Author Archives: pwmollica1961

Self-Proclaimed “D-List” Comedian Subjects Self to Personal Jurisdiction by Tagging a Tennessee-Based Company in a Tweet, Holds Sixth Circuit 

In Johnson v. Griffin, No. 23-5257 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023), the Sixth Circuit holds that by targeting an individual living in Tennessee in a Twitter campaign to get them fired from their job, and specifically tagging the Tennessee-based employer, the defendant subjected herself to personal jurisdiction in that state. “Kathy Griffin, a California-based celebrityContinue reading “Self-Proclaimed “D-List” Comedian Subjects Self to Personal Jurisdiction by Tagging a Tennessee-Based Company in a Tweet, Holds Sixth Circuit “

Split Eleventh Circuit Panel Holds That Legislator Privilege Is Absolute Immunity From Discovery in Civil Action

In Pernell v. Andrade, No. 23-10616 (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 2023), a 2-1 panel reverses a district court’s order enforcing subpoenas against legislators in an action challenging the constitutionality of Florida’s “Stop W.O.K.E. Act,” with the panel dividing over whether the legislator privilege is absolute or to some degree qualified by “important federal interestes.” “InContinue reading “Split Eleventh Circuit Panel Holds That Legislator Privilege Is Absolute Immunity From Discovery in Civil Action”

Split Panel in Fifth Circuit Adopts Stricter Dowell Standard to Review Louisiana’s Compliance with Voting Rights Consent Decree on State’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) Motion for Relief from Judgment

In Chisolm v. State of Louisiana, No. 22-30320 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023), a split panel affirms denial of a motion to dissolve a voting-rights consent decree under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). That rule provides that a party may move for relief from a judgment if it “has been satisfied, released, or discharged; itContinue reading “Split Panel in Fifth Circuit Adopts Stricter Dowell Standard to Review Louisiana’s Compliance with Voting Rights Consent Decree on State’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) Motion for Relief from Judgment”

Third Circuit Panel Splits Three Ways on Whether and How FDCPA Plaintiff Had Article III Standing Based on Ambiguous Balance Statement

In Huber v. Simons Agency Inc., No. 22-2483 (3d Cir. Oct. 12, 2023), each judge on the panel arrived at a different outcome about whether a plaintiff under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692– 1692p, suffered an Article III injury because of receiving a debt-collection letter that arguably overstated theirContinue reading “Third Circuit Panel Splits Three Ways on Whether and How FDCPA Plaintiff Had Article III Standing Based on Ambiguous Balance Statement”

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Holds That Plaintiff Who Filed Original Securities Fraud Action Ceased to Be a Party When Court Appointed a Different Lead Plaintiff Under the PSLRA

In Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., No. 22-15660 (9th Cir. Oct. 11, 2023), a 2-1 panel holds that the original putative lead plaintiff in a securities fraud case was no longer a “party” with standing to appeal when a different lead plaintiff was appointed by the district court under the Private Securities Litigation Reform ActContinue reading “Split Ninth Circuit Panel Holds That Plaintiff Who Filed Original Securities Fraud Action Ceased to Be a Party When Court Appointed a Different Lead Plaintiff Under the PSLRA”

Lack of Evidence About the Citizenship of a Limited Liability Company at the Time of the Filing of the Complaint Requires Remand, Holds Fifth Circuit

In SXSW, LLC v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 22-50933 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2023), the Fifth Circuit exercises its authority to remand an appeal to the district court to sort out factually whether there was diversity at the time the complaint was filed. Plaintiff “SXSW planned to hold its annual ‘South by Southwest’ festival inContinue reading “Lack of Evidence About the Citizenship of a Limited Liability Company at the Time of the Filing of the Complaint Requires Remand, Holds Fifth Circuit”

Eleventh Circuit Holds That a Former Employee Is Not an “Employee” Bound by an Injunction Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)

In United States v. Robinson, No. 22-10949 (11th Cir. Sept. 28, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit vacates the criminal contempt conviction of a former employee of an enjoined corporation, holding that former employees are not “employees” within the intendment of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) and that the government did not prosecute the defendant under theContinue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds That a Former Employee Is Not an “Employee” Bound by an Injunction Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)”

Federal Equitable Power Did Not Extend to Returning Seized Cell Phone to “My Pillow” CEO, Holds Eighth Circuit

In Lindell v. United States, No. 22-3510 (8th Cir. Sept. 23, 2023), the Eighth Circuit affirms a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction to MyPillow, Inc. and its Chief Executive Officer Michael Lindell to return “Lindell’s cell phone that was seized by federal agents on September 13, 2022.” The panel splits, though, on whetherContinue reading “Federal Equitable Power Did Not Extend to Returning Seized Cell Phone to “My Pillow” CEO, Holds Eighth Circuit”

Fifth Circuit Judge Expounds on Internal Operations, Castigates Justice Department in Dissent from Denial of Rehearing En Banc

In a dissent from denial of a sua sponte vote for rehearing en banc in a direct federal criminal appeal, United States v. Ramirez, No. 22-50042 (5th Cir. Sept. 19, 2023), Judge Jerry E. Smith rakes over the panel majority, the majority of active judges who voted against rehearing, and the Justice Department (for notContinue reading “Fifth Circuit Judge Expounds on Internal Operations, Castigates Justice Department in Dissent from Denial of Rehearing En Banc”

Eleventh Circuit Holds That Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation Must Be Signed by All Parties Who Have Appeared in a Lawsuit to Be Effective, Creating Split with the Fifth Circuit

In City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings, L.P., No. 22-12419 (11th Cir. Sept. 13, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit holds in a matter of first impression that all parties to a case—not just those directly involved in the dismissal—must sign a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal motion for it to be effective. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)Continue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds That Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation Must Be Signed by All Parties Who Have Appeared in a Lawsuit to Be Effective, Creating Split with the Fifth Circuit”