Tag Archives: Fourth Circuit

Fourth Circuit Holds That Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice Can Be Remedied by Plaintiff Waiver in Appellate Briefing or Argument

In Metz v. McCarthy, No. 24-1820 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026), the Fourth Circuit holds that a stipulation in the district court of dismissal without prejudice, which would deprive the court of appellate jurisdiction, can be repaired on appeal by the expedient of the plaintiff agreeing in briefing or argument that dismissal of all claimsContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Holds That Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice Can Be Remedied by Plaintiff Waiver in Appellate Briefing or Argument”

District Court May Not Grant Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion Solely Because Plaintiff Failed to Oppose It, Holds Fourth Circuit

In Guzman v. Acuarius Night Club LLC, No. 24-1555 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2026), the Fourth Circuit holds that “failing to oppose a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion is not a sufficient ground for a court’s concluding that a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Plaintiffs are “professionalContinue reading “District Court May Not Grant Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion Solely Because Plaintiff Failed to Oppose It, Holds Fourth 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)”

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”

Is There a Standard of Judicial Review Lower Than “Arbitrary and Capricious”? Yes, Holds the Fourth Circuit

In Dorado-Ocasio v. Averill, No. 24-1360 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2025), the Fourth Circuit holds that for review of an administrative action by an agency of the uniformed armed services, judicial review is merely for “a discernible path for its determination.” Plaintiff Dorado-Ocasio is a captain in the United States Army. She challenged an adverseContinue reading “Is There a Standard of Judicial Review Lower Than “Arbitrary and Capricious”? Yes, Holds the Fourth Circuit”

Fourth Circuit Panel Holds 2-1 That Defendants Won the Race to the Courthouse Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Filing a Notice of Appeal That Stayed the District Court’s Authority to Remand a Removed Case Back to State Court

In City of Martinsville, Va. v. Express Scripts, Inc., No. 24-1912 (4th Cir. Feb. 10, 2025), a 2-1 panel holds that because the defendant filed its appeal before the district court physically mailed a remand order to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, the order had no legal effect. The panel judges differ overContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Panel Holds 2-1 That Defendants Won the Race to the Courthouse Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Filing a Notice of Appeal That Stayed the District Court’s Authority to Remand a Removed Case Back to State Court”

Fourth Circuit Provides Guidance on the Division of Bench and Jury Duties in an Eminent Domain Proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(h), Noting a Split with the First Circuit

In Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 9.89 Acres of Land, No. 23-2129 (4th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025), the Fourth Circuit addresses an issue of apparent first impression about the division of bench and jury duties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(h), governing federal eminent domain proceedings. On the admissibility of expert testimony, the panel issuesContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Provides Guidance on the Division of Bench and Jury Duties in an Eminent Domain Proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(h), Noting a Split with the First Circuit”

Fourth Circuit Holds Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) Applies to Interlocutory Appeals, Creating a Split with the Eleventh Circuit

In Gelin v. Baltimore Cnty., No. 23-1541 (4th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024), the Fourth Circuit holds an appeal before it “in abeyance” until the district court decides a pending Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion. The panel has occasion to decide that Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) – which provides that certain motions in theContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Holds Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) Applies to Interlocutory Appeals, Creating a Split with the Eleventh Circuit”

Fourth Circuit Castigates District Court for Reopening Case on Remand, Even Though a Concurring Judge Originally Suggested That Possibility

In R.A. v. McClenahan, No. 24-1008 (4th Cir. Dec. 3, 2024), the Fourth Circuit reverses a district court’s action granting leave to the plaintiff to amend their complaint after remand from the first appeal, despite that a panelist on the first appeal (who has since taken senior status) expressly suggested that course in a separateContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Castigates District Court for Reopening Case on Remand, Even Though a Concurring Judge Originally Suggested That Possibility”

Fourth Circuit Holds District Court Did Not Abuse Discretion in Striking Complaint Filed Pro Se Via Fax Machine

In Folse v. Hoffman, No. 23-1709 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2024), the Fourth Circuit finds no error in the district court striking a complaint and dismissing an action, where the pro se plaintiff attempted to file the action “electronically,” by way of a fax machine. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B)(i) says pro se litigantsContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Holds District Court Did Not Abuse Discretion in Striking Complaint Filed Pro Se Via Fax Machine”