U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Case Summaries July 10,

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Commerce Clause

Labor Law

Local 377 v. 1864 Tenants

Association

07-1155-cv

Appealed from the Southern

District of New York

Background: This appeal is from a judgment of the district court confirming an arbitration award against the defendant under [section]301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The defendant employer challenges the confirmation of the award. The following facts are undisputed: The employer voluntarily entered into a collective bargaining agreement that Local 377 negotiated on behalf of the employer's single employee, a building superintendent. On appeal, the employer argues the statutory provisions under which the award was confirmed are in violation of the grant of federal power under the Commerce Clause.

Ruling: The court rejects the appellant's claims finding Congress may have concluded there would be a substantial effect on interstate commerce if arbitration awards, pursuant to single-employee CBAs, are unenforceable in the federal courts. Enforcement actions would be relegated to enforcement under the varying contract law principles in the several states, undermining the uniform, national approach to American labor law.

Scott B. Gilly for the appellant, and Thomas Rubertone Jr. for the appellee

Sixth Amendment

'Pro Se' Defendants

Davis v. Grant

06-2261-pr

Appealed from the Western District of New York

Background: The appellant's habeas corpus petition was dismissed by the district court and he appeals. The district court held that the state court's determination that Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when the appellant was removed from the courtroom for disruptive conduct, and no standby counsel was appointed to represent him, does not contradict Supreme Court precedent. The appellant was convicted of assault and grand larceny in 1997 following a jury trial.

Ruling: The court affirms, finding no violation of rights occurred. It notes, however, that once a defendant waives his right to represent himself, any right he has to control his own defense can be accommodated via counsel and both the rights of the accused and the public interest strongly favor the appointment of counsel.

Randa D. Maher for the appellant, and Ashlyn Dannely, assistant New York State Attorney General, for the appellee

Copyright 2008 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.