Author Archives: pwmollica1961

Session Replay Code Embedded in Retail Website Did Not Constitute “Purposeful Availment” of State Where Customer Was Located, Holds First Circuit

In Rosenthal v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, No. 23-1683 (1st Cir. May 9, 2024), a First Circuit panel holds that the inclusion of a session replay provider (SRP) on a commercial website hosted out of state, which allegedly permitted surveillance of customers, did not create grounds for specific personal jurisdiction against the store in the state whereContinue reading “Session Replay Code Embedded in Retail Website Did Not Constitute “Purposeful Availment” of State Where Customer Was Located, Holds First Circuit”

County Cop’s Hot Pursuit of Suspect Across State Line Was “Purposeful Availment” for Personal Jurisdiction Purposes, Holds Eighth Circuit

In a terse five-page opinion, an Eighth Circuit panel in Wade v. Pottawattamie Cnty. No. 23-1059 (8th Cir. May 7, 2024), reverses a decision that dismissed, on personal jurisdiction grounds, a lawsuit against an Iowa county in a personal injury case involving a deputy crossing state lines. “The unfortunate chain of events began when aContinue reading “County Cop’s Hot Pursuit of Suspect Across State Line Was “Purposeful Availment” for Personal Jurisdiction Purposes, Holds Eighth Circuit”

Defendant’s “Strategic Decision” to Withhold Challenge to Diversity Jurisdiction for Fifteen Months Warrants $62,556 Attorney’s Fee Sanction Under Court’s Inherent Powers

In J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. v. Oxford Mall, LLC, No. 22-12461 (11th Cir. May 1, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit affirms in full an attorney’s fee sanction, awarded against a defendant that was found to have withheld information for fifteen months that the parties were not diverse for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 subject-matter jurisdiction.Continue reading “Defendant’s “Strategic Decision” to Withhold Challenge to Diversity Jurisdiction for Fifteen Months Warrants $62,556 Attorney’s Fee Sanction Under Court’s Inherent Powers”

Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss Not Appealable Under Collateral-Order Doctrine Holds Tenth Circuit, Noting Split in Circuits

In Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic LLC, No. 23-1109 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 2024), the Tenth Circuit dismissed an attempted appeal of an order denying a “special motion to dismiss” under a state anti-SLAPP statue, holding that it did not fit within the confines of the collateral-order doctrine. Many jurisdictions have anti-SLAPP (Strategic LawsuitContinue reading “Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss Not Appealable Under Collateral-Order Doctrine Holds Tenth Circuit, Noting Split in Circuits”

A Presidential Pardon Does Not Mean That a Prior Conviction Is Not a “Bad Act” Under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), Holds D.C. Circuit

In United States v. Benton, No. 23-3028 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 19, 2024), while affirming the conviction of a political consultant for felonies stemming from an unlawful contribution and related campaign-finance filings, the panel holds (among other things) that the defendant’s presidential pardon of a prior conviction did not bar its use as “bad acts” evidenceContinue reading “A Presidential Pardon Does Not Mean That a Prior Conviction Is Not a “Bad Act” Under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), Holds D.C. Circuit”

En Banc Fifth Circuit Divides 8-8 on Transfer of SpaceX Lawsuit Against NLRB from Texas to California, With the Dissent Accusing NLRB Counsel of “Improper Conduct”

In a published order, In re Space Exploration Technologies, No.  24-40103 (5th Cir. April 17, 2024), the Fifth Circuit denies en banc rehearing of a 2-1 panel order denying mandamus to vacate a district court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer plaintiff SpaceX’s suit challenging the constitutionality of hearings before the National LaborContinue reading “En Banc Fifth Circuit Divides 8-8 on Transfer of SpaceX Lawsuit Against NLRB from Texas to California, With the Dissent Accusing NLRB Counsel of “Improper Conduct””

Ninth Circuit Nixes “Super Snap Removals” to Circumvent the Forum Defendant Rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)

In Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 23-55403 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024), the Ninth Circuit rejects a California corporation’s attempt to avoid the forum-defendant rule by filing removal petitions in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) even before the cases were docketed in California state court. The forum-defendant rule is an exception to removalContinue reading “Ninth Circuit Nixes “Super Snap Removals” to Circumvent the Forum Defendant Rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)”

Split Fifth Circuit Panel Issues Mandamus to Vacate Transfer of a Suit Against CFPB from Texas to D.C., Ordered by the District Court Only After the Notice of Appeal Was Filed

In In re Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, No. 24-10266 (5th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024), a 2-1 panel holds that a court in the Northern District of Texas exceeded its jurisdiction by transferring a case to the District for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) after a notice of appeal had already beenContinue reading “Split Fifth Circuit Panel Issues Mandamus to Vacate Transfer of a Suit Against CFPB from Texas to D.C., Ordered by the District Court Only After the Notice of Appeal Was Filed”

Rule 11 Did Not Apply to Party Already Dismissed from the Action, Holds Eighth Circuit

In Martin Leigh PC  v.  Leyh, No. 22-1975 (8th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024), an Eighth Circuit panel holds that when a party had already been dismissed from an action for two months, it is too late to invoke Rule 11 by operation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) 21-day safe-harbor provision. “On October 5,Continue reading “Rule 11 Did Not Apply to Party Already Dismissed from the Action, Holds Eighth Circuit”

Risk Posed by Contaminated Baby Formula Alone Was Not Enough to Constitute Concrete Injury for Article III Standing, Holds Seventh Circuit

In Economic Loss Plaintiffs v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 23-2525 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2024), the Seventh Circuit holds that  “a potential class of consumers who purchased infant formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories at a facility later deemed unsanitary” failed to establish Article III standing based on “potential risk of injury.” “Abbott Laboratories produces powdered infantContinue reading “Risk Posed by Contaminated Baby Formula Alone Was Not Enough to Constitute Concrete Injury for Article III Standing, Holds Seventh Circuit”