Fed. R. App. P. 43 Places Duty on Appellant to Identify Party to Substitute for Deceased Appellee, Holds Third Circuit

In Aldossari v. Ripp, No. 21-2080 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2022), the Third Circuit – addressing a split in the circuits – holds that it must dismiss an appeal brought against a deceased appellee under Fed. R. App. P. 43 where the appellant has failed to identify a substitute party. The case concerned a failedContinue reading “Fed. R. App. P. 43 Places Duty on Appellant to Identify Party to Substitute for Deceased Appellee, Holds Third Circuit”

A Failure to Timely Cross-Appeal an Issue Is Not Jurisdictional and Thus Objection to Such an Omission Can Be Forfeited, Holds Sixth Circuit

In Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods. v. NCR Corp., No.18-1806 (6th Cir. July 14, 2022), in an order denying rehearing en banc, the panel amends its original order with an appendix to hold that any objection to a party’s failure to timely cross-appeal from a final judgment does not go to subject-matter jurisdiction, and thus may beContinue reading “A Failure to Timely Cross-Appeal an Issue Is Not Jurisdictional and Thus Objection to Such an Omission Can Be Forfeited, Holds Sixth Circuit”

Second Circuit Holds That Younger Abstention Does Not Apply to State Probate Court Order Concerning the Validity of a Lien

In Cavanaugh v. Geballe, No.21-571 (2d Cir. Mar. 17, 2022), the Second Circuit holds that the district court erred by abstaining under the doctrine established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), from hearing a due process challenge to a statutory lien on plaintiff’s inheritance and grandmother’s estate. The panel holds that a stateContinue reading “Second Circuit Holds That Younger Abstention Does Not Apply to State Probate Court Order Concerning the Validity of a Lien”

District Court Judge Confused Prudential and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Leading to Premature Dismissal, Holds Fifth Circuit

In Abraugh v. Altimus, No. 21-30205 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022), the Fifth Circuit holds that the district court cut short a plaintiff’s opportunity to proceed with her complaint by ruling erroneously that there was no subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. “Karen Abraugh brought this suit over the wrongful death of her son Randall. AuthoritiesContinue reading “District Court Judge Confused Prudential and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Leading to Premature Dismissal, Holds Fifth Circuit”

Federal Magistrate Judge Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Where Defendants Had Not Yet Appeared and Consented, Holds Third Circuit

In Burton v. Schamp, No. 18-1174 (3d Cir. Feb. 3, 2022), the Third Circuit—hearing two consolidated prisoner appeals—holds that the failure of unserved defendants to consent to a U.S. federal magistrate judge (magistrate) before the complaint is dismissed deprives the magistrate of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). The panel rejects defendants’ arguments in supportContinue reading “Federal Magistrate Judge Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Where Defendants Had Not Yet Appeared and Consented, Holds Third Circuit”

Homeowners Association Lacked Standing to Enforce Consent Decree with Postal Service to End Delivery of Mail Addressed to “Ypsilanti” to Its Development, Split Sixth Circuit Holds

In Glennborough Homeowners Ass’n v. USPS, No. 21-1340 (6th Cir. Dec. 22, 2021), a panel affirms an order dismissing a case by a housing development seeking to enforce a consent decree against the U.S. Postal Service, though it divides on the reasoning. The majority affirmatively holds that the plaintiff Association lacks standing, while one judgeContinue reading “Homeowners Association Lacked Standing to Enforce Consent Decree with Postal Service to End Delivery of Mail Addressed to “Ypsilanti” to Its Development, Split Sixth Circuit Holds”

Fourth Circuit Holds That District Court Had Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Complaint with Pseudonymous Plaintiff

In B.R. v. F.C.S.B., No. 21-1005 (4th Cir. Nov. 2, 2021), the Fourth Circuit accepts an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and holds that a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim despite not knowing the plaintiff’s true name. A plaintiff – named “Kate” in the opinion – “commenced this action byContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Holds That District Court Had Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Complaint with Pseudonymous Plaintiff”

The Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability Does Not Go to Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Holds Eleventh Circuit

In Del Valle v. Secretary of State, No. 19-14889 (11th Cir. Oct. 26, 2021), the panel in an issue of first impression for the circuit holds that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability – by which a federal court declines to consider a challenge to a consular official’s denial of a visa, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408Continue reading “The Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability Does Not Go to Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Holds Eleventh Circuit”

Eleventh Circuit Criticizes Expansion of Rooker-Feldman by Lower Courts as “One-Size-Fits-All Preclusion Doctrine”

In Behr v. Campbell, No. 18-12842 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021), the Eleventh Circuit reverses a sua sponte dismissal of a 30-count federal civil-rights complaint arising out of events from a state-court domestic relations dispute. “That kind of sweeping dismissal is not at all unusual—but it is also at odds with the Supreme Court’s clearlyContinue reading “Eleventh Circuit Criticizes Expansion of Rooker-Feldman by Lower Courts as “One-Size-Fits-All Preclusion Doctrine””

Creating Split in Circuits, Divided Sixth Circuit Panel Holds That Presenting “Specific Dollar Amount” to Agency in Federal Tort Claims Act Case Is Not a Jurisdictional Requirement

In Copen v. United States, No. 21-2655 (6th Cir. July 6, 2021), a 2-1 panel holds that the requirement under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671–80, that a tort victim first present “the amount of the claim . . . to the federal agency” (id. § 2675(b)) is mandatory, but notContinue reading “Creating Split in Circuits, Divided Sixth Circuit Panel Holds That Presenting “Specific Dollar Amount” to Agency in Federal Tort Claims Act Case Is Not a Jurisdictional Requirement”