Susan L. Carney

“We hold that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to SENA because a jury could reasonably find that SENA and UPM entered into an agreement to raise the price of publication paper, and that, as implemented, this agreement damaged plaintiffs. ... As to SEO, however, we conclude that the district court properly awarded it summary judgment ... Accordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment in part, affirm it in part, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

“We conclude that the proceeds are FICA wages. We therefore affirm the District Court's rejection of Gerstenbluth's refund claim and award of summary judgment to the Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’). We further affirm the District Court's dismissal of Gerstenbluth's refund claim against Credit Suisse.”

“Accordingly, we certify two pivotal questions of New York law to the New York Court of Appeals, requesting its consideration of these questions in the first instance.”

“General Security asserts that we lack jurisdiction to entertain Acumen's appeal, arguing that the District Court's certification under Rule 54(b) was improper in that its partial judgment did not address separate 'claim[s] for relief.' We agree, and conclude that we must dismiss the appeal.”

“We further conclude that the statute of limitations barred the FSA claims of six of the eight plaintiffs. Although we affirm the FSA award as to the remaining two plaintiffs, we determine that the related attorneys' fee award must be recalculated ... Finally, we decide -- contrary to the district court -- that the statute of frauds does not preclude plaintiffs from pursuing their NYLL and contract claims against defendants. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for further proceedings on these state-law claims and for recalculation of the FSA-related attorneys' fees.”

“We conclude that an employee may premise a section 215(a)(3) retaliation action on an oral complaint made to an employer ... Accordingly, because the District Court denied Greathouse damages on his claim for retaliatory discharge based entirely on Lambert's rule, we vacate the judgment insofar as it relied on Lambert and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

“We agree. We also conclude that, upon further development of the factual record, Fulton may be able to demonstrate constitutionally unreasonable performance of his counsel during the plea process. Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the District Court and REMAND the cause for further proceedings.”

“For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. We conclude that the broad language of 1519 encompasses the creation of documents -- like the contracts at issue here -- that misrepresent the true nature of the parties' negotiations, when the documents are created in order to frustrate a possible future government investigation.”

“We conclude that the District Court erred in declining to vacate the judgment. ... we decide that the FSIA provides the sole basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over actions to enforce ICSID awards against a foreign sovereign. Because actions to enforce ICSID awards against a foreign sovereign fall within the FSIA's comprehensive scheme, plaintiffs pursuing such actions must satisfy the FSIA's procedural requirements.”

“For these reasons, the District Court's judgment is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for the entry of a revised judgment consistent with this opinion.”

“We are troubled by the implications of the evidence that NRP adduced in support of its claims. ... Nonetheless, as a matter of law, we conclude that NRP's damages claims fail. We therefore AFFIRM the District Court's judgment in favor of defendants.”

“The District Court was thus correct to conclude that Dhinsa has failed to make the required threshold showing under 2255(e). This threshold test is jurisdictional, however, and so the District Court erred insofar as it entered a judgment denying the petition on the merits. Accordingly, we VACATE that portion of the judgment and REMAND the case with instructions for the District Court to enter a judgment dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.”