In AdvanFort Co. v. Zamil Offshore Srvs. Co., No. 24-1007 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025), a Fourth Circuit panel splits 2-1 over whether forum non conveniens can apply when the alternative foreign forum for a case may require filing in two separate courts. “AdvanFort filed a five-count complaint in the district court for the EasternContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Panel Splits Over Whether the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Requires That There Be a Single Foreign Forum Available to Hear the Claim”
Monthly Archives: April 2025
En Banc Ninth Circuit Overrules Case Authority That Personal Jurisdiction Over an Online Business Requires That Its Marketing Be Shown to Have a “Forum-Specific Focus”
In Briskin v. Shopify, No. 22-15815 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit considers a customer privacy claim by a California resident against a Canadian online retailer and its American subsidiaries. The court (10-1) reverses the lower court’s dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds, overruling AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201Continue reading “En Banc Ninth Circuit Overrules Case Authority That Personal Jurisdiction Over an Online Business Requires That Its Marketing Be Shown to Have a “Forum-Specific Focus””
Second Circuit Splits from Tenth in Holding That Supplemental Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) Requires A Separate Analysis from Intervention Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)
The Second Circuit – in Hamilton Reserve Bank v. Sri Lanka, No. 24-1459-cv (2d Cir. April 10, 2025) – rejects a widely-recognized presumption that “a court necessarily possesses supplemental jurisdiction [under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)] over intervention claims when the requirements for intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) are met,” holdingContinue reading “Second Circuit Splits from Tenth in Holding That Supplemental Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) Requires A Separate Analysis from Intervention Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)”
The Eighth Circuit, Perhaps Without Meaning To, Creates a Circuit Split on the Standard for Seeking Relief from a Jury Waiver Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b)
In E&I Global Ene. Srvs. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 23-3739 (8th Cir. Apr. 4, 2025), the Eighth Circuit declines to afford a plaintiff relief for its failure to timely demand a jury trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1) under an “excusable neglect” standard, creating (without so noting) a split with other circuits.Continue reading “The Eighth Circuit, Perhaps Without Meaning To, Creates a Circuit Split on the Standard for Seeking Relief from a Jury Waiver Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b)”
Seventh Circuit Becomes the First to Hold That an EU “Societas Europaea” (SE) Is a “Corporation” for Diversity Jurisdiction Purposes
In Starstone Ins SE v City of Chicago, No. 23-2712 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025), the Seventh Circuit holds that the plaintiff – a “Societas Europaea” (SE) organized under the rules of the European Union – is a citizen of a foreign state under the federal diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Under section 1332(a)(2),Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Becomes the First to Hold That an EU “Societas Europaea” (SE) Is a “Corporation” for Diversity Jurisdiction Purposes”
The Sixth Circuit, Adding to A Circuit Split, Holds That the Plaintiff Has the Burden of Establishing Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391
In Tobien v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., No. 24-5575 (6th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025), the Sixth Circuit follows the majority rule in holding that on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue, it is the plaintiff that must prove that their case lies in the district where they filed it.Continue reading “The Sixth Circuit, Adding to A Circuit Split, Holds That the Plaintiff Has the Burden of Establishing Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391”
Noting Gap in Fed. R. Evid. 103, Tenth Circuit Holds That a Party Forfeited Appeal of a Conditional Evidence Ruling – Despite Objecting Four Separate Times – Because She Did Not Satisfy the Condition at Trial
In Culp v. Remington of Montrose Golf Club LLC, No. 24-1022 (10th Cir. Mar. 30, 2025), a district court’s conditional ruling to admit evidence is held unreviewable when the appellant chose strategically not to trigger the condition at trial. The panel notes that this forfeiture rule is not specifically anticipated by Federal Rule of EvidenceContinue reading “Noting Gap in Fed. R. Evid. 103, Tenth Circuit Holds That a Party Forfeited Appeal of a Conditional Evidence Ruling – Despite Objecting Four Separate Times – Because She Did Not Satisfy the Condition at Trial”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 