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

Lichtenstein began working with UPMC in 2005. Although Lichtenstein received a merit-based raise in October 2007, from October through December, she was tardy six times, absent twice, and requested changes to her schedule several times after the deadline for requesting changes had passed. Lichtenstein was scheduled to work a 16-hour shift on December 1. Co-workers complained that Lichtenstein was planning to call-off because she needed the day off to do school work or attend a concert. Although her supervisor denied a request for the day off, Lichtenstein called off, alleging she was sick. On December 30th, according to time logs, Lichtenstein arrived hours late and departed several hours early. On January 3, 2008 Lichtenstein’s mother was rushed to the hospital after collapsing from a sudden excruciating pain. Lichtenstein followed UPMC procedures for calling off sick. On January 10, Lichtenstein’s employment was terminated. The district court rejected her claim under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601. The Third Circuit vacated. Genuine factual disputes exist about whether Lichtenstein‘s notice of unforeseeable FMLA leave was adequate, whether her invocation of FMLA rights was a factor precipitating termination, and whether UPMC’s proffered justification for its action was mere pretext for retaliation. View "Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Sweeney owned a transmission shop and referred customers to Tradewell, who owned a nearby car rental business. Sweeney would sometimes simply refer customers to Tradewell or drive them to Tradewell’s business. If employees were available, Tradewell would have them take a car to Sweeney’s shop. Sweeney would sometimes pick up a car from Tradewell and deliver it to the customer and would occasionally use the car for personal errands. This was encouraged by Tradewell, who asked Sweeney to make sure the cars were running properly. In 2004 Sweeney, returning from a personal errand, was injured in an accident while driving a car owned by Tradewell that was intended for delivery to a customer the following morning. Sweeney sought underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to his policy with Liberty. Liberty sought a declaration that Sweeney was not entitled to coverage. On remand, the district court granted Liberty summary judgment, finding that “intended use” and “regular use” provisions did not bar coverage, but Liberty could deny coverage based on the “auto business” provision. The Third Circuit reversed, in favor of Sweeney, noting that Sweeney was on a personal errand, not engaged in “auto business” and did not have unfettered use of the cars. View "Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

From 1996 to 2001, while working as a licensed realtor, Mendoza helped borrowers obtain federally insured mortgages. He was charged with conspiring to fraudulently induce the Federal Housing Authority to insure mortgage loans, 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1001. Mendoza’s counsel, Cavanagh, explained that he could avoid prison by pleading guilty, but did not apprise Mendoza that, as an aggravated felony, his crime would lead to mandatory deportation to his home country, Ecuador, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Prior to sentencing Mendoza learned from his Presentence Investigation Report that his conviction might result in removal. The district court sentenced Mendoza to two years’ probation and ordered him to pay $100,000 in restitution. As a condition of his probation, Mendoza was required to cooperate with immigration officials. The government instituted removal proceedings. After completing his sentence, Mendoza moved, under 28 U.S.C. 2255, to vacate his sentence and withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "Mendoza v. United States" on Justia Law

Based on DNA evidence found on furniture, McBride was charged with the murder of his wife 16 years after her disappearance. He was convicted and exhausted Pennsylvania state court appeals. The district court denied his habeas corpus petition. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting McBride’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to certain references to his silence, in violation of his constitutional right to remain silent. There was at least a reasonable argument that trial counsel’s actions were within the “wide range of professionally competent assistance.” View "McBride v. Superintendant Houtzdale" on Justia Law

Attorneys Post and Reid were retained to defend a medical malpractice action. At trial, plaintiffs introduced evidence suggesting that Post and Reid had engaged in discovery misconduct. Fearing that the jury believed that there had been a “cover-up” involving its lawyers, and concerned with the “substantial potential of uninsured punitive exposure,” the hospital, represented by new counsel, settled the case for $11 million, which represented the full extent of its medical malpractice policy limits. The settlement did not release Post, Reid, the law firm where they began representation of the hospital, or their new firm from liability. The hospital threatened Post with a malpractice suit and sought sanctions. Post eventually brought claims of bad faith and breach of contract against his legal malpractice insurer. The district court awarded $921,862.38 for breach of contract. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer on the bad faith claim and remanded for recalculation of the award, holding that, under the policy, the insurer is responsible for all costs incurred by Post in connection with the hospital’s malpractice claim from October 12, 2005 forward and for all costs incurred by Post to defend the sanctions proceedings from February 8, 2006 forward. View "Post v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Philadelphia Inquirer (debtors) published print and online articles discussing the CSMI‘s contract management of the Chester Community Charter School. After CSMI filed a defamation action, the Inquirer filed for relief under Chapter 11, 11 U.S.C. 101. CSMI alleged that post-petition, debtors published an article that links to and endorses earlier articles and filed the administrative expense requests: $1,800,000 for alleged post-petition defamation and $147,140 in alleged damages for post-petition conduct and prosecution of claims against CSMI. The Bankruptcy Court denied the requests. Debtors conducted an auction of substantially all assets, and the sale was consummated under a plan that provided that the purchaser would assume certain administrative expense claims, not including claims arising from the CSMI’s administrative expense requests. The district court held that an appeal was equitably moot: the plan had been substantially consummated and no stay was sought. The court also stated that merely posting a link to the charter school webpage that contained the original articles was not distinct tortious conduct upon which a defamation claim can be grounded. The Third Circuit affirmed. While the appeal was not equitably moot, CSMI cannot advance a sustainable cause of action to support the requests. View "In Re: Philadelphia Newspapers" on Justia Law

CS manufactures and sells X-ray and metal detection devices for use in public facilities around the world. Tecapro is a private, state-owned company that was formed by the Vietnamese government to advanced technologies into the Vietnamese market. In 2010, Tecapro purchased 28 customized AutoClear X-ray machines from CS for $1,021,156. The contract provides that disputes shall be settled at International Arbitration Center of European countries for claim in the suing party’s country under the rule of the Center. Tecapro initiated arbitration proceedings in Belgium in November 2010. In December 2010, CS notified Tecapro of its intention to commence arbitration proceedings in New Jersey. In January 2011, CS filed its petition to compel arbitration in New Jersey and enjoin Tecapro from proceeding with arbitration in Belgium. The district court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction under the U.N.Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, that it had personal jurisdiction over Tecapro, and that Tecapro could have sought to arbitrate in Vietnam and CS in New Jersey. The latter is what happened, so “the arbitration shall proceed in New Jersey.” After determining that it had jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1, the Third Circuit affirmed. View "Control Screening LLC v. Technological Application & Prod. Co." on Justia Law

After guard mistakenly gave Taylor, an inmate convicted of drug and weapons charges, an extra razor blade, Taylor created a shank. Subsequently, in an exercise yard with Bistrain, Taylor construed Bistrain’s comment as a threat. After Bistrian was handcuffed, Taylor, not yet handcuffed, slashed his face, arms, and legs with the shank. Guards used pepper spray but did not subdue Taylor until they tossed a flash grenade into the yard. Taylor told guards that he had to get Bistrian before Bistrian got him. Taylor was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(3) and sentenced to an additional 120 months. Taylor attempted to show justification and claimed that the prosecution was racially motivated because he was charged for this assault, on a white victim, but had not been charged for an earlier assault on black inmates. The Third Circuit affirmed. By including “without just cause or excuse” in the statute Congress did not intend to convert justification, a common-law defense, into an element for which the government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just cause is an affirmative defense to a section 113(a)(3) violation; defendant bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

From the 1930s through the 1970s, Skinner manufactured ship engines and parts, allegedly containing asbestos. Merchant mariners began bringing injury claims in the 1980s. In 1998, AC acquired all of Skinner’s common stock. Based on lack of cash flow to maintain operations or service secured debt, Skinner and AC filed petitions for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001; more than 29,000 asbestos claims were pending against Skinner. The Bankruptcy Court converted to Chapter 7 on the basis that the plan was patently unconfirmable. Insurers, legal representative for future asbestos claimants, Maritime Asbestosis Legal Clinic, and the Trustee, joined an appeal. The Third Circuit affirmed. The court properly found, based on the disclosure statement hearing, that the fifth plan was patently unconfirmable under 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(3) because its success is entirely contingent on speculative future litigation, and because it asks third-party asbestos claimants, who were not a cause of the bankruptcy, to serve as the sole funding source for attorneys and other creditors, under circumstances involving inherent conflict of interest and inequitable procedural provisions. Given the futility of pursuit of a Chapter 11 plan and mounting liabilities, the court acted within its discretion by converting the case. View "In Re: Am. Capital" on Justia Law

In a recusal motion, Rohn alleged that the district judge’s personal animosity toward her was creating an appearance of bias and prejudice against her clients. Sun, a defendant in one of seven underlying cases, sought discovery. Sun subpoenaed Rohn, seeking production of documents and scheduling of a deposition. Rohn sought to have the order requiring her to appear for deposition vacated. The Third Circuit denied the petition, but directed that discovery be overseen by a magistrate, and not the district judge about whom the recusal motion was focused. According to defendants, Rohn appeared for her deposition, but did not produce documents. Defendants moved for contempt under FRCP 45(e). The magistrate held Rohn in contempt and awarded attorney’s fees. The district judge affirmed without holding a hearing. The Third Circuit held that it had jurisdiction, then remanded. Rohn’s actions occurred outside of the magistrate’s presence and not in a proceeding where the magistrate was presiding with the consent of the parties; the magistrate was overseeing pretrial proceedings and should have certified the facts of the alleged contempt to the district judge, who in turn should have held a hearing to determine those facts. View "Wallace v. Kmart Corp." on Justia Law