In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, No. 22-1252 (10th Cir. Sept. 11, 2023), a 2-1 panel of the Tenth Circuit holds that a district court lacks power under Rule 60(b) to reopen a case voluntarily dismissed by a plaintiff under Rule 41(a), because such a dismissal is not a “a final judgment, order, or proceeding.”Continue reading “Tenth Circuit Holds District Court May Not Use Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to Reopen a Case Voluntarily Dismissed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), Creating Split with the Fifth Circuit”
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Eighth Circuit Holds That Stipulations About Citizenship Are Not Binding When Evaluating Diversity Jurisdiction, Signaling a Possible Split with Other Circuits
In Great River Entertainment, LLC v. Zurich American Ins. Co., No. 21-3815 (8th Cir. Sept. 11, 2023), the Eighth Circuit reverses and remands a final judgment dismissing this insurance coverage lawsuit, holding that—despite an admission by the plaintiff in the district court that the parties were diverse—the plaintiff could contradict that stipulation on appeal withContinue reading “Eighth Circuit Holds That Stipulations About Citizenship Are Not Binding When Evaluating Diversity Jurisdiction, Signaling a Possible Split with Other Circuits”
Concurring Judge Urges Seventh Circuit to Revisit Spousal Testimonial Privilege as Applied to Co-Conspirators
In United States v. Diggs, No. 22-1502 (7th Cir. Sept. 5, 2023), a concurring judge in an opinion otherwise affirming a criminal conviction urges that the circuit revisit its stance on the spousal testimonial privilege as applied to alleged co-conspirators, holding that the standing circuit law was overruled by Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S.Continue reading “Concurring Judge Urges Seventh Circuit to Revisit Spousal Testimonial Privilege as Applied to Co-Conspirators”
No Leniency for a Pro Se Litigant Who Is Also a Licensed Attorney, Holds Ninth Circuit
In Hoffman v. Lindgren, No. 22-35471 (9th Cir. Sept. 1, 2023), the Ninth Circuit resolves an intracircuit split and holds that no leniency is due to pro se litigants who are also licensed, practicing attorneys. “Huffman, a practicing attorney, sued a municipal court judge, a prosecutor, and the City of St. Helens, Oregon in ColumbiaContinue reading “No Leniency for a Pro Se Litigant Who Is Also a Licensed Attorney, Holds Ninth Circuit”
Third Circuit Dismisses Pre-Enforcement Challenge to Attorney Ethics Rule on Discrimination (Rule 8.4(g)) on Article III Standing Grounds
In Greenberg v. Lehocky, No. 22-1733 (3d Cir. Aug. 29, 2023), the Third Circuit reverses a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania’s recently adopted professional responsibility rule, PRPC 8.4(g), prohibiting discrimination and harassment in the practice of law. It holds that the plaintiff, a lawyer who lectures on free-speech issues, demonstrated no credible threat that he wouldContinue reading “Third Circuit Dismisses Pre-Enforcement Challenge to Attorney Ethics Rule on Discrimination (Rule 8.4(g)) on Article III Standing Grounds”
Second Circuit Holds That Party Accused of Fabricating Evidence is Not Entitled to a Jury Trial on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Sanctions Motion
In Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Cntr., No. 21-2084 (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2023), the Second Circuit joins other courts in holding that the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial to evaluate a claim of evidence fabrication and spoliation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The district court dismissedContinue reading “Second Circuit Holds That Party Accused of Fabricating Evidence is Not Entitled to a Jury Trial on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Sanctions Motion”
Fifth Circuit, in Reissued Decision, Expounds on Limits of State’s Parens Patriae Authority to Litigate in Federal Court on Behalf of Suspended Students
In Louisiana State v. Jefferson Parish School Board, No. 22-30143 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2023), the Fifth Circuit dismisses the State of Louisiana’s continuation of a case in federal court against a local school board that sought to discipline two student who displayed weapons during remote-learning sessions during the COVID lockdown. (The original decision wasContinue reading “Fifth Circuit, in Reissued Decision, Expounds on Limits of State’s Parens Patriae Authority to Litigate in Federal Court on Behalf of Suspended Students”
Fifth Circuit Rejects “Futility” Exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) Remand Requirement
In Spivey v. Chitimacha Tribe, No. 22-30436 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2023), the Fifth Circuit joins the majority of circuits in holding that there is no “futility” exception to ordering the remand of a case to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) when it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removedContinue reading “Fifth Circuit Rejects “Futility” Exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) Remand Requirement”
Seventh Circuit Wades into Circuit Split About Whether District Courts Have Discretion to Allow Amendment of a Complaint Through Summary Judgment Briefing
In Schmees v. HC1.com, Inc., No. 22-1214 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023), the Seventh Circuit addresses the “muddled” law of whether district courts may treat new claims raised by a plaintiff for the first time in summary judgment briefing as a constructive amendment to the complaint. The court holds they may, although it does notContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Wades into Circuit Split About Whether District Courts Have Discretion to Allow Amendment of a Complaint Through Summary Judgment Briefing”
Split Second Circuit Panel Holds That A Non-Party Is In “Active Concert or Participation” Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) Only If They Intend to Benefit or Assist an Enjoined Party
In Havens v. James, No.20-664_(2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2023), a split Second Circuit panel holds that under Fed. R. Civ. R. 65(d)(2), that for a non-party to be subject to an injunction as acting in “active concert or participation,” they must act with the purpose of benefiting or assisting an enjoined party. The panel majorityContinue reading “Split Second Circuit Panel Holds That A Non-Party Is In “Active Concert or Participation” Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) Only If They Intend to Benefit or Assist an Enjoined Party”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 