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

Philadelphia International Airport is the ninth busiest airport in the U.S. Since 1999, PHL has been among the 10 most delayed airports and has contributed to delays at airports nationwide because its runways are too short, too close together, and too few. After receiving the City’s proposal for expansion in 2003, the FAA prepared an Environmental Impact Statement. In 2008 the FAA published a three-volume, 900-page draft EIS. The EPA submitted comments, citing alleged data omissions in the FAA’s analysis. The FAA considered and responded to each of the EPA’s comments in the final EIS. Although disagreements remained, in 2010, the FAA published its Record of Decision, which approved the expansion and delineated reasons for approval, including a finding that the project was reasonably consistent with existing plans of public agencies for development of areas surrounding the airport, as required by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act (AAIA), 49 U.S.C. 47106(a)(1. Objectors alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 and the AAIA. The Third Circuit denied review, finding that the FAA decision was not arbitrary. View "Twp. of Tinicum v. U.S. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

The federal government has maintained navigation in the Delaware River for more than 100 years. In 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers published an Environmental Impact Statement, recommending deepening of five feet along 102-miles. The EIS identified potential adverse impacts, but concluded these would be minimal and were outweighed by benefits of reduced shipping costs. In 1997, after engineering, the Corps published a Supplemental EIS. The project stalled until 2008, when the Philadelphia River Port Authority agreed to share costs. Improved technology reduced the amount of sediment; wetlands restoration was deferred. An oil spill had increased sediment toxicity. Expected expansion of sturgeon, potentially increased blasting risks. A 2009 Environmental Assessment recommended the project proceed. The district court rejected state challenges under the Coastal Zone Management Act, which requires a “consistency determination” for any state whose coastal zone will be affected, 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1); the Clean Water Act, which requires compliance with state water pollution law, 33 U.S.C. 1323(a); and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321. The states had attempted to revoke CZMA clearances. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting that dredging has begun. The 2009 EA was not arbitrary. CWA’s “congressionally authorized” exception to state approvals applies. The Corps reasonably concluded that it need not provide supplemental CZMA consistency determinations to states. View "State of DE v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs" on Justia Law

Booker participated in a bank robbery with co-conspirators. After being arrested on unrelated charges, he provided incriminating statements to the police. Booker moved to suppress these statements as violations of his Miranda rights. The district court denied his motion. Before trial, Booker requested that he be allowed to proceed pro se. The court conducted a hearing and warned him of the consequences of self-representation. While articulating the potential sentences facing him, the district court erred and misstated one of the relevant mandatory minimums (stating it was five years and not 25 years). Booker was convicted of all charges. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for a new trial. In light of the court’s error, Booker’s waiver of counsel was not voluntary and knowing. View "United States v. Booker" on Justia Law

Until late 2008, Sprint included a flat-rate early termination fee provision in its cellular telephone contracts, which allowed it to charge a set fee to customers who terminated their contracts before the end date stated in the contract. Class action lawsuits were brought against cellular phone service providers who charged flat-rate ETFs, including Sprint. In this case, the plaintiffs entered into negotiations with Sprint, and, after five months of mediation, the parties decided to settle the matter for $17.5 million. Over objections lodged by several class members, the district court certified the settlement class and approved the Settlement Agreement. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded. The district court did not adequately protect the rights of absent class members when it determined that it would be unreasonable to require a search of billing records for the purpose of providing individual notice to those class members. The court also suggested that the district court consider whether class representatives can adequately represent all members. View "Larson v. AT&T Mobility LLC" on Justia Law

The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith was founded by Johnson in 1919. In 1947, Johnson established a non-profit corporation to hold and manage the assets of the Church. Following a 1992 schism, two factions claimed authority over the Church and ownership of church assets. In 2000 Pennsylvania courts concluded that Kenneth Shelton was the rightful General Overseer of the Church. Askew was a member of the faction loyal to Roddy Shelton. He does not accept Bishop Kenneth Shelton as the General Overseer of the Church. On multiple occasions since the schism, Bishop Shelton declared all followers of Roddy Shelton nonmembers of the Church. Asserting claims on behalf of himself as a church member and derivatively on behalf of the Church, Askew sued, alleging that Bishop Shelton and officers of the affiliated Board of Trustees misappropriated church assets and breached their fiduciary duties to the Church. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that as a nonmember, Askew lacked standing and that First Amendment non-entanglement principles shields membership decisions from civil court review. View "Askew v. Trs., Gen. Assembly Church" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former assistant branch manager at Enterprise, filed a nationwide class action, claiming that Enterprise violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), by failing to pay required overtime wages. The district court held that the parent company, which is the sole stockholder of 38 domestic subsidiaries, was not a “joint employer,” and granted summary judgment in favor of the parent company. The Third Circuit affirmed after examining a number of factors concerning the relationship between the parent company and the direct employer. View "In Re: Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp't Practices Litig." on Justia Law

Humana sued, alleging that Glaxo was obligated to reimburse Humana for expenses Humana had incurred treating its insureds’ injuries resulting from Glaxo’s drug, Avandia. Humana runs a Medicare Advantage plan. Its complaint asserts that, pursuant to the Medicare Act, Glaxo is in this instance a “primary payer” obligated to reimburse Humana as a “secondary payer.” The district court dismissed, agreeing with Glaxo that the Medicare Act did not provide Medicare Advantage organizations with a private cause of action to seek such reimbursement. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded. The Medicare Secondary Payer Act, in 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(3)(A), provides Humana with a private cause of action against Glaxo. Even if the provision is ambiguous, regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services make clear that the provision extends the private cause of action to MAOs. View "Humana Med. Plan Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC" on Justia Law

Seven states sought to recover proceeds of matured but unredeemed U.S. savings bonds from the Treasury, asserting that Treasury has possession of approximately $16 billion worth of matured but unredeemed savings bonds, of which persons whose last known addresses were within the plaintiff states own $1.6 billion. The states contended that their respective unclaimed property acts obliged Treasury to account for and deliver the proceeds of these bonds to the states for reunification with their owners. The district court dismissed, reasoning that sovereign immunity and intergovernmental immunity barred the action and that federal law and regulations preempted the states’ statutory authority to obtain the proceeds of the savings bonds. The Third Circuit affirmed. Although the federal government has waived sovereign immunity (5 U.S.C. 702), states may not directly regulate the federal government’s operations or property and federal law is sufficiently pervasive so as not to leave room for the enforcement of the unclaimed property acts to achieve the result that the states seek. View "Treasurer, State of NJ v. U.S. Dept of Treasury" on Justia Law

Figueroa admits that he sold heroin to an undercover officer, who returned later and purchased cocaine and heroin. During the second purchase, the officer saw what appeared to be a gun tucked into Figueroa’s waistband. It was dark and he only saw a few inches of the object. Officers then stopped the car driven, and owned, by Figueroa’s girlfriend. Figueroa was in the front passenger seat. Officers removed both from the car, opened the glove compartment, and recovered a handgun. Both occupants denied knowledge of the firearm. No forensic evidence connected either to the firearm. The jury convicted on the drug counts, but was split on the charge of carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). After releasing the jury, the judge changed courses, asked that the jury be held, and had them deliberate a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The jury convicted and Figueroa was sentenced to 180 months, the statutory minimum for possession by a felon. The Third Circuit affirmed. Reconvening after declaring a mistrial on Count III did not violate Double Jeopardy or subject the jury to outside influences. View "United States v. Figueroa" on Justia Law

In 1993 Vasquez was sentenced to 262 months for heroin offenses. In 1996, he was sentenced to 14 months, to run consecutively, for possession of a prohibited object. His projected release date is October, 2012. The Second Chance Act, which applies, increases a federal prisoner’s eligibility for pre-release placement in a halfway house from 6 to 12 months, and requires the Bureau of Prisons to make individual determinations that ensure that placement is of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of success and to provide incentives for participation in skills development programs. Vasquez’s team recommended a 151-180 day placement in a Residential Re-entry Center. Vasquez had not regularly participated in educational programs during his incarceration. He filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the BOP failed to comply with the reentry initiative and improperly added a factor to trick inmates into thinking that they have been considered for incentives that were never properly implemented. The district court rejected the petition. Vasquez was not merely challenging construction of the Second Chance Act or implementation of the reentry initiative; exhaustion of administrative remedies was required. There was no abuse of discretion in how the factors were balanced with goals of the Act. View "Vasquez v. Strada" on Justia Law