In Moore v Club Exploria, LLC, No. 25-2721 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2026), the Seventh Circuit grapples with a divide in the case law about whether district court orders denying arbitration are reviewed deferentially or de novo. The court concludes that clear-error review applies unless the reviewing the order “requires us to elaborate on thisContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Cleans Up Intra-Circuit Split of Authority on Standard of Appellate Review of Orders Denying Arbitration”
Tag Archives: Seventh Circuit
Seventh Circuit Rejects Extension of Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, as an Exception to Diversity Jurisdiction, to Examination of Whether the Plaintiff’s Legal Team Intends to Pursue Claims Against the Non-Diverse Defendants
In In re Abbott Laboratories, No. 25-2327 (7th Cir. July 28, 2026), the Seventh Circuit reverses an order denying a remand of a products liability case to state court, holding that the district court exceeded the bounds of the fraudulent joinder doctrine by considering whether the plaintiffs’ lawyers “demonstrated sufficient intent to pursue claims against”Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Rejects Extension of Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, as an Exception to Diversity Jurisdiction, to Examination of Whether the Plaintiff’s Legal Team Intends to Pursue Claims Against the Non-Diverse Defendants”
Seventh Circuit Holds That “Local Event or Occurrence” Exception in Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I), Is Jurisdictional and Thus Non-Waivable, Even If Omitted from Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand
In Craig v City of Richmond, Ind., No. 26-1864 (7th Cir. June 18, 2026), in an issue of first impression, the panel holds that a district court may sua sponte remand a removed case to state court under the “local event or occurrence” exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I), even if the plaintiff did not seekContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Holds That “Local Event or Occurrence” Exception in Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I), Is Jurisdictional and Thus Non-Waivable, Even If Omitted from Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand”
Split Seventh Circuit Panel Holds That Government Waived Argument for Limitation on Injunctive Relief in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), Interpreting That Section as Non-Jurisdictional
In Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 25-3050 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026), a divided panel (with a concurrence in the judgment and a dissent) holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which governs judicial review of orders of removal, is a limitation on relief rather than on federalContinue reading “Split Seventh Circuit Panel Holds That Government Waived Argument for Limitation on Injunctive Relief in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), Interpreting That Section as Non-Jurisdictional”
Two Circuits Address Scott v. Harris and Video Evidence in Assessing Qualified Immunity for Police Officers Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp., No. 24-3983 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026) and Perez v. Guetschow, No. 25-1617 (7th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026), two panels decide interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity decisions under 42 U.S.C. §1983 where the central issue is video evidence, per Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). In each case,Continue reading “Two Circuits Address Scott v. Harris and Video Evidence in Assessing Qualified Immunity for Police Officers Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”
Seventh Circuit Splits Over Whether to Vacate a District Court Order Against Federal Immigration Agencies Upon a Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)(2) Voluntary Motion to Dismiss
In Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, No. 25-3023 (7th Cir. Mar. 5, 2026) (per curiam), a Seventh Circuit panel issues a 2-1 decision ordering that, as part of granting the government’s voluntary dismissal of its appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the underlying order on appeal be vacated. The case arose from the surgeContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Splits Over Whether to Vacate a District Court Order Against Federal Immigration Agencies Upon a Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)(2) Voluntary Motion to Dismiss”
Seventh Circuit Lets Pro Se Litigant Off with a Warning About AI Hallucinations in His Brief
In Jones v Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No 25-1251 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026), the Seventh Circuit issues a timely reminder that, however useful generative AI may be, it is still not an automatic brief-writing machine. “Jones filed a sprawling lawsuit in November 2023, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging that several municipal andContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Lets Pro Se Litigant Off with a Warning About AI Hallucinations in His Brief”
Concurring Seventh Circuit Judge Urges Reconsideration of Plain-Error Review Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
In United States v. Robinson, No. 24-2310 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2025), the Seventh Circuit reverses in part a conviction for bank fraud on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds, while a concurring judge argues that a change in Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 warrants reconsideration of the plain-error standard to challenges raised for the first time on appeal.Continue reading “Concurring Seventh Circuit Judge Urges Reconsideration of Plain-Error Review Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29”
Co-Guarantors to Contracts May Not Be Indispensable Parties Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), Holds Seventh Circuit
In CCP Golden/7470 LLC v. Breslin, No. 24-2731 (7th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025), the Seventh Circuit rejects an effort to defeat diversity jurisdiction, holding (contrary to prior dicta on the subject) that co-parties to a contract who are jointly and severally liable need not always be deemed indispensable parties for purposes of Fed. R. Civ.Continue reading “Co-Guarantors to Contracts May Not Be Indispensable Parties Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), Holds Seventh Circuit”
Exhibition of Van Gogh Painting in Illinois Did Not Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over Ownership Dispute There, Holds Seventh Circuit
In Schoeps v Sompo Holdings, Inc., No. 25-1405 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025), the Seventh Circuit holds that the happenstance of an artwork, Van Gogh’s Sunflowers (1888), having once been exhibited at the Art Institute of Chicago did not create personal jurisdiction to sue over the painting’s ownership in Illinois. The heirs (Schoeps) of “PaulContinue reading “Exhibition of Van Gogh Painting in Illinois Did Not Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over Ownership Dispute There, Holds Seventh Circuit”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 