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”
Category Archives: Uncategorized
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”
Seventh Circuit Contemplates How Little Is Too Little Briefing to Compel Dismissal Under Fed. R. App. P. 28
In Sullers v Int’l Union Elevator Constructors, Local #2, No. 24-1719 (7th Cir. June 27, 2025), a litigant in the Seventh Circuit barely avoids having their appeal dismissed on the grounds of inadequate briefing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 28. The case involved an allegation of breach of the duty of fair representation against theContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Contemplates How Little Is Too Little Briefing to Compel Dismissal Under Fed. R. App. P. 28”
Tenth Circuit Holds That Federal Claim Preclusion Applies to Supplemental State-Law Claim Dismissed Without Prejudice in First Federal Action, If Plaintiff Could Have Originally Asserted Diversity Jurisdiction Over That Claim
In Markley v. U.S. Bank NA, No. 24-1163 (10th Cir. June 24, 2025), the Tenth Circuit opens up a potential trap for the unwary, holding that if “a party could have litigated a claim in a prior lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction but fails to do so,” then that claim is precluded in a secondContinue reading “Tenth Circuit Holds That Federal Claim Preclusion Applies to Supplemental State-Law Claim Dismissed Without Prejudice in First Federal Action, If Plaintiff Could Have Originally Asserted Diversity Jurisdiction Over That Claim”
Sixth Circuit Holds That Placement of a Website Server in a State Does Not Automatically Expose Those Who Use It to Personal Jurisdiction There
In Carbone v. Kaal, No. 24-3795 (6th Cir. June 20, 2025), the Sixth Circuit affirms the dismissal of a tort action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), holding that though the defendants allegedly transmitted defamatory statements through a server in Ohio, this fact alone did not support laying specific personal jurisdiction in that forum. “Robert Carbone,Continue reading “Sixth Circuit Holds That Placement of a Website Server in a State Does Not Automatically Expose Those Who Use It to Personal Jurisdiction There”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 