Category Archives: Uncategorized

Divided Sixth Circuit Panel Queries Diversity Jurisdiction in Case Against a Lloyd’s of London “Syndicate” of Underwriters

In Halbower v. Hiscox Syndicate 33 of Lloyd’s of London, No. 25-1152 (6th Cir. May 29, 2026), the panel unanimously remands an insurance dispute to reconsider diversity jurisdiction where the defendant is a Lloyd’s of London “Syndicate,” an unincorporated group of underwriting members. The panel, nevertheless, splits over the proper analysis. Syndicates are loose associationsContinue reading “Divided Sixth Circuit Panel Queries Diversity Jurisdiction in Case Against a Lloyd’s of London “Syndicate” of Underwriters”

“Administrative Termination” of a Post-Judgment Motion Did Not “Dispos[e] Of” It for Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) Tolling Purposes, Holds Eleventh Circuit

In Khatabi v. Car Auto Holdings LLC, No. 24-12573 (11th Cir. May 28, 2026), the Eleventh Circuit holds that the “administrative termination” of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 and 59 motions to facilitate a post-trial mediation was not sufficiently conclusive to restart the 30-day clock for filing an appeal under Fed. R. App. P.Continue reading ““Administrative Termination” of a Post-Judgment Motion Did Not “Dispos[e] Of” It for Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) Tolling Purposes, Holds Eleventh Circuit”

While Noting That the District Court Legally Erred in Its CAFA Remand, the Sixth Circuit Nevertheless Holds That the Defendant Forfeited Its Chance to Timely Challenge the Order

In Ewalt v. GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings, No. 25-4015 (6th Cir. May 22, 2026), the Sixth Circuit agrees with the defendant that the district court ought not have remanded this CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) case after denying class certification, but holds that the remand could no longer be challenged after the 30-day window forContinue reading “While Noting That the District Court Legally Erred in Its CAFA Remand, the Sixth Circuit Nevertheless Holds That the Defendant Forfeited Its Chance to Timely Challenge the Order”

Sixth Circuit Overrules Authority That Required “Clear and Convincing” Proof on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

In PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty, No. 25-3794 (6th Cir. May 19, 2026), the Sixth Circuit declares definitively that there is no “clear and convincing” standard of proof on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 motion for a preliminary injunction, disaffirming a prior nonprecedential circuit decision and a string of district court opinions citing theContinue reading “Sixth Circuit Overrules Authority That Required “Clear and Convincing” Proof on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction”

Fourth Circuit Grants Mandamus Holding That Express Scripts Is Entitled to a Jury Trial on a Government Action for Public Nuisance That Seeks to Create an “Abatement Fund”

In In re Express Scripts, Inc., No. 25-2281 (4th Cir. May 15, 2026), the Fourth Circuit grants mandamus to direct that defendant Express Scripts get a jury trial in a public nuisance lawsuit, because at least one remedy sought—an abatement fund for drug rehabilitation—is a classically legal remedy, covered by the Seventh Amendment. “In thisContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Grants Mandamus Holding That Express Scripts Is Entitled to a Jury Trial on a Government Action for Public Nuisance That Seeks to Create an “Abatement Fund””

Plaintiffs Who Plead That Session Replay Code Embedded in Retail Websites Captured Personally Identifying Information Alleged an Injury in Fact for Article III Standing Purposes, Holds Third Circuit

In In re BPS Direct, LLC; Cabela’s, LLC Wiretapping Litig., No. 23-3235 (3d Cir. May 11, 2026), the Third Circuit holds that customers whose allege that their visits to retail websites were surreptitiously captured by session replay code (SRC), which thereby saved their personally identifying information, plead a sufficient injury-in-fact under Article III standing toContinue reading “Plaintiffs Who Plead That Session Replay Code Embedded in Retail Websites Captured Personally Identifying Information Alleged an Injury in Fact for Article III Standing Purposes, Holds Third Circuit”

Split Seventh Circuit Panel Holds That Government Waived Argument for Limitation on Injunctive Relief in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), Interpreting That Section as Non-Jurisdictional

In Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 25-3050 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026), a divided panel (with a concurrence in the judgment and a dissent) holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which governs judicial review of orders of removal, is a limitation on relief rather than on federalContinue reading “Split Seventh Circuit Panel Holds That Government Waived Argument for Limitation on Injunctive Relief in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), Interpreting That Section as Non-Jurisdictional”

A Negligent Discovery Violation Is Not “Misconduct” to Support Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(3), Holds Second Circuit

In Adidas America, Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc., No. 24-1510 (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2026), the Second Circuit affirms denial of a motion for relief from a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (b)(3), in a case where the plaintiff learned belatedly that the defendant failed to disclose several relevant emails duringContinue reading “A Negligent Discovery Violation Is Not “Misconduct” to Support Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(3), Holds Second Circuit”

Two Circuits Address Scott v. Harris and Video Evidence in Assessing Qualified Immunity for Police Officers Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

In Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp., No. 24-3983 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026) and Perez v. Guetschow, No. 25-1617 (7th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026), two panels decide interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity decisions under 42 U.S.C. §1983 where the central issue is video evidence, per Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). In each case,Continue reading “Two Circuits Address Scott v. Harris and Video Evidence in Assessing Qualified Immunity for Police Officers Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”

Split Fifth Circuit Panel Grants Mandamus to Order Venue Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Holding That District Court Erred in Relying on Court Congestion as a Controlling Factor

The Fifth Circuit has been the site of vexing and notorious venue battles, as parties jostle to forum shop – or avoid – districts in Texas and Louisiana. In In re Google, No. 25-40788 (5th Cir. April 7, 2026), a 2-1 panel holds that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying defendant Google,Continue reading “Split Fifth Circuit Panel Grants Mandamus to Order Venue Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Holding That District Court Erred in Relying on Court Congestion as a Controlling Factor”