Category Archives: Uncategorized

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”

Noting Gap in Fed. R. Evid. 103, Tenth Circuit Holds That a Party Forfeited Appeal of a Conditional Evidence Ruling – Despite Objecting Four Separate Times – Because She Did Not Satisfy the Condition at Trial

In Culp v. Remington of Montrose Golf Club LLC, No. 24-1022 (10th Cir. Mar. 30, 2025), a district court’s conditional ruling to admit evidence is held unreviewable when the appellant chose strategically not to trigger the condition at trial. The panel notes that this forfeiture rule is not specifically anticipated by Federal Rule of EvidenceContinue reading “Noting Gap in Fed. R. Evid. 103, Tenth Circuit Holds That a Party Forfeited Appeal of a Conditional Evidence Ruling – Despite Objecting Four Separate Times – Because She Did Not Satisfy the Condition at Trial”

En Banc Ninth Circuit Panelists Clash Over Validity of a Video Dissent

In Duncan v. Bonta, No. 23-55805 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2025) (en banc) – a Second Amendment challenge to California’s ban on large-capacity magazines – the en banc Ninth Circuit debates whether a judge could validly file a video dissent that displays handguns and describing their operation. Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit brokeContinue reading “En Banc Ninth Circuit Panelists Clash Over Validity of a Video Dissent”

Eleventh Circuit Holds That There Is No Appellate Jurisdiction Over an Order That Both Denies Arbitration and Remands a Removed Case to State Court, Per 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)

In Wu v. Liu, No. 24-10397 (11th Cir. Mar. 19, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit has to reconcile 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which bars appellate review of a district court remand of a removed case, and 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(C), which affirmatively grants appellate jurisdiction to review orders denying arbitration. For an order that both deniesContinue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds That There Is No Appellate Jurisdiction Over an Order That Both Denies Arbitration and Remands a Removed Case to State Court, Per 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)”

Hindu Professors at State University Lacked Article III Standing to Challenge School’s “Caste” Discrimination Policy, Holds Ninth Circuit

In Kumar v. Koester, No. 23-4363 (9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025), the Ninth Circuit dismisses a constitutional challenge to California State University’s anti-discrimination policy that was recently amended to add “caste” as a protected status. Effective January 1, 2022, CSU’s “Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment, Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Exploitation, Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, Stalking, and RetaliationContinue reading “Hindu Professors at State University Lacked Article III Standing to Challenge School’s “Caste” Discrimination Policy, Holds Ninth Circuit”

There Is No “On-The-Job” Exception to Expert Witness Qualification Under Fed. R. Evid. 702, Holds the Ninth Circuit

In United States v. Holmes, No. 22-10312 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025), the Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes fraud prosecution, the Ninth Circuit affirms the convictions and sentences. It acknowledges the defense argument that a former Theranos scientist should not have been allowed to offer Fed. R. Evid. 702 expert testimony as an occurrence witness, without being qualified,Continue reading “There Is No “On-The-Job” Exception to Expert Witness Qualification Under Fed. R. Evid. 702, Holds the Ninth Circuit”

Concurring Judge Suggests That Seventh Circuit Reconsider De Novo Review of Orders Denying Arbitration

In Al-Nahhas v 777 Partners LLC, No. 23-2723 (7th Cir. Feb. 19, 2025), the Seventh Circuit affirms a district court order denying arbitration on account of waiver. One concurring judge, though, suggests that the de novo standard of review of such orders – the law of the circuit for over three decades – may beContinue reading “Concurring Judge Suggests That Seventh Circuit Reconsider De Novo Review of Orders Denying Arbitration”

Eleventh Circuit Splits with Fifth in Holding That Non-Party Removal of a Case to Federal Court Is a Waivable Procedural Defect Subject to the 30-Day Limit Under § 1447(c)

In Wilson v. Hearos, LLC, No. 23-12550 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit holds that a plaintiff who failed to challenge a non-party’s removal of an action to federal court under the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), within the 30 days provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) waived his objection. TheContinue reading “Eleventh Circuit Splits with Fifth in Holding That Non-Party Removal of a Case to Federal Court Is a Waivable Procedural Defect Subject to the 30-Day Limit Under § 1447(c)”