Seijas v. Repub. of Argentina, No. 09-0332, concerned a class action by holders of defaulted bonds issued by the Republic of Argentina. The Second Circuit affirmed in part the district court's order certifying a class, on the grounds that 1) the fact that damages may have to be ascertained on an individual basis was not sufficient to defeat class certification; and 2) the district court correctly determined that proceeding individually would be prohibitive for class members with small claims. However, the court of appeals reversed in part, holding that estimating gross damages for each of the classes as a whole, without using appropriate procedures to ensure that the damages awards roughly reflected the aggregate amount owed to class members, enlarged plaintiffs' rights by allowing them to encumber property to which they have no colorable claim.
Zaleski v. Burns, No. 09-2366, involved an action seeking an order that plaintiff's allegations--that there was a conspiracy to deny criminal defendants their constitutional rights--be presented to a grand jury. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that 1) plaintiff did not allege that he ever requested that the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office present his information to a grand jury, and thus he lacked standing to assert his claims; and 2) plaintiff failed to request any relief likely to redress the injury he asserted.
Genier v. Astrue, No. 09-3991, concerned plaintiff's appeal from the district court's judgment affirming the Social Security Administration's denial of benefits to plaintiff. The court of appeals vacated the judgment, holding that 1) the administrative law judge (ALJ) failed to consider all of the evidence of record, including plaintiff's testimony and other statements with respect to his daily activities; and 2) plaintiff's testimony did not contradict his assertions that he had been substantially impaired by pain and fatigue prior to his treatment and surgery.
Katel LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 09-1575, involved an action against AT&T alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and an entitlement to fees pursuant to the International Telecommunications Regulations Act. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that 1) nothing in the parties' agreement required the parties to do business with one another at all -- it was not a requirements contract, and it imposed no minimum volume; 2) AT&T's payment obligation was to a third-party carrier, and that third-party carrier was in turn responsible for paying plaintiff -- AT&T was not responsible for paying plaintiff directly; and 3) the International Telecommunications Regulations did not create a private right of action.