Author Archives: pwmollica1961

Third Circuit Addresses the Continued Obligation to Maintain Confidentiality of Minor Party in Litigation After They Reach Majority

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”

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)

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)”

Second Circuit Has “Serious Doubts” as to Whether Federal Claim Preclusion “Can Ever Be Used Offensively to Compel a Judgment”

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””

Eighth Circuit Holds That for Forum Non Conveniens Analysis, Court Weighs All Domestic Contacts Against Transfer, Not Just Contacts with the Forum State

In Dibble v. Torax Medical, Inc., No. 24-1385 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025), the Eighth Circuit (in a split decision, Judge Loken dissenting without opinion) reverses an order dismissing a case in the District of Minnesota in favor of venue in the United Kingdom. The panel holds that the district court erroneously focused on theContinue reading “Eighth Circuit Holds That for Forum Non Conveniens Analysis, Court Weighs All Domestic Contacts Against Transfer, Not Just Contacts with the Forum State”

State-Court Conspiracy Case Alleging Judicial Collusion with Defense Counsel Not Barred by Rooker-Feldman, Holds Eighth Circuit

In Sutter & Gillham PLLC v. Henry, No. 24-1071 (8th Cir. July 31, 2025), the Eighth Circuit reverses dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy action concerning a state-court judge, alleging collusion with defense counsel, and holds that the action does not fall within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. “The alleged conspiracy grew out of anContinue reading “State-Court Conspiracy Case Alleging Judicial Collusion with Defense Counsel Not Barred by Rooker-Feldman, Holds Eighth Circuit”

Fourth Circuit Splits with Seventh Circuit in Holding That a Court May Not Award Appellate Attorney’s Fees Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

In Black v. Mantei & Associates, Ltd.. No. 24-1439 (4th Cir. July 30, 2025), the Fourth Circuit holds that the fee-shifting provision applicable to removal petitions, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), does not authorize – let alone mandate – attorney’s fees for defending an award of attorney’s fees on appeal, rejecting decisions in the Seventh CircuitContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Splits with Seventh Circuit in Holding That a Court May Not Award Appellate Attorney’s Fees Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)”

Eleventh Circuit Holds That Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 and 41(a) Permits the Dismissal of a Single Plaintiff in a Multiple-Plaintiff Case, Provided That All of Their Claims Are Dismissed

The Eleventh Circuit in Weinstein v. 440 Corp., No. 23-13807 (11th Cir, July 25, 2025), holds that there is a final judgment when an individual plaintiff in a multi-plaintiff case voluntarily dismisses all of their claims against all defendants in a case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 or 41(a). Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiffContinue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds That Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 and 41(a) Permits the Dismissal of a Single Plaintiff in a Multiple-Plaintiff Case, Provided That All of Their Claims Are Dismissed”

In Yet Another Case Involving an Exploding Lithium Battery, Seventh Circuit Joins Ninth Circuit and Splits with Fifth Circuit in Finding No Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over Manufacturer

There is a split between the Fifth and Ninth Circuits about whether a foreign manufacturer of a lithium battery falls within the specific personal jurisdiction of a state when its product is sold without authorization by a third party. Compare Ethridge v. Samsung SDI Co., 137 F.4th 309 (5th Cir. 2025) (yes), with Yamashita v.Continue reading “In Yet Another Case Involving an Exploding Lithium Battery, Seventh Circuit Joins Ninth Circuit and Splits with Fifth Circuit in Finding No Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over Manufacturer”

Tenth Circuit Expresses Doubt About Whether An Order Denying Absolute Litigation Privilege Is Appealable Under the Collateral Order Doctrine

In Vivos Therapeutics. v. Ortho-Tain, No. 24-1061 (10th Cir. July 8, 2025), the panel suggests in dicta that “orders denying absolute immunity under the litigation privilege” may not be subject to interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine, though it ultimately dismisses the appeal on other grounds. Colorado state law recognizes an absolute litigation privilegeContinue reading “Tenth Circuit Expresses Doubt About Whether An Order Denying Absolute Litigation Privilege Is Appealable Under the Collateral Order Doctrine”

Deep Into the Standard-of-Appellate-Review Weeds, Seventh Circuit Holds That Abuse-of-Discretion Review Applies to a District Court’s Finding About Whether Grounds Were Properly Preserved in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) Motion

In Ziccarelli v. Dart, No. 24-2377 (7th Cir. June 30, 2025), addressing an issue of first impression for the circuit, the Seventh Circuit holds that a district court’s finding whether or not a party preserved grounds in a pre-verdict Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion – thus permitting a post-trial Rule 50(b) motion – is subjectContinue reading “Deep Into the Standard-of-Appellate-Review Weeds, Seventh Circuit Holds That Abuse-of-Discretion Review Applies to a District Court’s Finding About Whether Grounds Were Properly Preserved in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) Motion”