pwmollica1961

Split Second Circuit Panel Affirms Attorney Fee Sanction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) Under “Unusual Circumstances,” Where Defendant Continued to Resist a Motion to Remand on Grounds That Federal Courts Widely Rejected After the Original Removal

In The City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 24-1568 (2d Cir. Oct. 3, 2025), a 2-1 panel holds that Exxon could be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for pressing the same grounds for removal that eight U.S. Courts of Appeals had rejected after the original removal. The dissent would hold thatContinue reading “Split Second Circuit Panel Affirms Attorney Fee Sanction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) Under “Unusual Circumstances,” Where Defendant Continued to Resist a Motion to Remand on Grounds That Federal Courts Widely Rejected After the Original Removal”

In Rosenwald v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 24-299 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2025), the Ninth Circuit dismisses an appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the district court erred in taking judicial notice of the corporate defendant’s citizenship. It thus took the side of the Tenth Circuit, which holds that a court cannot judicially noticeContinue reading “Joining Circuit Split, Ninth Circuit Holds That District Court May Not Establish Diversity of Citizenship by Judicial Notice”

In Lauria v. Lieb, No. 24-1461 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2025), the Third Circuit, while agreeing that a party’s unsworn statement should be disregarded on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) summary judgment motion, holds that the district court erred in disregarding it for purposes of weighing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Rule 56(c)(4) prescribesContinue reading “Third Circuit Holds That District Court Erred by Disregarding Unsworn Statement of Party for Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) Relief”

The Eleventh Circuit, in CMYK Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Print Technologies, LLC, No. 24-13766 (11th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025), rejects a common tactic used by parties to speed-up the appeal of a partial dispositive order, i.e., voluntarily dismissing the remaining claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). The panel holds that, by its plain terms,Continue reading “Eleventh Circuit Closes Off Resort to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) to Dismiss Remaining Claims as an Expedient to Appeal Contested Claims Dismissed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)”

In Fugedi v. Initram, Inc., No. 24-40283 (5th Cir. Sept. 9, 2025), the Fifth Circuit affirms dismissal of a case for lack of diversity jurisdiction, holding that appointment of a supposedly diverse trustee was a sham in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1359. Section 1359 provides that “A district court shall not have jurisdiction ofContinue reading “Fifth Circuit Holds That 28 U.S.C. § 1359 Precludes Appointment of a “Sham” Trustee to Create Diversity Jurisdiction”

In an unsigned order, Doe v. HHS, No. 24-40778 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025), two concurring panelists lambaste their presiding colleague for proceeding with oral argument when the lead counsel for plaintiff called in with a medical emergency two hours prior. The text of the order is brief: “The court heard oral argument in thisContinue reading “Two Fifth Circuit Panelists Tweak Presiding Judge for Forcing Second-Chair Lawyer to Proceed with Oral Argument When the Lead Counsel Had a Medical Emergency”

In Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc., No. 24-490 (2d Cir. Aug. 26, 2025), the Second Circuit holds that a putative real party in interest did not sufficiently ratify an action to prevent its dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3). The general rule under the federal rules is that “[a]n action must beContinue reading “Second Circuit Considers What It Means to “Ratify” Action Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3)”

In a published order in Ricketts as parent of L.G. v. Titusville Area Sch. Dist., No. 24-2569 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2025) (per curiam), the Third Circuit offers guidance about what happens to the confidentiality of a federal litigant who is a minor once they reach age 18. “[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, theContinue reading “Third Circuit Addresses the Continued Obligation to Maintain Confidentiality of Minor Party in Litigation After They Reach Majority”

Adding its voice to the several circuits that have already ruled on the issue, the Third Circuit holds in Perrigo Institutional Investor Group v. Papa, No. 24-2861 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2025) that absent class members must be held to strict compliance with court procedures to opt-out of a Rule 23(b)(3) class action. It thusContinue reading “Third Circuit, Joining Circuit Split, Rejects “Reasonable Indication” Standard of Review for Class Action Opt-Outs Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) (v) and (vi)”

In Thermal Surgical, LLC v. Brown, No. 24-127 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2025), the Second Circuit expresses “serious doubts as to whether [federal claim] preclusion can ever be used offensively to compel a judgment rather than resist a claim,” though it winds up vacating and remanding the decision here on other grounds. Plaintiff Thermal SurgicalContinue reading “Second Circuit Has “Serious Doubts” as to Whether Federal Claim Preclusion “Can Ever Be Used Offensively to Compel a Judgment””