Fifth Circuit: Ronda Crutchfield, et al v. Sewerage & Water Board

FRCP, Class Actions


Appeals court, in assuring itself of its own jurisdiction, has power to review whether the District Court had initial jurisdiction under federal officer doctrine prior to denying certification of the class.

As the general circumstantial theory of harm would be displaced under state law by particulars of each claim where available, lack of predominance allowed court to bar certification of the class without abusing its discretion.


Ronda Crutchfield, et al v. Sewerage & Water BoDistrict Court had suard

Second Circuit: Blow v. United States

Habeas, AEDPA, Sentencing, Circuit Split


Permission granted for second/successive federal Habeas petition challenging sentence imposed under residual clause of Sentencing Guidelines, as the language is identical to the ACCA residual clause found unconstitutional.

Circuit split flagged.


Blow v. United States

Second Circuit: Florez v. CIA

FOIA

A second agency's post-response disclosures probative of the first agency's refusal to provide information justify a limited remand to the District Court in the interests of judicial efficiency.

Dissent: The review is limited to a review of the sufficiency of the initial agency decision--error to remand without a specific link to the earlier decision process.

Florez v. CIA

Second Circuit: SRM Global Master Fund Ltd. P’ship v. Bear Stearns Cos.

Securities, Class Actions, Statute of Limitations, Fraud


Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations against individual claims during the period in which a class is certified is not available for claims of material misrepresentation under the securities laws, as the limiting statute is a statute of repose that creates a substantive right immune to common law equitable relief.

Insufficient proof of reliance for common law fraud claims.


SRM Global Master Fund Ltd. P’ship v. Bear Stearns Cos.

Second Circuit: Microsoft v. United States

Computers, Fourth Amendment, ECPA


When legislation referenced warrants, it used the term as a legal term of art, one that distinguishes them from subpoenas.  Extraterritorial application is therefore precluded.

As the statute focuses on the act of invasion of the user's privacy, data that would be accessed extraterritorially cannot be reached by warrants under the statute.


Concurrence in J -- Particularity of location is problematic in an electronic context, so the presumption against extraterritoriality doesn't afford a clear bar to conduct that the Act seems to proscribe.  Law needs to be rewritten.



Microsoft v. United States

First Circuit: Rodriguez-Miranda v. Benin

FRCP, Due Process


Post-judgment motion to join defts for purposes of enforcing the judgment did not have to mention the specific FRCP rule, as the motion was made with sufficient particularity to afford notice.

Defts can be joined after entry of judgment -- the matter remains a pending one.

No plain error in holding newly joined defts jointly and severally liable for full judgment, as the court held them to be alter egos, not successors in (perhaps partial) interest. 

Notice and opportunity to challenge sufficed for personal jurisdiction.

Court's imposition of contempt fines was civil, not criminal, as it was attempting to enforce compliance,and was therefore procedurally sufficient.

Rodriguez-Miranda v. Benin

First Circuit: Kelley v. Fidelity Mgmt. Trust Co.

Souter, ERISA, Agency


Funds transferred to the plan administrator's account for a fixed-sum disbursement to the beneficiary are not transmogrified into plan assets while in the holding account, and the general beneficiaries of the plan therefore have no claim on the interest earned.


Kelley v. Fidelity Mgmt. Trust Co.

First Circuit: US v. Stokes

Fourth Amendment, Sentencing


Where deft doesn't establish knowledge of behind-the-scenes arrangement at Post Office, no reasonable expectation of privacy for materials in post office box.

Where not appearing on the envelope as the sender or addressee, deft has no privacy interest in the sealed letters absent a showing of connection.

Affidavits and images of the seized envelopes addressed to the deft suffices to prove that the envelopes have not been opened.

No clear error in loss findings for sentencing, since, even if individual records were proved to be unrelated, the breadth of the scheme suggests that there were losses outside the record.

US v. Stokes

First Circuit: Burns v. Johnson

Corrigenda.

Burns v. Johnson

Federal Circuit

Out of time for today -- two more in the Federal Circuit, viz:


http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-5056.Opinion.7-8-2016.1.PDF

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-5077.Opinion.7-8-2016.1.PDF


Cheers. 

-CB

DC Circuit: Carlos Loumiet v. USA

FTCA, Bivvens, Statute of Limitations


Constitutionally defective exercises of discretion do not shield the government from suit under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.

The cumulative effect of continuing violations must be considered when considering when a claim under Bivvens accrues.


Carlos Loumiet v. USA

DC Circuit: Sandra Marshall v. Honeywell Technology Systems

FRCP, Estoppel, Bankruptcy


District court summary judgments based in judicial estoppel are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Here, as there little risk that the contradictory representations arose from inadvertence or mistake, there was no abuse of discretion.

Circuit split flagged on related question.


Sandra Marshall v. Honeywell Technology Systems

Eleventh Circuit: In re: Gary Baptiste

Habeas, AEDPA


AEDPA's second-or-successive bar should be applied to applications under the state prisoner federal Habeas statute.

Denied here on merits and law of the case.


 In re: Gary Baptiste

Eleventh Circuit: Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, et al.

FRCP


A settlement conditioned on vacatur is not a voluntary forfeiture of appellate review that therefore forecloses the equitable remedy of vacatur, as some settlements are sufficiently in the public interest to justify the erasure of valuable precedent.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, et al.

Eleventh Circuit: Johnny L. Marshall v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Habeas, Ineffective Assistance, Fourth Amendment, AEDPA


Habeas for ineffective assistance denied where counsel did not attempt to suppress identification made after suspect was transported back to the scene of the crime during a Terry stop.

Concurrence: State statute prohibits doing that during a Terrry stop, but AEDPA prohibits the writ, since the state statutory argument wasn't made in state Habeas.

Johnny L. Marshall v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Tenth Circuit: Maiteki v. Marten Transport

FCRA


Company's reinvestigation of annotation on driving employment record was sufficient, given that the stature does not require exhaustive reinvestigation, and that the plaintiff's request for reinvestigation was insufficiently particular.



Maiteki v. Marten Transport

Ninth Circuit: OTGONBAYAR LKHAGVASUREN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH

Immigration


Sufficient evidence for agency finding that persecution was animated by anticorruption beliefs of petitioner, or that the corruption was connected to the government.


OTGONBAYAR LKHAGVASUREN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH

Ninth Circuit: MARTIN SMITH V. IRS

Bankruptcy, Taxes


Post-assessment tax form filing was insufficiently honest and reasonable to allow tax debt to be discharged in bankruptcy.


 MARTIN SMITH V. IRS

Ninth Circuit: COMPLETELY SEALED CASE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA

FRCP, Fourth Amendment, Computers


Subpoena target has a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails on personal account that dealt with personal matters.  Error not to quash overbroad subpoena that would have returned them.

Public official's conversations with state attorneys relating to ethics and conflicts of interest are not privileged here, as the state owns the privilege.


COMPLETELY SEALED CASE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA

Ninth Circuit: MACARIO BONILLA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH

Immigration, Administrative


Although the claim was not advanced with sufficient diligence, the agency's refusal to reopen the earlier proceeding on the grounds that the deportation was a transformative event that deprived the heretofore lawful permanent resident of a viable domicile was error.

Courts have power to review the agency's denial of an application for a sua sponte reopening where the application asserts legal or constitutional error.  The agency's subsequent decision, however, is unreviewable.


MACARIO BONILLA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH