Fifth Circuit: USA v. Chia Lee, et al

Sufficient evidence, given facts.

Where deft lives in a certain judicial district and has a bank in that district, jury might have legitimately found that venue was proper in conspiracy in prosecution; vicinage concerns are not implicated where deft lives in the district.

Jury sending note to judge during proceedings asking for clarification of charges is insufficient to establish improper deliberations where individually interviewed jurors claim that discussion of the merits had not occurred.

Govt experts general statements based on small fraction of files reviewed were harmless error.

Although instruction on deliberate ignorance was an abuse of discretion given lack of purposeful contrivance, inclusion was harmless error.

No clear error where sentencing report estimates drug quantities without a showing on the percentage of lawful prescriptions.

No plain error where conflicting findings would result from using the totality of either of the two versions of the Guidelines, rather than the combination of the two elected by the sentencing court.

Firearm in adjoining office sufficient for sentencing bump where prescriptions were written in an examination room.

USA v. Chia Lee, et al

Fifth Circuit: USA v. James Perryman

Commerce Clause sufficient justification for law barring convicted felon's possession of weapon that at some point previous travelled in interstate commerce; present interstate travel need not be established.

PSR's unsworn statements describing previous proceeding are sufficient to establish perjury for the purpose of sentencing bump where the court also adopts an addendum that contains the relevant record excerpts.

USA v. James Perryman

Fourth Circuit: Nathaniel Hicks v. Gerald Ferreyra

Claim that S1983 action against Park Service police for unlawfully detaining a Secret Service agent constitutes an impermissible extension of Bivvens is waived for not being raised below; District Court was not obliged to independently assure itself of the remedy's availability, and the scope of the Bivvens remedy is not a jurisdictional question.

Appeal citing deposition testimony contrary to the reading of the facts in the decision below is not a matter for interlocutory review.

Nathaniel Hicks v. Gerald Ferreyra 

First Circuit: Plixer International, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GMBH

Although a website's availability, in itself, does not constitute the purposeful availment of the resources of a jurisdiction, a steady and predictable flow of commerce to the jurisdiction can constitute sufficient purposeful availment to justify a reasonable assertion of jurisdiction.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/18-1195P-01A.pdf

Third Circuit: USA v. Zenaido Renteria, Jr.

As venue is  jurisdictional element that does not take the state of mind of the deft into account, venue in a certain district need not be foreseeable by the deft.

Sentence drug calculations upheld.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172079p.pdf

Third Circuit: In re: Tribune Media Company

Bankruptcy Court had statutory jurisdiction to resolve discrimination claims against debtor as a matter of law, as plaintiff consented to jurisdiction, and the statutory carve-out that would usually move personal-injury tort claims to the District Court is not a jurisdictional provision.

Implicit consent to jurisdiction suffices for a Bankruptcy Court to resolve the claim; by filing and seeking judgment from the court, Plaintiff consented to jurisdiction as to constitutional concerns.  Constitutional challenges to the court's jurisdiction might have been lodged during the proceedings or in a motion challenging the denial of claim, making the present challenge untimely.

As plaintiff received notice and opportunity to be heard, there were no Due Process violations inherent in the Bankruptcy forum; consent to forum waived the jury trial right; challenge to local counsel rule waived for not being raised below.

Post-discharge, a tort liability claim that was incorporated in the bankruptcy settlement cannot be transferred or remanded.

Given absence of incidents in employee's file, employer not liable for racial animus under respondeat superior.

Employee's termination for fighting during the incident of alleged racial animus had a sufficiently non-discriminatory rationale.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172449p.pdf

Third Circuit: Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Sec PA Dept Env Protection

Given the strong presumption of administrative unreviewability until final administrative action, the statute's silence eon the question, combined with a jurisdictional grant over state actions create an inference of unreviwability until after final administrative decision.

As the agency decision takes effect prior to administrative appeal and the administrative appeal happens within an entirely separate proceeding, the agency decision is sufficiently final for statutory exclusive jurisdiction.

Rulemaking notice was sufficient; there is no requirement that notice requirements be set forth in a regulation; notice allowed interested parties to participate meaningfully in a process that was actually pending.

Agency approval conditioned on subsequent permit grant was not intrinsically arbitrary and capricious.

Whether or not a Takings Clause claim can arise under the statute, there is sufficient remedy in the existing appeals process.

Statute and APA allow court to consider pendent claims arising from the state constitution.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/162211p.pdf

Third Circuit: Alex Taksir v. Vanguard Group

State action for breach of contract in reference to undisclosed transaction fees is not barred by the terms of the securities act, as the misrepresentation is not in connection to the sale of the security, and would not be material to the transaction.  As the misrepresentation is outside of the act's scope, a fraud claim is similarly not forbidden.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173585p.pdf

Ninth Circuit: McCray v. Marriott

Where a labor right arises from a statute but is waived by a CBA, a challenge to the waiver is construed as a challenge to the statute, not to the CBA, making preemption removal inapposite and depriving the federal court of jurisdiction over the question of state law.

Dissent:  It's about the CBA.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/31/17-15767.pdf

First Circuit: Narragansett Indian Tribe v. RI Dep't of Transportation

Sovereign immunity bars claim arising from highway construction, as the private right of action in the Act exists only to enforce the Act, not to challenge the program-based decisions of the agency.

Federal court does not have jurisdiction over a breach of contract suit against a state unless the claim states a disputed and substantial federal issue, and prudential factors are favorable.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1951P-01A.pdf

Third Circuit: Encompass Insurance Co v. Stone Mansion Restaurant Inc

Given the plain reading of the statute, a domestic opponent can remove a case to federal court despite the forum defendant rule if the notice of removal is filed before acceptance of service of the complaint; the rule as set forth in the statute only applies to parties who have been properly joined and served.  Party's agreement to accept electronic service did not have a preclusive effect on consent to jurisdiction.

As contribution within joint liability arises not from a finding of liability, but from an equitable allocation of costs, the insurer of a driver who harms another can recover a contribution from the bar that served the driver, despite the dram shop law limiting liability to third parties.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171479p.pdf

First Circuit: Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively

Circuit courts do not have jurisdiction under the direct appeals statute to reform unflattering dicta in the opinion below.

Where diversity jurisdiction is pleaded but conceded during the proceedings to be a fiction, the court has the prudential right to invoke judicial estoppel against an attempt to shift the basis for jurisdiction to diversity of parties.

Where pendent state law claims raise sensitive and undeveloped questions of state law, the court does not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplementary jurisdiction and dismissing the pendent claims without prejudice.

Initial motion to dismiss did not ripen into grounds for the judgment, and is therefore unreviewable.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1593P-01A.pdf

Second Circuit: Lucia Lopez Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp.

Dismissing a long-running action sua sponte due to the fact that only supplemental jurisdiction remains requires, for reasons of basic fairness and reliable decisionmaking,  that the parties receive notice and an opportunity to be heard. 

Court's assertion that the federal claims had been pretextually asserted in order to manufacture jurisdiction required investigation and careful findings.

If the court has found that the supplemental jurisdiction arises from the same case or controversy, the statute requires a explicit selection of one or more of the enumerated statutory reasons for declining to exercise jurisdiction.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fdd539eb-5a30-4ce3-97bd-7a4291129ddb/1/doc/17-2497_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fdd539eb-5a30-4ce3-97bd-7a4291129ddb/1/hilite/

Seventh Circuit: Arjun Dhakal v. Jefferson Sessions III

Although there is no jurisdictional bar to general federal jurisdiction over an initial denial of asylum, the administrative record has not yet been sufficiently developed by the exhaustion of administrative remedies that would result from challenging a subsequent enforcement of the decision, so jurisdiction is not yet proper under the APA.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-13/C:17-3377:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2185998:S:0

Second Circuit: United States v. Thompson

Minor trafficking statute is not overbroad, since any material assistance provided to victims by charitable organizations that might fall within the proscriptions of the act do not prohibit the expressive associations protected under the First Amendment, and prosecutions are unlikely for assistance provided by family members, who would, in any even, lack the needed mens rea for culpability.

A mens rea requirement as to the victim's age in one section of the statute does not necessarily imply the same degree of knowledge for conviction under a provision providing increased penalties for a victim of an even lower age.

Venue is proper in the district where the minor was induced and enticed, despite the fact that the film was created elsewhere.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/1/doc/16-2986_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/1/hilite/ 

Second Circuit: Leopard Marine & Trading, Ltd. v. Easy Street Ltd.

As jurisdiction over an in personam action under the Declaratory Judgment Act seeking a declaration of rights in a maritime lien is merely derivative of the jurisdiction over the lien, arrest or presence of the res is a matter of service, not jurisdictional, and jurisdiction can be gained by means of a forum selection clause in a contract for supplies between the operator of the vessel and the claimant on the lien.

As the present quasi in rem suit is an in personam action, abstention for comity in light of a foreign in rem action on the same res is not required.

Although the conduct of the enforcement of the lien is within the present forum's statute of limitations, which is generally held to be the common law rule, equitable considerations permitted the district court to extinguish the lien for laches -- due to the delay, the owner of the ship was unable to enforce a lien against the cargo carried by the operator who had incurred the fuel bill.

Dissent: Maritime liens are stricti juris, and arise from the custody of the res.  The interpleader precedent cited by the majority relies on consent to federal jurisdiction, with the lien then found to be inextricably intertwined.  The operator's consent to the forum selection provision is distinct from a general consent to federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction cannot be manufactured by consent of the parties.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/2/doc/16-1356_complete_pdf.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/2/hilite/

Sixth Circuit: In Re: Estate of Jerry West v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

As the state court lost jurisdiction over the matter when the district court took it up, common-law probate remand to the state court had no basis, as there was no dual jurisdiction to resolve.  Also, state court did not have jurisdiction over claim, due to statutory administrative review procedures.

Dissent: Statute requires District Court to remand; District Court has no power to examine state forum's basis for jurisdiction.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0134p-06.pdf

Tenth Circuit: United States v. Garcia-Herrera

After entry of judgment, a court has no jurisdiction over a subsequent motion by a deft to compel former counsel to produce files that would aid in his defense.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6209.pdf

Third Circuit: Norman Walsh v. Defenders Inc

Given the deft's direct contractual relationship with a significant part of the Class, its presence in the litigation is sufficient to justify the an element of the CAFA local controversy exception, regardless of whether it will ultimately shoulder responsibility for any judgment.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/182156p.pdf

DC Circuit: John Croley v. Joint Committee on Judicial Administration

District Court has jurisdiction over claim alleging that DC Courts mismanaged tort recovery of plaintiff, since the claim sounds in tort and presents freestanding claims under the Federal Constitution; the claim doesn't amount to an attempt to revisit the earlier state court judgment, as the plaintiff prevailed in the DC action.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/20FB3AD02C5D887D852582C200529F33/$file/15-5080.pdf