Jose A. Cabranes

How Judge Cabranes rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1994-08-10
Education
Columbia University (A.B., history, 1961); Yale Law School (J.D., 1965); University of Cambridge, Queens' College (M.Litt., international law, 1967)
Signed orders read
35

How Judge Cabranes decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

An arbitration provision must provide a genuine independent forum for statutory claims. A process controlled unilaterally by an executive of an adverse party, without bilateral dispute resolution, was unenforceable.

“enforcing this agreement would require Flores to submit his statutory claims to the unilateral discretion of the executive of one of his adverse parties, without an independent arbitral forum under contract and without a process for bilateral dispute resolution.”

Formal executive recognition of a foreign state informed the sovereign-immunity analysis. Because Afghanistan remained recognized and its central bank was an agency or instrumentality, the bank retained statutory attachment and execution immunity.

“DAB is the agency or instrumentality of the foreign state of Afghanistan, which itself continues to be recognized as an independent state by the Executive Branch of the United States. This makes DAB itself a ‘foreign state’ pursuant to § 1603(a) and (b) of the FSIA and imbues it with attachment and execution immunity under § 1609.”

Procedural preferences

A party seeking judicial resolution of arbitrability must specifically challenge the contract’s delegation clause. Without that targeted challenge, the arbitrator decides whether the claims fall within the arbitration agreement.

“Because Plaintiffs have not specifically challenged the delegation clause, we hold that their claims against Uber and Postmates should be sent to an arbitrator to determine whether those claims are arbitrable.”

Cautions

A sentencing court may reward cooperation but may not increase a sentence because a defendant declined to cooperate. Binding circuit precedent required vacatur when refusal to cooperate drove an upward variance.

“district courts may not use a defendant’s refusal to cooperate as a factor justifying an increase in the sentence imposed.”

Disregarding a protective order can lead to exclusion of evidence. The court upheld that sanction where counsel delayed disclosure of potentially privileged material and rejected an offered procedure that would have allowed compliant review.

“The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it prohibited defense counsel from introducing certain privileged items into evidence, as this was an appropriate sanction for defense counsel’s failure to abide by the District Court’s protective order.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Jin Yu Lin v. U.S. Department of Justice
03-40277 · 2005-07-01
Petition for review (petitioner (Jin Yu Lin)) Denied

“Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and affirm the denial of petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal.”

Nokia Corp. v. Uzan
05-0989 · 2005-10-05
Appeal (appellants (the individual Uzan-family defendants)) Moot / procedural

“Because the arguments appellants assert on this appeal have been waived, plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.”

United States v. Jey Song
05-1409 · 2006-01-27
Appeal (appellant (defendant Jey Song)) Denied

“We have carefully considered defendant's remaining arguments and find each of them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby Affirmed.”

Deutsch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
06-1863 · 2007-03-02
Appeal (appellant (taxpayer Fred Deutsch)) Denied

“Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court is Affirmed.”

Fielding v. Tollaksen
06-5393 · 2007-12-12
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Maria Fielding)) Denied

“Judge Robinson effectively denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint when he adopted Magistrate Judge Yanthis's Report and Recommendation proposing dismissal of the action and entered final judgment in favor of defendants. We affirm.”

Ali v. Mukasey
07-0460-ag · 2008-05-02
Petition for review (petitioner (Mirza F. Ali)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.”

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dorozhko
08-0201-cv · 2009-07-22
Appeal (appellant (Securities and Exchange Commission)) Granted

“We hold that nothing in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence or prior decisions of our Court expressly imposes a fiduciary-duty requirement on the ordinary meaning of ‘deceptive’ where the alleged fraud is an affirmative misrepresentation rather than a nondisclosure. Vacated and remanded.”

Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp.
08-4507-cv · 2009-03-09
Appeal (appellant (Wabtec Corporation)) Granted

“Vacated and Remanded.”

Sassaman v. Gamache
07-2721-cv · 2009-05-22
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Carl Thomas Sassaman)) Granted

“As explained in further detail below, we conclude that this evidence was sufficient to meet Sassaman's minimal burden of establishing a prima facie case of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.”

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
07-5638-cv · 2010-01-05
Appeal (appellants (defendants, New York Stock Exchange et al.)) Denied

“Accordingly, based on the New York Court of Appeals' answer to our certified question, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court and remand the cause to the District Court to enter judgment in conformity with the parties' settlement agreement.”

Bakoss v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London
11-4371-cv · 2013-01-23
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Imad John Bakoss)) Denied

“We hold that the meaning of ‘arbitration’ under the Federal Arbitration Act is governed by federal common law -- not state law. ... Accordingly, we AFFIRM the September 28, 2011 judgment of the District Court.”

United States v. Canori
12-4837-cr · 2013-12-04
Appeal (appellant (defendant Eric Canori)) Denied

“We hold that there has been no such ‘rescheduling’ of marijuana. ... Marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.”

Draft for Judge Cabranes with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cabranes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Cabranes's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace