In Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd., 62 F.4th 496 (9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth Circuit held that a products liability case involving an exploding lithium battery did not “arise out of or relate to” the South Korean manufacturer’s contacts with the forum state for purposes of personal jurisdiction. (See March 6, 2023 post, Ninth CircuitContinue reading “Divided Fifth Circuit Panel Splits with Ninth Circuit and Adopts a “Same Product Plus In-State Injury” Test of Relatedness for Personal Jurisdiction in a Product Liability Case”
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Judge Exceeded Civil Contempt Powers by Ordering Defense Lawyers to Attend “Religious-Liberty Training,” Holds Fifth Circuit
In Carter v. Southwest Airlines Co. No. 23-10536 (5th Cir. May 8, 2025), while substantially affirming a contempt finding against Southwest for failing to carry out an order to notify the workplace – about the Title VII right to engage in religious-practices – holds that the district court went too far in ordering company lawyersContinue reading “Judge Exceeded Civil Contempt Powers by Ordering Defense Lawyers to Attend “Religious-Liberty Training,” Holds Fifth Circuit”
Diversity Allegations on “Information and Belief” Are Insufficient to Establish Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Beyond the Pleadings Stage and Judicial Notice Under Fed. R. Evid. 201 Cannot Bridge the Gap, Holds Fifth Circuit
In PNC Bank v. 2013 Travis Oak, No. 24-50101 (5th Cir. May 5, 2025), the Fifth Circuit remands the appeal of actions to enforce a settlement agreement, holding that claims severed from the original action require a separate, independent basis for diversity jurisdiction, and that the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint “on information and belief”Continue reading “Diversity Allegations on “Information and Belief” Are Insufficient to Establish Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Beyond the Pleadings Stage and Judicial Notice Under Fed. R. Evid. 201 Cannot Bridge the Gap, Holds Fifth Circuit”
Fifth Circuit Holds That State-Law Sovereign Immunity Doctrines Do Not Affect the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts
While state-law sovereign immunity doctrines apply in state court by virtue of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), the Fifth Circuit holds in Anthology, Inc. v. Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist. (TCCD), No. 24-10630 (5th Cir. May 2, 2025), that they are treated as defenses and do not affect Article III subject-matter jurisdiction.Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Holds That State-Law Sovereign Immunity Doctrines Do Not Affect the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts”
Fourth Circuit Panel Splits Over Whether the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Requires That There Be a Single Foreign Forum Available to Hear the Claim
In AdvanFort Co. v. Zamil Offshore Srvs. Co., No. 24-1007 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025), a Fourth Circuit panel splits 2-1 over whether forum non conveniens can apply when the alternative foreign forum for a case may require filing in two separate courts. “AdvanFort filed a five-count complaint in the district court for the EasternContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Panel Splits Over Whether the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Requires That There Be a Single Foreign Forum Available to Hear the Claim”
En Banc Ninth Circuit Overrules Case Authority That Personal Jurisdiction Over an Online Business Requires That Its Marketing Be Shown to Have a “Forum-Specific Focus”
In Briskin v. Shopify, No. 22-15815 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit considers a customer privacy claim by a California resident against a Canadian online retailer and its American subsidiaries. The court (10-1) reverses the lower court’s dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds, overruling AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201Continue reading “En Banc Ninth Circuit Overrules Case Authority That Personal Jurisdiction Over an Online Business Requires That Its Marketing Be Shown to Have a “Forum-Specific Focus””
Second Circuit Splits from Tenth in Holding That Supplemental Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) Requires A Separate Analysis from Intervention Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)
The Second Circuit – in Hamilton Reserve Bank v. Sri Lanka, No. 24-1459-cv (2d Cir. April 10, 2025) – rejects a widely-recognized presumption that “a court necessarily possesses supplemental jurisdiction [under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)] over intervention claims when the requirements for intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) are met,” holdingContinue reading “Second Circuit Splits from Tenth in Holding That Supplemental Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) Requires A Separate Analysis from Intervention Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)”
The Eighth Circuit, Perhaps Without Meaning To, Creates a Circuit Split on the Standard for Seeking Relief from a Jury Waiver Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b)
In E&I Global Ene. Srvs. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 23-3739 (8th Cir. Apr. 4, 2025), the Eighth Circuit declines to afford a plaintiff relief for its failure to timely demand a jury trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1) under an “excusable neglect” standard, creating (without so noting) a split with other circuits.Continue reading “The Eighth Circuit, Perhaps Without Meaning To, Creates a Circuit Split on the Standard for Seeking Relief from a Jury Waiver Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b)”
Seventh Circuit Becomes the First to Hold That an EU “Societas Europaea” (SE) Is a “Corporation” for Diversity Jurisdiction Purposes
In Starstone Ins SE v City of Chicago, No. 23-2712 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025), the Seventh Circuit holds that the plaintiff – a “Societas Europaea” (SE) organized under the rules of the European Union – is a citizen of a foreign state under the federal diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Under section 1332(a)(2),Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Becomes the First to Hold That an EU “Societas Europaea” (SE) Is a “Corporation” for Diversity Jurisdiction Purposes”
The Sixth Circuit, Adding to A Circuit Split, Holds That the Plaintiff Has the Burden of Establishing Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391
In Tobien v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., No. 24-5575 (6th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025), the Sixth Circuit follows the majority rule in holding that on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue, it is the plaintiff that must prove that their case lies in the district where they filed it.Continue reading “The Sixth Circuit, Adding to A Circuit Split, Holds That the Plaintiff Has the Burden of Establishing Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 