In an unsigned order, Doe v. HHS, No. 24-40778 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025), two concurring panelists lambaste their presiding colleague for proceeding with oral argument when the lead counsel for plaintiff called in with a medical emergency two hours prior. The text of the order is brief: “The court heard oral argument in thisContinue reading “Two Fifth Circuit Panelists Tweak Presiding Judge for Forcing Second-Chair Lawyer to Proceed with Oral Argument When the Lead Counsel Had a Medical Emergency”
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Second Circuit Considers What It Means to “Ratify” Action Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3)
In Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc., No. 24-490 (2d Cir. Aug. 26, 2025), the Second Circuit holds that a putative real party in interest did not sufficiently ratify an action to prevent its dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3). The general rule under the federal rules is that “[a]n action must beContinue reading “Second Circuit Considers What It Means to “Ratify” Action Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3)”
Third Circuit Addresses the Continued Obligation to Maintain Confidentiality of Minor Party in Litigation After They Reach Majority
In a published order in Ricketts as parent of L.G. v. Titusville Area Sch. Dist., No. 24-2569 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2025) (per curiam), the Third Circuit offers guidance about what happens to the confidentiality of a federal litigant who is a minor once they reach age 18. “[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, theContinue reading “Third Circuit Addresses the Continued Obligation to Maintain Confidentiality of Minor Party in Litigation After They Reach Majority”
Third Circuit, Joining Circuit Split, Rejects “Reasonable Indication” Standard of Review for Class Action Opt-Outs Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) (v) and (vi)
Adding its voice to the several circuits that have already ruled on the issue, the Third Circuit holds in Perrigo Institutional Investor Group v. Papa, No. 24-2861 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2025) that absent class members must be held to strict compliance with court procedures to opt-out of a Rule 23(b)(3) class action. It thusContinue reading “Third Circuit, Joining Circuit Split, Rejects “Reasonable Indication” Standard of Review for Class Action Opt-Outs Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) (v) and (vi)”
Second Circuit Has “Serious Doubts” as to Whether Federal Claim Preclusion “Can Ever Be Used Offensively to Compel a Judgment”
In Thermal Surgical, LLC v. Brown, No. 24-127 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2025), the Second Circuit expresses “serious doubts as to whether [federal claim] preclusion can ever be used offensively to compel a judgment rather than resist a claim,” though it winds up vacating and remanding the decision here on other grounds. Plaintiff Thermal SurgicalContinue reading “Second Circuit Has “Serious Doubts” as to Whether Federal Claim Preclusion “Can Ever Be Used Offensively to Compel a Judgment””
Eighth Circuit Holds That for Forum Non Conveniens Analysis, Court Weighs All Domestic Contacts Against Transfer, Not Just Contacts with the Forum State
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”
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”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 