Monthly Archives: July 2020

Seventh Circuit Refuses to Seal Opinion That Discloses Sensitive Medical Information

In Mitze v. Saul, No. 19-3212 (7th Cir. July 31, 2020) (per curiam), the Seventh Circuit reminds litigants that only extraordinary circumstances justify the sealing of a judicial opinion, and that preventing the disclosure of personal medical information alone is insufficient. In 2013, the plaintiff filed an action appealing the denial of Social Security benefits;Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Refuses to Seal Opinion That Discloses Sensitive Medical Information”

No Federal-Question Jurisdiction Over Declaratory Action Complaint to Block Federal-Law Defense, Holds Eleventh Circuit

In Patel v. Hamilton Medical Center, Inc., No. 19-13088 (11th Cir. July 30, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit holds that there is no federal-question subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory action brought by a doctor against a hospital for suspending his privileges. Although the plaintiff’s claim arose under state law (and the parties were apparently non-diverse),Continue reading “No Federal-Question Jurisdiction Over Declaratory Action Complaint to Block Federal-Law Defense, Holds Eleventh Circuit”

“Inherent Power” Sanction Against Second Failed TRO Motion Upheld by Split Eighth Circuit Panel

An internecine battle for control of the Eagle Forum – Schlafly  v.  Eagle Forum, No.  19-2174 (8th Cir. July 30, 2020) – leads to a $9,851.25 attorney’s fees sanction under the district court’s “inherent power,” an award affirmed by a divided Eighth Circuit panel.    Plaintiff Andrew L. Schlafly, son of Eagle Forum founder PhyllisContinue reading ““Inherent Power” Sanction Against Second Failed TRO Motion Upheld by Split Eighth Circuit Panel”

“Improperly Filed” Post-Judgment Motion by Non-Lawyer Did Not Toll Filing Deadline for Appeal, Tenth Circuit Holds

In Bunn v. Perdue, No. 19-2138 (10th Cir. July 28, 2020), the court holds that the automatic tolling for the filing of an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) does not apply when a post-judgment motion is “improperly filed” by someone other than counsel of record. Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, lost hisContinue reading ““Improperly Filed” Post-Judgment Motion by Non-Lawyer Did Not Toll Filing Deadline for Appeal, Tenth Circuit Holds”

Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Over Appeal of Denial of Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Where Documents Are Not Claimed to Be Privileged, Holds Ninth Circuit

In In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. 19-10187 (9th Cir. July 27, 2020), the Ninth Circuit considers the scope of Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), which provides an exception to the general rule that denials of motions to quash grand jury subpoenas are not final and appealable orders. The grand jury, investigatingContinue reading “Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Over Appeal of Denial of Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Where Documents Are Not Claimed to Be Privileged, Holds Ninth Circuit”

Eighth Circuit Holds That Deadline Under 26 U.S.C. §6330(d)(1) for Filing Petition for Review in Tax Court Is Jurisdictional

In Boechler P.C. v. CIR, No. 19-2003 (8th Cir. July 24, 2020), the Eighth Circuit holds that the 30-day period under 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) for filing an appeal from an IRS determination in the U.S. Tax Court is jurisdictional. Under Article III, Section 1, Congress has the power to create and limit the subject-matterContinue reading “Eighth Circuit Holds That Deadline Under 26 U.S.C. §6330(d)(1) for Filing Petition for Review in Tax Court Is Jurisdictional”

Federal Arbitration Act Requires an Immediate Trial to Resolve Genuine Disputes of Material Fact About Arbitrability, Says D.C. Circuit

A district court erred by not holding an immediate trial to resolve a factual dispute about whether the parties agreed to arbitrate an employment discrimination claim. (Jin v. Parsons Corp., No. 19-7019 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2020).) The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) spells out a procedure in 9 U.S.C. § 4 for when there isContinue reading “Federal Arbitration Act Requires an Immediate Trial to Resolve Genuine Disputes of Material Fact About Arbitrability, Says D.C. Circuit”

Threats Made By Client Against Judge During Attorney-Client Communications Not Covered By Federal Attorney-Client Privilege

In United States  v.  Ivers, No. 19-1563 (8th Cir. July 23, 2020), the Eighth Circuit affirms the conviction of a defendant who allegedly made threats of violence against a federal judge. Some of the testimony admitted by the prosecution was from two lawyers assigned to represent the defendant in an insurance case by a court-basedContinue reading “Threats Made By Client Against Judge During Attorney-Client Communications Not Covered By Federal Attorney-Client Privilege”

Second Circuit Confirms That a 2014 Amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) Expands Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements

In United States v. Purcell, No. 19-238 (2d Cir. July 23, 2020), affirming in substantial part a conviction for operating a prostitution ring, the court considers a challenge to the admissibility of prior consistent statements of a witness, under the recently-amended Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). A prosecution witness, Wood, was cross-examined by the defense aboutContinue reading “Second Circuit Confirms That a 2014 Amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) Expands Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements”