVI had obtained a stay and complied promptly after an unsuccessful appeal on a close question, and the litigation delays were not attributable to bad faith. The court left open the possibility of sanctions on the fourth ground after reevaluation.

procedure

The case involved Matthew Marsh, who pled guilty to federal charges of distributing and conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. He faced a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, and the district court imposed an additional one-year upward departure from the sentencing guidelines range based on the conduct underlying two prior state convictions for resisting arrest that had been vacated shortly before sentencing. Marsh appealed, arguing that the upward departure was improper and rendered his sentence unreasonable. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court permissibly considered the underlying conduct from the vacated convictions in determining the sentence under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Fernando Gonzalez-Ramirez, who was convicted in federal district court in Rhode Island of conspiring to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting its distribution after authorities intercepted coded phone calls arranging a drug transaction between Gonzalez in Colorado and a Rhode Island buyer. Gonzalez received a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence based on prior convictions and appealed, claiming error in the denial of a competency hearing, the admission of evidence such as the phone recordings, the legal sufficiency of the evidence against him, and the constitutionality of the sentence on due process, separation of powers, and related grounds. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence in full, concluding that the district court committed no procedural or evidentiary errors, that the evidence was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and that the constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum sentence were without merit under established precedent.

criminal lawprocedure