Top Legal News » 1st COA

Decisions In Immigration Law & Suit Against Housing & Urban Development

admin — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:19:10 +0000

Ly v. Holder, 09-2529, concerned a Cambodian citizen’s petition for review of a final order of the BIA upholding an IJ’s denial of his request for asylum and related relief. In denying the petition, the court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA and IJ’s findings that petitioner’s fears of future harm were unrelated to a protected ground, and his remaining claims lack merit.

Aponte-Rosario v. Acevedo-Villa, 09-1200, concerned a challenge to the a grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs’ action against several officers of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration (PRPHA), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), claiming that in preparing and approving an application for demolition of their housing project residents violated their statutory right to resident consultation under section 1437p of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 and other claims. In affirming the judgment, the court held that, there are no genuine issues of material fact as to PRPHA’s compliance with resident consultation prior to filing an application for demolition with HUD, and district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ de facto demolition claim is affirmed as well.

Related Resources:

Full text of Ly v. Holder
Full text of Aponte-Rosario v. Acevedo-Villa

Decision in Criminal Matter, Plus Corporate Veil Piercing of Credit Counseling Org.

admin — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:19:08 +0000

Zimmerman v. Puccio, 09-1416, concerned a challenge to the district court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit against defendant-Cambridge Credit Counseling Corporations (Cambridge) and other corporate defendants, pursuant to the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. In affirming the judgment, the court held that Cambridge was a credit repair organization within the meaning of CROA. Further, the district court unambiguously held defendants liable for misleading representations under section 1679b(a)(3) of CROA, and that finding of liability is affirmed based on the court’s corporate veil-piercing analysis. The court also held that because defendants’ liability under section 1679b(a)(3) fully supports the district court’s grant of summary judgment, defendant’s liability under section 1679b(a)(4) and their attendant arguments about summary judgment standard and corporate veil-piercing need not be reached.

Torres v. Dennehy, 09-1522, concerned a challenge to the district court’s denial of defendant’s petition for habeas relief from his 1997 convictions for the murder of his girlfriend’s fifteen-year-old child and for charges growing out of the alleged abuse of her two other children. In affirming the district court’s denial of the petition, the court held that defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because the elicitation issue was resolved on the merits against defendant, and it does not matter whether counsel ought to have raised it earlier. Further, defendant’s argument that his Miranda waiver was invalid need not be reached, since it depends on the assumption that the interview was itself a Sixth Amendment violation.

Related Resources:

Full text of Zimmerman v. Puccio
Full text of Torres v. Dennehy

Criminal Matter & Exclusion of Expert Witness Testimony in Medical Malpractice Suit

admin — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:19:06 +0000

US v. Maldonado, 09-1626, concerned a challenge to the district court’s imposition of a sentence of 120-months imprisonment in a prosecution of defendant for crimes related to his role in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In vacating the sentence, the court held that an attaching plates offense under Massachusetts law does not count toward defendant’s criminal history under the guidelines. The court also held that whether defendant qualifies for the safety valve and, if so, whether a different sentence should be imposed are matters for the district court on remand.

Cruz-Vazquez v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., Inc., 09-1758, concerned a challenge to the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants in plaintiff’’s suit filed pursuant to the Puerto Rico’s medical malpractice law and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). In vacating the judgment, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in excluding plaintiff’s expert witness, as considerations such as an expert witness’s pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case, or his status as an expert witness only for one side of an issue, or the extent to which a doctor currently sees patients, go to the probative weight of testimony, not its admissibility.

Related Resources:

Full text of US v. Maldonado
Full text of Cruz-Vazquez v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., Inc

Class Action Suit Against Puerto Rican Bar Association for Mandatory Life Insurance Purchase

admin — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:19:04 +0000

Brown v. Colegio De Abogados De Puerto Rico, 08-2432, concerned a class action suit against the integrated bar association of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, arising from the organization’s activity of requiring members to purchase life insurance in order to practice before Puerto Rican courts.

As stated in the decision: “After Romero, Colegio did not fully advise its members that they no longer had to buy insurance, threw obstacles in front of those trying to opt out, and delayed refunds. In fact, it moved to disbar one member who refused to pay the portion of his dues attributable to the program. This sorry record answers claim of mootness and also defeats any claim that the district court abused its discretion on the separate issue of whether as a matter of discretion an injunction was warranted.”

Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the case as moot and the district court’s declaration of liability and its grant of injunctive relief. However, the court vacated and remanded the award of damages for the district court to allow notice to be given to class members including their right to opt out of the class.

Related Resource:

Full text of Brown v. Colegio De Abogados De Puerto Rico

Drug Conspiracy Conviction Affirmed, Plus Immigration Matter