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

A Florida pharmacy received a two-page fax from subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson, which described a patient support program called Janssen CarePath that offered resources and savings options to help patients afford Xarelto, a prescription anticoagulant. The fax outlined how the program could assist patients regardless of their insurance status and included information about Xarelto’s uses and side effects, with instructions to explore savings options on a website. The pharmacy alleged that this fax was an unsolicited advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially dismissed the pharmacy’s complaint on two grounds: that the fax was not an advertisement under the TCPA and that the pharmacy did not plausibly allege the defendants had sent the fax. The pharmacy amended its complaint, and the defendants again moved to dismiss. The District Court granted the second motion solely on the basis that the fax did not qualify as an advertisement within the meaning of the TCPA, declining to address other arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case, applying plenary review to the District Court's grant of the motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit held that a reasonable factfinder could determine the fax promoted Xarelto with profit as an aim, making it plausible that it was an unsolicited advertisement under the TCPA. The court also found that the pharmacy adequately alleged the defendants sent the fax and put both defendants on notice. The Third Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal, allowing the pharmacy's claim to proceed. View "S.A.S.B. CORP v. Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the President’s House Exhibit in Independence National Historical Park, which commemorates the history of enslaved Africans who lived there during George Washington’s presidency. The City of Philadelphia and the National Park Service (NPS) had established the exhibit through a series of cooperative agreements, culminating in a 2009 amendment that transferred ownership and maintenance responsibility to NPS. In 2026, following an executive order, NPS unilaterally removed interpretive panels and video exhibits from the site without consulting the City, prompting the City to file a lawsuit seeking restoration of the materials.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed the City’s claims and granted a preliminary injunction, ordering NPS to restore the President’s House Site to its previous physical status and prohibiting further changes without mutual agreement. The District Court concluded that it had jurisdiction over four claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), found that the City had standing based on statutory and contractual rights to mutual agreement and consultation, and determined that NPS’s actions constituted final agency action subject to judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed the appeal by first confirming the City’s standing based on alleged contractual injury. However, the court determined that the APA did not permit review of Counts II through V because the NPS’s removal of exhibits was not “agency action” as defined by the APA, nor did it constitute “final agency action.” The court also clarified that statutory provisions requiring mutual agreement applied only to Independence Hall National Historic Site, not the entire park or the President’s House. Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to dismiss Counts II through V for lack of jurisdiction. View "City of Philadelphia v. DOI" on Justia Law

A Chilean company contracted with an Italian construction firm to design and build a hospital in Santiago, Chile, with disputes to be resolved by arbitration in Chile. The Italian firm later underwent a restructuring proceeding in Italy, during which it spun off its operating business and merged into another Italian company, Webuild S.p.A., which acquired most of its assets. After the contract was terminated due to project delays, arbitration in Chile resulted in an award in favor of the Chilean company and against the original Italian firm. The Chilean courts reduced but otherwise affirmed the arbitral award, and further appeal was denied.Seeking to enforce the arbitral award in the United States, the Chilean company brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Webuild, claiming it was the successor in interest to the award debtor. The company asked the District Court to assert quasi in rem jurisdiction by attaching Webuild’s shares in a Delaware subsidiary. The District Court granted Webuild’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that there were insufficient contacts between the forum, Webuild, and the underlying controversy. The District Court also held that, even if an exception to the minimum contacts requirement applied, it would not permit jurisdiction here because no court had yet determined that Webuild was indeed liable for the arbitral debt.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Shaffer v. Heitner, a court may exercise traditional quasi in rem jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award in an action to collect on an already adjudicated debt, without requiring minimum contacts. The appellate court vacated the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for a determination of whether Webuild is the successor in interest to the original award debtor. View "Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A" on Justia Law

Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian citizen and lawful permanent resident, was arrested in March 2025 by Homeland Security agents at his New York City apartment and charged as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s foreign-policy provision. Khalil, a Columbia University student and vocal advocate for Palestinian rights, was accused of having activities with potentially adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. After his arrest, he was quickly transferred from New York to New Jersey, and then to Louisiana. His attorney initially filed a habeas petition in the Southern District of New York, seeking to enjoin his detention and removal, arguing retaliation against protected speech, and due process violations.The Southern District of New York, finding Khalil was already detained in New Jersey when the petition was filed, transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New Jersey District Court asserted jurisdiction, denied the government’s motion to dismiss, and determined that the INA did not strip it of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted Khalil’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the foreign-policy removal charge, ordered that he not be removed, and later ordered his release from custody. Meanwhile, an immigration judge in Louisiana found Khalil removable on both foreign-policy and fraud charges and ordered his removal, resulting in conflicting mandates.Reviewing the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the District Court had habeas jurisdiction, as the petition was properly transferred and related back to Khalil’s district of confinement. However, the Third Circuit found that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) of the INA strips the District Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims arising from removal actions, channeling such claims into a petition for review of a final order of removal in the court of appeals. As a result, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition. View "Khalil v. President United States of America" on Justia Law

Ousmane Savane, a citizen of Côte d’Ivoire, entered the United States in 2012 through the Diversity Visa Program. During his initial application (the eDV), and in his subsequent Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration (DS-230), Savane did not disclose that he had two children, despite both forms requiring such information. He later explained that he omitted his children on the advice of a “coach” who helped him complete the forms, believing that doing so would facilitate his entry for financial reasons. The consular officer who interviewed Savane did not ask about his children, and Savane was admitted as a lawful permanent resident.In 2020, Savane applied for naturalization and disclosed all four of his children. He initially denied, but later admitted, that he had previously lied to U.S. officials to gain immigration benefits. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his naturalization application, finding that his earlier omissions rendered him not “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Savane appealed administratively, arguing that the omissions were immaterial, but USCIS affirmed its denial. He then petitioned for review in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which granted summary judgment for the government, holding that Savane’s omission was material because it shut off a line of inquiry relevant to his eligibility.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2), an omission from an immigration application is material if it prevents investigation into a relevant aspect of eligibility, regardless of whether the omitted information would have led to denial. The court concluded that Savane’s failure to disclose his children precluded the consular officer from properly evaluating his eligibility, particularly regarding whether he was likely to become a public charge. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment for the government. View "Savane v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Sec" on Justia Law

Two private-citizen members of a federally created commission, along with several federal officials, were involved in planning the United States’ 250th anniversary celebrations. The commission was established by Congress and included both federal officials and private citizens appointed by congressional leaders. After a dispute over leadership and the selection of an administrative secretariat, three commission members made public statements criticizing the commission’s Chairperson and Executive Director, alleging mismanagement and other misconduct. The Chairperson and Executive Director claimed these statements damaged their reputations and led to their removal, prompting them to file a tort action—including defamation and related claims—against the three members in Pennsylvania state court.After the complaint was filed, the Attorney General certified that the defendants were acting within the scope of their federal employment, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and substituted the United States as the defendant under the Westfall Act. The District Court determined that the commission members qualified as federal employees, that their statements were made within the scope of their employment, and that discovery was unnecessary. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, as the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not waive sovereign immunity for defamation claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that the commission is a federal agency under the FTCA and Westfall Act, and that its private-citizen members are “employees of the government” for purposes of those statutes. The court further held that the defendants’ statements were made within the scope of their employment and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery. The dismissal was affirmed because sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs’ claims. View "Giordano v. Hohns" on Justia Law

Rocky Freeman was involved in a Brooklyn drug ring and was hired to kill a rival dealer, Freddie Gonzalez, in 1993. He was later arrested and charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with drug conspiracy, the Gonzalez murder, and the unrelated murder of Augustin Sosa. At trial, Freeman was convicted of the drug and Gonzalez murder counts but acquitted of the Sosa murder. However, his presentence report (PSR) incorrectly stated that he had committed both murders. Although a judge ordered the error corrected, the PSR was not amended, and the inaccurate report was transmitted to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Freeman subsequently endured heightened security conditions in prison, including solitary confinement and severe restrictions, which he later attributed to the erroneous PSR.Freeman discovered the error in 2015 and pursued administrative remedies, including filing an SF-95 form alleging a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) violation. He then filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the BOP, the U.S. Probation Office (USPO), his unit manager, and probation officers, alleging FTCA and Bivens claims. The District Court dismissed his FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction and on the merits, and dismissed his Bivens claim for failure to serve the probation officers. Freeman appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing Freeman’s FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding that he had properly presented his claim to the appropriate agency. The court also held that the District Court improperly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s physical injury requirement to the FTCA presentment phase. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of the FTCA claim and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Freeman’s Bivens claim, concluding that his claim was not cognizable under current Supreme Court precedent. View "Freeman v. Lincalis" on Justia Law

A group of insurance policyholders, known as subscribers, challenged the actions of a company that manages a reciprocal insurance exchange. The subscribers alleged that the company, acting as attorney-in-fact, breached its fiduciary duty by setting its management fee at the maximum allowed percentage and by failing to implement procedures to address conflicts of interest in 2019 and 2020. These claims arose after the company had previously changed its fee practices, which had already prompted earlier lawsuits by other subscribers over different time periods and types of fees.Prior to the current appeal, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania had dismissed earlier lawsuits—Beltz and Ritz—on grounds including the statute of limitations and claim preclusion. In the Ritz case, the court found that the claims were precluded because they could have been brought in the earlier Beltz litigation, and that the parties were in privity. The Stephenson plaintiffs, whose claims were based on later events, filed suit in state court. The company then sought and obtained a preliminary injunction from the District Court to prevent the Stephenson plaintiffs from proceeding, arguing that the prior federal judgments had preclusive effect.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The Third Circuit held that the prior federal judgments did not have claim or issue preclusive effect over the Stephenson plaintiffs’ claims, as those claims were based on events that occurred after the earlier lawsuits were filed. The court concluded that the District Court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and vacated the order, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Erie Indemnity Co v. Stephenson" on Justia Law

Scranton Products sued Bobrick Washroom Equipment in 2014, alleging false advertising regarding the fire compliance of Scranton’s toilet partitions. Bobrick counterclaimed, asserting Scranton’s advertising was itself false. Scranton voluntarily dismissed its claims, and the parties entered into a settlement agreement that included a provision waiving their rights to appeal any court orders arising from the agreement or enforcement motions. The District Court approved the agreement, dismissed the case, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Subsequently, both parties filed enforcement motions related to compliance with the agreement, leading to a public evidentiary hearing. During post-hearing proceedings, Scranton moved to seal certain documents, and the District Court issued two sealing orders: one temporarily sealing documents during the pendency of enforcement motions, and another indefinitely sealing them after the motions were resolved.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied all enforcement motions and issued the second sealing order, directing the parties to confer about sealing and stating that, absent agreement, the status quo of sealing would remain. Bobrick appealed both sealing orders, arguing that the indefinite sealing was overbroad and contrary to the public’s right of access to judicial records.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the first, temporary sealing order because it was no longer in effect, rendering the appeal moot. The court found it had jurisdiction to review the second, indefinite sealing order under the collateral order doctrine, as it was final and appealable. However, the Third Circuit enforced the appellate waiver in the settlement agreement, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal and affirming the District Court’s indefinite sealing order. The court also denied Bobrick’s alternative request for a writ of mandamus. View "Bobrick Washroom Equipment Inc v. Scranton Products Inc" on Justia Law

Two business compliance companies entered into a partnership to develop a software product, with one company providing “white-label” services to the other. The partnership was formalized in a written agreement, but disputes arose over performance, payment for out-of-scope work, and the functionality of the software integration. As the relationship deteriorated, the company that had sought the services began developing its own infrastructure, ultimately terminating the partnership and launching a competing product. The service provider alleged that its trade secrets and proprietary information were misappropriated in the process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania presided over a jury trial in which the service provider brought claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation under both state and federal law, and unfair competition. The jury found in favor of the service provider, awarding compensatory and punitive damages across the claims. The jury specifically found that six of eight alleged trade secrets were misappropriated. The defendant company filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur, arguing insufficient evidence, improper expert testimony, and duplicative damages. The District Court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s rulings. The Third Circuit held that the defendant had forfeited its argument regarding the protectability of the trade secrets by not raising it with sufficient specificity at trial, and thus assumed protectability for purposes of appeal. The court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of misappropriation by use, and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of expert testimony. However, the Third Circuit determined that the damages awarded for trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition were duplicative, and conditionally remanded for remittitur of $11,068,044, allowing the plaintiff to accept the reduced award or seek a new trial on damages. View "Harbor Business Compliance Corp v. Firstbase IO Inc" on Justia Law