Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A traffic stop conducted by Pennsylvania State Trooper Galen Clemons resulted in the arrest of Jamar Hunter after a loaded Glock-45 semi-automatic handgun was discovered in Hunter's waistband. This discovery followed a routine license and warrant check and an additional computerized criminal history check on Hunter and his passenger, Deshaun Davis. Hunter was later indicted for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. Hunter moved to suppress the firearm evidence claiming that the computerized criminal history check extended the traffic stop beyond its constitutional authority.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Hunter's motion to suppress. The court reasoned that the computerized criminal history check was unrelated to the traffic stop's mission and, without reasonable suspicion, prolonged the stop, therefore violating the Fourth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, finding that the lower court had applied a subjective standard of review, thereby erring as a matter of law. The appellate court held that the criminal history check, which lasted approximately two minutes, was an objectively reasonable safety precaution related to the mission of the traffic stop under Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) and the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals found the check to be a negligibly burdensome officer safety precaution that fell within the stop's mission. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "USA v. Hunter" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Maria Del Rosario Hernandez, filed a lawsuit against MicroBilt Corporation alleging the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act after the lender denied her loan application based on inaccurate information provided by a MicroBilt product. MicroBilt moved to compel arbitration based on the terms and conditions that Hernandez agreed to while applying for the loan, which included an arbitration provision. However, Hernandez had already submitted her claims to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) for arbitration.The AAA notified MicroBilt that its agreement with Hernandez was a consumer agreement, which meant the AAA's Consumer Arbitration Rules applied. Applying these rules, the AAA notified MicroBilt that its arbitration provision included a material or substantial deviation from the Consumer Rules and/or Protocol. Specifically, the provision’s limitation on damages conflicted with the Consumer Due Process Protocol, which requires that an arbitrator should be empowered to grant whatever relief would be available in court under law or in equity. After MicroBilt did not waive the damages limitation, the AAA declined to administer the arbitration under Rule 1(d).MicroBilt asked Hernandez to submit her claims to a different arbitrator, but she refused, requesting a hearing before the District Court. She argued that she must now pursue her claims in court because the AAA dismissed the case under Rule 1(d). The District Court reinstated Hernandez’s complaint and granted MicroBilt leave to move to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 4. However, the District Court denied MicroBilt’s motion to compel, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Hernandez had fully complied with MicroBilt’s arbitration provision, which allowed her to pursue her claims in court. The court held that it lacked the authority to compel arbitration. The court rejected MicroBilt's arguments that the AAA administrator improperly resolved an arbitrability issue that should have been resolved by an arbitrator, that the provision’s Exclusive Resolution clause conflicted with Hernandez’s return to court, and that the AAA’s application of the Consumer Due Process Protocol was unreasonable. The court concluded that it lacked the authority to review the AAA’s decision or to sever the damages limitation from the arbitration provision. View "Hernandez v. MicroBilt Corp" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed a consolidated action related to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) acceptance of a tariff filed by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), a Regional Transmission Organization managing a system that serves around fifty million consumers in thirteen mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states and the District of Columbia. The tariff was challenged by PJM Power Providers Group and Electric Power Supply Association, two nonprofit associations representing energy generators, and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. The challengers argued that the tariff, which was approved by inaction due to a deadlock among FERC commissioners, was arbitrary and capricious. The court disagreed, ruling that FERC's acceptance of the tariff was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. The court also confirmed that it could review FERC's inaction under the Federal Power Act. View "PJM Power Providers Group v. FERC" on Justia Law

Coach and Junius were involved in a drug distribution operation in North Philadelphia from 1992-2001. Coach was head of the operation and engaged in multiple acts of violence, including several homicides. Junius engaged in long-term drug distribution and acts of violence, including homicides. In 2003, Coach pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and intentional killing in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), section 848(e)(1)(A), plus other counts. Junius pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base section 846, and intentional killing in furtherance of a CCE. The court sentenced Coach to 60 years and Junius to 40 years and denied all motions to correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, for compassionate release, and for sentence reduction under the First Step Act, 132 Stat. 5194.The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of their First Step Act motions. A conviction under 21 U.S.C. 848(e)(1)(A) for murder in furtherance of a CCE is not a “covered offense” under the First Step Act. The sentences on the defendants’ separate offenses are to run concurrently; each defendant’s drug-related murder sentence could be treated discretely, so the sentencing package doctrine does not apply. View "United States v. Junius" on Justia Law

In 2022, Stewart, serving a life sentence for drug trafficking, racketeering, and attempted money laundering, moved for compassionate release, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He cited his record of rehabilitation, the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and his status as a survivor of attempted prison rape as extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction.The district court found that there were no “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances and declined to analyze whether Stewart’s release would be consistent with the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Section 3582 does not define “extraordinary and compelling,” so courts may consult the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements—which are non-binding in the context of prisoner-initiated motions—“to form a working definition” of the phrase. The Third Circuit has held that neither the length of a lawfully imposed sentence nor any nonretroactive change to mandatory minimum sentences establishes “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances warranting release but may be relevant “at the next step of the analysis,” when the court weighs the section 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Stewart" on Justia Law

In 2011, Lutter began working for Essex County, in a bargaining unit represented by JNESO. Under Supreme Court precedent (Abood), a public-sector union could charge fees from non-union members whom the union represented. New Jersey law permitted public-sector unions to deduct an "agency fee." Lutter joined JNESO and authorized payroll deductions of her union dues.In 2018, New Jersey enacted the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act (WDEA): a union member could revoke authorization for payroll deductions only during the 10 days following the anniversary of his employment start date. Previously, union members could give notice of revocation at any time. A month later, the Supreme Court (Janus) held that the First Amendment prohibits public-sector unions from collecting agency fees from nonmembers without their clear and affirmative consent. Under WDEA Janus would have to wait nearly a year to revoke her payroll deduction authorization. In July 2018, she nonetheless requested that deductions of her union dues cease and resigned from JNESO. Essex County deducted Lutter's union dues for 10 months.Lutter filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983. JNESO sent her a check in the amount of the contested union dues plus interest. She did not cash or deposit that check. The district court dismissed the case. The Third Circuit affirmed in part. The check did not moot her damages claims against JNESO but Lutter, as a non-union member no longer subject to payroll deductions, lacks standing for her claims against the other parties and for her additional requests for relief against JNESO. View "Lutter v. Jneso" on Justia Law

Hackers infiltrated Wawa’s payment systems and obtained the credit and bank card data of about 22,000,000 customers. Wawa announced the breach on December 19, 2019; by the next day, attorneys had identified plaintiffs and filed the first of many class action suits seeking damages for the disclosures. Nine months later, Wawa and class counsel for the consumer-plaintiffs agreed on a settlement making $9 million in gift cards and some other compensation available to customers (of which $2.9 million was claimed) and giving $3.2 million to class counsel for fees and expenses. Objections arrived.The Third Circuit vacated the fee award. The district court must consider whether the funds made available to class members rather than the amount actually claimed during the claims process is the best measure of reasonableness and whether the fee award is reasonable in light of a “clear sailing provision,” in which Wawa promised as part of the settlement not to challenge class counsel’s request for an agreed-upon attorney’s fee award. Though not an automatic bar to settlement approval, such terms deserve careful scrutiny when calculating a reasonable fee award. The court also noted a “puzzling” fee reversion, providing that any court-ordered reduction in the attorney’s fee award would be returned to Wawa—not the class. View "In re: Wawa, Inc. Data Security Litigation" on Justia Law

Janssen spent 10 years and over half a billion dollars developing an injectable version of the cancer drug trabectedin and patented some of the manufacturing processes. The data, specifications, and manufacturing methods were kept confidential as trade secrets. In 2015, the FDA approved the drug, Yondelis, for use in certain cancer patients. Two years later, two competitors—a Chinese corporation, and its U.S. subsidiary, eVenus—sought FDA approval to sell a generic version of Yondelis. Janssen sued for patent infringement. During discovery, Janssen obtained documents that indicated the defendants misappropriated trade secrets. Janssen filed another lawsuit under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1836 (DTSA), became convinced that the defendants had spoliated evidence, and filed an ex parte application, asking that U.S. Marshals seize eVenus’s network servers and stored data, and certain laptops and cell phones.The district court denied the application, concluding that Janssen had not shown that eVenus was in actual possession of the property or that eVenus’s property was at the location of the proposed seizure. It also found an insufficient showing of immediate and irreparable harm or immediate concern for spoliation and that the seizure would encompass company information not limited to the matters at issue. The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A DTSA seizure order is directed to law enforcement—not a party against whom the order could be enforced by threat of contempt–so the order did not effectively deny an injunction. View "Janssen Products LP v. Evenus Pharmaceuticals Laboratories Inc" on Justia Law

Stouffer was terminated at age 41 after working eight years for the Railroad. He sued, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated (Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621), claiming that the Railroad targeted senior employees with sham workplace violations, forcing them to sign last-chance agreements that waived formal disciplinary proceedings. Stouffer called a superior a “jagoff” under his breath. In a meeting with management and his union representative, Stouffer was told he could either sign a last-chance agreement or go to a hearing and be fired. Stouffer signed a three-year last-chance agreement. Stouffer alleges that he was subsequently subject to micromanagement, surreptitious surveillance, denials of meal periods and headlamp batteries, and improperly-staffed shifts, while younger employees were not similarly treated. In 2018, Stouffer was working on a train driven by a younger driver when it ran through a switch. Stouffer was immediately terminated. The younger driver was not terminated.The district court held that Stouffer had failed to allege facts supporting the existence of a scheme that could constitute a policy hiding age-based discrimination and that Stouffer had not alleged any facts showing that the policy disparately impacted workers over the age of 40. The Third Circuit affirmed, first holding that its review was not precluded by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151, because it did not require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement. Stouffer’s complaint lacks the necessary factual allegations as to statistical disparities. View "Stouffer v. Union Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Under Kaboni’s leadership, the KSO gang sold drugs. While Kaboni was incarcerated, Kidada coordinated KSO activities. Northington was a KSO drug dealer and enforcer, causing one murder and committing another. Merritt sold drugs for the gang, often with his cousin, KSO member Lewis. In 2004, Kaboni told Kidada of his concern that KSO member Coleman was cooperating with the police. Kidada told Lewis that Kaboni had ordered him to “firebomb the Colemans’ house.” Lewis enlisted Merritt; the cousins filled gas cans and headed to Merritt’s house to get a gun. At 4:08 a.m., a Philadelphia officer stopped them for speeding but allowed them to leave. The two then parked near the Coleman house, carried the cans to the house, kicked in the door, and fired shots. Merritt ran inside and threw a lit gas can, causing a “big explosion.” He then exited the house, throwing another can. Lewis left a message on Kidada’s phone: “It was done.” .Six people, ages 15 months to 53 years, were killed. Coleman entered witness protection. Court-authorized recording devices near Kaboni’s cell and in the visitation room intercepted Kaboni’s conversations with his friends and other inmates and recorded Kaboni making vulgar statements about the deaths and threatening to kill others.Kidada, Northington, and Merritt were convicted of combinations of RICO conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering (and conspiracy), retaliating against a witness, and using fire in the commission of a felony. The Third Circuit, after affirming Kiboni’s convictions and death sentence, affirmed their convictions and life sentences. The court upheld a refusal to grant Kidada a new trial based on a conflict allegedly held by one of her attorneys, the admission of Kaboni’s statements, evidentiary rulings, the rejection of a “Batson” challenge, jury instructions, and the denial of motions to sever. View "United States v. Savage" on Justia Law