After the Parties Settle All Claims, An Appeal From the Final Judgment Is Moot, Holds Eighth Circuit

In Folta v. Norfork Brewing Co., No. 22-3518 (8th Cir. Dec. 22, 2023), the Eighth Circuit dismisses an appeal from a case where all the claims settled, despite the defendant’s argument that it reserved the right to appeal in the settlement. “Norfork operates a small brewery in Arkansas. Folta was employed there from approximately MayContinue reading “After the Parties Settle All Claims, An Appeal From the Final Judgment Is Moot, Holds Eighth Circuit”

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Holds That It Is an Abuse of Discretion to Deny Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) Unless the Defendant Can Prove Legal Prejudice

In Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, No. 21-56260 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2023), the panel holds that voluntary dismissal must, as a matter of course, be granted without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) unless the defendant can establish that it would suffer legal prejudice, meaning “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim,Continue reading “Split Ninth Circuit Panel Holds That It Is an Abuse of Discretion to Deny Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) Unless the Defendant Can Prove Legal Prejudice”

Unanimous En Banc Second Circuit Holds That Female High-School Athletes Have Article III Standing to Challenge Inclusion of Transgender Girls in Competition Under Title IX, But Fracture Over How Such a Claim May Be Redressable

In Soule ex rel. Stanescu v. Connecticut Assoc. of Schools, Inc., No. 21-1365 (2d Cir. Dec. 15, 2023) (en banc), a rare full-court opinion by the Second Circuit, fifteen judges (thirteen active and two senior) concur that there is Article III standing for four female high-school athletes who alleged they are aggrieved by competition withContinue reading “Unanimous En Banc Second Circuit Holds That Female High-School Athletes Have Article III Standing to Challenge Inclusion of Transgender Girls in Competition Under Title IX, But Fracture Over How Such a Claim May Be Redressable”

Claim of Absolute Presidential Immunity Is Non-Jurisdictional and Waivable, Holds Second Circuit

In Carroll v. Trump, No. 23-1045(L) (2d Cir. Dec. 13, 2023), the Second Circuit holds, in “a vexing question of first impression,” that absolute presidential immunity from suit is not jurisdictional, and – in this case – was waived when the former president failed to allege it as an affirmative defense in his answer. InContinue reading “Claim of Absolute Presidential Immunity Is Non-Jurisdictional and Waivable, Holds Second Circuit”

Lack of “Adversity” Between Litigants Over a Constitutional Question Deprives Court of Article III Case or Controversy, Holds Fifth Circuit

In Pool v. City of Houston, No. 22-2049 (5th Cir. Dec. 11, 2023), the Fifth Circuit dismisses a four-year-old First Amendment case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, where the court determines that “all parties have agreed from the beginning . . . that Houston’s [challenged] voter registration provisions governing circulators” are unconstitutional, and thus theContinue reading “Lack of “Adversity” Between Litigants Over a Constitutional Question Deprives Court of Article III Case or Controversy, Holds Fifth Circuit”

Split Second Circuit Panel Holds That Curing a Pleading Deficiency Is Not “Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, Or Excusable Neglect” Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), But the Catchall Rule 60(b)(6) Can Apply

In Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc., No. 22-4 (2d Cir. Dec. 8, 2023), a 2-1 panel holds that the district court erred as a matter of law in applying Rule 60(b)(1) for post-judgment relief to a plaintiff’s motion seeking to reopen a case to correct a pleading deficiency, and abused its discretion by not applyingContinue reading “Split Second Circuit Panel Holds That Curing a Pleading Deficiency Is Not “Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, Or Excusable Neglect” Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), But the Catchall Rule 60(b)(6) Can Apply”

Tenth Circuit Holds That District Court Did Not Err in Treating Summary Judgment Facts as Admitted During Trial Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g), But Cautions Against Overuse of This Approach

In Watchous Enterprises v. Mournes, No. 22-3071 (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 2023), the Tenth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion by using Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g) to deem facts submitted on summary judgment as established for purposes of trial, although the panel suggests that it might have ruled otherwiseContinue reading “Tenth Circuit Holds That District Court Did Not Err in Treating Summary Judgment Facts as Admitted During Trial Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g), But Cautions Against Overuse of This Approach”

Second Circuit Holds That Time for Service of Process for a False Claims Act Case Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) Is Triggered Exclusively by Court Order, Not by the Unsealing of the Complaint

In United States ex rel. Weiner v. Siemens AG, No. 22-2656_(2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2023), the panel vacates dismissal of a False Claims Act (FCA) for failure of service of process, holding that the time for service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) never triggered because the court never ordered service under 31 U.S.C. §Continue reading “Second Circuit Holds That Time for Service of Process for a False Claims Act Case Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) Is Triggered Exclusively by Court Order, Not by the Unsealing of the Complaint”

Fourth Circuit Holds That It Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Under Perlman Doctrine to Review Criminal Defendant’s Interlocutory Appeal Concerning a Grand Jury Subpoena

In In re Grand Jury 2021 Subpoenas, No. 22-1654 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2023), the Fourth Circuit holds that because of Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) – which scaled back the collateral-order doctrine as applied to attorney-client privilege – it must reassess the continued viability of the Perlman doctrine (Perlman v.Continue reading “Fourth Circuit Holds That It Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Under Perlman Doctrine to Review Criminal Defendant’s Interlocutory Appeal Concerning a Grand Jury Subpoena”

District Court Erred in Denying Prisoner Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on Ground That Prison Provided Him “Necessities of Life,” Second Circuit Holds

In Rosa v. Doe, No. 21-2628 (2d Cir. Nov. 20. 2023), the Second Circuit holds that the district court abused its discretion in denying a prisoner in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on the ground that his “necessities of life” were furnished by the prison. “On April 5, 2021, Rosa filed aContinue reading “District Court Erred in Denying Prisoner Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on Ground That Prison Provided Him “Necessities of Life,” Second Circuit Holds”