In Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 23-55403 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024), the Ninth Circuit rejects a California corporation’s attempt to avoid the forum-defendant rule by filing removal petitions in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) even before the cases were docketed in California state court. The forum-defendant rule is an exception to removal jurisdiction, which prohibits removal based on diversity jurisdiction “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Quick-thinking, in-stat ..read more

In In re Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, No. 24-10266 (5th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024), a 2-1 panel holds that a court in the Northern District of Texas exceeded its jurisdiction by transferring a case to the District for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) after a notice of appeal had already been filed, and grants mandamus to vacate the transfer. Under the federal Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act, the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB) is authorized to set “safe harbor” caps on credit card late fees. “On March 5, 2024, CFPB enacted a Final Rule that decreases ..read more

In Martin Leigh PC  v.  Leyh, No. 22-1975 (8th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024), an Eighth Circuit panel holds that when a party had already been dismissed from an action for two months, it is too late to invoke Rule 11 by operation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) 21-day safe-harbor provision. “On October 5, 2018, almost two months after being dismissed from the case, [defendant] Martin Leigh served [plaintiff’s attorney] Leyh with a motion for sanctions and a letter warning that the motion would be filed with the district court after thirty days ‘unless [the issue was] resolved to the firm’s sati ..read more

In Economic Loss Plaintiffs v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 23-2525 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2024), the Seventh Circuit holds that  “a potential class of consumers who purchased infant formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories at a facility later deemed unsanitary” failed to establish Article III standing based on “potential risk of injury.” “Abbott Laboratories produces powdered infant formula at multiple facilities, including one in Sturgis, Michigan. Plaintiffs assert that the Sturgis plant has a long history of quality control problems. The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] conducted multiple ..read more

In United States v. Tsarnaev, No. 16-6001 (1st Cir. Mar. 22, 2024), a 2-1 First Circuit panel remands the penalty phase of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s prosecution in order for the district court to revisit whether two jurors might have been biased, based on their social media posts that they failed to disclose in voir dire. ‘In 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother detonated two homemade bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring hundreds more . . . . In 2015, a jury sitting in federal district court in Boston convicted Tsarnaev of thirty crimes stemming fro ..read more

In Nordgren  v.  Hennepin Cnty., No. 22-1902 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2024), a 2-1 Eighth Circuit panel holds that a merits panel may reconsider the timeliness of an appeal even after a motion panel has already denied a motion to dismiss on the same ground, notwithstanding the “law of the case” doctrine. In a § 1983 action challenging termination of parental rights, the district court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The plaintiff then filed what the district court construed as a Rule 59 motion to reconsider, which i ..read more

In Behrens v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 21-2603 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2024), the Second Circuit publishes an opinion  “to consider a question of first impression in this Circuit: whether the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction requires a district court to exercise it, even if it is invoked belatedly—on analogy to the rule that a party can object to the lack of such jurisdiction ‘at any time.’” The panel holds that there is no duty to consider a belated argument favoring jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed federal and state law claims for investment fraud, arising from a CEO’s defalcation ..read more

In Do No Harm v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 23-15_(2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2024), a 2-1 panel of the Second Circuit holds that “an association must identify by name at least one injured member for purposes of establishing Article III standing under a summary judgment standard.” “Do No Harm, a nationwide membership organization, filed suit against Pfizer on behalf of its members, alleging that Pfizer unlawfully excludes white and Asian-American applicants from [its Breakthrough] Fellowship [Program] in violation of federal and state laws.” The Fellowship was an internship and scholarship program “designed “to i ..read more

In Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. United States of America, No. 22-3326 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024), the Eighth Circuit affirms dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that there was no “adversity” between the parties, owing to the supposed failure of plaintiff to name a defendant in the case. “The Reporters Committee filed an application in the District of Minnesota with a single goal in mind: unsealing electronic-surveillance filings. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–13 (Stored Communications Act). But standing in the way was a local rule requiring federal law-enforce ..read more

In Brown v. CACH, Inc., No. 23-1308 (7th Cir. Feb. 29, 2024), the Seventh Circuit observes that a self-employed person may argue, as an Article III injury, that they were interrupted from remunerative work – even briefly – but that the injury must be proven, not assumed. In response to a call at home about an alleged debt, plaintiffs filed an action under 15 U.S.C. §1692e, part of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). As an injury for purposes of Article III standing, a plaintiff asserted that the caller had “interrupted my self-employment” to “mull over my memories” and “scour my re ..read more