Latest 3 Cases: Imamura v. General Electric Co. (Business Law), De Pena-Paniagua v. Barr (Government & Administrative Law), In re Pimentel-Soto ...

Pro-Gun Justices Announce Their Agenda While the Supreme Court Bides It Time on Gun Rights

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court deferring deciding on a Second Amendment issue presented by a New York City law that prohibited gun owners from transporting their guns out of the city. Sarat points out that the issue that divided the Court’s conservative justices in this case was not whether to radically expand the protections of the Second Amendment, but when and how to do so.

Read More

Imamura v. General Electric Co.

Docket: 19-1457

Opinion Date: April 24, 2020

Judge: Torruella

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Personal Injury, Real Estate & Property Law

In this class action lawsuit stemming from the 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) in Japan, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing Plaintiffs' suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that an adequate alternative forum was available in Japan. Plaintiffs were individuals and business entities who suffered property damage and/or economic harm as a result of the FNPP disaster. Plaintiffs filed suit against General Electric Company (GE) alleging that GE negligently designed the FNPP's nuclear reactors and safety mechanisms, both of which were implicated in the explosions. Plaintiffs alleged that venue was proper in the District of Massachusetts because GE maintained its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. The district court dismissed the suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, determining that an adequate alternative forum was available to Plaintiffs in Japan and that dismissal was in the private and public interest. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Japan satisfied the forum availability requirement despite the jurisdictional idiosyncrasies presented in this case.

De Pena-Paniagua v. Barr

Docket: 18-2100

Opinion Date: April 24, 2020

Judge: William Joseph Kayatta, Jr.

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

The First Circuit held that the requirements for establishing membership in a particular social group in support of a request for asylum or withholding of removal do not categorically preclude applicants from successfully relying on any group defined in material part as women "unable to leave" a domestic relationship. Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner alleged that her former domestic partner and the father of her son abused her in the past, will abuse her in the future, and will remain unfettered by Dominican law enforcement authorities. The immigration judge ruled against Petitioner in part on claimed inadequacy of the tendered social groups. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the BIA's holding that Petitioner's claim necessarily failed because the groups to which she claimed to belong were necessarily deficient was arbitrary and unexamined.

In re Pimentel-Soto

Docket: 17-1967

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: William Joseph Kayatta, Jr.

Areas of Law: Legal Ethics

The First Circuit reversed the district court's order sanctioning Attorney for failing to appear at a status conference, holding that where Attorney was fined without first being given a chance to show cause or explain her failure to appear, the court's order was an abuse of discretion. After Attorney failed to appear at a status conference the district court opened the conference by imposing a monetary sanction on Attorney for her failure to appear. Attorney filed two motions for reconsideration asking the court to excuse her non-appearance due to "mistake" in scheduling. The district court denied the motions for reconsideration. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the sanctions were an abuse of discretion because (1) the district judge in this case does not uniformly sanction all counsel who fail to appear; (2) it cannot be determined which non-appearing attorneys are sanctions and which ones are not; and (3) the district court fined Attorney without first giving her a chance to show cause or explain her failure to appear.