William K. Sessions 3

In Lakhani v. USCIS, the petitioner sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for delayed adjudication of his visa petition as a battered spouse and to stay his removal order pending resolution. Following denial of his visa application, the government moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and mootness. The district court granted dismissal, reasoning that the REAL ID Act limits jurisdiction over removal matters to courts of appeals and that visa decisions involve unreviewable agency discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), rendering the claims either moot or beyond the court's authority.

immigration

In this case, plaintiff Samantha Madden sued defendant Dr. Joseph Abate after he performed vaginal examinations on her during treatment for hip and groin pain without obtaining explicit consent, wearing gloves, using lubrication, documenting the exams, or having a chaperone present. Madden initially brought claims for battery and medical malpractice, later seeking to amend her complaint to recharacterize the claim as one for "sexual assault and battery" and to add claims for outrageous conduct or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted Abate's motion to dismiss the "sexual assault" claim, ruling that Vermont law does not recognize a civil cause of action for sexual assault even though it is a criminal offense, while allowing the battery claim to proceed; it denied the motions for summary judgment and to further amend the complaint, and partially granted the motions to seal. The court reasoned that criminal statutes do not automatically create private rights of action and that the plaintiff had failed to properly disclose expert witnesses or meet procedural deadlines for amendments.

torts & liabilityprocedurecriminal law

This case involves a plaintiff seeking underinsured motorist benefits from his auto insurer after being injured by an underinsured driver, with the only remaining issue being the amount of damages for medical expenses and lost income. The plaintiff moved in limine to value his medical bills at the full amounts charged by providers rather than the discounted amounts paid by insurance, and to measure lost income on a pre-tax basis while excluding after-tax evidence. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that Vermont's collateral source rule bars evidence of insurance payments to reduce the reasonable value of medical services but permits Allstate to introduce other relevant evidence of that value, while allowing evidence of post-tax lost income and declining a tax-consequences jury instruction. The core reasoning rests on the principle that a tortfeasor should not benefit from a victim's independent insurance arrangements and that compensation aims to restore the plaintiff to his pre-injury position.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In United States v. Campbell, the defendant was charged with possessing oxycodone and cocaine with intent to distribute, along with violating supervised release conditions by possessing controlled substances. The district court addressed motions to suppress evidence obtained during a parking lot encounter, to dismiss one count, and to sever charges. The court granted the motion to suppress, ruling that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the initial stop and subsequent arrest, as the observations of a rental vehicle, air fresheners, nervous behavior by a companion, and other factors did not meet Fourth Amendment standards for detention at gunpoint and handcuffing. The other motions were denied as moot after the government agreed to dismiss one count. The ruling emphasized that the encounter escalated to a full arrest without sufficient justification.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Jacques, the defendant, facing federal kidnapping charges related to the murder of Brooke Bennett, moved to suppress statements he made to his friend Michael Garcia, who became a government informant after Jacques contacted him from jail seeking help to fabricate exculpatory evidence. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that statements made before Garcia registered as a confidential human source on July 16, 2008, are admissible, while later statements referencing the charged conduct must be excluded from the guilt phase and, if reached, the penalty phase. The reasoning centers on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massiah v. United States, which prohibits post-indictment government interrogation without counsel, though the government may submit sanitized versions of post-July 16 statements for possible use in the penalty phase.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves RLI Insurance Company's declaratory judgment action seeking to void a personal umbrella liability policy issued to the Klonskys after an automobile accident that injured Maria Rosatone. RLI denied coverage, claiming the policy was void due to Arthur Klonsky's material misrepresentations about the household's driving history on the application and renewal. The Klonskys and Rosatone counterclaimed for bad faith, breach of contract, and violations of Massachusetts laws and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court granted RLI's summary judgment motion in part, ruling that the policy was void based on the undisputed misrepresentations and the policy's terms allowing rescission, while dismissing the counterclaims for bad faith and breach but denying summary judgment on the FCRA claim due to factual disputes over the timing and purpose of obtaining motor vehicle reports.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Susan Mead sued ReliaStar Life Insurance Company after it denied her claim for long-term disability benefits under her former employer's group policy, following her departure from an executive marketing role at age 50 amid back pain, fibromyalgia, and other conditions. The court partially granted Mead's motion for summary judgment, denied the insurer's cross-motion, and remanded the claim to the plan administrator for further proceedings. The core reasoning was that the administrator's denial rested on multiple factual errors, including misstatements of Mead's physical tolerances from functional capacity evaluations, incomplete consideration of vocational reports, and failure to address inconsistencies in the record regarding her ability to perform the essential duties of her sedentary occupation during the initial 24-month period.

labor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Michel Messier, proceeding pro se, who sued the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) seeking to compel stronger enforcement actions, including penalties, against Sony and Dell for alleged failures to report hazards from lithium ion batteries in laptop computers. Messier claimed the CPSC's response to known risks was inadequate and asked the court to determine penalty levels or direct the Department of Justice to pursue settlements. The court granted the CPSC's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because agency enforcement decisions are committed to the agency's discretion and are not reviewable absent a complete abdication of duties. The court further ruled that Messier lacked standing under Article III because he alleged no concrete injury caused by the CPSC's conduct that could be redressed by the requested relief.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved Ralph Fretta suing Liberty Life Assurance Company under ERISA after the denial of his claim for short-term disability benefits due to acute depression and anxiety that prevented him from performing his duties as a respiratory therapist. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment following the insurer's determination that Fretta was not eligible. The court held that the denial was arbitrary and capricious because it lacked support from substantial evidence in light of consistent medical opinions from Fretta's physicians documenting his inability to work. Liberty Life's motion was denied, Fretta's motion was granted in part and denied in part, and the case was remanded to the insurer for reconsideration with instructions to allow supplementation of the record.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved the Office of Vermont Health Access, acting as subrogee for Francis Carey, seeking judicial review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of Medicare Part A coverage for intermittent skilled nursing home health services provided to Carey from November 2003 through March 2005. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting OVHA's motion to reverse the denial and remanding the matter for further proceedings after finding the Administrative Law Judge's decision was contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence. The core reasoning centered on the requirement under the Medicare Act and Second Circuit precedent that the Secretary's determination must be based on substantial evidence and correct legal standards, with the treating physician's Home Health Certifications and Plans of Care deemed a relevant factor that should have been given substantial weight when supported by the full medical record, including OASIS assessments and treatment notes documenting Carey's conditions such as Alzheimer's, ulcerative colitis, and related complications.

healthcare

The case involved plaintiff Elizabeth Akerley bringing civil claims of conspiracy and unjust enrichment against defendant Barney Marble Company, Inc., arising from her investments in a marble quarry venture promoted by third parties John Byors and others, with Barney Marble having separately engaged in lease, option, and stone-sale transactions involving the same Swanton quarry. After a bench trial, the court granted Barney Marble's motion for judgment on partial findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) and entered judgment in its favor. The court found no credible evidence that Barney Marble participated in or conspired regarding the fraudulent scheme targeting Akerley, nor any inequitable benefit conferred on Barney Marble from her investments, as the payments it received from Byors were less than the value of stone extracted. The decision rested on the court's assessment of witness credibility, documentary records of the quarry transactions, and the elements of the two claims under Vermont law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee's attempt to avoid a mortgage lien held by Bank of America on the debtors' Vermont property due to an alleged defect in the mortgage acknowledgment, which omitted the names of the acknowledging parties. The U.S. District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the bank, holding that the mortgage was valid under Vermont law. The court reasoned that the initials of the debtors appearing on the acknowledgment, combined with the notary's seal, sufficiently identified the signers to allow correction of the clerical omission by construction, thereby providing constructive notice to subsequent purchasers and preventing avoidance under bankruptcy law.

propertyprocedure

In Kellogg v. Wyeth, plaintiff Ethel Kellogg sued brand-name and generic drug manufacturers, including Actavis, Teva, Barr, and Pliva, alleging liability for injuries from long-term use of the generic drug metoclopramide due to inadequate warnings. The generic manufacturers moved to dismiss on federal preemption grounds, but the district court denied those motions in a December 2008 order. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine, which rejected preemption for brand-name manufacturers, the generic defendants sought certification of the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and a stay of proceedings. The court denied the motion, concluding that Levine substantially reduced grounds for differing opinions on preemption and that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation's end, as warranty claims against the generics and separate claims against Wyeth would remain unaffected.

healthcarefederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerns contractor James Naylor's appeal of bankruptcy court orders reopening the Chapter 7 cases of debtors Tammy Cusson and Dorothy Ducharme and avoiding his contractors' lien on their Vermont homestead. After Naylor performed foundation work, disputed payment led to a lien filing, a state court judgment, and a writ of attachment; the debtors then refinanced the property (disclosing the lien), filed for bankruptcy, obtained discharges, and later sought to reopen to avoid the lien. The district court dismissed the appeal of the reopening order for lack of finality but affirmed both decisions, holding that Naylor failed to perfect a judicial lien by timely recording the judgment under Vermont statutes, that the lien did not impair the homestead exemption in a reviewable way, and that the refinancing complied with disclosure rules in Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 1923. Core reasoning centered on the timing requirements for recording judgments to relate back to attachments and the permissibility of lien avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

propertyprocedure

In Kellogg v. Wyeth, plaintiff Ethel Kellogg sued Wyeth and several generic manufacturers of metoclopramide, alleging that prolonged use of the drug for her GERD caused permanent tardive dyskinesia and related symptoms due to inadequate warnings about long-term risks. The generic defendants moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that state-law failure-to-warn and products-liability claims were preempted by the FDCA because federal regulations require generic labels to match the brand-name label exactly. The court denied the motions, holding that the claims were not preempted; it applied a presumption against preemption of state tort law in the absence of clear congressional intent, noted that generic manufacturers remain subject to duties to update labeling upon new safety information under 21 C.F.R. § 201.80(e) and related provisions, and concluded that compliance with both federal labeling rules and state common-law duties was not impossible.

torts & liabilityfederal powerhealthcare

Fourteen defendants in pending criminal cases challenged the District of Vermont’s jury selection plan under the Sixth Amendment and the Jury Selection and Service Act, claiming it caused unconstitutional underrepresentation of African Americans and Hispanics in grand and petit jury pools drawn from voter registration lists. The court held a consolidated hearing featuring testimony from the jury administrator and statistical experts, then examined the plan’s three-division structure, systematic random selection process, four-year wheel refill cycle, and qualification questionnaires that collected race and ethnicity data. The court rejected the challenges, finding no substantial underrepresentation in the master jury wheels or summoned pools and no evidence of intentional discrimination. Its reasoning relied on comparative demographic data from the 2005 wheel, statistical significance tests showing disparities below thresholds used in prior cases, and the plan’s neutral reliance on voter rolls without barriers tied to race or ethnicity.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this ERISA case, plaintiff Laura Murray, an IBM employee, sued to challenge the denial of coverage under the company's self-insured health plan for bilateral reduction mammoplasties and thigh-plasties needed after massive weight loss from gastric bypass surgery, claiming the procedures were medically necessary to treat recurrent intertrigo. The plan administrator upheld the denial after reviews found insufficient documentation that conservative treatments had failed, as required by the plan's definition of medical necessity, which includes being clinically appropriate, cost-effective, and based on credible guidelines. The court granted summary judgment to IBM, holding that the denial was rational and supported by substantial evidence from multiple medical reviewers, including an independent plastic surgeon applying American Society of Plastic Surgeons guidelines, and that the denial notices satisfied ERISA's procedural requirements by clearly stating the reasons and inviting additional information.

healthcarelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Shine v. Hofman, a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se alleged that Vermont Department of Corrections officials violated his constitutional rights through mail interception that impeded access to counsel, dangerous conditions of confinement including lack of sprinklers and sensory deprivation in a small cell, retaliation via transfer and placement in close custody after filing a grievance, denial of procedural due process in disciplinary segregation, and an assault by a guard. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss in part as to the First Amendment access-to-courts claim, the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim regarding segregation, and all damages claims against defendants in their official capacities due to sovereign immunity, while denying the motion as to the remaining claims. The core reasoning applied de novo review under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting the complaint's facts as true and finding that some allegations failed to state viable claims or were barred by immunity, whereas others concerning conditions, retaliation, and assault sufficiently stated potential constitutional violations to proceed.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Sidikiba Magasouba, a legal permanent resident from Guinea, who was detained by immigration authorities after a Rhode Island conviction for selling counterfeit DVDs, leading to removal proceedings on the ground that the offense qualified as an aggravated felony. Magasouba filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and arguing that his conviction did not meet the aggravated felony criteria. After the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the removal order, making it administratively final, the court determined that the basis for detention had shifted to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction to review the removal order following the REAL ID Act and that Magasouba was no longer held under the statute he challenged, with no stay of removal issued by the First Circuit.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the administrator of Rene Lavigne's estate against his employer, Scott’s Construction, Inc., alleging vicarious liability for negligent training and supervision of employees that led to Lavigne's fatal injury in a trench accident. The court granted the defendant's motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the suit was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Vermont Workers’ Compensation Act, which prohibits negligence or wrongful death claims against employers. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the Act violated Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution as applied to non-dependent heirs, finding controlling precedents that upheld the provision as part of a comprehensive workers' compensation scheme providing a no-fault remedy in exchange for limited liability. The decision relied on the Baker v. State framework for Article 7 analysis and similar rulings in other states upholding workers' compensation exclusivity.

labor & employmenttorts & liability