In Gibson v. City of Portland, No. 24-1663 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2025), a split panel addresses when it may be appropriate for a district court to strike what it calls a “shotgun pleading,” i.e., one that fails to specify claims against each named defendant, but instead indiscriminately incorporates allegations from one count to theContinue reading “Split Ninth Circuit Panel Issues Caution on So-Called “Shotgun Pleadings””
Author Archives: pwmollica1961
Seventh Circuit Lets Pro Se Litigant Off with a Warning About AI Hallucinations in His Brief
In Jones v Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No 25-1251 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026), the Seventh Circuit issues a timely reminder that, however useful generative AI may be, it is still not an automatic brief-writing machine. “Jones filed a sprawling lawsuit in November 2023, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging that several municipal andContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Lets Pro Se Litigant Off with a Warning About AI Hallucinations in His Brief”
District Court Abused Discretion by Failing to Assess $366,461.96 in Expert Witness Fees Against Indigent Named Plaintiffs in Civil Rights Class Action, Holds Eighth Circuit
In Karsjens v. Gandhi, No. 24-2876 (8th Cir. Jan. 7, 2026), the Eighth Circuit holds that the district court abused its discretion by entirely excusing a group of indigent class representatives from contributing to the witness fees for four court-appointed experts. A prevailing party in federal civil litigation is entitled to tax certain costs toContinue reading “District Court Abused Discretion by Failing to Assess $366,461.96 in Expert Witness Fees Against Indigent Named Plaintiffs in Civil Rights Class Action, Holds Eighth Circuit”
On Third Go-Around in Fifth Circuit, Court Holds That Plaintiffs Forfeited a Law-of-the-Case Argument by Not Seeking Rehearing of the Second Panel Decision
In Pool v. City of Houston, No. 24-20138 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026), the Fifth Circuit affirms a post-judgment vacatur of attorney’s fees after the original judgment in plaintiff’s favor was vacated by the Fifth Circuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. While the plaintiffs may have had a valid law-of-the-case argument to otherwise sustain theContinue reading “On Third Go-Around in Fifth Circuit, Court Holds That Plaintiffs Forfeited a Law-of-the-Case Argument by Not Seeking Rehearing of the Second Panel Decision”
En Banc Eighth Circuit Holds 6-5 That Being Exposed to a Single DEI Slide “Chilled” Their First Amendment Rights and Thus Conferred Standing to Sue
In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 Sch. Dist., No. 23-1374 (8th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025) (en banc), the Eighth Circuit holds that it was enough for a public employee to establish standing in a First Amendment challenge to a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) program to have been shown a slide during a workplace presentation thatContinue reading “En Banc Eighth Circuit Holds 6-5 That Being Exposed to a Single DEI Slide “Chilled” Their First Amendment Rights and Thus Conferred Standing to Sue”
Neither Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) Nor Hague Service Convention Authorize International Service of Process by E-Mail, Holds Second Circuit
In Smart Study Co., LTD v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi, No. 24-313 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2025), the Second Circuit holds in a matter of first impression that e-mail service on a foreign defendant violates the Hague Service Convention and cannot be supported by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). The Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and ExtrajudicialContinue reading “Neither Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) Nor Hague Service Convention Authorize International Service of Process by E-Mail, Holds Second Circuit”
Concurring Seventh Circuit Judge Urges Reconsideration of Plain-Error Review Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
In United States v. Robinson, No. 24-2310 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2025), the Seventh Circuit reverses in part a conviction for bank fraud on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds, while a concurring judge argues that a change in Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 warrants reconsideration of the plain-error standard to challenges raised for the first time on appeal.Continue reading “Concurring Seventh Circuit Judge Urges Reconsideration of Plain-Error Review Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29”
“Consensual Relationship Exception” Did Not Extend Jurisdiction of Tribal Court Over Nonmember Spouse in Divorce Case, Holds Eighth Circuit
In a case of first impression, the Eighth Circuit in Tix v. Tix, No. 24-3487 (8th Cir. Dec. 12, 2025) rejects Tribal Court jurisdiction over a nonmember spouse in a divorce case. “In September 2008, Robert William Tix, a member of the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota Indian Community (the ‘Community’), married Kristin Ann McGowan [‘McGowen’],Continue reading ““Consensual Relationship Exception” Did Not Extend Jurisdiction of Tribal Court Over Nonmember Spouse in Divorce Case, Holds Eighth Circuit”
Co-Guarantors to Contracts May Not Be Indispensable Parties Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), Holds Seventh Circuit
In CCP Golden/7470 LLC v. Breslin, No. 24-2731 (7th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025), the Seventh Circuit rejects an effort to defeat diversity jurisdiction, holding (contrary to prior dicta on the subject) that co-parties to a contract who are jointly and severally liable need not always be deemed indispensable parties for purposes of Fed. R. Civ.Continue reading “Co-Guarantors to Contracts May Not Be Indispensable Parties Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), Holds Seventh Circuit”
Exhibition of Van Gogh Painting in Illinois Did Not Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over Ownership Dispute There, Holds Seventh Circuit
In Schoeps v Sompo Holdings, Inc., No. 25-1405 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025), the Seventh Circuit holds that the happenstance of an artwork, Van Gogh’s Sunflowers (1888), having once been exhibited at the Art Institute of Chicago did not create personal jurisdiction to sue over the painting’s ownership in Illinois. The heirs (Schoeps) of “PaulContinue reading “Exhibition of Van Gogh Painting in Illinois Did Not Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over Ownership Dispute There, Holds Seventh Circuit”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 