Category Archives: Uncategorized

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”

Undisclosed Juror Tweets and Facebook Posts Called for District Court to Conduct Further Proceedings on Actual Bias in Boston Marathon Bombing Case, Holds Split First Circuit Panel

In United States v. Tsarnaev, No. 16-6001 (1st Cir. Mar. 22, 2024), a 2-1 First Circuit panel remands the penalty phase of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s prosecution in order for the district court to revisit whether two jurors might have been biased, based on their social media posts that they failed to disclose in voir dire. ‘InContinue reading “Undisclosed Juror Tweets and Facebook Posts Called for District Court to Conduct Further Proceedings on Actual Bias in Boston Marathon Bombing Case, Holds Split First Circuit Panel”

“Law of the Case” Does Not Apply to Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Ruling by Motion Panel, Holds Split Eighth Circuit Panel

In Nordgren  v.  Hennepin Cnty., No. 22-1902 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2024), a 2-1 Eighth Circuit panel holds that a merits panel may reconsider the timeliness of an appeal even after a motion panel has already denied a motion to dismiss on the same ground, notwithstanding the “law of the case” doctrine. In a §Continue reading ““Law of the Case” Does Not Apply to Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Ruling by Motion Panel, Holds Split Eighth Circuit Panel”

Ninth Circuit Holds That Mootness is Discretionary, Rather Than Jurisdictional, Doctrine After the Court of Appeals Has Rendered Its Decision

In United States v. Perez-Garcia, No. 22-50314 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024), the Ninth Circuit holds that once it has already announced a decision, any arguments thereafter regarding mootness are discretionary rather than jurisdictional, subject to “equitable and pragmatic considerations.” During a criminal proceeding below, two defendants – as a condition of pretrial release –Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Holds That Mootness is Discretionary, Rather Than Jurisdictional, Doctrine After the Court of Appeals Has Rendered Its Decision”

Second Circuit Holds That a District Court Has No Duty to Consider a Belated Argument in Support of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

In Behrens v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 21-2603 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2024), the Second Circuit publishes an opinion  “to consider a question of first impression in this Circuit: whether the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction requires a district court to exercise it, even if it is invoked belatedly—on analogy to the rule that aContinue reading “Second Circuit Holds That a District Court Has No Duty to Consider a Belated Argument in Support of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction”

Split Second Circuit Panel Holds That an Organization Must Identify At Least One Affected Member by Name to Qualify for Article III Associational Standing

In Do No Harm v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 23-15_(2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2024), a 2-1 panel of the Second Circuit holds that “an association must identify by name at least one injured member for purposes of establishing Article III standing under a summary judgment standard.” “Do No Harm, a nationwide membership organization, filed suit againstContinue reading “Split Second Circuit Panel Holds That an Organization Must Identify At Least One Affected Member by Name to Qualify for Article III Associational Standing”